Jump to content

Menu

"Surrogacy Storm in Thailand"


JumpyTheFrog
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2014/10/22/357870757/surrogacy-storm-in-thailand-a-rejected-baby-a-busy-babymaker

 

An Australian coupled paid a Thai women to be a surrogate mother. When prenatal testing showed one of the babies (she was having twins) had Down Syndrome, they demanded she abort him. She refused and is raising the child as her own. The couple came to collect the healthy girl twin.

 

ETA: See my next post for more twists to the story.

Edited by HoppyTheToad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/05/gammy-father-child-abuse-convictions-investigation

 

The Australian couple claims they never new about the Down Syndrome and left the baby in Thailand because he had a hole in his heart and were told he wouldn't survive. In addition, the father is a convicted sex offender. Now the surrogate mother wants the daughter back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 they demanded she abort him.

 

According to the article, they didn't demand the surrogate mother abort the fetus. It's misleading to say this when the article doesn't convey that idea.

 

Is your intent is to discuss the political-economic situation of women such that they feel giving birth is the best option they have to take care of their family, or that abortion is sad? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These stories are so sad. It's essentially renting a womb and arguably tantamount to exploitation, if not slavery.

 

I've heard about this one previously and others like it. But as long as surrogacy is allowable and desired by certain people I don't see a way around this sort of tragedy.

Edited by Arctic Mama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/05/gammy-father-child-abuse-convictions-investigation

 

The Australian couple claims they never new about the Down Syndrome and left the baby in Thailand because he had a hole in his heart and were told he wouldn't survive. In addition, the father is a convicted sex offender. Now the surrogate mother wants the daughter back.

 

There is a link below that article that claims that the austrailian father tried to access the funds raised for the boy twin's medical care. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, these parents sound pretty self-centered and despicable to me.  However, I would advise that those who would cite this case as grounds to condemn surrogacy as an industry remember the high profile abuse cases that do come up with adoption.  IMO, both industries are rife with corruption, abuse, and greed, and both are also the source of happiness and fulfillment for many families. If one were to argue that surrogacy exploits women, then it also holds that as there are many young girls who are pregnant in difficult circumstances, and who are then manipulated and also exploited by the adoption industry, which stands to profit from the "sale" of these babies.

 

I think the "rightness" or "wrongness" of surrogacy or adoption depends on the motives and the individuals involved in each case.  There are many women who carry babies for other women who cannot, due to previous cancer or other health issues. There are many different reasons for why surrogacy may be used.

 

I will say that just as I am not very comfortable with rich families flying into poor countries to adopt children from poor countries (especially where one or both parents are still alive), I'm not keen on rich couples paying poor women to carry their children.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is a terrible situation that was all over the news in Australia a few months back. It was not an isolated incident, rather one that was made more public. it has resulted in Thai government making very strict regulations around surrogacy and practically banning international surrogacy. Which has resulted in the whole business getting shifted to an even poorer country where there are other poor women that can be easily exploited.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there another story out now about surrogacy where the biological parents want one of the babies aborted? I think it's in the US and the surrogate is carrying triplets. It's a subject I can't really wrap my head around it all honestly. I read the stories and I think the majority of them are amazing. I am also horrified by some of them, though. I'm guessing they all go in knowing what can be asked but when actually faced with certain situations it must be so difficult. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the article, they didn't demand the surrogate mother abort the fetus. It's misleading to say this when the article doesn't convey that idea.

 

Is your intent is to discuss the political-economic situation of women such that they feel giving birth is the best option they have to take care of their family, or that abortion is sad? 

From the article-

 

Pattaramon says the Australian couple told her to abort Gammy, but she refused. "I was so sad and angry," she says. "I said, 'This is your baby, why don't you want to keep it? You abandon him while he's still in the womb.' But their translator told me they couldn't afford to take care of him."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, this really disturbs me. And 13K seems WAY too low. I think it's about 3 times that here in the states. Paying a woman who lives in a two room shack 13K to have your baby? Wouldn't you owe it to her to set her up in a house at least, with hot and cold water, etcetc? She's carrying your child!  It's despicable. 

