Hca 322 Week 5 Assignment

I read an article that was published on The Hasting Center Journal, called “The Case Against Surrogate Parenting”, by Herbert Krimmel, Krimmel takes a stand against surrogate motherhood arrangements because of the many ethical issues it causes, he argues surrogate motherhood, is a financial profit, there can be conflicts during the process, and is designed to separate in the mind of the surrogate mother. First, Krimmel argues that the reason a woman often or always undertakes the pregnancy is because of the money motive. He states, “The cause of this dissociation is some other benefit she will receive, most often money.' In other words, her desire to create a child is born of some motive other than the desire to be a parent. This separation

Baby Business by Insight on SBS had a discussion about surrogacy in relation to a couple that had a baby though surrogacy. In the show it was said that most surrogate mothers have genetically babies, which the mother gives her egg and the father gives his sperm and the doctor inseminates it in the surrogate mother. Most of the everyday people have to the term “renting a womb” towards surrogacy whereas the Women Health Resources

Why the law is contradictory and ineffective when it comes to overseas surrogacy- Altruistic surrogacy is diversely regulated by the states and territories, raising the issue of the interaction of those laws in international cases. Commercial surrogacy is prohibited in Australia, but is permitted in other countries. An increasing number of Australians exploit this difference by entering into commercial surrogacy agreements overseas, raising the question of the effect of such agreements in Australia. Suggesting that the well-meaning regulation of altruistic surrogacy and criminalisation of commercial surrogacy within Australia is likely to be ineffective in cross-border situations. Accordingly, suggests to reform the Australian law and endorses

According to the Issues & Controversies Infobase, “Surrogate” is a term that refers to a substitute, a person, place, or thing employed to represent or take the place of another. This term is commonly referred to a woman who agrees to carry another couple’s child in her womb. After birth, the surrogate mother parts with the baby and the child goes on to live with the parents in which she carried the baby for. This practice of surrogacy was widely unaccepted, however, the recent development of artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization has made surrogacy more feasible and accepted. This Issues & Controversies article shines a light on both the pro and anti sides of surrogacy and the facts to back up each side.

Commercial surrogacy is the process in which a woman is paid a fee to carry and deliver a baby to term. Once the baby is delivered, the woman relinquishes all parental rights to the commissioning couple who exclusively raise the child as their own. Altruistic surrogacy, by contrast, is an arrangement where the surrogate receives reimbursement but only for the expenses that she may have incurred during the pregnancy. In this essay I will argue that commercial surrogacy should not be market-inalienable. I will start by outlining Elizabeth Anderson’s argument in “Is Women’s Labor a Commodity?” in which she offers a number of criticisms to commercial surrogacy. I will then outline objections to the argument and highlight how her argument is highly speculative and does not provide an adequate basis for the prohibition of commercial surrogacy.

The procedures of surrogacy is a delicate and sensitive topic which raises many concerns in the public. As a result of this, Australian laws and courts of law must allow and regulate these practices to make it safe for all involved. Commercial forms of surrogacy agreements are illegal in most states, shown in Part 2, Division 2 in the Surrogacy Act 2010 NSW and Chapter 4 Part 1 in the Surrogacy Act Qld. However, in remaining jurisdictions, couples are allowed to deal in commercial agreements and therefore often turn to an overseas arrangement. It is here where Australian law becomes more obscure and less regulated. In any arrangement including altruistic surrogacy, there are no enforceable laws on the agreement, hence prompting multiple issues regarding the parentage of the child. When the child is born from the gestational carrier- the birth mother and father, according to the Status of the Children Act 1996, are the legal parents. It is when the intended parents apply for a parenting order and accepted by the birth mother that the child’s parentage is transferred- this situation is set out in the case of Re Michael

Media has been both positive as well as controversial in terms of speaking about the topic, and making awareness on the issues surrounding surrogacy. The media has been good at creating general awareness in the community about the issues surrounding it, which helps to create public debate that fundamentally has lead to the changes in law reform.

