What are your thoughts on surrogate motherhood?

[Orthodox6]

Opposed. Period.

[Meriwether]

I hate pregnancy and gain a lot of weight, so I certainly wouldn't do it for kicks. My Db and his wife are expecting their first child after 10+ years of marriage. His wife is very private, so I don't know if they chose to wait or had trouble conceiving. If they had come to me asking me to carry their child, I would have done it in a heartbeat.

[HS Mom in NC]

Hiring one? Considered it briefly, decided to adopt internationally.

 

Being one? Even if it was medically advisable for me to be pregnant again, no.

 

Right now I think the industry is still too primitive. The screening process isn't good enough for anyone to get involved in that situation. It's even worse than the screening processes for a few adoption routes.

 

In the last few years there was a case that illustrates the problem: WAAAYYY too many women go into without thinking it through. Long story short, the surrogate (single mother of 1 or 2) did if for financial reasons. She willingly signed a contract with the couple that agreed to aborting the baby if there was a serious medical issue. The couple already had a couple of mild (as I recall) special needs children together if I'm remembering it right. No one in that situation bothered to think that maybe two different people would have different ideas about what is serious enough to abort over and what isn't. I can't ever advise a woman, regardless of her views on abortion, to EVER sign a contact giving someone else that kind of decision making over her pregnancy or baby-depending on how you see it. It's just inviting terrible trouble.

 

The surrogate refused to abort the baby who had a condition that means being severely handicapped and results in a shortened life span because she read about and I believe met families who had children with the same conditions. She left the state, gave birth, and placed the baby with an adoptive family. The couple who hired her (the father is genetically the father if I'm remembering it correctly) visits the child occasionally. I'm guessing the father had to sign his rights away for the adoption, but that's a whole other mess.

 

A surrogate would have to contract with a couple that had exactly her views on abortion and they type of medical care for both the pregnancy and delivery for it to make sense. What are the odds of that? Imagine how detailed that contract would have to be for all eventualities that could possibly come up.

 

 

Christians are told to be cunning as serpents and harmless as doves. You just can't go into surrogacy (or adoption for that matter) naively or simplistically. You have to take a very long hard look at the cold hard realities that can come up.

[MomtoCandJ]

Nope couldn't do it, if I grow the child, the child will be mine :)

[PentecostalMom]

I would do it for a loved one, but not for a stranger.

[peachskittles]

I will eventually in the next few years be a surrogate for my sister. My SO is opposed but he agrees that it is my body and I can make that choice if I want to have a baby for her. We have discussed a lot of scenarios that could happen in pregnancy and came to the same conclusion for each of them. I have the traits that I believe make me a great candidate for a surrogate. I am really fertile, I have an easy time maintaining a pregnancy and I really want to make a difference in her life. :) I have offered for another couple but they declined, something about I had too many children. My sister will be the only person I do this for, no one else. I would have done it for my other sister as well but a miracle occured and she became pregnant after trying for, oh wow, 8 years I believe after being told many times it would never happen naturally. I do have the added bonus of my sister will always live near me, so I will still see the child even after I have him/her.

[Impish]

Some of these answers make me sad. My sister had a hard time conceiving, and I would have done it for her in a heartbeat. Id do it for a friend too. I wouldn't do it as a paid thing, but I see nothing wrong with it.

 

 

I had great pregnancies, I carried my twins 38 weeks 4 days, so I think I would be a good candidate, and I never minded being pregnant.

I don't see why the answers make you sad. Far better, imo, for ppl to have a very clear idea of what they can and cannot manage, than to agree, discover that they can't deal, and all the issues that can arise from that

 

Diff ppl have different abilities, strengths, perspectives, beliefs...It's a good thing.

[Runningmom80]

 

I don't see why the answers make you sad. Far better, imo, for ppl to have a very clear idea of what they can and cannot manage, than to agree, discover that they can't deal, and all the issues that can arise from that

 

Diff ppl have different abilities, strengths, perspectives, beliefs...It's a good thing.

