Jump to content

Menu

"Surrogacy Storm in Thailand"


JumpyTheFrog
 Share

Recommended Posts

Omg.

 

Cannot believe this is the pro argument. Do you read what you write?

 

I don't know about anyone else here, but if I know a woman is having to sell her body/parts in order to feed her family?

 

I do NOT perpetuate her situation and the situation of millions of women like her by acting like I am doing them some favor by financially contributing to the scum that make money off their misfortune so that I can get an incubator out of the deal for cheap.

 

If I genuinely care about those women or the mouths they are feeding, I use that money to give them food, education, community support services... I can think of just about ANYTHING that most certainly does exist and is trying to help every day in those areas that would actually be better for them in the here and now and long term, than buying their incubation services knowing it is a racket that exploits to a degree that makes it little different than human trafficking.

 

Good grief. You see someone desperate to feed their children and you think this is awful - you don't offer to use and risk their body on the cheap to your own advantage. You frikkin feed them. Anyone who does otherwise and thinks they are some kind of philanthropist for it is full of donkey doo about themselves.

 

Just.

 

Wth.

 

Smh

 

Yes, but you are not talking about getting rid of "bad" stuff whatever that is. It is very subjective whatever the case. You are talking about taking away an opportunity perhaps an only opportunity to feed ones children or get basic necessities. It is more akin to taking the food out of the mouths of those in poverty, which in my opinion, is downright evil. You give in place of that a vision of something that doesn't exist. Provide that something else and they will flee the lesser paying jobs. Don't take away the only job they have.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No kidding.

 

When someone of the same ethnicity, income, and zipcode is being the surrogate, I *might* see it as altruistic, though I'd likely still have qualms about surrogacy for the same reasons as I do with IVF.

 

But how often the surrogate is none of those things seems to negate claims of altruism and rather leaves little doubt of the abundant exploitation that occurs.

I'm not trying to be difficult, Martha, but I'm not sure I am understanding your posts correctly.

 

Are you saying that your oppose IVF, adoption, and surrogacy? If so, how would people who are unable to have their own babies ever get the opportunity to become parents?

 

I'm sure I'm missing something here, so please forgive me if I have completely misinterpreted your posts. It's getting late and I should probably be off the computer by now! :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Omg.

 

Cannot believe this is the pro argument. Do you read what you write?

 

I don't know about anyone else here, but if I know a woman is having to sell her body/parts in order to feed her family?

 

I do NOT perpetuate her situation and the situation of millions of women like her by acting like I am doing them some favor by financially contributing to the scum that make money off their misfortune so that I can get an incubator out of the deal for cheap.

 

If I genuinely care about those women or the mouths they are feeding, I use that money to give them food, education, community support services... I can think of just about ANYTHING that most certainly does exist and is trying to help every day in those areas that would actually be better for them in the here and now and long term, than buying their incubation services knowing it is a racket that exploits to a degree that makes it little different than human trafficking.

 

Good grief. You see someone desperate to feed their children and you think this is awful - you don't offer to use and risk their body on the cheap to your own advantage. You frikkin feed them. Anyone who does otherwise and thinks they are some kind of philanthropist for it is full of donkey doo about themselves.

 

Just.

 

Wth.

 

Smh

 

So how many have you fed this year? How many?!!

 

How many of the millions have you helped? I want to help as many as I can but I know I can't help them all and I won't tie their hands. You on the other hand don't seem to care as long as you can feel righteous but you certainly have not helped them all. You have left out feeding millions and millions and focus your energy on  making things more difficult for them. You have not helped millions so really you are a hypocrite. Until you feed them ALL let them at least make their own choices.  

 

Perhaps I would never personally ask someone to carry a baby for me. I have thought for years about taking in foster kids and have taken in kids before, not always the "perfect kid" by adoption standards but a frustrated learning disabled kid on pot.  He was whom he was supposed to be but I put in the perfect because so many differentiate between what I was doing and what some have mentioned of "shopping for the perfect kid".  So perhaps I give money to help and perhaps I foster and or adopt a bunch of kids that are stuck in the foster system and perhaps I go on mission trips or set up free legal advice for these women. I will still be millions and millions short and I actually care and sorrow that they are stuck but I am not so high minded as to think I can make decisions for people who are in tough situations or infertile or whatever. 