 

Now, I do know a woman who has been a surrogate, and everyone was very pleased with the results, and they keep in contact, etc etc. She was able to prepay her son's college by doing this. I know her heart was in the right place. The bio parents couldn't have another child medically, and they are thrilled. I still, personally, am not ok with it but I also know I don't get to decide that for other people and I was supportive and brought my friend a meal after she delivered, etc etc. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, this really disturbs me. And 13K seems WAY too low. I think it's about 3 times that here in the states. Paying a woman who lives in a two room shack 13K to have your baby? Wouldn't you owe it to her to set her up in a house at least, with hot and cold water, etcetc? She's carrying your child!  It's despicable. 

 

Now, I do know a woman who has been a surrogate, and everyone was very pleased with the results, and they keep in contact, etc etc. She was able to prepay her son's college by doing this. I know her heart was in the right place. The bio parents couldn't have another child medically, and they are thrilled. I still, personally, am not ok with it but I also know I don't get to decide that for other people and I was supportive and brought my friend a meal after she delivered, etc etc. 

 

I agree with you that we don't get to decide what other people do, to a point.  You can't force someone doing something legal even if you think its really completely awful.

 

On the other hand, we do make laws to regulate things, like types of trade we think are wrong or especially prone to exploitation.  So, we aren't allowed to sell our organs, or buy and sell people, or in some places sell sex, all for somewhat similar reasons.  I don't think it's particularly obvious that surrogacy belongs in the realm of personal decision making rather than the realm of restricted or forbidden types of trade.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the forum where I learned about this story, someone said that to be a surrogate in India, women need to have a successful pregnancy. Then the clinic requires tem to stay in the building until after delivery. They are afraid women will run away with the baby, so the surrogates are basically under house arrest and see their kids unless the kids visit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like there is some he said - she said going on, so we likely won't ever know the full story.

 

It does not sound like the surrogate mom was immorally "exploited," it sounds like she willingly entered into a contract knowing what was generally involved.

 

I don't think surrogacy is immoral per se.  I think that it is fine to allow women to earn money that way if they want to.  It can be exploitative under certain circumstances, just like most other things involving poor people and money.

 

As for the PP comment about both adoption and surrogacy, we have a lot of both in the USA involving women who are far from destitute.  If it was all about oppressed destitute women, there would be very little of it in the USA.  There must be legitimate reasons why women make these choices.  To suggest they should not be available to poor women seems unfair to me.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article-

 

Pattaramon says the Australian couple told her to abort Gammy, but she refused. "I was so sad and angry," she says. "I said, 'This is your baby, why don't you want to keep it? You abandon him while he's still in the womb.' But their translator told me they couldn't afford to take care of him."

 

I read that. To suggest they demanded is misleading, which is why I wondered what the focus of the thread was meant to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would surrogacy be deemed immoral? Because it is yucky? That doesn't seem like a legally important distinction to me. We allow people to make a living with nearly any other part of their bodies--voice, hands, brain, legs. Why not womb? (I assume we are talking cases in which the surrogate is not a biological parent.)

 

I also am not buying into the whole "poor women are exploited by surrogacy" argument in the absence of evidence other than that the surrogate is less rich than the bio parents.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to think the real problem with surrogacy is that it tends to reduce people to means and products.  THe former is always a danger in employment situations, and more so in a capitalist system, so it needs to be guarded against carefully through things like legislation.  Perhaps that could happen in the case of surrogacy.

 

But I think that it also has a very strong tendency to result in the child being treated as a product.  I think that is what seems to put people off with this case or similar ones - the child is a product that is being paid for, and so an imperfect product can be refused or returned.  Perhaps when the contract is signed the child isn't a person but an idea, but in the end a child is being handed over as the result of a contract and money changing hands.  And unlike adoption, we can't say that it is solving a problem (not having parents) for the person who is being handed over. (Even though we all know adoption can be done in an exploitative way which needs to be guarded against, I think most also agree that when used properly, it is an attempt to do what is in the best interests of the child.)

 

We already have some tension over this in our society when we talk about couples choosing abortion because of birth defects like downs syndrome, because on the one hand people tend to want to assert the parent's private right to make that decision, while at the same time maintaining that we value the disabled as people.  THis sort of situation seems to make that tension much more in evidence.