 

I would be sad if I carried a baby for my sister, and someone found it "disturbing." I think that's a sad way to look at it. Just like everyone is entitled to their own opinions, I'm entitled to have my own feelings about those opinions.

[Impish]

I misunderstood what you were referring to. I was thinking that it was the majority of posters saying no that you found sad, which is why I talked about better ppl to know themselves well enough to know it wouldn't be something they could handle.

[Murphy101]

The Roman Catholic Church is against IVF bc it is closely, rather unfunnily ironicly, tied to abortion. Surrogacy requires IVF and it's abortive components.

 

To expand or clarify..

 

Aside from IVF, many religions would have a problem with a man getting another woman than his wife pregnant, regardless of how or the child's genetics or whether that other woman is willing to give the baby to his wife.

 

So to start, these would be the main reasons IVF/surrogacy would be considered sin and very unethical to me and the RCC.

[Veritaserum]

I definitely agree that people should know their limits and not involve themselves with surrogacy if they aren't comfortable with it. However, I was also upset by the comments that disparage the practice as a whole. For some people it is the only way they will ever have a child. My SIL isn't a good candidate for adoption and she has miscarried every pregnancy. If I didn't know another pregnancy would be risky for me and the baby, I would offer to be a surrogate for her.

[MommaOfalotta]

I could never.. EVER.

 

I'm not sure exactly how I feel about the whole thing, but I know there is no way I could carry a baby for 9 months, feel the kicks and hiccups, see the ultrasounds, etc and then give that baby to someone else. Even if genetically it wasn't "mine." Nope. It would kill me.

 

When I see/read about/hear about women giving up their babies for adoption, it makes me sick. Not in a judgemental way or anything, because they are doing what they believe is best for their baby. My heart just breaks imagining how that would feel. I wouldn't survive it.

[Veritaserum]

The Roman Catholic Church is against IVF bc it is closely, rather unfunnily ironicly, tied to abortion. Surrogacy requires IVF and it's abortive components.

 

 

If by "abortive" you mean "not every fertilized egg will get implanted," please realize that not every fertilized egg is a viable human life even if they all had the opportunity to implant in a womb. This is true of eggs that are fertilized in situ or in vitro.

 

If I were to have used IVF, I would have frozen any spares for future pregnancy attempts. If I had frozen embryos after our family was complete, I would have donated the embryos to be adopted by infertile couples. IVF can be done in a very ethical manner that is respectful of potential human lives.

[Murphy101]

 

 

If by "abortive" you mean "not every fertilized egg will get implanted," please realize that not every fertilized egg is a viable human life even if they all had the opportunity to implant in a womb. This is true of eggs that are fertilized in situ or in vitro.

 

If I were to have used IVF, I would have frozen any spares for future pregnancy attempts. If I had frozen embryos after our family was complete, I would have donated the embryos to be adopted by infertile couples. IVF can be done in a very ethical manner that is respectful of potential human lives.

 

 

The RCC disagrees and I agree with the RCC.

[Tita Gidge]

May I ask what people's religious objections to surrogacy is? And what people think is unethical about it? I understand people not doing it because they would feel too attached, but I don't understand what could be unethical about it. Or what religion would have a problem with it. (I'm a Christian.)

 

 

I answered that I had religious objections to surrogacy; I am Catholic.

 

Our beliefs on reproductive issues, including surrogacy, aren't always in line with those of our fellow Christians. Or even more liberal Catholics!

 

I'd hate to come across as inflammatory for expressing the beliefs of my Church, so I respectfully decline to further elaborate.

 

I invite you to google the reasons the Catholic Church is opposed to surrogacy, as I don't wish for any reasons I share here to be mistaken or misconstrued as a personal affront to any one personally vested in the issue. Or worse, an invitation to debate. At the end of the day we all have to live with our own decisions and choices, and in light of that I don't wish to question the judgments and choices of others, even indirectly and hypothetically.