 

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

I wouldn't hire a prostitute, even if I thought that her selling her body was the only way for her to eat. I also wouldn't pimp her out to my friends, even if that meant she'd get money to eat. Because I think a woman having to sell her body for food/money is morally wrong. ESPECIALLY when it is her only option. If she had plenty of money/food/options and still made that choice, then it is a true choice. But to take advantage of her poverty and desperation for your own gain is wrong, morally, in my mind. 

 

Taking advantage of a woman's desperation via surrogacy is also wrong. I can understand the difference between what my friend did, where she earned some money to prepay her child's college by being a surrogate, knowing she has plenty of money to live on, and truly loves being pregnant and was very very interested in doing this for her own reasons. Fine. I don't know that I'm 100 percent okay with it, but I am not opposed. But to take advantage of desperate women in foreign countries, paying them a fraction of what it costs here, to carry your baby while they live in a 2 room shack (according to the article) and you keep decorating your fancy nursery? No. If a woman's only option is to go through pregnancy to make money, using her body that way, that's morally wrong, and perhaps mostly because it is her onlyoption. There is no true informed consent when one party has no other viable options.

 

So no, I don't think poverty or desperation is a moral get out of purgatory free card. If anything, things that might be morally okay otherwise become wrong when people are taken advantage of that way. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to be difficult, Martha, but I'm not sure I am understanding your posts correctly.

 

Are you saying that your oppose IVF, adoption, and surrogacy? If so, how would people who are unable to have their own babies ever get the opportunity to become parents?

 

I'm sure I'm missing something here, so please forgive me if I have completely misinterpreted your posts. It's getting late and I should probably be off the computer by now! :)

 

I'm obviously not Martha, but I personally oppose IVF for the reasons given in the first half of this article. I'm not Catholic and am not in total agreement with the second half of the article. Because I oppose IVF, I'm also not in favor of surrogacy. I was infertile myself for many years and chose not to use IVF due to my convictions.

 

I'm not looking for an argument, but thought the article might be helpful in answering your question.  :001_smile:

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

Except that various stories from these women that pop up from time to time show it can be bad stuff. That it often doesn't work out how they expect.

 

Right.  Natural birth also often doesn't work out how people expect.  Life often doesn't work out how we expect.

 

Remember, only the worst stories hit the news.  Making policy based on only the worst stories leads to bad policy.

 

I absolutely agree there should be laws protecting the rights of anyone in a position of inferior power, including economic power.  That is a lot different from saying poor people should not be allowed to make an informed decision to temporarily use their physical abilities to make some money.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't hire a prostitute, even if I thought that her selling her body was the only way for her to eat. I also wouldn't pimp her out to my friends, even if that meant she'd get money to eat. Because I think a woman having to sell her body for food/money is morally wrong. ESPECIALLY when it is her only option. If she had plenty of money/food/options and still made that choice, then it is a true choice. But to take advantage of her poverty and desperation for your own gain is wrong, morally, in my mind. 

 

Taking advantage of a woman's desperation via surrogacy is also wrong. I can understand the difference between what my friend did, where she earned some money to prepay her child's college by being a surrogate, knowing she has plenty of money to live on, and truly loves being pregnant and was very very interested in doing this for her own reasons. Fine. I don't know that I'm 100 percent okay with it, but I am not opposed. But to take advantage of desperate women in foreign countries, paying them a fraction of what it costs here, to carry your baby while they live in a 2 room shack (according to the article) and you keep decorating your fancy nursery? No. If a woman's only option is to go through pregnancy to make money, using her body that way, that's morally wrong, and perhaps mostly because it is her onlyoption. There is no true informed consent when one party has no other viable options.

 

So no, I don't think poverty or desperation is a moral get out of purgatory free card. If anything, things that might be morally okay otherwise become wrong when people are taken advantage of that way. 

 

I wouldn't use a prostitute or pimp one out either, because in my belief system, having such casual sex is wrong in the first place.  Incubating a baby in a womb is not wrong in the first place.

 

As for the other arguments, I think we in the USA are handicapped in our ability to see things from the perspective of a person who actually lives in a 2-room (or less) shack.  Which, by the way, is probably most of the world.  It really is wrong for us to decide what is morally right for people who are in such a completely different situation.

