Surrogacy - the future of making babies ?

Agree with Brit, the laws need to be properly drafted to cover those concerns.

Pilgram, with regards to having a formal agreement, if the law of the land does not support it, the agreement (written or verbal) will be void or voidable and thus, not enforceable anyway.

And btw, verbal agreements are enforceable - provided one has credible witnesses to stand up to cross-examination (also depending on the legal system of the land). The only problem with enforcing verbal agreements is the cogency of evidence/proof - direct or circumstantial.

That is just pants!

Why would anybody be so cruel?

As you say the law is an azz.

Sorry for the couple, but they shouldn't have relied on an informal agreement. It should have been a legal agreement.

The ones handing out such a judgement should use a bit of common sense at times. Poor Mr. W, got screwed from everywhere.

This shows that Surrogacy is still dangerous and laws need to be tightened..

A couple who lost custody of their baby daughter to her surrogate mother have been ordered to hand over more than £500 a month maintenance for the child.

He and his wife, who had suffered six late-stage miscarriages including four sets of twins, used a surrogacy website to find a single mother of two on benefits who was willing to carry the baby they longed for.

They made an informal agreement to pay her £10,000 in expenses.

But halfway through the pregnancy she decided she wanted to keep the baby and a judge ordered that the woman, who was also the biological mother, could keep the child despite her earlier promise.

The couple, referred to as Mr and Mrs W to protect the child’s identity, later relinquished their contact rights because they said it would be too difficult emotionally and that it was unfair for the baby to be split between two homes.

They allowed the surrogate, known as Miss N, to keep the £4,500 they had already given to her.

But now Mr W must also pay £568 in child support every month as the biological father of the eight-month-old girl.

The law is an Ass..

Article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375861/Couple-ordered-pay-surrogate-mother-568-month-baby-see.html

The term 'too posh to push' is directed at women who have elective C-sections.

The thread is not about those people who cannot have children who go down the route of surrogacy, it is about those women/couples who can conceive and carry but chose, perhaps not to.

There are two types of surrogacy, [a] A sperm and Ovum is fused and the resulting embryo is implanted , this would be the regular "womb for rent" scenario, [b] A stranger's sperm and the surrogates egg is used ,and fertilized artificially , this would be the option for Gay couples the one requiring all kinds of debates as only one person from the couple will have any biological claim on the child, and bringing and raising a child in us a not -so-common environment where there are two dads or two moms requires further study on long term psychological impact on an individual before it can be sanctioned.

Being "Too Posh to Push" is a dumb trend,these divas would not entrust someone else to carry their designer dress/bag/shoes/sunglasses for them , will they?and carrying one's own progeny by the lesser mortals is o.k????

Britex, neither does having one's own child itself. Things can go really wrong sometimes. Surrogacy is probably more likely than adoption to go the whole 9 yards in making the relationship work.

But then again, of course, it's a matter of commitment of the parents to see the relationship through, one way or another. So perhaps all 3 scenarios would be similar, the main thing being the parents' commitment to the child / children.

britexpat said, "In many of these cases , the agents make the most money and the women are left with paltry amounts."

Yes, agreed that this kind of potential for abuse ought to be regulated somehow. Or perhaps cut out the midle man (agent) altogether, if possible but that's usually kinda dicey. The agent helps to "enforce the contract", so to speak, esp if emotions (carrier and biological parents) run high when the child is born later.

As with Adoption, Surrogacy does not guarantee that a relationship continue..

chocaholic said, "... And based on many conversations with people, I've realised that adoption just does not compare, in a lot of people's minds, with a baby created of one's own genes."

Yes, that would be 1 of the main considerations, at least one is reasonably sure of oneself and one's partner for a long term commitment of bringing up the child / children.

this concept is stil weird for me. If its not for women, i have no right to object.

Brit nice share!

many women (in India) are becoming surrogates in order to alleviate their poverty and support their families. No altruistic reason. it's a qustion of needs must.

In many of these cases , the agents make the most money and the women are left with paltry amounts.

Britex said, "A down side is that many women are using the high demand for surrogacy to "sell" their bodies and make ends meet. Should we address this also?"

- That's one way of looking at it but then again, their intention could be noble - helping to fill some prople's needs, could be deep seated psychological needs too which are intangible but go a long way towards stability of mind, perhaps even affecting the bigger picture of the social fabric of society itself.

A happy camper is a good camper...

Britexpat said," So, are women doing this to save themselves from the "hassle" of gestation and childbirth. Is it moraly right for fit and able parents to use surrogacy?"