[Trish]

May I ask what people's religious objections to surrogacy is? And what people think is unethical about it? I understand people not doing it because they would feel too attached, but I don't understand what could be unethical about it. Or what religion would have a problem with it. (I'm a Christian.)

 

 

One ethical objection would be for someone who is a parent -- pregnancy entails physical risks, emotional ones too, such as post-partum depression. So if I as a parent undertake someone else's pregnancy and then die/become disabled/harm myself in some manner, what would the rationale be vis a vis my family? Obviously if it's your own pregnancy you're undertaking the risk on behalf of your own family member, where your first duty lies. I think sometimes in contemplating surrogacy, people picture an ideal pregnancy rather than a real one, or at-risk one.

 

"Never forget that pregnancy is dangerous all by itself, let alone an artificial one," states Karen Farmer, editor of Surrogate Motherhood website. "Complications can't always be avoided." It's important to keep medical risks associated with surrogate pregnancies like miscarriage, diabetes, ectopic pregnancies, thrombosis, high blood pressure hemorrhages and losing the ability to have children, at the forefront.

 

Read more: Risks of Being a Surrogate Mother | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5406860_risks-being-surrogate-mother_.html#ixzz2RLLwauN3

[Veritaserum]

 

 

The RCC disagrees and I agree with the RCC.

 

 

Well, ok then.

 

I find surrogacy to be more respectful of life than repeated miscarriages, but whatever.

[Melissa in Australia]

Well, ok then.

 

I find surrogacy to be more respectful of life than repeated miscarriages, but whatever.

 

:confused1:

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

 

I answered that I had religious objections to surrogacy; I am Catholic.

 

Our beliefs on reproductive issues, including surrogacy, aren't always in line with those of our fellow Christians. Or even more liberal Catholics!

 

I'd hate to come across as inflammatory for expressing the beliefs of my Church, so I respectfully decline to further elaborate.

 

I invite you to google the reasons the Catholic Church is opposed to surrogacy, as I don't wish for any reasons I share here to be mistaken or misconstrued as a personal affront to any one personally vested in the issue. Or worse, an invitation to debate. At the end of the day we all have to live with our own decisions and choices, and in light of that I don't wish to question the judgments and choices of others, even indirectly and hypothetically.

 

 

Thank you, I will Google that now I know what to look for.

[Trish]

I definitely agree that people should know their limits and not involve themselves with surrogacy if they aren't comfortable with it. However, I was also upset by the comments that disparage the practice as a whole. For some people it is the only way they will ever have a child. My SIL isn't a good candidate for adoption and she has miscarried every pregnancy. If I didn't know another pregnancy would be risky for me and the baby, I would offer to be a surrogate for her.

 

 

The RCC does not promote an "ends justify the means" philosophy.

 

It would be unethical for me to be a surrogate. It might not be unethical for you, as you have your own set of ethics.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by disparage. Just because I would never in a million years do it and have huge ethical problems with it, doesn't mean it's wrong for someone else.

[Murphy101]

 

Well, ok then.

 

I find surrogacy to be more respectful of life than repeated miscarriages, but whatever.

 

 

As someone who has had several miscarriages, I find that completely illogical.

 

I guess that's something else I disagree with you about then.

 

 

 

[StaceyinLA]

There's no way that I wouldn't get emotionally attached to the baby. Genetics wouldn't matter, that would be MY baby, as far as my heart was concerned. And there is no way I could handle giving up a child. There's nobody on the planet I would want to raise one of my children as long as I was able to do so. I would be a complete emotional wreck.

 

 

This.

[Murphy101]

I'm not sure what you mean by disparage. Just because I would never in a million years do it and have huge ethical problems with it, doesn't mean it's wrong for someone else.

 

Hijack slightly into questions of logic and philosophy...

 

Something being unethical is unethical.

 

It does not become not unethical because someone else is doing it.