 

It's nice to say we should feed them instead.  To me that is not only impractical, but also dehumanizing.  Would you feel great if someone came up to you and said:  you are so worthless that nothing you can do in this life is good enough to justify feeding you, so your only option is our charity?  You are so stupid that you can't make a choice to render a service, so your only option is our charity?  Your poverty makes you so jaded that you can't possibly be OK with pregnancy or like the idea of helping others?

 

Has anyone polled the women who have done this service to see if it was an informed (vs. desperate) choice, and if, on balance in the long run, it improved their lives or made it worse?  I'm not talking about googling sensational news stories, I'm talking about taking into account all the cases that are not reported because there is nothing that remarkable about them.  If this has been done and there is data, let the local countries deal with it and make reasonable rules.

 

And of course, if you personally don't feel comfortable with it, don't do it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm obviously not Martha, but I personally oppose IVF for the reasons given in the first half of this article. I'm not Catholic and am not in total agreement with the second half of the article. Because I oppose IVF, I'm also not in favor of surrogacy. I was infertile myself for many years and chose not to use IVF due to my convictions.

 

I'm not looking for an argument, but thought the article might be helpful in answering your question. :001_smile:

Thanks, Mercy! :)

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Martha is opposed to IVF and surrogacy for religious reasons, but it seems like also being anti-adoption is pretty cruel, both to the people who want to be parents and to the children who desperately need loving homes. It seems to leave them with no options at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Mercy! :)

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Martha is opposed to IVF and surrogacy for religious reasons, but it seems like also being anti-adoption is pretty cruel, both to the people who want to be parents and to the children who desperately need loving homes. It seems to leave them with no options at all.

 

I'm not Martha either, and I'm not 100% anti-adoption, but I think that in the US teen girls get pregnant way too often and are then pressured to "give the baby up for adoption so the baby can have a good family". And not just teen girls from poor families either, but also from middle class or higher families who don't want the teens life to be 'ruined'. I just can't get behind all that. I get that sometimes adoption is the best possible thing for the baby and keeping the kid with the parents is not a realistic option, but the way especially babies are given up for adoption in the US really bothers me and I wouldn't ever adopt a baby for that reason. It seems like more should be done to help a) prevent unwanted pregnancies and b) help the moms who are giving the baby up for economic reasons or because they're being brainwashed that keeping it will ruin their lives and it'd be selfish and the baby would be better off being given up for adoption. There are plenty of older kids in foster care who can't find a nice adoptive family.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nice to say we should feed them instead. To me that is not only impractical, but also dehumanizing. Would you feel great if someone came up to you and said: you are so worthless that nothing you can do in this life is good enough to justify feeding you, so your only option is our charity? You are so stupid that you can't make a choice to render a service, so your only option is our charity? Your poverty makes you so jaded that you can't possibly be OK with pregnancy or like the idea of helping others?

Wow.

 

That's some seriously screwed up convoluted BS.

 

Feeding the hungry is not dehumanizing. Unless you do it with your attitude. It is not saying anything at all about them beyond they are hungry and, if we have the money or the food to spare, then we as fellow humans have an obligation to do so. And given the thousands being spent using their bodies it's hard to argue we can't feed them for a lot cheaper.

 

It does not at all negate their value as people, their intelligence, or their potential in life. Rather it allows them the nourishment necessary to become better educated and better able to contribute to society in healthy humane manners that respects all life and bodily integrity, including their own.

 

I can think of nothing more fundamentally practical and humane than the simple act of feeding the hungry.

 

I don't think it's possible to have a discussion of ethics with someone who doesn't seem capable of grasping that simple fact.

 

And has some misbegotten notion that it is somehow benevolent to make people choose between feeding their family or letting their body be used for some rich person's benefit.

 

And who also seems to think that if we can't help every one of the millions in need we should basicly say to hell with ethics wrt to people in poverty and not make whatever effort we can to stop injustice and if we don't, then we are hypocrites for bothering to care.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think hiring poor woman as surrogates for middle/upper class couples, how do you feel about the sale of kidneys? Google 'Bangladesh kidney trade'. I'm struggling to see a difference. If people are so poor that they are selling their body parts, how can anyone say they are making a free choice??