 

There are also some questions it raises, I think, on how we understand abortion rights.  If the right to an abortion is fundamentally related to the bodily autonomy of the mother, can she even contract that away? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would surrogacy be deemed immoral? Because it is yucky? That doesn't seem like a legally important distinction to me. We allow people to make a living with nearly any other part of their bodies--voice, hands, brain, legs. Why not womb? (I assume we are talking cases in which the surrogate is not a biological parent.)

 

I also am not buying into the whole "poor women are exploited by surrogacy" argument in the absence of evidence other than that the surrogate is less rich than the bio parents.

 

Many places don't allow people to see their organs, or even blood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would surrogacy be deemed immoral? Because it is yucky? That doesn't seem like a legally important distinction to me. We allow people to make a living with nearly any other part of their bodies--voice, hands, brain, legs. Why not womb? (I assume we are talking cases in which the surrogate is not a biological parent.)

 

I also am not buying into the whole "poor women are exploited by surrogacy" argument in the absence of evidence other than that the surrogate is less rich than the bio parents.

Because it is human trafficking.

 

Socially accepted? Apparently. With good intentions? Probably.

 

But it's still buying and selling humans.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes me really sad that a couple who wanted children enough to go through the whole surrogacy process then decides not to take one of them with special needs.  But I guess it happens with IVF too.  I still don't understand it though. 

 

ETA, I consider this different from not choosing to adopt a child with special needs.  In this case the child is the flesh and blood of the parent.

Edited by goldberry
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But I think that it also has a very strong tendency to result in the child being treated as a product.  I think that is what seems to put people off with this case or similar ones - the child is a product that is being paid for, and so an imperfect product can be refused or returned.  Perhaps when the contract is signed the child isn't a person but an idea, but in the end a child is being handed over as the result of a contract and money changing hands.

Do you know any parent who views his/her child as a product?  I am in a community with thousands of parents whose kids came from other wombs, and not a one of them views the child as a "product."  Sounds like theoretical musing to me, but it is hurtful to those who are raising children they didn't grow in their womb.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already have some tension over this in our society when we talk about couples choosing abortion because of birth defects like downs syndrome, because on the one hand people tend to want to assert the parent's private right to make that decision, while at the same time maintaining that we value the disabled as people.  THis sort of situation seems to make that tension much more in evidence.

 

There are also some questions it raises, I think, on how we understand abortion rights.  If the right to an abortion is fundamentally related to the bodily autonomy of the mother, can she even contract that away? 

 

I don't agree that there is any connection between this case and the fact that many people abort naturally-conceived fetuses, even one of a pair of twins, for being imperfect.

 

As for rights, yes, making a contract to put one's womb to a certain temporary use should be legal.  Why not?  How is that not autonomy?  If I contract to guide a tour or conduct a train or rocket into outer space for some time period, that limits my autonomy too, but as long as I chose it willingly, that should be my choice.  Being a nanny, producing breast milk for someone else's baby, leading an exercise class, ... there are all kinds of ways we contract away some or all parts of our bodies.  What about donating a kidney?  Should that be illegal too?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know any parent who views his/her child as a product?  I am in a community with thousands of parents whose kids came from other wombs, and not a one of them views the child as a "product."  Sounds like theoretical musing to me, but it is hurtful to those who are raising children they didn't grow in their womb.

I don't know anyone who would use the word "product", but I know MANY people who consider their children to be their possessions. They consider their kids to be "theirs" and do not care how much damage they do to their children asserting their "parental rights".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know anyone who would use the word "product", but I know MANY people who consider their children to be their possessions. They consider their kids to be "theirs" and do not care how much damage they do to their children asserting their "parental rights".

 

Biological, all adopted kids, or a mix?

 

I assert that parents parent their kids regardless of how the kids happened to come into the family.

Edited by SKL
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think bluegoat was saying the difference between adoption and surrogacy is that in adoption, children are not viewed as a product whereas with surrogacy they can be.

 

I do think this is not a great case to discuss surrogacy over. I suspect no matter how this couple attempted children their overall despicable attitude would have affected the process.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ă¢â‚¬Å“I would like to tell Thai women Ă¢â‚¬â€œ donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t get into this business as a surrogate. DonĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t just think only for money ... if something goes wrong no one will help us and the baby will be abandoned from society, then we have to take responsibility for that.Ă¢â‚¬

 

This is a quote from the woman in the case.