 

Disparage is probably the term she used bc usually one doesn't view people who do unethical things in a favorable light, thus the feeling of being disparaged.

 

Personally, I reserve disparage for when I know an individual situation, while unequivocally believing that yes, IVF/surrogacy is an unethical practice.

 

 

[Veritaserum]

:confused1:

 

An objection was made to surrogacy because surrogacy uses IVF and IVF was claimed to be "abortive" (which would indicate disrespect to life). For some women surrogacy is the only option to carry a pregnancy to term due to repeated miscarriage (also known as spontaneous abortions). I find tying IVF and surrogacy to abortion and calling them abortive to be absurd as well as inflammatory toward anyone who has grown their family through one or both of these processes.

[Trish]

 

 

An objection was made to surrogacy because surrogacy uses IVF and IVF was claimed to be "abortive" (which would indicate disrespect to life). For some women surrogacy is the only option to carry a pregnancy to term due to repeated miscarriage (also known as spontaneous abortions). I find tying IVF and surrogacy to abortion and calling them abortive to be absurd as well as inflammatory toward anyone who has grown their family through one or both of these processes.

 

There is the problem of what to do with the extra embryos, yes?

 

Anyway I just define ethics as a set of moral principles that you live your life by. So if someone else has a different set of principles than I do, they will obviously have a different set of ethical beliefs. So what is "wrong" for me may be right for them.

 

I'm not talking about immutable truths, that's another matter entirely.

[Veritaserum]

 

 

There is the problem of what to do with the extra embryos, yes?

 

Anyway I just define ethics as a set of moral principles that you live your life by. So if someone else has a different set of principles than I do, they will obviously have a different set of ethical beliefs. So what is "wrong" for me may be right for them.

 

I'm not talking about immutable truths, that's another matter entirely.

 

The extras are often either non-existent or are saved for future pregnancy attempts. If there remain embryos after a couple has successfully birthed the number of children they desire, those embryos may be donated to infertile couples who adopt them and attempt pregnancy. I can understand ethical qualms regarding deliberately discarding embryos, but I cannot understand a blanket statement that IVF and/or surrogacy are universally unethical. It's ridiculous and offensive to state such. I have no issue without someone deciding that they are uncomfortable with the practice for themselves.

 

Basically, it isn't cool to tell someone that it is unethical for their child to exist because of how s/he came into the world.

[Murphy101]

IVF requires fertilizing many eggs then discarding the least desirable for whatever reasons deemed by the medical staff and possibly by the woman in question. (The staff will automaticly discard or use only for research those they deem not healthy enough for implanting. And sometimes the staff is directed by the dr/woman to also discard based on genetics or sex or other factors.) The human potential as you referred to it is discarded as not worthy of a chance in a womb and not implanted. Which to a RC is no different than deciding to abort very early in pregnancy.

 

Then of what is left, some are placed in the hopes than 1, maybe 2, will attach. (the success rate is still actually rather low, stheirselves is pressure to try several at once in the hopes of any sticking.) If more than 1, maybe 2, attach, the pregnant woman is usually strongly urged to selectively remove (abort) all but one, maybe 2 if she gets really lucky 3.

 

Abort/selection is a huge part of the IVF process and of surrogacy, so it is not inflammatory to connect them at all. It is actually a very unpleasant fact that they are very closely tied that no one seems to like to talk to about.

 

Which is fine for them that dont want to talk about it I suppose.

 

But the question was asked why someone wouldn't be okay with surrogacy for ethical and or religious reasons and I simply answered the question.

 

I am not desiring to be inflammatory. It's simply a sad aspect of the facts. The close connection to abortive practices is the root issue of why the RCC is strongly against IVF. One can't even answer the question of why the RCC is against IVF without bringing it up.

 

My truely heartfelt sympathy and sorrow for a woman who suffers miscarriage doesn't negate why I think IVF is wrong. The two are not exclusive of each other.