 

Martha, could you please expound on your adoption comments? I'm confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think adoption should be a different topic. Truely not trying to be difficult.

 

I'm not anti-adoption.

 

Adoption does have a lot of ethical questions about it that people were not exploring even 15 years ago and that adoptees are now becoming more and more vocal about. Eventually, I think adoption will and should be rare.

 

Not because I want to deny someone an opportunity to be a parent, it is not about parenting.

 

It is about learning what we once thought was always "better" has a very dark side and often lifelong negatives for the children.

 

If you do a google search for adoptees speaking out against adoption or for major overhaul of when adoption should be permitted, you will see some of the issues.

 

And no, it is not about adoptees who were abused or unloved by their adoptive parents. It is not about the parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Mercy! :)

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Martha is opposed to IVF and surrogacy for religious reasons, but it seems like also being anti-adoption is pretty cruel, both to the people who want to be parents and to the children who desperately need loving homes. It seems to leave them with no options at all.

 

You're welcome! :) I had missed Martha's comments about adoption and am not anti-adoption myself, but I do share luuknam's concerns:

 

I think that in the US teen girls get pregnant way too often and are then pressured to "give the baby up for adoption so the baby can have a good family". And not just teen girls from poor families either, but also from middle class or higher families who don't want the teens life to be 'ruined'. I just can't get behind all that.

 

I have seen at least one young mother judged harshly for deciding to keep her baby after she had previously planned to place him with an adoptive family. That made me angry. She was the baby's mother--who could blame her? Often the assumption is that the baby would be better off with a stable family than with a teen mother, but I don't think that is always the case. (And I don't believe it's always best for the birth mother, either.) I wish that girls weren't pressured towards that decision.

 

I can't imagine anyone opposing the adoption of children who are utterly without parents or family, however. It is very Biblical to care for them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone polled the women who have done this service to see if it was an informed (vs. desperate) choice, and if, on balance in the long run, it improved their lives or made it worse?  I'm not talking about googling sensational news stories, I'm talking about taking into account all the cases that are not reported because there is nothing that remarkable about them.  If this has been done and there is data, let the local countries deal with it and make reasonable rules.

 

And of course, if you personally don't feel comfortable with it, don't do it.

Of course it's a desperate choice. It may be informed, but that doesn't mean it's not done out of desperation. A woman willing to go live in another country and be away from her own biological children for months to make $3000 is desperate.

Edited by staceyobu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.

 

That's some seriously screwed up convoluted BS.

 

Feeding the hungry is not dehumanizing. Unless you do it with your attitude. It is not saying anything at all about them beyond they are hungry and, if we have the money or the food to spare, then we as fellow humans have an obligation to do so. And given the thousands being spent using their bodies it's hard to argue we can't feed them for a lot cheaper.

 

It does not at all negate their value as people, their intelligence, or their potential in life. Rather it allows them the nourishment necessary to become better educated and better able to contribute to society in healthy humane manners that respects all life and bodily integrity, including their own.

 

I can think of nothing more fundamentally practical and humane than the simple act of feeding the hungry.

 

I don't think it's possible to have a discussion of ethics with someone who doesn't seem capable of grasping that simple fact.

 

And has some misbegotten notion that it is somehow benevolent to make people choose between feeding their family or letting their body be used for some rich person's benefit.

 

And who also seems to think that if we can't help every one of the millions in need we should basicly say to hell with ethics wrt to people in poverty and not make whatever effort we can to stop injustice and if we don't, then we are hypocrites for bothering to care.

 

I never said to hell with ethics.  I disagree that a contract involving a relatively poorer party can't possibly be ethical, which is what you are implying.

 

As for how these people's money should be better used feeding the poor, people could say the same about people who have large families - the cost of birthing and raising those kids could have been spent on feeding poor people.  Please get off your high horse.

 

And you assume you are talking about "rich" people who use surrogates, but they may not be rich by  developed-world standards.  And also, the surrogates on the other side might not be poor by their local standards.  In fact, it would be a bad idea to ask a malnourished or otherwise unhealthy person, or one without a decent place to live, to be a surrogate.  Just because a person lives in a place where $X,000 is a lot of money does not mean that person is too desperate to make an informed decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People driving in the U.S.  are killed and paralyzed and lose entire families from driving cars but we recognize the benefits also. I'm afraid we only hear the bad because that seems to be what draws readers attention. Because we don't realize the benefits we are blind to them. 

