Surrogacy

Started by Ho-Oh April 27th, 2010 10:09 PM
  • 712 views
  • 15 replies

Ho-Oh

used Sacred Fire!

Age 31
Female
QLD, Australia
Seen June 5th, 2022
Posted April 23rd, 2022
35,988 posts
17.5 Years
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.
Age 30
Male
Your Mother
Seen June 29th, 2010
Posted May 29th, 2010
2,796 posts
17.3 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

Age 32
Male
'cause it get cold like Minnesota
Seen 4 Days Ago
Posted 1 Week Ago
22,513 posts
18.2 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.
This basically sums up my views.
whoops
Age 33
Male
South Yorkshire, England
Seen February 25th, 2013
Posted June 18th, 2010
314 posts
13.2 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.
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.


"A clever person solves a problem, a wise person avoids it" ~ Albert Einstein


95% of people on the internet have a statistic in their signature, if you're one of the 5% than don't place this in your signa-- Wait... Damn...

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
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 ♪

Age 30
Quebec, Canada
Seen May 13th, 2013
Posted May 13th, 2013
2,414 posts
13.8 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".


Polaret | Fourette | Ecuret | Axew | Zorua | Nanette [Shiny]
"My scar makes me sassy, child!"
The Big Bang Theory Fan Club - Click To Join!
The French Club

Melody

Banned

Female
Cuddling those close to me
Seen March 4th, 2018
Posted March 2nd, 2018
6,459 posts
18.6 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 ♪

Age 30
Quebec, Canada
Seen May 13th, 2013
Posted May 13th, 2013
2,414 posts
13.8 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.


Polaret | Fourette | Ecuret | Axew | Zorua | Nanette [Shiny]
"My scar makes me sassy, child!"
The Big Bang Theory Fan Club - Click To Join!
The French Club
Male
Seen August 17th, 2010
Posted August 13th, 2010
345 posts
13.2 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.
Exactly. If it's not her egg it's not her child.

Chibi-chan

The Freshmaker!

Over the Rainbow
Seen December 13th, 2014
Posted December 3rd, 2014
10,026 posts
18.1 Years
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.
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.


/ / ////
Age 31
Male
Miami, Florida
Seen June 4th, 2011
Posted May 27th, 2011
612 posts
13.3 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.
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.

Female
CT, USA
Seen July 27th, 2010
Posted July 13th, 2010
851 posts
13.2 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.
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.

Signature drawn by me.

Seen September 24th, 2020
Posted November 26th, 2018
2,143 posts
14.7 Years
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.