The Surrogate Mother

Natty Bumppo

In my philosophy class we have been talking about such cases like this one:

" A married woman signed a contract agreeing to serve as the surrogate mother for a childless couple. The contract specified that (1)the child was to be concieved through the union between the man's own sperm and the surrogate's own egg, (2) the surrogate was to recieve $10,000 plus expenses for her service, and (3) upon birth the infant was to be turned over to the childless couple to be raised as their very own child. three days after the birth of the infant, the surrogate mother wanted to keep and raise the infant as her own. The case went to court."

Q: If you were the judge, to whom would you award custody of the infant? Why?

That's it basically. What would you do (if you were the judge), and why?

(Note: The passage above was taken from Son. M. Le's "Elements of Critical Thinking and Writing")

Zephos

Did she sign the contract?
Yes, of course she has to give the baby to the couple.

The Iceman

This post is deleted!

Generic_Soda

The original couple. The surrogate mother made a contract with them and went and breached the deal they had agreed upon. She is the one, in my eyes, who is lesser in terms of morals by wanting to breach the contract.

By the way, was this a real case? If so, who got custody of the child?

amai-mikan

I'd give the child to the couple since they DID sign a contract stating that the child was to be theirs, but I'd also permit the surrogate mother supervised visiting rights. It's obvious that the surrogate mother grew attached while she was pregnant, and if you put yourself in her position it's pretty difficult to imagine seeing the child that you carried for 9 months go to someone else. However, it wouldn't be fair to give her lenient visiting rights since she really shouldn't have agreed to doing this if she knew she'd have the slightest chance of wanting to keep the child afterwards. You can also understand that the female of that couple would probably feel threatened or inferior by the presence of the biological mother since the newborn may prefer it's real mother.

So I'm more in favor towards the couple than the mother. Although they really could've just adopted. =P

Zephos

This post is deleted!

Natty Bumppo

@Zephos:

Did she sign the contract?
Yes, of course she has to give the baby to the couple.

Even if she did sign the contract, the law always gives levrige to the biological mother. On the other hand, the law also respects the aspect of contracts, which is why this is such a difficult case.

@Generic_Soda:

The original couple. The surrogate mother made a contract with them and went and breached the deal they had agreed upon. She is the one, in my eyes, who is lesser in terms of morals by wanting to breach the contract.

By the way, was this a real case? If so, who got custody of the child?

I dont know if this is a real case or not, but if it is, it must've been hard on everyone.

Zephos

Even if she did sign the contract, the law always gives levrige to the biological mother. On the other hand, the law also respects the aspect of contracts, which is why this is such a difficult case.

This is a philosophical question aint it?
Or were we supposed to take into account what traditional law tends to do?
Because well, I'm not traditional law.. And I certainly don't beleive
Biological Mother > All

Natty Bumppo

@Zephos:

This is a philosophical question aint it?
Or were we supposed to take into account what traditional law tends to do?
Because well, I'm not traditional law.. And I certainly don't beleive
Biological Mother > All

It is a philosophical question, but I was just pointing out what the law goes by sometimes. Just to put more opinions, and views on the table.

Kakaliaha

The couple because one of the reasons they sought out a surrogate mother was probably because doctors deemed it unhealthy for the woman of the couple to become pregnant, and if the surrogate mother wants a kid she can just go get knocked up on her own time not 10,000 plus expenses.

Greg

To Kaka's excellent reply I would add, while the married couple has not only the contract, BUT also the genetic line of the father in the child, it should go to them. The contract is an excellent piece of support, as is the fact that she's the genetic mother, but the scale is tipped when you consider who gave the baby the other half of its genes.

Of course the goal of the genetic mother would be to argue the details of the contract and the circumstances under which is was constructed/signed. If she wins that, well then, tough luck to the couple.

The law supports the biological mother.
'Philosophically,' the ideal behind the construct of surrogate motherhood should rightfully give the couple the child.