 

  I'm all for setting up organizations that would help these women make decisions and help with legal issues that they can choose to use but to jump to the "something must be done" attitude without knowing the extent of who has benefited is presumptuous.  I doubt that anyone here knows the extent of the benefits or harms that come from these circumstances. A local group who is more involved might have possible helps for their neighborhood but cultural traditions, laws, and other things will be different for different locals so even then I think the regulation and such should be limited to areas where the knowledge of  the area is in depth.  

 

It was mentioned by a previous poster that this goes along with child labor, etc but there is not always a means to providing school all day and if a family is malnourished and really needs extra funds who am I to command that they don't do what is in their best interest?  Do children get hurt? Is it sad? Do I wish they could have a childhood more like my childrens'? Of course, yes to all these but I won't have the audacity to tell others what they must give up to avoid any risk of any bad thing happening when I'm not in their shoes. 

 What a Victorian attitude.

 

 I suppose you are only too glad to buy cheaper things made by child labour

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's a desperate choice. It may be informed, but that doesn't mean it's not done out of desperation. A woman willing to go live in another country and be away from her own biological children for months to make $3000 is desperate.

 

I guess it should be illegal for mothers to join the US military then.

 

(I don't know that the surrogates go to other countries to give birth, though.  That is not what I have heard, but maybe it's true in some cases.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a Victorian attitude.

 

I suppose you are only too glad to buy cheaper things made by child labour

Indeed.

 

Are there not prisons and poorhouses? And if we remove those choices, well at least they won't add to the surplus bc of course we will let them starve entirely.

 

It's like a modern day Dicken's Christmas Carol without the happy ending and with someone proclaiming Scrooge is righteous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not Martha either, and I'm not 100% anti-adoption, but I think that in the US teen girls get pregnant way too often and are then pressured to "give the baby up for adoption so the baby can have a good family". And not just teen girls from poor families either, but also from middle class or higher families who don't want the teens life to be 'ruined'. I just can't get behind all that. I get that sometimes adoption is the best possible thing for the baby and keeping the kid with the parents is not a realistic option, but the way especially babies are given up for adoption in the US really bothers me and I wouldn't ever adopt a baby for that reason. It seems like more should be done to help a) prevent unwanted pregnancies and b) help the moms who are giving the baby up for economic reasons or because they're being brainwashed that keeping it will ruin their lives and it'd be selfish and the baby would be better off being given up for adoption. There are plenty of older kids in foster care who can't find a nice adoptive family.

While I am all for providing much better sex education and easily available birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies, I actually think adoption is underutilized in the U.S. I think of paramount concern should be what's best for the child. Economics aside, some women who experience an unplanned pregnancy are simply not ready to parent, and it is the children who suffer life long consequences. I've done lots of volunteer work with young children and it breaks my heart to daily to see the conditions in which some of them live. Again, I'm not primarily talking poverty here, but severe mental and emotional health issues, dysfunctionality, addiction, extreme immaturity, etc. WhiIe I know there can be other issues for adopted children, I believe placing a child for adoption is almost always an amazing act of love and the best chance some children have for a strong start in life.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said to hell with ethics. I disagree that a contract involving a relatively poorer party can't possibly be ethical, which is what you are implying.

 

As for how these people's money should be better used feeding the poor, people could say the same about people who have large families - the cost of birthing and raising those kids could have been spent on feeding poor people. Please get off your high horse.

 

And you assume you are talking about "rich" people who use surrogates, but they may not be rich by developed-world standards. And also, the surrogates on the other side might not be poor by their local standards. In fact, it would be a bad idea to ask a malnourished or otherwise unhealthy person, or one without a decent place to live, to be a surrogate. Just because a person lives in a place where $X,000 is a lot of money does not mean that person is too desperate to make an informed decision.

There is an India today article about it that describes how the surrogate agencies operate.