 

Eta the rest of the http://m.smh.com.au/national/australian-couple-leaves-down-syndrome-baby-with-thai-surrogate-20140731-zz3xp.html

 

It's difficult to read this article and think she was making a clear and informed choice. When she initially enquired she had to ask if she would need to sleep with a man to be a surrogate. She didn't know even this. She claims she didn't receive all the money agreed on.

Edited by Ausmumof3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't say anything about the news story itself since I didn't read it and, in my mind, it doesn't represent surrogacy as a whole anyway. It does sound like a terrible situation with a lot of shady, bad stuff going on.

 

I was a surrogate-twice. (Never made it on the news, btw, since mine was a happy, wonderful story, and not a head-turner). I wasn't exploited, no product was bought. Three beautiful lives were brought into this world to parents, who otherwise couldn't experience the gift of parenting a biological child.

 

In the US, surrogacy is regulated. I lived in CA at the time. All involved parties have to go through counseling (both individually and together), receive separate legal representation and have a written contract. My contracts were upwards of twenty pages, and they were fairly straight forward too since I was not being compensated. Selective reduction, abortion, birth defects, etc, etc is all covered in the contracts. The surrogate would need to agree to an abortion beforehand in the contracts before that issue ever came up (or disagree, as the case may be). Every possible scenario is talked through prior to moving forward. I, nor the bio parents agree with abortion, so that was clearly stated in the contracts. I could never be forced to do something I didn't want to do, nor would I keep the baby if the parents changed their minds--the contract also stated who would take custody of the baby if the parents couldn't/wouldn't.

 

I am a conservative Christian. I believe people are unique and special. I believe God is the giver of life, and I believe each life, no matter how it enters this world is a gift. I brought three gifts into this world for parents who desperately wanted children. I believe that pleases God. If only you could see the looks on those parents faces when they saw their babies for the first time. It is a beautiful thing that connects people together in ways that nothing else can.

 

Surrogacy, like anything, can be corrupted. It's not because surrogacy itself is corrupt, but because people are. But surrogacy can also be beautiful and wonderful and good. That's my two cents, anyway.

 

Link to my surrogacy story on you tube:

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=tx-9ez4Xuto&ebc=ANyPxKo0nCovnFeakoHEKfhQgDrN2JHYvYApeY-vFWPHCCC5NNwXwOblaqipwGLZpO4ML_CmdkZNn4Ac44fwdSSXbUj83GNSAg

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree that there is any connection between this case and the fact that many people abort naturally-conceived fetuses, even one of a pair of twins, for being imperfect.

 

As for rights, yes, making a contract to put one's womb to a certain temporary use should be legal. Why not? How is that not autonomy? If I contract to guide a tour or conduct a train or rocket into outer space for some time period, that limits my autonomy too, but as long as I chose it willingly, that should be my choice. Being a nanny, producing breast milk for someone else's baby, leading an exercise class, ... there are all kinds of ways we contract away some or all parts of our bodies. What about donating a kidney? Should that be illegal too?

The same reason indentured servitude is illegal, even if someone wants to willingly enter into such a contract.

 

Because it isn't selling a service, such as guiding someone on a tour. It's selling a person bodily.

 

In the case of surrogacy, the woman's body in many ways becomes the property of another person for the purpose of incubating a tiny person, who is the product of the transaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a good analogy because it is illegal to receive monetary compensation in exchange for donating a kidney.

It is illegal in Canada to exchange money for a surrogate baby.  The family is to cover all expenses for the surrogate mother, buy her maternity clothes etc, they can give gifts too.  So to get around the loophole of illegal to pay for surrogacy they give large "gifts" of money to cover "expenses" to the women.  I know someone who has been a surrogate 3 times, most recently she gave birth to triplets for a gay couple.  She has children of her own and her whole family supports her decision to be a surrogate, the families she carried children for most certainly do not view the babies that she carried to be their property.  

 

I actually looked into being a surrogate over 10 years ago, but was not a good candidate because I have had multiple miscarriages and preterm babies.  These days even if I did not have that prenatal history I would be considered too old.