In my opinion, it would be best if we reconsidered what we historically have (narrowly) defined as a "family," and create a role for the surrogate mother to have an active part as second mother to the child. Once the child reaches an age able to decide for him/herself, she/he would choose which family to stay with (or to remain with both).

However I doubt this would satisfy either parent as it is for the greater good of the child, and since humans are selfish creatures, they would not seek out what is best for the child, but what is best for themselves.

All parents say the only real thing children need is love. But just as most murders are commited by loved ones/family members, a parents love is not necessarily in the childs best interest. In large, mothers tend to try to keep their children close as long as possible, despite the fact that this may psychologically hurt the child, (as the surrogate mother is doing in this instance). She could simply remain a family friend, and even be called "auntie," but instead is creating emotional drama that will ensue for the majority of the child's adolescence**.**

Tsuchirinhon

This post is deleted!

bedrock

Wow, I´m struck that no one mentioned that this is simply trading with humans, yes, even babys are humans …

That should logically mean that you can´t buy or sell them! And just for that (ethical) reason this contract is NIL according to the laws of most states.

Guys, are you really that fucked up in capitalism, that you have lost the the last clue about beeing a human?

Has anyone of the above posters a child, given birth to a child?

Kakaliaha

^I understand completely that the baby is a human, If the well being of the child was in question then the baby would automatically go to the most suitable parents. I am assuming though in this phylosophical question that parenting of both the parents and the surrogate mother are equal if thats the case, then its not the child that is being purchased but rather the service of the surrogate mother to carry the couples child for 9 months. If it was a nanny that tried to kidnap the child everyone would be appauled, but if a surrogate mother who is payed to keep the baby safe for 9 months wants to keep the child, it becomes an issue.

P.S. people pay a lot of money for adoption as well, its always considered a service, however in an adoption the party adopting doesn't have any DNA involved therefore the biological mother can decide not to give her child up once its born, but after it goes to the adopting party its very difficult for her to get the child back.

bedrock

You didn´t get a thing?

edit: … of my post, I mean?

Kakaliaha

I understand your saying that this is techincally buying a child therefore it makes it unethical, I am asking what is unethical about "buying" a human, if of course its not going to be used as slave labor. You say its screwed up capitalism but money doesn't always have to do with capitalism for the vast majority of people money isn't something to be played with and the fact that this couple spent 10,000 dollars worth of their livelyhood in order to have a child says something.

Are you arguing that we shouldn't allow surrogate mothers? Because if so that already happens. And in that case you have a biological father and a biological mother in a custody dispute. Its just in this case the father has a contract.

Taz

In times of great moral crisis it is always best to look to the bible:

The judge should order that the baby be cut in half.

Kakaliaha

As long as the couple gets the head end.

bedrock

@Taz:

In times of great moral crisis it is always best to look to the bible:

The judge should order that the baby be cut in half.

Yeah, but unfortunately this trick is going to fail if you use it again … :sad:

@Kakaliaha:

…. I am asking what is unethical about "buying" a human, if of course its not going to be used as slave labor. ....

Where do you live Kakaliaha, the slave trader republic of Goro-Bomu? Is slavery just an issue if the slaves have to work?

@Kakaliaha:

… You say its screwed up capitalism ....

No. It´s not screwed up capitalism. It´s just capitalism in it´s purest form. No rules, no restrictions besides supply and demand - you can sell anything from your virginity to your children and your organs and rights, as long as you freely sign a contract everything is okay (as long as you are not a slave already:sad:).
What I meant by screwed up was that you (the posters so far) were screwed by capitalism to an extent that you are about to ignore ethical foundations (as shown by casualy voting for the enforcent of this contract of puchase for a baby). Yeah, I may seem a bit provincial and old fashioned, but when I imagnine the coppers handcuffing the girl that didn´t want to give away the baby she just gave birth to, taking the child handing it over to the buyers … nay, I don´t like this.

@Kakaliaha:

…. money doesn't always have to do with capitalism ....

Think again, money is the very essence of capitalism ….

