Child of surrogacy campaigns to outlaw the practice

NY Post ^ | June 16, 2014 | Jane Ridley

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think that the moral objections against IVF and surrogacy arguably do NOT apply in the situation of prenatal adoption of an embryo stranded in cryo-suspension and in danger, otherwise, of death. This is a rescue.

Where a person is prenatally adopting an already-created, already-at-risk embryo, this is a good thing, exactly because it is responding to the needs of an already-existing child who would perish otherwise.

From that perspectoive, it is like adopting a 3-year-old --- even more exact;ly, a medically-endangered 3-year-old --- who needs special procedures in order to survive, into a family that is willing and able to supply those procedures. Say, a kid who needs kidney surgery.

So your case -- embryo adoption --- is different in a crucial aspect: it does not deliberately "create the need."

Laboratory embryo-creating and embryo-freezing itself should be banned, because (among other reasons) it results in the creation of offspring that are absolutely stranded, and can be abandoned or disposed of at will. That was the upshot of the Marysville TN court case, which ruled that embryos are property, not people.

No part of the argument against IVF/surrogacy, is an argument against adoption. Adoption is a just and generous response to the needs of an already-existing child.

It is not paying for a child be to created and handed over for you per a commercial contract.

Kids are deprived of their natural father and mother by tragedy, sad circumstance, or chance. No child should be deprived by choice.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Methinks you don’t realize the implications of a child being turned into a commodity to be bought, sold, or traded, and a woman being turned into a breeder unit, paid to suppress maternal bonding to the child she’s carrying.

[Mrs. Don-o]

PS, this is the kind of arrangement which makes it possible for two gay guys to pay for the services of a reproductive concubine to provide them with kids to raise in a household defined by their sexual disorder. Why not?

[Popman]

Thank you ....you saved me bunch of typing....

Spot on..

[PLMerite]

I don’t think it’s as distasteful as when rich celebrities go shopping for “fashion accessory” children in the third world. I also don’t think using a surrogate to carry an IVF embryo of one or both of the “adoptive” parents is bad, either. This woman wouldn’t exist otherwise, so without knowing all the sordid details and thought processes of the parents myself, IMHO she should just STFU and enjoy being alive. It’s an opportunity about a million kids a year don’t get.

[Mrs. Don-o]

There are dozens of ways that a pregnancy might come about, that we can frankly call wrongful, without in the least implying that the resulting born child shouldn't exist. Nobody is wishing a child away.

Yet consider that children get conceived by:

• drunken one-nighter
• forcible rape
• seduction
• sexual assault on a minor
• incest
• drugged intercourse
• stupid move by horny teenagers
• selfish adulterous fling
• prostitution
• baby-selling scheme

and surrogacy is one of those wrongful acts. It is akin to prostitution ---gestational surrogate selling (leasing) her body --- and baby-selling, which is a form of human trafficking. We can deplore this, even want to legally curb it, without slighting the human dignity of the child in the least.

In fact, it's because of our sense of the dignity of a child's life, that we don't want reproductive prostitution and baby-selling to be accepted in our society.