There is certainly a demand for children here, which will create people willing to "supply" that demand for money. That sounds like a market to me, but at least there is some regulation to it here, but I'm sure there are things unseemly about it if you pull some of the threads and really look into it - You could certainly view (cynically) states making abortion illegal as a form of supply side economics. The children of the poor being taken by the well off, etc.
“Baby Victim”. I see, you’ve already gone down the crazy path. YouTube on da brain. The obvious benefit is that it allows a woman who cannot bear her own child for whatever reason (physical or otherwise), the ability to still have a child that is HERS. That’s a pretty overwhelming if not insurmountable argument in favor, no? I can’t really fathom a reason at all for the govt to concern itself, other than enforcing the custody of the natural parent. Or more accurately, enforcing the contract agreed to, whatever that may be. A surrogate mother is in essence, entering a binding contract to carry someone else’s child to term. That’s a pretty big commitment, so I think it goes without saying such a person would expect to be compensated.
So much background needed, but, at a minimum, read this - Cardinal Fernández explains the ‘novelty’ of new Vatican doc on dignity and the late Card. Joseph Bernardin's Consistent Ethic of Life
Technically not even sure if it’s legal to “pay for an adoption”, in most cases it could possibly be construed as bribery or child trafficking. Nevertheless the adoption process is hardly like rescuing a puppy from the shelter either, right? Plenty of stories of shady “adoption brokers” collecting big $$$, and those stories generally involve cases of fraud. Presumably there are brokers that actually deliver “the goods” and aren’t victimizing would be adoptive parents. Is it bothersome if a wealthy family pays to cut in line or goes through a “broker” to assist them? I think stuff like this should be judged based on outcomes. If the surrogate mother delivers the child and the parents are happy to have this child they otherwise couldn’t have had. What’s the issue? Likewise, if an unwanted child is brought into a loving home instead of the foster system and some rich people greased a few palms to make it happen more expeditiously, not sure that’s the end of the world either (kid probably wouldn’t complain anyway).
Who do you think will be the ultimate victim of the "parents" are bad? The baby's mother will not care of she would never agree to do it in the first place. Are you saying this is a victimless arrangement where NO one can get hurt? Or are you suggesting that babies can't be victims?
I’m not suggesting anything of the sort. That’s just your inability to think rationally and always jump to absolutes. I’m not even certain you actually have a clear understanding of what a surrogate is, it’s honestly difficult to tell from this post. Could just as easily ask “what if” natural birth parents are bad? Seems like you are either setting an impossible bar for surrogacy, or suggesting the parents who hire a surrogate would be worse parents (for reasons unknown). I’d suggest if a mother wants a kid so badly that they are willing and able to pay for a surrogate to carry their child, if anything they are probably a bit more likely than avg to be good parents. If not just because it indicates commitment and resources (I’m guessing the net worth of someone hiring a surrogate to carry their child is typically not that of a poor person). Of course there can be bad actors, that’s why each case should be looked at on its merits, not lumped together. But unless there are specific circumstances, I see no reason to be against the general concept of surrogacy.
I'm NOT saying that they are ALL VICTIMS always and all the time, but that some are victims... nothing absolute about my statement.
Not surrogacy per se, but related. My wife is on Ancestry researching her family and submitted DNA sample. Well and good, learned a lot about her family. As it is an open database that allows interested individuals to mutually connect, she got a message from a young lady that noted my wife could be her biological grandmother. My first reaction - who was he? However, during our daughter's college years she needed money and donated her eggs. This turned into a successful pregnancy and birth to a couple who couldn't conceive due to the woman's complications. Ouila, we are grandparents. What was once considered to be anonymous donation of sperm and egg, can now be tracked down. In our case, our granddaughter, once turned 19 provided her the right to do this on ancestry. I think it is really important for people to be able to track down their biological heritage, as in this case. Some subtleties, the granddaughter loves horsemanship, which our daughter is still riding to this day.
That is fascinating. I have heard similar stories. Speaking only for myself, I don't want these type of episodes. Can't fully articulate, but it just seems too fraught with possible disruptions.
You’ll have to explain “baby victims of surrogacy” then, because i doubt anyone knows what you are talking about with that. I’m sure some % end up badly, just as some % of any family ends up badly. Some weird cases might even involve custody disputes. For it to be relevant to this discussion, you’d need to show surrogacy produced a worse % of bad outcomes compared to the norm. I won’t hold my breath waiting.
That was my first reaction, then I started reading up on it, and became more comfortable with it. It does create another wrinkle in life.
No explaining what you will simply ignore. Bad people happen... In other news even the Pope came out against surrogacy.
I wouldn’t say NO regulation is needed, but any regulation should be to minimize disputes and be in the interest of bettering the prospects for the arrangement to “go well”. People going “death penalty for all involved” are obviously not serious people. We need to bring back state mental institutions so people like that can rant amongst themselves.