@Kakaliaha:

… for the vast majority of people money isn't something to be played with ....

a small minority thinks the same about the lives of human beeings …

@Kakaliaha:

… the fact that this couple spent 10,000 dollars worth of their livelyhood in order to have a child says something.
....

What does this say? Perhaps that they have a lot of money and don´t give a sh** for 10 grands? - Really, the amoount of money doesn´t tell anything …

@Kakaliaha:

…. Are you arguing that we shouldn't allow surrogate mothers? Because if so that already happens. And in that case you have a biological father and a biological mother in a custody dispute. Its just in this case the father has a contract.

It´s easy to see from the above said that I´m more than just "sceptical" about this concept and the principles behind it. Afaijust checked up surogate mothers are legal in the US, UK, belguium and greek but illegal in switzerland, austria, germany, norway, sweden, spain und france. Seems a good topic for a philosophy/ethics class. Arguing like a lawyer, reducing everything to a contract, falls short (imo).

Do you think people "own" their children in a way that they should be able to sell them? And that state laws (authorities) should protect such dealings?

Where I live, the whole surrogate theme is considered a crime by the law and you can go to jail up to three years for pulling this off … very harsh.

Kakaliaha

What about adoption is that legal?

bedrock

Yes, of course. There are numerous ways to decide about the custody of children (by parents and in special cases authorities), but there is no way that a mother could sell her rights (child), beware that such a (illegal) deal could be lawfully enforced.

Kakaliaha

I am sure there is divorce as well who keeps custody of the children? and even though Surrogate mothers are illegal in your country in the statement its obviously not (it would not have gone to court) because the law is not cut and dry. There are many cases where a man signs away his rights to children and nothing is said, the same standard should be held to women. We are all equal after all.

PS about the slave trade thing, I live in the U. S. but unfortunatly slavery is not a historical issue in the United States or around the world slavery is still occuring.

bedrock

It´s not in the United states?! I thought there was this civilwar thing some time ago?
Around the world, yes okay - the world is large, manyfold and a cruel place in general - but in the USA? :shocked:

There's nothing unethical about getting paid for being a surrogate mother. If you're willing to accept money to sell your child, you have no place parenting in the first place, therefore the child is better off with the new parents.

Think of it as weeding out the bad parents by using a very simple test to see whether the parent will place their child's happiness above their own.

Bad parents give up and kill their children every day, if there are other people out there willing and better able to raise the child, then by whatever means necessary, including capitalism, they should be able to raise the child.

Zephos

@Kakaliaha:

PS about the slave trade thing, I live in the U. S. but unfortunatly slavery is not a historical issue in the United States or around the world slavery is still occuring.

Government Sanctioned Racially Defined Economy Based First World slave trade.
Not black market slavery.

HUGE difference.

COWMAKAZE

The situation present here is not buying a child. The contract states that the child is that of the parents that seek out the surrogate mother. The money being spent here is merely a payment for services: the two that can not have a baby pay a third who can to do so for them. It sounds odd, but in truth it's quite similar to almost all other services you would pay for: I can't build a house even if I do have the equipment, so I pay a man to build my house for me, for example. That man can not turn around and say that he wants it because he built it, because it was never his house to begin with, it was always mine. He was paid not for the house, necessarily, he was paid for the work he did in each portion thereof.

Similarly, it is not the baby being purchased here, it is the service of the baby's birth. For the biological mother to suddenly decide she wants him/her is a nonsensical display of motherly hormones taking over - not to say that motherly hormones are nonsensical, but it is definitely the case here that this is what would cause the extreme desire and not an educated decision on her part. Despite having been in the biological mother's body, I would argue that he/she was never hers to begin with, just as the house was never the builder's.

Kakaliaha

@Zephos:

Government Sanctioned Racially Defined Economy Based First World slave trade.
Not black market slavery.

HUGE difference.

I never said it was government sanctioned slavery but in the US yes slavery does occur.