They pick working class areas that are particularly short on cash and start a campaign of handing out leaflets and sticking up posters. Of the women who apply about 50pc are deemed healthy enough to be mothers.

 

So yes they specifically target areas where people are desperate. The women involved were doing it for various reasons - one to pay her fil cancer treatment, others to pay the very hefty dowries the girls need to marry. So yes it is helping them out in a way. However one of the women says how she didn't want to do it and cried and cried for a week after the baby was taken away. However she is doing it a second time to provide a dowry for her daughters. She herself was married to an old uncle who is incapable of working. She says "I don't want to do this but I have not other option. Show me my other option and I won't do it".

 

The pay rate for them works out to be around $6000aus. The agencies, medical centres and hotels involved make far more. Sometimes the women are only given medical treatment until the birth of the child by c section and are then sent home without a baby and with no medical treatment for the caesarean. 75pc of women doing it are unable to read the contracts and many sign with a fingerprint.

 

On the flip side sometimes the intended parents pay out money which just disappears. I don't have a reliable source for this but there are claims that surrogates will be given three embryos and If they all survive the intended parents are not told that they have three babies, they are given to other desperate would be parents for extra money. Sometimes the intended parents are told that they actually have two babies and if they want both they really need to pay double the fees so they now have to either abandon one of their children or find double the money.

 

India is working on laws to regulate this industry. They are trying to protect both the potential surrogates and the potential parents from these issues, while enabling a very lucrative industry to continue. Hopefully they succeed.

 

Links

http://m.indiatoday.in/story/surrogatsurrogate-mothers-ivf-centres-pregnant-women-delhi-ncre-mothers-ivf-centres-pregnant-women-delhi-ncr/1/448779.html

http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/2015-12-06/Unheard-story-of-surrogate-mothers-191222

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting Ausmomof3. I do hope that there are more opportunities to these women so they have a better option but I wonder what she would say to someone telling her she isn't allowed to do it and to move on with her life. I wonder if she would think that left her better off. 

 

Sometimes I feel like true justice would have all the  self-righteous rich people shouting "Let them eat cake" from their ivory towers be reincarnated into these situations and conservatives could be reincarnated as poor Mexicans or now I would say Syrians or Iraqis. That would seem just to me, but  I don't believe in reincarnation and the belief in reincarnation leads to treating people badly based on caste but it does seem so unfair that it is often other people who pay for our beliefs or imaginary utopias. :(

 

Making it legal and helping it encourages it  and making it illegal and restricting it may cause those who would choose to do it less well off, perhaps even losing a loved one that needed medical treatment. :(

Edited by frogger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed.

 

Are there not prisons and poorhouses? And if we remove those choices, well at least they won't add to the surplus bc of course we will let them starve entirely.

 

It's like a modern day Dicken's Christmas Carol without the happy ending and with someone proclaiming Scrooge is righteous.

 

Yes, because I did not state that I do give to charity and support aid in various places around the world, that I have taken in children, that I wish they had better opportunities, that I have had a homeless man stay in my own home twice, that my husband and I have picked up drunks on the highway to keep them from getting run over, that I have babysit for free a teen's child so she could go to school, that I have volunteered at a crises pregnancy center, and stood out in the rain feeding homeless with food I bought myself, worked with Special O, and long to go back to foster and or adopt children because some children (older and special needs children). To give as much as you can and recognize reality and not want to HURT others is just so Scrooge like.

 

You see, instead of dealing with facts and the situations these people are in and how you want to make that better you just go around hating everyone who explains reality to you. I'm sorry the world is messy and difficult but at some time you should grow up and face that and look long hard if you are actually helping or hindering.

Edited by frogger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think adoption should be a different topic. Truely not trying to be difficult.

 

I'm not anti-adoption.

 

Adoption does have a lot of ethical questions about it that people were not exploring even 15 years ago and that adoptees are now becoming more and more vocal about. Eventually, I think adoption will and should be rare.

 

Not because I want to deny someone an opportunity to be a parent, it is not about parenting.

 

It is about learning what we once thought was always "better" has a very dark side and often lifelong negatives for the children.

 

If you do a google search for adoptees speaking out against adoption or for major overhaul of when adoption should be permitted, you will see some of the issues.

 

And no, it is not about adoptees who were abused or unloved by their adoptive parents. It is not about the parents.