 

If the question had been: Do you feel awful for women who are so desperate they feel they must use IVF? I'd have given a resounding "absolutely".

 

But it wasn't. The question was if one would do surrogacy (vague on which side of the surrogacy) and I said no. I was asked why a religion would view it as unethical and stated why.

 

 

 

[happypamama]

I also would not feel at all okay with any clause in a contract that allowed for an abortion; I would absolutely insist that I treat the baby as I would any of my own children, and abortion is simply not an option. I would also insist that no embryos be destroyed, and I would only allow transfer of a reasonable number of embryos (two, maybe three), no selective reduction allowed.

[Trish]

 

 

The extras are often either non-existent or are saved for future pregnancy attempts. If there remain embryos after a couple has successfully birthed the number of children they desire, those embryos may be donated to infertile couples who adopt them and attempt pregnancy. I can understand ethical qualms regarding deliberately discarding embryos, but I cannot understand a blanket statement that IVF and/or surrogacy are universally unethical. It's ridiculous and offensive to state such. I have no issue without someone deciding that they are uncomfortable with the practice for themselves.

 

Basically, it isn't cool to tell someone that it is unethical for their child to exist because of how s/he came into the world.

 

 

Since you seem to be emphasizing that extra embryos are rare, or taken care of in ways that wouldn't destroy them, does that suggest you have an ethical problem yourself with destroying them? Or are you just mentioning it because I have an objection to it? I would think anyone in favor of IVF would at least be "okay" with a hypothetical destruction of an embryo, since that is a very real and present risk. (for example if a woman got pregnant with more than a safe number of embryos) If you wouldn't "theoretically" be okay with that embryo destruction, then I would think you'd have a problem with the whole idea.

 

As far as the "abortive" aspect -- and your emphasis that it is NOT abortive, I don't really want to argue the science of it, I will just ask this question. By going out of your way to say it is NOT abortive, and that anyone who suggests otherwise is disparaging your ethics, aren't you more or less disparaging the ethics of people who DO think abortion is okay, and may have a number of reasons for thinking that? I mean, how can you complain that I'm dissing your ethics when you turn around and do the same thing to people who are okay with the idea of abortion for their own very good reasons?

 

Just wondering.

 

And for the record I'm okay with anyone's ethics being different from mine, I'm sort of Kung Fu Gonzo RCC, so I'm used to being an outlier on these issues.

[Veritaserum]

Single embryo transfers and quality over quantity are becoming increasingly popular because fertility doctors are interested in reducing multiple births *before* pregnancy occurs. That's right, fertility doctors are interested in achieving pregnancies as ethically and as safely as possible.

[Trish]

Single embryo transfers and quality over quantity are becoming increasingly popular because fertility doctors are interested in reducing multiple births *before* pregnancy occurs. That's right, fertility doctors are interested in achieving pregnancies as ethically and as safely as possible.

 

 

Eh, do you have a problem with embryo destruction or not? I realize doctors want to make it "safe" and "rare" and "as ethical as possible," but sometimes you just gotta destroy an embryo to achieve the desired results. Have you asked yourself if you have a problem with that? Or do you just view it as unintended collateral damage, or what? I'm not trying to be obtuse, just wondered if you have an actual stand on this or are hoping you don't ever have to take one.

[Murphy101]

The extras are often either non-existent or are saved for future pregnancy attempts. If there remain embryos after a couple has successfully birthed the number of children they desire, those embryos may be donated to infertile couples who adopt them and attempt pregnancy. I can understand ethical qualms regarding deliberately discarding embryos, but I cannot understand a blanket statement that IVF and/or surrogacy are universally unethical. It's ridiculous and offensive to state such. I have no issue without someone deciding that they are uncomfortable with the practice for themselves

 

Basically, it isn't cool to tell someone that it is unethical for their child to exist because of how s/he came into the world.

 

 

One, I also stated that many religions would have a problem with a man getting another woman pregnant, regardless of means or where the baby ends up.

