• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Surrogacy

Ho-Oh

used Sacred Fire!
    • 35,992
    Posts
    18
    Years
    • Seen Jul 1, 2023
    Basically, I was wondering... do you think it's fair for a surrogate mother to have to give up the child after the birth? Does she have every right to be a mother to the child as the biological one does? What if the biological one denies the surrogate one involvement in the child's life? Or, what if the surrogate mother gets attached to the child and the biological one can't seperate them - as in, there is an immediate connection, do you think the biological mother in a sense... drew the short straw? D:

    I think if the surrogate one has a bond with the child when it's born, then she should be able to keep the child.
     

    Gary the Magic Fairy

    Banned
    • 2,799
    Posts
    18
    Years
    If they actually hired this woman to have their baby, then she should give it to them. It isn't rightfully hers. In those cases of adoptions where a woman wants to give up her baby and chooses a person during the pregnancy, I think she has the right to change her mind at any time before she gives them her baby. But if she was hired/offered to have a baby for someone else, it's theirs, even if it was in her body.
     
    donavannj

    donavannj

    • 22,953
    Posts
    19
    Years
    Gary said:
    If they actually hired this woman to have their baby, then she should give it to them. It isn't rightfully hers. In those cases of adoptions where a woman wants to give up her baby and chooses a person during the pregnancy, I think she has the right to change her mind at any time before she gives them her baby. But if she was hired/offered to have a baby for someone else, it's theirs, even if it was in her body.
    Click to expand...

    This basically sums up my views.
     

    Sneeze

    • 314
    Posts
    14
    Years
    Gary said:
    If they actually hired this woman to have their baby, then she should give it to them. It isn't rightfully hers. In those cases of adoptions where a woman wants to give up her baby and chooses a person during the pregnancy, I think she has the right to change her mind at any time before she gives them her baby. But if she was hired/offered to have a baby for someone else, it's theirs, even if it was in her body.
    Click to expand...

    Yeah, sounds about right to me too. If you opt in to be a surrogate mother to have to be able to give up the kid, its all part of the deal. That being said, I believe the surrogate mother should be allowed to see the child if she wishes, possibly following the role of an auntie.
     
    Esper

    Esper

    • 10,769
    Posts
    14
    Years
    I can see both sides having a valid argument, but I don't think one is stronger than the other. Maybe I just don't care since I think if a couple wants a kid and can't have one on their own then they should adopt and not go through this complicated process of involving another person in their personal affairs.
     

    Yusshin

    ♪ Yggdrasil ♪
    • 2,414
    Posts
    14
    Years
    I believe a person who decides to have a baby for another person should be emotionally fit enough to be able to realize: "This isn't my baby; I'm doing it as a service / favour for another person. I will have no part in the child's life afterwards." It's tough, sure, but it is a service, and you're technically only the birth-giver, and not the parent. If the parents thereafter don't want the woman to see the child afterwards, it is their right, and the woman should respect and understand that before taking on the "job".
     
    Last edited:
    Melody

    Melody

    Banned
    • 6,460
    Posts
    19
    Years
    While I do agree, it's too complicated to give the surrogate mother full parental rights, they should be considered for being allowed to visit the child whenever they like. In case something does happen to the adoptive mother and father, there should be a clause that awards the child to the surrogate (Biological) mother.

    That's how I see it. It's definitely wrong to deny the mother the right to see her own child.
     

    Yusshin

    ♪ Yggdrasil ♪
    • 2,414
    Posts
    14
    Years
    In terms of something happening to the parents, the woman who gave birth to the child should acquire rights to the child. That's a given and I agree with that. Otherwise, the woman can't fuss if the parents deny her the right to see the child. It was a service after all.
     
