Babyma V. Abraham Case

The Church has a fundamental belief that the use of surrogacy is morally illicit and it destroys the duty of the mother to car and protect her biological child. The Church continues, “Surrogate motherhood represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, of conjugal fidelity and of responsible motherhood; it offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents; it sets up, to the detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological and moral elements which constitute those families.” The Church, unlike other sources, notes how both the dignity of the mother and the dignity of the child are ruined with the idea of using a surrogate

In some ethical and legal respects a pregnant woman and her fetus can be considered separate. Both the woman and the fetus are ordinarily affected by the well-being of one another for as long as each of them live. The ethical and legal issues are challenged deeply in cases where the well-being of the fetus and the mother appear to be in conflict. Our society struggles with identifying cases where the pregnant woman’s interests and/or behaviors might put her fetus at risk. Criminal and/or civil commitments should be used to bar pregnant women from exposing their fetuses to risk.

The first argument that Anderson proposes is that commercial surrogacy turns women’s labor, that is, bearing and giving birth to the child, into alienated labor. She equates commercial surrogacy to subcontracting work in manufacturing industries, making this parallel because the surrogate is expected to treat her child like a final product with which she is expected to have no emotional bond with. Anderson argues that one can expect the surrogates to develop an emotional bond with the child regardless of the terms of the contract. Moreover, treating the pregnancy like another form of commercial production violates the “precious emotional

The central issue upon which the Supreme Court based their decision was in regard to the best interests of the child. They looked closely at the nature v. nurture argument, ruling that her psychological parents, the Racine’s, were capable of providing a healthier environment than her biological mother, Mrs. Woods. When looking at this case from a solely legal perspective, it is clear that the Court made the correct choice, considering Mrs. Woods’ ongoing battle with substance abuse coupled with her abusive relationship. However, this case, as with many could not be looked at simply from a legal perspective. Complex cultural aspects are embedded within the case that had to be considered in order to properly gauge the decisions and the effects of that decision. In the past, children were automatically placed with their biological parents or relatives, which, was viewed as standard procedure within the legal framework. Societal norms have progressed in such a way that allow for a more activist

Purdy defends surrogate mothering from a consequentialist point of view. Her case is founded on two premises: firstly, that surrogacy is favourable (that is, it brings about pleasure and reduces pain), and secondly, that the practice is only non-traditional and not morally reprehensible. She thus concludes that "appealing to the sacrosanctity of traditional marriage or of blood ties to prohibit otherwise acceptable practices that would satisfy people 's desires hardly makes sense", and thus, surrogacy should be permissible (Purdy, 1999).

When one or more persons contract with a woman to gestate a child than relinquish that child after birth to the person or couple is known as surrogacy. It is a course of action that goes outside of natural reproduction. For some, it is the only method of having children, extending family. Surrogacy has been stirring up many controversies over the years. Ethics, morals, laws, religious views, etc. have played a major role in the issues that follow the topic of surrogacy. Laws and regulations pertaining to surrogacy vary from state to state. Some states have no enforceable laws

Mary Anne Warren (p.195-196) points out the exceptional circumstances of pregnancy; where one human is entirely biologically reliant on another and where it is impossible for complete personhood rights to not be in conflict between the foetus and the mother. Consider the following case. A mother and an expecting mother both express an intent to kill their child or unborn child respectively. Services are available to take the postnatal children from their mother without affecting her body. Yet to protect the foetus, one would have to imprison the mother until birth, or worse, force a caesarean on her. Warren (193) points out that forced caesareans are not merely a hypothetical

Amie Cullimore, a medical practitioner, filed a child support claim against Michael Ranson, who more than two decades ago donated his sperm to Amie Cullimore, who subsequently conceived two children. Cullimore alleges that throughout the years, Ranson has assumed the role of loco parentis, which means that Ranson has stood in the place of the parent throughout the years. Ranson filed a response that Bill 28, also known as, All Families Are Equal Act, which extinguishes Cullimore`s claim based on the assertion that the surrogate parents who lack an intention to be parents cannot be considered parents in law.