It´s not in the United states?! I thought there was this civilwar thing some time ago?
Around the world, yes okay - the world is large, manyfold and a cruel place in general - but in the USA? :shocked:

What do you call a prostitute to a "pimp" they're are forms of slavery going on the United States, even though its not legal it still happens.

Zephos

@Kakaliaha:

I never said it was government sanctioned slavery but in the US yes slavery does occur.

Are you really this historically clueless that you think black market slavery is the same as American pre-civil war slavery?

Kakaliaha

@Zephos:

Are you really this historically clueless that you think black market slavery is the same as American pre-civil war slavery?

I never said it was pre-civil war slavery I know there is a huge difference, I don't don't know how you came up with the assumption that I was insinuating this. There is a huge difference between an entire ethinic group being owned and all rights taken away and slavery today.

All I said is slavery still exists, on a different level mind you but it still exists, there are many people that want to ignore that.

Back to the topic at hand I completely agree Kaze

Strange_One

If a couple wanted a child desperately enough to give up that amount of money and couldn't conceive one any other way, and the surrogate mother signed a contract and agreed, well, nine months beforehand only to change her mind and break her promise… I think the baby should go to the couple. You can't sign something saying your baby-making facilities are for rent then change your mind last minute.

And as Greg said, it's half the dad's anyway.

captain usopp

This is a tricky thing, because there are a lot of things to consider. I think if I had to decide, I would let the mother keep her child, but she would have to give the money back. There is something very special between a child and it's birth mom. They have been a part of eachother for 9 months. 9 Months to bond, to think things over, to grow to love this child living inside. Signing a contract for 10 000 dollars seems like a rash decision to me.

Of coarse, the couple would be loosing out cause they did not get what they wanted. I still think it is cruel to take the child away from it's mother who's bonded with it. The parents can still adopt etc.

Saying, the mother could have visiting rights might not work either. I mean the couple wants the baby for themselves. They want a traditional family, otherwise, they would have adopted or something. And to ask a child to choose, well that's not fair either. The child can not make a proper imformed decision like this. A child can not see the big picture that will effect the rest of their lives. Plus it would just be even more messier since everyone has then bonded with everyone. The child would be pulled in too many directions. It would be traumatizing.

although, I do like the point that someone made about weeding out the bad parents, cause only bad parents would sell their child. Well technically true, (and I would love to weed out bad parents) that is not fair to judge the mom and her situation. How do we know she will be a bad parent. How do we not know this mom already has 2 kids who are starving, and maybe figures she can feed her 2 kids, and the new one will lead a happy life with the new family?

just some thoughts for the mother's side. I wonder what one of my friends would have to say about this. If it would not bother her to discuss it.

DeadJustice

@captain:

This is a tricky thing, because there are a lot of things to consider. I think if I had to decide, I would let the mother keep her child, but she would have to give the money back. There is something very special between a child and it's birth mom. They have been a part of eachother for 9 months. 9 Months to bond, to think things over, to grow to love this child living inside. Signing a contract for 10 000 dollars seems like a rash decision to me.

Of coarse, the couple would be loosing out cause they did not get what they wanted. I still think it is cruel to take the child away from it's mother who's bonded with it. The parents can still adopt etc.

Saying, the mother could have visiting rights might not work either. I mean the couple wants the baby for themselves. They want a traditional family, otherwise, they would have adopted or something. And to ask a child to choose, well that's not fair either. The child can not make a proper imformed decision like this. A child can not see the big picture that will effect the rest of their lives. Plus it would just be even more messier since everyone has then bonded with everyone. The child would be pulled in too many directions. It would be traumatizing.

although, I do like the point that someone made about weeding out the bad parents, cause only bad parents would sell their child. Well technically true, (and I would love to weed out bad parents) that is not fair to judge the mom and her situation. How do we know she will be a bad parent. How do we not know this mom already has 2 kids who are starving, and maybe figures she can feed her 2 kids, and the new one will lead a happy life with the new family?

just some thoughts for the mother's side. I wonder what one of my friends would have to say about this. If it would not bother her to discuss it.