I certainly hope adoption never becomes rare, unless of course we no longer have unplanned pregnancies. But given the views in this country on comprehensive sex education and birth control, I don't see that happening anytime soon. While I am not at all discounting the negative effects of adoption on some adoptees, in many cases I think staying with the birth parent is much more detrimental. For some children, adoption is their best and perhaps only chance at a decent life. And as in my post above, I'm not talking a life without poverty. The more we find out about how formative the first few years of a child's life are for their future, the less we can wait for birth parents to get it together and be the parents the child needs. In general, I believe placing a child for adoption is a very selfless and loving act.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have seen at least one young mother judged harshly for deciding to keep her baby after she had previously planned to place him with an adoptive family. That made me angry. She was the baby's mother--who could blame her? Often the assumption is that the baby would be better off with a stable family than with a teen mother, but I don't think that is always the case. (And I don't believe it's always best for the birth mother, either.) I wish that girls weren't pressured towards that decision.

 

 

That would make me angry too. I did not know this was a thing. Most teenage mothers I know or have helped, kept their children. Not that I would have a problem if she really really wanted them adopted out but judgement for it would really irritate me.

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

There is an India today article about it that describes how the surrogate agencies operate.

They pick working class areas that are particularly short on cash and start a campaign of handing out leaflets and sticking up posters. Of the women who apply about 50pc are deemed healthy enough to be mothers.

 

So yes they specifically target areas where people are desperate. The women involved were doing it for various reasons - one to pay her fil cancer treatment, others to pay the very hefty dowries the girls need to marry. So yes it is helping them out in a way. However one of the women says how she didn't want to do it and cried and cried for a week after the baby was taken away. However she is doing it a second time to provide a dowry for her daughters. She herself was married to an old uncle who is incapable of working. She says "I don't want to do this but I have not other option. Show me my other option and I won't do it".

 

The pay rate for them works out to be around $6000aus. The agencies, medical centres and hotels involved make far more. Sometimes the women are only given medical treatment until the birth of the child by c section and are then sent home without a baby and with no medical treatment for the caesarean. 75pc of women doing it are unable to read the contracts and many sign with a fingerprint.

 

On the flip side sometimes the intended parents pay out money which just disappears. I don't have a reliable source for this but there are claims that surrogates will be given three embryos and If they all survive the intended parents are not told that they have three babies, they are given to other desperate would be parents for extra money. Sometimes the intended parents are told that they actually have two babies and if they want both they really need to pay double the fees so they now have to either abandon one of their children or find double the money.

 

India is working on laws to regulate this industry. They are trying to protect both the potential surrogates and the potential parents from these issues, while enabling a very lucrative industry to continue. Hopefully they succeed.

 

Links

http://m.indiatoday.in/story/surrogatsurrogate-mothers-ivf-centres-pregnant-women-delhi-ncre-mothers-ivf-centres-pregnant-women-delhi-ncr/1/448779.html

http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/2015-12-06/Unheard-story-of-surrogate-mothers-191222

 

Good that India is studying and addressing the situation for Indian women.

 

You say your source talks about one woman who regretted having to give the baby up.  (It's hard to give up a baby you have cared for, as all foster parents will agree.)  But one sad case doesn't prove the option shouldn't be available or even necessarily that it is corrupt.  (It may very well be corrupt - lots of things are - but that conclusion needs to be based on a lot more substance than one woman's regret.)  Journalists will pick out the ultimate sad story whether it is representative or not.

 

I would like to add that in some cultures - including some in India - it is pretty normal for a woman to not raise the child she has borne.  Often the baby is raised by a family member far away while the parents go where the jobs are.  Since this is fairly normal in their culture, it may be easier for them to accept the idea of being a surrogate.

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.

 

From what I know about surrogacy in India...this doesn't sound at all likely.  Women who are surrogates are doing it because they need the MONEY not because they want a baby.  I do believe that they may be required to stay in a location to ensure proper pre-natal care, doctors appointments, etc.  I guess women who agree to become surrogates are doing it because they are desparate for the money and they are willing to live like that for a few months.  I'm not saying it is right or wrong - just that I understand both sides of it.

  • 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

×
×
  • Create New...