 

Also, your description of IVF discards does not seem to be accurate.

 

And of course one can say a means of getting pregnant is unethical. We do it all the time. That does not mean at all that I think their child shouldn't exist. It means I don't advocate that method of starting their existence.

 

That isn't any more of a ridiculous opinion than yours.

 

If calling something unethical is offensive, then that's a sad problem for many people.

 

And it certainly puts an end to any actual discussion when one side can say the other can't use questions of ethics without it being offensive.

[Veritaserum]

 

 

Eh, do you have a problem with embryo destruction or not? I realize doctors want to make it "safe" and "rare" and "as ethical as possible," but sometimes you just gotta destroy an embryo to achieve the desired results. Have you asked yourself if you have a problem with that? Or do you just view it as unintended collateral damage, or what? I'm not trying to be obtuse, just wondered if you have an actual stand on this or are hoping you don't ever have to take one.

 

I would not intentionally destroy embryos, no. As I stated up thread I would donate extras to be adopted by needful couples. However, I understand the reasons why someone might (for research, because they don't want more children and don't want to do anything else with them, etc.).

 

I don't view fertilized eggs as people. They are cells that have the potential to become people given healthy genes and an optimal uterine environment.

[nmoira]

Eh, do you have a problem with embryo destruction or not?

 

Not that anyone's trying to corner me, but I don't. None at all. We're talking about a few cells.

[Catwoman]

Is it something you would ever consider doing?

 

 

No.

 

(I decided to post a quick and concise response for a rare change!)

[Delirium]

I would if I could!

[Murphy101]

We're talking about a few cells.

 

Just for clarity sake, when the fertilized egg is inserted in the hopes it will implant in the uterus, is is many more than a few cells. The embryo is classified as a blastocyst

 

A "blastocyst" and has undergone the 1st step in differentiation; it separates into two tissue types, the trophectoderm and the inner cell mass. The trophectoderm is what is destined to become the placenta, while the inner cell mass eventually forms the fetus. In the human, the egg is fertilized in the fallopian tube near the ovary. The developing embryo descends through the tube into the uterine (endometrial) cavity about three to four days after ovulation when it is at the morula stage. The embryo sits in the uterine (endometrial) cavity for about two days during which time it develops into a blastocyst. The blastocyst invades (implantation) the uterine lining about the fifth or sixth day after ovulation so that it can develop a blood supply (placenta) that will allow it to continue to grow into a fetus and then a baby.

 

IVF tries to set the embryo right at the point of becoming a blastocyst or right at that stage.

 

Tho they might discard any fertilized eggs at any point up to then or after then for many reasons. Maybe they didn't divide fast enough or the cell edge is uneven or other factors that are actually common to any fertilized eggs and don't necessarily mean the egg isn't viable, just less ideal and thus deemed to have less potential.

 

But after day 3, it's more than 2-4 cells, a "few". 8 cells actually.

 

Which I know may not matter to you. I'm simply looking for accuracy. :)

 

For me, the argument of "it's only a few cells" isn't enough.

 

All of us are only a bunch of cells. ;)

[kubiac]

Can't wait to read all the responses on this thread!

 

Jumping forward to say that I've considered it in passing, but the economics aren't there. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like a low-paying job where you are forced to gain 40 pounds. Hee. I can probably get a crummy low-paying job that doesn't require weight gain and lost sleep and incontinence. :)

[MrsBasil]

No, I'd never do it. I have horrible pregnancies. I think I'd have a problem carrying a baby I wouldn't be raising. I have issues with the legal gray areas since it's handled state by state. I have issues with carrying something as important as a human life in my body with final earthly control going to other people.

 

Basically I'm not comfortable with the possible legal and financial implications or being pregnant ever again. I don't know if my mind would change if I had smooth pregnancies, but I doubt it.

[Heather in Neverland]

I don't think I would. There are too many risks, too many ethical unknowns, too many legal complications.