You said the could adopt, but the child is half from the man from the couple. I noticed you didn't mention that. Just curious.

captain usopp

well like I say, there are a lot of things to consider. Maybe it sounds biast, but I still think when it comes to who the child should be with, the mom comes first. (unless she is cruel and unfit to be a mother) I'm not sure what i'd do about the dad, but ya your right, it is half his genetically. Maybe it's because the man and the mom are not together? Maybe that's why I feel the mom has more say?

I just think it';s cruel to make the mom give up the baby, even if she did sign the contract. It just seems like torture to me.

Zephos

@captain:

well like I say, there are a lot of things to consider. Maybe it sounds biast, but I still think when it comes to who the child should be with, the mom comes first. (unless she is cruel and unfit to be a mother) I'm not sure what i'd do about the dad, but ya your right, it is half his genetically. Maybe it's because the man and the mom are not together? Maybe that's why I feel the mom has more say?

I just think it';s cruel to make the mom give up the baby, even if she did sign the contract. It just seems like torture to me.

She signed a contract, she agreed to these conditions before doing this. Theres really no way around that. Tough shit for her.
And again, its the fathers as much as hers genetically.

Simply giving kids to biological moms, because thier biological moms, is just flat out illogical. What exactly is the intention in that? Whats the logic behind it?

Ramza

i say give it to the couple…just cuz she is giving the baby to them to raise, doesnt mean she can visit the baby from time to time...

captain usopp

@Zephos:

She signed a contract, she agreed to these conditions before doing this. Theres really no way around that. Tough shit for her.
And again, its the fathers as much as hers genetically.

Simply giving kids to biological moms, because thier biological moms, is just flat out illogical. What exactly is the intention in that? Whats the logic behind it?

There is something very special between a child and it's birth mom. They have been a part of eachother for 9 months. 9 Months to bond, to think things over, to grow to love this child living inside. Signing a contract for 10 000 dollars seems like a rash decision to me.

that and the fact that the baby is not a thing. Even selling a house is not that easy.

Hey! here's a question: what if the baby had some deformity or birth defect, and the couple wanted to break the contract because it wasn't their "ideal baby"

Ramza

@captain:

that and the fact that the baby is not a thing. Even selling a house is not that easy.

Hey! here's a question: what if the baby had some deformity or birth defect, and the couple wanted to break the contract because it wasn't their "ideal baby"

the couple wants the baby because half of his/hers genes are from the father…plus, im sure they check if there are problems with the mother/baby's health before forming the contract

tough luck for the couple's side if that is the case then

Zephos

There is something very special between a child and it's birth mom. They have been a part of eachother for 9 months. 9 Months to bond, to think things over, to grow to love this child living inside.

And this is what exactly?
A real thing?
Or if it is, a one sided obsession that is STILL bound by signed contract.
Instead of some nice sounding flowery "bond" or so forth I want a real reason that the biological mother should be favored.
This "bond" being certainly one sided, the baby will bond with whoever raises it, not whose abdomen it was inside.

that and the fact that the baby is not a thing.

It most certainly is not.
Yet I question why it is your focused on the genetic mother so much. Rather than the baby. She is breaching contract and will be causing rifts in this childs life if she continues to obsess after it while it grows up with its biological father and "adoptive" mother.

Hey! here's a question: what if the baby had some deformity or birth defect, and the couple wanted to break the contract because it wasn't their "ideal baby"

They didn't sign anything so I don't see how they'd be breaching anything, if they did something like this than clearly the biological mother would happily receive the baby.
I don't really see what this has to do with the discussion.

Blood relations are purely a nurture phenomenon. There are plenty of cases of adopted kids never knowing they were adopted and loving their mothers unconditionally, as well as kids that fall in love only to find out they can't marry because they share a father.