    Melody

    Melody

    Banned
    • 6,460
    Posts
    19
    Years
    Well, I disagree. The parents shouldn't be able to deny her the right to see the child, but the surrogate mother shouldn't have any rights to the child extending beyond visitation
     

    Porygon-Z

    Silph Agent
    • 345
    Posts
    14
    Years
    • Seen Aug 17, 2010
    Gary said:
    If they actually hired this woman to have their baby, then she should give it to them. It isn't rightfully hers. In those cases of adoptions where a woman wants to give up her baby and chooses a person during the pregnancy, I think she has the right to change her mind at any time before she gives them her baby. But if she was hired/offered to have a baby for someone else, it's theirs, even if it was in her body.
    Click to expand...

    Exactly. If it's not her egg it's not her child.
     

    Chibi-chan

    The Freshmaker!
    • 10,027
    Posts
    19
    Years
    Forever said:
    Basically, I was wondering... do you think it's fair for a surrogate mother to have to give up the child after the birth? Does she have every right to be a mother to the child as the biological one does? What if the biological one denies the surrogate one involvement in the child's life? Or, what if the surrogate mother gets attached to the child and the biological one can't seperate them - as in, there is an immediate connection, do you think the biological mother in a sense... drew the short straw? D:

    I think if the surrogate one has a bond with the child when it's born, then she should be able to keep the child.
    Click to expand...

    Well duh, that's what surrogates are for! It's not their egg, it's just in their body. Trust me, they sign many many many papers saying they will not have any claim to the baby. If they break these, they have to pay a toooon of money.

    Don't forget that people just don't have surrogate mothers because they don't want to deal with pregnancy. They have it because they are infertile for the most part. It'd be terrible if someone took their only chance of having a baby.
     

    Okami Chi

    El Guitar Man~
    • 612
    Posts
    14
    Years
    Gary said:
    If they actually hired this woman to have their baby, then she should give it to them. It isn't rightfully hers. In those cases of adoptions where a woman wants to give up her baby and chooses a person during the pregnancy, I think she has the right to change her mind at any time before she gives them her baby. But if she was hired/offered to have a baby for someone else, it's theirs, even if it was in her body.
    Click to expand...
    Which is when you almost always see Surogate mothers. So yeah they are mostly obligated to give up the baby. Then again this is only opinion.

    -Okami
     

    shookie

    Often scatters things.
    • 851
    Posts
    14
    Years
    Gary said:
    If they actually hired this woman to have their baby, then she should give it to them. It isn't rightfully hers. In those cases of adoptions where a woman wants to give up her baby and chooses a person during the pregnancy, I think she has the right to change her mind at any time before she gives them her baby. But if she was hired/offered to have a baby for someone else, it's theirs, even if it was in her body.
    Click to expand...
    Yep, I agree with this. The whole point of being a surrogate mother is for them to have a baby for somebody else. She isn't forced to give her baby up, she was given full notice and signed paperwork which made her legally bound to what she promised.
    It's also true that in some cases women don't realize how attached to their child they are until their child is actually born and they get to hold them, but even so, a surrogate mother is legally bound and can face a costly penalty if they change their mind at the last minute.

    As for the involvement in a child's life, it's similar to cases of closed/open adoption and even sperm donors. I'm not well educated on the details of adoption, but it's my understanding that both parties have a say in whether the adoption (or what have you) should be open or closed, but it may be more one-sided than I'm assuming. In any situation, once the child is 18 they're legally able to search for their birth parent(s) and contact them if they wish.
     

    Idiot!

    One shot, one kill.
    • 1,683
    Posts
    18
    Years
    • Seen Mar 17, 2011
    If we don't allow the biological parents to keep the child, surrogate mothers are out of jobs. End of story. What's the point of this question?
     

    ANARCHit3cht

    Call me Archie!
    • 2,145
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • Seen Sep 25, 2020
    Well.. the whole point of people being Surrogate Mothers is because someone else usually can't have a baby. Then they either hire someone, or have a friend have the baby for them. If you hired the person to have the child, it is rightfully yours. If you asked someone and they said yes, but you didn't get legal with it, then they can keep it.

    To sum this up: If they were hired to have the baby, it isn't theirs, if they had the baby but planned to give it away and then had second thoughts, they can keep it.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top