In their article “Cutting Motherhood in Two: Some Suspicions Concerning Surrogacy”, Hilde Lindemann Nelson and James Lindemann Nelson argue against the idea of commercial surrogacy. Their main argument revolves around the rights that biological parents owe to the children they bring into the world. This argument can be formulated as follows: 1) Bringing a child into the world makes a child vulnerable to harm, 2) Both of a child’s biological parents have duties and obligations to defend the child from harm, 3) Only biological parents can fulfill the duties to defend the child from harm and it is immoral for a parent not to do so, 4) Surrogate motherhood contracts require the biological mother to give up her parental rights, 5) Giving up parental rights prevents the biological mother from fulfilling her duties to the child, Therefore, 6) Surrogate motherhood contracts are immoral because the duties to the child are not met. This argument is, as any good argument must be, logically valid. It is impossible to disagree with the conclusion if the premises are true. However, this argument is unsound because not all of the premises are true. Biological parents are not the only people who can fulfill the duties owed to a child and protect them from harm. Surrogate motherhood contracts do not prevent the duties owed to the child from being met.

Opinion will continue to be divided on whether commercial-surrogacy arrangements devalue children and women in intangible ways. But what has become clear is that well-designed regulation can greatly mitigate most of the potential tangible harms of surrogacy, and this would seem to be the appropriate function of law in a liberal society in response to an issue on which no societal consensus

There are four types of surrogacy. First is the traditional, or formally known as genetic surrogacy. Genetic surrogacy is when the carrier donates both her eggs and her womb. With this route, there are many legal issues that the parents could face. Under the law, the carrier is the mother of the child. It is also unethical and illegal, according to the 13th amendment, to hand over the custody of a child for money. Also, against the 13th amendment, there is a forced separation of mother and child in this situation. One of the biggest risk that parents take with this type of surrogate mother, is that the mother is allowed to decide to keep the baby and they can do nothing about it. The surrogate mother, by law, is allowed to keep this baby because it is her egg which means that it is biologically her child.

Firstly, some people have chosen to agree with this type of practice because of it’s benefits to couples of whom can not conceive a child. Whether it be a homosexual couple, or just a couple who is infertile and can’t have children. (Surrogate Mothers: Not So Novel After All, 28-34) In addition, the women who do end up as surrogate mothers, end up feeling better about giving a childless couple, the gift of having a child. Also other advantages that can be taken into account brings us back to same gender couples who can not conceive a child on their own, these couples would be now allowed to have a child of their own. (Gay Men Who Become Fathers via Surrogacy: The Transition to Parenthood, 111-141) They would, of course provide their sperm or egg, to the mother. This is a more efficient way to get a child, rather than go with adoption of another

Surrogate motherhood is considered the most controversial form of medically assisted conception. Surrogacy is defined as an arrangement by which a woman gives birth to a baby on behalf of a woman who is incapable of conceiving babies herself or is infertile. The issue of surrogacy has been running for almost three decades. Elizabeth Cane was the first woman in the United States to legally become a surrogate mother in 1980 (Chittom and Wagner). Surrogate births are illegal in many countries, including some states in the United States. For example, it is illegal in Michigan, Washington, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and New York, whereas it legal in California, Oregon, Texas, and Arkansas (Chittom and Wagner). According to the Organization of Parents Through Surrogacy (OPTS), about 22,000 babies have been born from surrogate mothers in the United States since surrogacy became legal in the 1970s (Chittom and Wagner).

Law reform is considered proactive with relation to surrogacy and birth technologies, as methods of conception must be permitted before they are conducted. Surrogacy, which occurs when one woman agrees to fall pregnant and bear a child for a couple, is illegal in NSW when the woman is paid a fee or award, under the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 (NSW). Hence, surrogacy must be altruistic. Furthermore, the Surrogacy Act 2010 (NSW) now criminalises an international journey for commercial surrogacy.

There are many issues in modern times that are on questionable grounds regarding the moral and ethical reasoning for such arguments. One of those ethical debates is in regards to commercial surrogacy. Surrogacy itself is a morally sound gesture; it is meant to be a way of a family acquiring a child that they would not be able to reproduce on their own, involving a third party. It is when the child is paid for by that family and the third person is compensated that the issues arrive. Should surrogacy be an available marketing resource? What justifies marketing a woman’s sexual capacities? In this paper, I will be discussing the argument presented by Debra Satz who is opposed to surrogacy, in the counter argument to support it.

A surrogacy contract is a document signed by two people or parties that agree to traditional or gestational surrogacy, one side is getting monetary compensation while the other receives a child. Currently there is a sharp increase in the number of foreign inquiries into India in pursuit of finding a woman to be a surrogate, this can be seen as taking advantage of a poverty loomed country because the money is hard to turn away (Gentleman).The surrogacy market is estimated to bring in $445 million annually in India and is growing as the number of success stories (Warner).