There is nothing in our nature that tells us we are related to someone simply by being near them. There are countless tribes where children share every mother in the village as a mother, and the child belongs to all, in fact its birth mother may not even be the one that breastfeeds it.

captain usopp

@Zephos:

And this is what exactly?
A real thing?
Or if it is, a one sided obsession that is STILL bound by signed contract.
Instead of some nice sounding flowery "bond" or so forth I want a real reason that the biological mother should be favored.
This "bond" being certainly one sided, the baby will bond with whoever raises it, not whose abdomen it was inside.

you may choose to not side with this reasoning, but it is still a valad reason; bonding with someone. If a child was say 5yrs and you took him away from his parents, the kid would be upset because it has bonded with the parents. Even in situations where the child HAS to be removed for it's own saftey, the child is still upset at leaving the parents he's bonded with. it's emotionally tramatic.

It most certainly is not.
Yet I question why it is your focused on the genetic mother so much. Rather than the baby. She is breaching contract and will be causing rifts in this childs life if she continues to obsess after it while it grows up with its biological father and "adoptive" mother.

it's not that I don't care about the child, but the child can be happy and grow up well, in either situation, so my focus is elsewhere. And I'm not really good at explaining my feelings. I feel for the couple too. I just think that the child is rightfully the mom's by right of birth. If she were to decide after birth to give it up, I would be fine with that.

They didn't sign anything so I don't see how they'd be breaching anything, if they did something like this than clearly the biological mother would happily receive the baby.
I don't really see what this has to do with the discussion.

whaa? I don't think you read that right. of coarse they signed something. that was the whole discussion in the first place. and it doesn't have anything to do with the original discussion. I'm just adding to it. It's just another factor.

@ Crash: I totally agree with ya man. stating my point again, if the child had lived with the couple for a significant period of time, and THEN the mom came asking for it back, I'd say Uh Uh. That would be unfair to the child. Maybe the mom could visit. maybe not. maybe the child will look for the birth mom as an adult, or maybe the child will care less?

Zephos

you may choose to not side with this reasoning, but it is still a valad reason;

What reasoning?
How does this make her the better parent? Also how does this outrank a contract she signed. A legal paper with which she had full understanding and agreed to.

If a child was say 5yrs and you took him away from his parents, the kid would be upset because it has bonded with the parents. Even in situations where the child HAS to be removed for it's own saftey, the child is still upset at leaving the parents he's bonded with. it's emotionally tramatic.

The child is 3 days old. Moot point.

it's not that I don't care about the child, but the child can be happy and grow up well, in either situation, so my focus is elsewhere. And I'm not really good at explaining my feelings. I feel for the couple too. I just think that the child is rightfully the mom's by right of birth. If she were to decide after birth to give it up, I would be fine with that.

So your completely ignoring …
A.The contract.
B.The Father being as genetically linked as the surrogate mother.

Why.

whaa? I don't think you read that right. of coarse they signed something. that was the whole discussion in the first place. and it doesn't have anything to do with the original discussion. I'm just adding to it. It's just another factor.

Its not a factor. The couple hasn't signed anything, only the surrogate mother. Read the OP again.

Kakaliaha

you may choose to not side with this reasoning, but it is still a valad reason; bonding with someone. If a child was say 5yrs and you took him away from his parents, the kid would be upset because it has bonded with the parents. Even in situations where the child HAS to be removed for it's own saftey, the child is still upset at leaving the parents he's bonded with. it's emotionally tramatic.

I was emotionally attached to my girlfriend then she broke up with me, yeah I was hurt but it wasn't tramatic… I got over it.

Cap'n Carter

If that bitch wants to bond to something she can go get knocked up herself

or a dog

one of them two

CosmicDebris

My stance is that the couple she signed the contract with should absolutely get the child. For one thing the father should have some rights too, and if you get into a contract fully intentending to give up the child for a sum of money, you had better stick with it. If you realize that the emotional attachent is too strong, don't be a surrogate mother a second time, have a child of your own preferably with a father who wants to raise him with you instead of someone else's husband…