 

In addition, I think it sets too large of a focus on "genetics" and I am a big fan of adoption instead. We suffer from secondary infertility and we explored all options before settling on adoption.

[Tap]

If I was back in my early 20s (age that I had my own kids at) I would not mind being a surrogate. I mentioned it once to dh (doing it for my sister), and he said NO WAY! He didn't want me to even consider it because he would be too attached to the baby.

 

I had easy pregnancies with easy c-sections. I loved being pregnant. I didn't have morning sickness and aside from being tired, I was very healthy and active during all 3 pregnancies (we lost one at 22weeks due to a chromasome issue).

[Melissa in Australia]

The extras are often either non-existent or are saved for future pregnancy attempts. If there remain embryos after a couple has successfully birthed the number of children they desire, those embryos may be donated to infertile couples who adopt them and attempt pregnancy. I can understand ethical qualms regarding deliberately discarding embryos, but I cannot understand a blanket statement that IVF and/or surrogacy are universally unethical. It's ridiculous and offensive to state such. I have no issue without someone deciding that they are uncomfortable with the practice for themselves.

 

Basically, it isn't cool to tell someone that it is unethical for their child to exist because of how s/he came into the world.

 

 

I did not read anywhere that people were saying that they judge the child at all, you are putting words into people's posts that don't exist.

 

there are different reasons for people to view it as unethical.

I find it unethical for completely different reasons to what you have stated.

I find it unethical for people to use poor people in 3rd world countries as their breeding machines, locking them up in small rooms for 9 months etc. I find that unethical. I find it unethical when India finally cracks down on the practice people just find another, poorer country to exploit other women.

I find it unethical when I read a newspaper article of a US surrogate mother who found out she was pregnant with twins, the buyers didn't want twins and wanted them terminated, the surrogate didn't feel that she could have a perfectly healthy baby killed because it was considered surplus at 25 weeks. so she was in breach of contract. She then decided to auction off the babies to the highest bidder. these and many more examples are the reasons I find the practice unethical.

I know that some people cannot have children. I personally find Surrogacy unethical

[Veritaserum]

 

 

 

I did not read anywhere that people were saying that they judge the child at all, you are putting words into people's posts that don't exist.

 

there are different reasons for people to view it as unethical.

I find it unethical for completely different reasons to what you have stated.

I find it unethical for people to use poor people in 3rd world countries as their breeding machines, locking them up in small rooms for 9 months etc. I find that unethical. I find it unethical when India finally cracks down on the practice people just find another, poorer country to exploit other women.

I find it unethical when I read a newspaper article of a US surrogate mother who found out she was pregnant with twins, the buyers didn't want twins and wanted them terminated, the surrogate didn't feel that she could have a perfectly healthy baby killed because it was considered surplus at 25 weeks. so she was in breach of contract. She then decided to auction off the babies to the highest bidder. these and many more examples are the reasons I find the practice unethical.

I know that some people cannot have children. I personally find Surrogacy unethical

 

Good grief! A few examples of ways surrogacy can be handled unethically is hardly justification to condemn the practice as a whole!

[Karen in CO]

I would have, but only for my brother and sil. They are wonderful people and fantastic parents. I had easy pregnancies while my dear sil had several miscarriages. Watching their pain was heartbreaking.

[Veritaserum]

Just for clarity sake, when the fertilized egg is inserted in the hopes it will implant in the uterus, is is many more than a few cells. The embryo is classified as a blastocyst

IVF tries to set the embryo right at the point of becoming a blastocyst or right at that stage.

Tho they might discard any fertilized eggs at any point up to then or after then for many reasons. Maybe they didn't divide fast enough or the cell edge is uneven or other factors that are actually common to any fertilized eggs and don't necessarily mean the egg isn't viable, just less ideal and thus deemed to have less potential.

But after day 3, it's more than 2-4 cells, a "few". 8 cells actually.