 

I have no idea how things work in the USA, or Australia etc, I never even considered the possibility that people would hire surrogates from other countries.  I guess that makes me naive to not even consider the possibility of people doing that, or of paying all that money to just abandon the baby etc.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think bluegoat was saying the difference between adoption and surrogacy is that in adoption, children are not viewed as a product whereas with surrogacy they can be.

 

Based on what evidence?  Who IRL is viewing their child as a product?

 

Is a premie who spent lots of time in the NICU also a "product" because it hung out somewhere other than Mom's womb and that cost money?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you that we don't get to decide what other people do, to a point.  You can't force someone doing something legal even if you think its really completely awful.

 

On the other hand, we do make laws to regulate things, like types of trade we think are wrong or especially prone to exploitation.  So, we aren't allowed to sell our organs, or buy and sell people, or in some places sell sex, all for somewhat similar reasons.  I don't think it's particularly obvious that surrogacy belongs in the realm of personal decision making rather than the realm of restricted or forbidden types of trade.

 

I agree that we can't sell people, but surrogacy is merely selling a womb for a period of time, not a life.  I see it as terribly obvious that it's in the realm of personal decision making.  It's obvious enough that I honestly wouldn't care what "laws" said about it if it interested me (on either end).

 

Many people out there feel they get to make laws to govern what other people can or can't do.  I don't buy into it with the exception of hurting someone else (theft, attacks, & similar).  Even if someone wants to take their own risks or their own life - by all means - feel free... just don't take anyone else's. eg Don't text and drive because the person you kill may not be yourself.

 

One of the things that bugs me the most is other people deciding what I can or can't do... when my choice doesn't affect them (or anyone else) at all.  IMO they have no right to do so.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTR I don't think I would personally choose to hire a surrogate from a developing country, but I am unwilling to say it is immoral per se.

 

Obviously contractual protections are needed in this case like any other case where unexpected things may come up, as well as cases where there is an unequal distribution of power and/or money, and both of these were present here.  I don't know what this woman's contract said.  I would assume nobody considered the possibility that there would be a "normal" twin and a twin who was viable yet had a chromosomal defect.

 

I personally don't believe in aborting babies for having DS, regardless of whose womb they are in.  I wish the surrogate mom (now just plain "mom") and her sweet baby all the best in life.  She did the right thing.  I don't know what to say about the bio parents because I don't know enough about the context from their perspective.  Just based on their willingness to kill or abandon their DS child, I have a bias against them, yet it is possible they didn't do anything illegal or unethical from the perspective of their cultural mindset.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on what evidence? Who IRL is viewing their child as a product?

 

Is a premie who spent lots of time in the NICU also a "product" because it hung out somewhere other than Mom's womb and that cost money?

I'm not bluegoat so I obviously don't know exactly what was intended. However I believe these people clearly viewed the child as a product. When the product was flawed they didn't want it. However they were more than happy to accept the baby sister of the boy. They still received what they paid for.

 

I'm not anti surrogacy at all, but I am anti people going to countries where surrogacy is less regulated. Particularly when they are registered sex offenders with 22 offences who would never be allowed to foster australian children at all.

 

I think regulation and counselling is critical to making the process fair to all. With clear outlines of what happens if there are health issues with the baby or mother, if there are multiple births etc etc. Basically I think a surrogate parent should have the same level of obligation as a birth parent. They shouldn't be able to back out of the deal if it didn't turn out their way.

 

On the other hand they have less rights because they shouldn't be able to force the surrogate mother to abort.

 

Personally I could never do it because I couldn't deal emotionally with giving away a baby Id carried for nine months and birthed. Other women can and the love they show can be amazing. They absolutely should have counselling at the beginning of the process though. If you have never been pregnant or carried a child you may not realise what the emotional toll could be.

 

Also I really hate situations like this where women are doing it because they are in really difficult financial situations and have limited other options.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that we can't sell people, but surrogacy is merely selling a womb for a period of time, not a life. I see it as terribly obvious that it's in the realm of personal decision making. It's obvious enough that I honestly wouldn't care what "laws" said about it if it interested me (on either end).

 

Many people out there feel they get to make laws to govern what other people can or can't do. I don't buy into it with the exception of hurting someone else (theft, attacks, & similar). Even if someone wants to take their own risks or their own life - by all means - feel free... just don't take anyone else's. eg Don't text and drive because the person you kill may not be yourself.

