Since years ago couples with problems to have chidren go to this method to fulfill their dreaming wish.

By other hand there're arguments against it... the desire to become a parent turns to a market, the female body can be seen as an object (human dignity) mental disconfort of the woman after giving birth...

        Are you for or against of this method? Would you accept this technique in case you couldn't have children?

Tags: Ethics, children, parenthood

Views: 344

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi, Estanis. If couples who want their children are not blessed with children, it must be a serious problem for them, and it is natural that they want to have their children in whatever way or manner.

To adopt children is a way for them, but their gene can't pass on their children. Surrogacy is only the way in such a situation. I think surrogacy is a option for them, but rules are necessarry. We must think about surrogate mother's age and number of births because of their and their children's health.

Hi Tam, of course rules are needed for this practice but so far there's no a common agreement even in the EU members. Every country apply its own laws (and prices).

Well, being put on the scales a blood-born child will easily outweigh all the arguments against and adopted one. Thanks to modern medical technologies, people, who are doomed to childlessness and who have lost hope of ever becoming parents, can challenge nature and still get a child – not an adopted one, but their own. Though, no one church will welcome this experience. Difficult to discuss. Who can forbid/judge a woman to have a child by any means?  

Though, there are so many tragedies about it already…carrying a baby under your heart…make you feel his heartbeat…Not every woman will be ready to leave the creature after.

Hard topic to discuss….really. Thank you, Estasnis.

Hi Olga, I guess the woman who will give birth have to mentally prepare for this. I'm not a woman but I see this so coldness. I can't criticise it anyway.

Hi Estanis!  Nice topic! I feel if a couple has tried every way but couldn't get a child it would be better to adopt one because there's no way you can call a child who stayed in another woman's womb for 9 months your biological child. The real connection happens in that womb. To me, surrogacy is same as adoption because so long as you didn't give birth to a child, then he cannot be yours.

Hi Salma, actually the future parents can be the biological parents of the child. In this case we could state that the womb or the mother who will give birth is only the vehicle to get it. Thanks for joining :)

  In a documentary  I saw  the surrogate  poor Indian woman refused to give the twin babies saying she is their real mom . Rich people exploit  poor ones  , they think that their money can buy them anything and turning  the world into a big market where they can get anything into a package  . 

      Wealthy people  have no morals poor people can't live with morals . So , bad things happens  . I will add more to this discussion  from my cultural  background  . 

    THanks for  posting it Estanis  :) 

Hi dear Rosemary, I think moral doesn't belong to people according to their money, but this case you've mentioned is an important point I see for topic.

Thank you Rosemary, we'll be eager to read from you.

It's a pretty difficult topic, Estanis. I do understand the couples who can't have children in a "normal" way but "renting" the womb of another woman isn't a dignified way out. Neither for the couple nor for the woman who gives birth to the couple's baby.
Even if the child the DNA of his/her biological parents has, it's more like an adopted child for them. To give birth to a child needs more than just the union between the man's seed and the wife's egg.
Only a woman who carries a new life under her heart, a woman who feeds that baby with her placenta, a woman who feels the movements in her womb, and gives birth to the baby under pain, knows what it means to become a mother. 9 months unite a woman and that baby in a special and intimate way.
If a woman has carried a baby under her heart for 9 months and she says it's easy to give it away because she isn't its biological mother, I consider just a birth machine. That is undignified.
I don't want to blame too much those people who are unable to get babies. They act just emotional.
But there are also women, who want a baby but they don't want to carry it under their heart for 9 months. They are afraid of destroying the shape, the figure. Those women rent the womb of other women just because they don't want to give up a comfortable life, also not for just 9 months. Someone who thinks so doesn't deserve a baby. That's my hard opinion.

That's it Rose, you've named it as a birth machine, I've just replied to Salma it's only the vehicle. Yes I know it's a difficult topic, in my opinion I'd not go to this method to become a father, by other hand I wouldn't forbid it either.

As for going to this method for the reasons you say in your last paragraph, I don't see it cold but so disgusting. Same opinion as you.

       Hi  Estanis   :) 

    At first  , you are right there are many rich and benevolent  people  , generalizing  is wrong . However  , there are some cases  where rich luxurious women  , search for a surrogate wobs  just for  keeping  their bodies  shapes sexy  . They don't want to have stretch  marks on their skin or wait for the 9th months long journey to have a baby  . They will buy things  . Let me tell you something  , I know a woman  who didn't  feed  her baby girl to keep her xxxx in a perfect sexy shape . The world have these type of small mind people with the  marketing philosophy 

So true, just as Rose said and I agree with such lack depth. I can't opine as a mother or woman but as a man I wouldn't like such behaviour in my couple. I thought this was reserved for stars or celebrities haha...


© 2018   Created by Joe Essberger.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report Member  |  Terms of Service