Surrogates And Custody: A Case Study

Gammy was born to a Thai surrogate who was paid by Australian intended parents. Gammy was born with down syndrome and a hole in his heart requiring extensive medical treatment. The intended parents chose to take Gammy’s healthy twin sister back to Australia, leaving Gammy with his surrogate. This case caused international concern, raising awareness of the lack of regulation of international surrogacy arrangements and highlighting the ethical considerations involved in the practice of

I read an article that was published on The Hasting Center Journal, called “The Case Against Surrogate Parenting”, by Herbert Krimmel, Krimmel takes a stand against surrogate motherhood arrangements because of the many ethical issues it causes, he argues surrogate motherhood, is a financial profit, there can be conflicts during the process, and is designed to separate in the mind of the surrogate mother. First, Krimmel argues that the reason a woman often or always undertakes the pregnancy is because of the money motive. He states, “The cause of this dissociation is some other benefit she will receive, most often money.' In other words, her desire to create a child is born of some motive other than the desire to be a parent. This separation

Commercial surrogacy is the process in which a woman is paid a fee to carry and deliver a baby to term. Once the baby is delivered, the woman relinquishes all parental rights to the commissioning couple who exclusively raise the child as their own. Altruistic surrogacy, by contrast, is an arrangement where the surrogate receives reimbursement but only for the expenses that she may have incurred during the pregnancy. In this essay I will argue that commercial surrogacy should not be market-inalienable. I will start by outlining Elizabeth Anderson’s argument in “Is Women’s Labor a Commodity?” in which she offers a number of criticisms to commercial surrogacy. I will then outline objections to the argument and highlight how her argument is highly speculative and does not provide an adequate basis for the prohibition of commercial surrogacy.

Law reform is considered proactive with relation to surrogacy and birth technologies, as methods of conception must be permitted before they are conducted. Surrogacy, which occurs when one woman agrees to fall pregnant and bear a child for a couple, is illegal in NSW when the woman is paid a fee or award, under the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 (NSW). Hence, surrogacy must be altruistic. Furthermore, the Surrogacy Act 2010 (NSW) now criminalises an international journey for commercial surrogacy.

Baby Business by Insight on SBS had a discussion about surrogacy in relation to a couple that had a baby though surrogacy. In the show it was said that most surrogate mothers have genetically babies, which the mother gives her egg and the father gives his sperm and the doctor inseminates it in the surrogate mother. Most of the everyday people have to the term “renting a womb” towards surrogacy whereas the Women Health Resources

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).

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.

Judge Harvey Sorkow is in favour of William Stern getting the child in the Baby M case. The main concept is that he believes a deal is a deal and that one shouldn’t be able to break an agreement because he/she changed her mind or decision last minute (Sandel,

Everyone has their own personal beliefs, values, morals and ethics regarding to surrogacy. For instance, some may believe that surrogacy is wrong and that it exploits women while others believe that surrogacy is a beautiful thing where a woman is able to give a gift of life to intended parents who are unable to conceive. My personal beliefs are that surrogacy is perfectly fine and people should be allowed to have access to surrogate services without being looked down upon. For example, I believe that people should not say that surrogacy is wrong especially if they themselves have not experienced infertility and even if they have, they should not relate their own personal experiences with others since each person’s life experience is unique

Surrogacy is becoming more popular as time goes by however there are several legal as well as ethical issues coming up when people use a surrogate or are looking into the topic.

In the US the cost of surrogacy is approximately $75,000 to $80,000 per pregnancy, however in India, where commercial surrogacy is legal the price comes to around $25,000 (Sandel, p.100). The Indian surrogate will receive about $7,500 for their services, which is many times their potential annual income (Sandel, p.100). Surrogacy raises questions about the market’s ethical limits due to the belief that affluent consumers are exploiting economically challenged women’s reproductive systems in exchange for money, which Sandel criticizes as being degrading or dehumanizing (Sandel, p.96).

Infertility is defined as the inability to conceive after one year of unprotected intercourse (six months if the woman is over the age 35) or the inability to carry a pregnancy to live birth. In the United States, 7.4 million women have been stricken with the disease. 1 To resolve this issue, potential parents look for other options to add to their growing family. Gestational surrogacy is the last resort for many of these families. It uses a process known as In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) to create an embryo using the ova/eggs from the prospective mother and sperm from the father that is implanted in the gestational surrogate (International Assisted Reproduction Center). These surrogates are then compensated for the services which they are providing. Many would agree that this is the right thing to do because this mutual exchange is maximizing happiness for both parties. However, this is not the case for Elizabeth Anderson, a distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Women’s Studies at the University of Michigan. Anderson argues that “commercial surrogate contracts objectionably commodify children because they regard parental rights over children not as trusts to be allocated in the best interests of the child, but as lie property rights, to be allocated at the will of the parents” (Anderson 19). I strongly agree with Anderson’s argument because commercial surrogacy is strictly for the

Surrogacy is a controversial issue nowadays. Surrogacy allows a woman to give the gift of parenthood to a couple who would otherwise not have been able to experience it, either due to infertility or inability to adopt a child. In some cases, the surrogate can obtain monetary compensation for her services. According to Anderson (1990), A commercial surrogate mother is someone who is paid money to bear a child for other people and to terminate her parental rights, to lead to a situation that the others may raise the child as exclusively their own.

Surrogacy has not only benefited many couples hoping to have children, but surrogate mothers wishing to give the gift of life to a child as well. Surrogacy however has also raised ethical questions in determining who claims the right as the legal parent of a child, sometimes creating problems that can be difficult to resolve. Surrogacy should therefore be

In 1992, the California legislature decided that the contracts for performance of the services of surrogate motherhood is not contrary to the public consciousness, and therefore passed a bill to permit surrogate motherhood on a commercial basis. State Governor vetoed the bill. A year later, the California Supreme Court ruled that the legal parents of a child born using the method of surrogate motherhood, spouses who have signed a contract for childbearing substitute mother. Thus, in California, has been applied the principle, which was then fixed by law, according to which all rights in respect of a child born by a surrogate mother, provided the genetic parents.