 

One of the things that bugs me the most is other people deciding what I can or can't do... when my choice doesn't affect them (or anyone else) at all. IMO they have no right to do so.

What about legislation that doesn't prevent it but makes sure the process is as fair and ethical as possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about legislation that doesn't prevent it but makes sure the process is as fair and ethical as possible?

 

Certainly no issues with that.

 

In the case posted, I don't think anyone has protected the young gal at all by letting her go to a dad who's a registered sex offender... and one person's rights END when another is seriously affected.  Growing up with a dad like that could cause so many problems to her...

 

I'm not even pro abortion (in most circumstances) due to considering the unborn child alive and worth protecting.  I know many disagree with me, but that's a whole different issue that doesn't need to be rehashed.  We all know the views.

 

Surrogacy in general isn't child trafficking or selling humans, therefore, I'm surprised to see disagreement.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not bluegoat so I obviously don't know exactly what was intended. However I believe these people clearly viewed the child as a product. When the product was flawed they didn't want it. However they were more than happy to accept the baby sister of the boy. They still received what they paid for.

 

Again, I can't see inside the Australian parents' hearts, but the choice to abort a DS baby (which I disagree with) is something people do all the time.  Actually I think over 90% of DS fetuses in the USA are aborted.  And I remember a controversy in the UK IIRC where there was some legal or ethical battle over whether parents could choose to abort one twin for being DS while keeping the other.  The vast majority of cases involving aborting a DS baby have nothing to do with surrogacy.  And I haven't heard anyone accusing those other parents of treating their kids like "products."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I can't see inside the Australian parents' hearts, but the choice to abort a DS baby (which I disagree with) is something people do all the time. Actually I think over 90% of DS fetuses in the USA are aborted. And I remember a controversy in the UK IIRC where there was some legal or ethical battle over whether parents could choose to abort one twin for being DS while keeping the other. The vast majority of cases involving aborting a DS baby have nothing to do with surrogacy. And I haven't heard anyone accusing those other parents of treating their kids like "products."

You possibly are not listening very well bc I have heard that many times over the years and not just in catholic circles.

 

The first I heard of it was before I ever became Catholic so... 20+ years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I really hate situations like this where women are doing it because they are in really difficult financial situations and have limited other options.

 

I don't like that families in some countries are in such difficult financial situations.  However, making it illegal for them to earn some money is not fixing that problem.  Often when people from "rich countries" interfere in the "exploitation" of poor people, we force them to choose between even worse options.

 

Informed free choice is necessary, yes.  Poor people are not stupid, they can weigh options when given a free choice.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know any parent who views his/her child as a product?  I am in a community with thousands of parents whose kids came from other wombs, and not a one of them views the child as a "product."  Sounds like theoretical musing to me, but it is hurtful to those who are raising children they didn't grow in their womb.

 

Sounds like the parents in the article view the child that way.  He was "defective", so they decided not to take him. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know anyone who would use the word "product", but I know MANY people who consider their children to be their possessions. They consider their kids to be "theirs" and do not care how much damage they do to their children asserting their "parental rights".

 

It is conflating two different issues when you confuse viewing children as a possession with the assertion of parental rights.  Those are not the same things.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like that families in some countries are in such difficult financial situations. However, making it illegal for them to earn some money is not fixing that problem. Often when people from "rich countries" interfere in the "exploitation" of poor people, we force them to choose between even worse options.

 

Informed free choice is necessary, yes. Poor people are not stupid, they can weigh options when given a free choice.

No one is doing those women favors by condoning what amounts to leasing their bodies under the guise that it's providing better employment than other jobs they might resort to.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I can't see inside the Australian parents' hearts, but the choice to abort a DS baby (which I disagree with) is something people do all the time.  Actually I think over 90% of DS fetuses in the USA are aborted.  And I remember a controversy in the UK IIRC where there was some legal or ethical battle over whether parents could choose to abort one twin for being DS while keeping the other.  The vast majority of cases involving aborting a DS baby have nothing to do with surrogacy.  And I haven't heard anyone accusing those other parents of treating their kids like "products."

 

Really?  If you haven't heard it, then you haven't been listening to prolife people very much.  Of course it's treating them like product to kill them for being defective.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...