Which I know may not matter to you. I'm simply looking for accuracy. :)

For me, the argument of "it's only a few cells" isn't enough.

All of us are only a bunch of cells. ;)

 

Day 5 transfers of single embryos are becoming more popular because it helps embryologists better determine which embryos actually have the potential to implant and become a baby. On day five most blasts have around 30 cells, if they continued to develop every day after fertilization. Many arrest development at some point before day 5. I have no problem with the embryologist making a judgment call on which ones look the healthiest and most likely to implant. That is better (for ethical and health and safety reasons) than transferring more embryos than a woman wants or can safely carry to term. Blasts can split into identical twins, so single embryo transfers can still result in twins. The odds drop from something like 20-25% (2 embryos transferred) to something like 2% or less (1 embryo transferred).

[jujsky]

I would consider it, but only for a close family member or very close friend.

[J-rap]

I don't think I personally would do this, and I'm not quite sure how I feel about the whole thing. However, it took us three years to became pregnant with our first so I know the desperation of infertility. I can't think of a real reason why it would be wrong, especially when done between close friends or family members. For example, if one of my daughters did it for another daughter, I might feel a little squeamish about it but in the end, I think I'd be okay with it.

[Murphy101]

Good grief! A few examples of ways surrogacy can be handled unethically is hardly justification to condemn the practice as a whole!

 

There are many examples of it handled unethically bc that's symptomatic of a practice that views human life from the start as a commodity to be bartered and discarded at will. So yes, to many it is justification to condemn the practice.

 

 

I have no problem with the embryologist making a judgment call on which ones look the healthiest and most likely to implant. That is better (for ethical and health and safety reasons) than transferring more embryos than a woman wants or can safely carry to term

 

Okay then. Like I stated previously, I and some others would not agree that is better than not creating the situation where new life as to be discarded to begin with, setting up that situation is unethical from the start and usually leads to having to make more unethical decisions.

[stripe]

I would be sad if I carried a baby for my sister, and someone found it "disturbing." I think that's a sad way to look at it. Just like everyone is entitled to their own opinions, I'm entitled to have my own feelings about those opinions.

I said I find surrogacy, the pratice and "industry," disturbing, not that I find individual surrogates disturbing. I think it is often clouded by financial issues. Many women are doing it for the money, and poor infertile women cannot hire a surrogate. They often can't adopt either. You see very few, or no, rich women being surrogates, as well.

 

Yes, I find the industry morally troubling. That does not mean I would be rude or shout at a woman I knew was a surrogate, but I am not sure I would think well of a couple who'd hired one. That doesn't mean I have no sympathy for their sorrow over being infertile.

 

May I ask what people's religious objections to surrogacy is? And what people think is unethical about it? I understand people not doing it because they would feel too attached, but I don't understand what could be unethical about it. Or what religion would have a problem with it. (I'm a Christian.)

A few issues in some religions and belief systems:

* a woman having a child with someone who is not her spouse

* believing that a child should be created from the egg and sperm of a married couple

* believing that motherhood and fatherhood have a genetic basis, although recognizing that adoptive parents can be loving, but that creating children from, say, the egg of woman A, the sperm of man X, carried by woman B, and raised by woman C and man Y (or man X) creates a complicated scenario that may be inadvisable or morally troubling

* issues with transfer of money for the pregnancy

* recognition of problems that occur during pregnancy, e.g. the couple divorcing or birth defects being detected or misgivings on the part of the surrogate, that have occured in any number of surrogacy cases and have led to no one wanting the baby that was conceived

[T'smom]

A lot of these situations, I find unethical as well. (Exploiting poor women, aborting the "extra" twin, etc) But I don't think those situations come into play when it's a family member doing it for another family member. And in the hypothetical situation where I was being a surrogate for my sister- in NO way would I consider that "getting pregnant by another man". I wouldn't donate an egg under ny circumstances. It would still be my sister's child. I would simply be caring for the baby for nine months.