Mike McKee’s article, "Weighing the Right to Own an Embryo," made the front page of the Recorder, a daily legal newspaper published in San Francisco reporting on legal advice and interests of attorneys and legal practitioners. How did he make his article such a success? What made it front page worthy in the eyes of this legal audience? McKee’s article, "Weighing the Right to Own an Embryo," appeals to a legal audience by presenting an unbiased framework and evidence.

When looking at the dilemma that appears in the case of Mary Beth versus William and Elizabeth Stern there is a moral and legal issue that arises. The judge was very broad in his ruling and was not able to put himself into the shoes of Mary Beth. When it comes to pregnancy, there is a connection that is established during the 9 months, between mother and child that is unexplainable and a maternal relationship that should not be broken. The morally right and just ruling would have been to give the child to the intended parents but allow Mary Beth, as the surrogate, visitation rights. The contract between the Stern family and Mary Beth implied that Mary Beth was doing a duty or a job and getting paid the equivalent of her duties. It stated that Mary Beth would

The cases of Baker and Landon and the earlier case of Aldridge and keaton both have considered the parenting rights when i a child is conceived as a result of IVF and when the applicant is not biologically related to the child. In these cases, the court found that for a person to be successfully identified as the parent of the child conceived through IVF, the non-biological person must first establish themselves into one of the categories under section 60H of the Family Law Act. When a child is born to a women as a result of an artificial contraception procedure while the women was (1) married to, or a de-facto partner of, an other intended partner and (2) whether there was consent, then for the purpose of

All the arguments and examples above substantiate that, the couple is not morally permitted to purchase Mary Beth's agreement to be a surrogate mother, and Mary Beth is the legal and biological mother of Baby M, doubtlessly. In summary, Mary Beth deserves this identification for three reasons: First and foremost, the contract was not made in the perfect information -- Mary Beth could not predict how deep her love would be to the child, and therefore the contract was not legally acceptable and could not be enforced in any time, as is perfectly elaborated and remarked by Professor Michael Sandel. Secondly, even though the court concede the point of the validity of the contract, the Sterns could not legitimately purchase either the right of Mary Beth to her child, or her reproductive capacity even though they signed the pact voluntarily then.

The state and/or federal laws in regarding to this case, "the Stern's initially won the case Ms. Whitehead on who should have custody of Baby M, but the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1987 awarded Ms. Whitehead parental rights, although the Stern continued to have primary custody" (Hyman | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com, V, 2016). This case demonstrated the two types of surrogacy agreements: altruistic surrogacy and commercial surrogacy. An altruistic surrogacy, the surrogate mother is essential carrying the child as an act of kindness and only reimbursed for the expenses the surrogate mother incurred as a termination of the pregnancy and she does not accept any payment and does not charge the parents a birthing fee for her service and the surrogate

IVF has no regard for the sexual union and thus has no regard for God’s plan around life and love. Catholic teaching prohibits in vitro fertilization, maintaining that a child has the right to be conceived in the marital embrace of his parents. Human sexuality has two components, the unitive and procreative; IVF separates these components and makes the procreative its only goal. Pope Paul VI said that there is an “inseparable connection which is willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.” IVF makes the child a commodity produced in a laboratory, and makes doctors, technicians, and even business people part of the conception process. Also the sperm used is by masturbation which is a self-centered or self-indulgent activity rather than a God-pleasing one. By contrast, some believers hold that an orgasm brings a person closer to God. The sperm or eggs used may not come from the couple desiring the child because one of the spouses may be infertile; it may be necessary to use the sperm or eggs from an outsider that is a

In today’s society, surrogacy is becoming a more and more popular and common issue. For many couples who cannot or unwilling to carry babies by themselves, surrogacy is the first choice to have their own babies and build a family. The legality of surrogacy is different for every country. There are countries that consider the birth mother as the legal mother while there are those that don't. Besides, a lower price of surrogacy in developing countries drives them to find surrogate mother overseas. Thus, international