- "Fit and able" is 1 of the problems. Nicole Kidman was married for 10 years to TC n perhaps had some issues (correct me if I'm mistaken). TC's new wife had a bun in the oven quickly enough.

I hv a few friends who were divorced for lack of offspring. The "better or worse" had qualifications... Other factors clouded the real issue, of course but for them, that was the core problem.

Yes, can see that point of view. We all like the idea of 'off springs' but I do think that surrogacy is affecting the number of children being adopted.

I don’t know if the bond with an adopted child is the same. Some parents who have adopted say the love they feel for the adopted child is the same love they feel for their natural child.

It’s all good for me as long as once the baby is here they are loved.

Valid points. I think that most parents opt for surrogacy because it gives them a feeling of "involvement" - albeit via a test tube. They still have a feeling of having contributed to the making of the child and hence a better bond.

There are many sides to the adoption/surrogacy debate.

Martin Narey, who has recently retired from Barnardo’s has been quoted as saying, ‘that adoption is going out of fashion’. Is this because of surrogacy?

In the UK there are many issues regarding the high volume of children from other ethnic backgrounds who are languishing in care who go unwanted simply because adoptive parents want the child to match their ethnicity. Social services will try and keep families together even when there are major problems- this can result in tragic cases; Baby P for one.

Is the number of children left in care and in vulnerable homes because of surrogacy? Could it be that people don’t want children from different ethnic backgrounds because of ‘perceived’ racist backlash? The number of children with disabilities who are adopted has also gone down. Is this because there is lack of support for children with special needs?

Surrogacy and the ‘need’ for it may hold some of the answers because with surrogacy we also have the designer baby syndrome.

I think it is sad there are so many children in need of a loving home and so many perspective parents out there and yet society is stopping what could be a happy outcome for them all.

that it's 50 % assurance since no two guys or two women can produce such. I mean the donor will still be unknown? Please clarify!

It Canada the waiting list is 7 years for a healthy baby. As for 4,000, how many are fetal drug & alcohol? How many have disabilities? How many have been abused?

Most parents would never be able to handle a child with fetal drug and alcohol related problems.

Recent numbers from the British Adoption agencies say they are over 4,000 babies in the UK up for adoption at the moment. Cast your net further and go worldwide and that number will be phenomenal.

I have never heard of anybody waiting as long as seven years for a baby; that is indeed very sad. I always thought that it was a year tops.

...and different people and situations have different exigencies.

Surrogacy has many different aspects, so it depends which angle you're looking at it from. While it may have, like all good things, the potential to be abused and misused, it is an invaluable option for gay couples, older couples and couples with medical impediments...if having a baby is what will make them most happy.

As for adoption, what I have read corroborates with what Pilgram says. And the moot points are always 'healthy infants from healthy parents' and the waiting time.

And based on many conversations with people, I've realised that adoption just does not compare, in a lot of people's minds, with a baby created of one's own genes.

And that's a reality, whether one agrees or not.

Cabbage it's a grave misconception that there are "loads" of babies waiting to be adopted. In the west the waiting list for adoption is a minimum of 7 years long, and the chances of getting an infant are slim to none, much less a healthy infant from healthy parents. There are babies in Asia, South America & Africa to be adopted, but again, this is very difficult and even more costly now than finding a surrogate and most of these countries won't let gay couples adopt (and like it or not gay couples make up the bulk of potential adoptees).

Surrogacy is a valid option for a lot of people and it's not going to go away. In fact I think you're going to see it become more streamlined and commercialized.

SURROGACY is just a BUSINESS after all..

There are many young couples opting for this service because they want to avoid the hassles involved during whole 9 months...

The term SURROGACY shouldn't be seen as a MEAN BUSINESS if it is helping few ODD COUPLES to get happiness in their life...

i agree with you WTK...

I don't like this concept but if it works for someone then why not.

there have been cases where a woman has taken money for two different sources for surrogacy, then later claimed to have 'lost' the baby...

She kept the money ...

nite nite tink

Tink, QL lives off the nutters...without nutters there is no QL.

Healthy debate is good, but sadly never lasts long.

tink...but oh, it might be fun!;) it usually is....

Pilgram, I think most people missed the "his" in your post. ;)

Good to see you . :)

I don’t think it is a person’s right to have a child. However I am empathic to those who can’t.

Women (sometimes) consider themselves failures – because the very thing women are supposed to do; conceive and carry the child they cannot do.

It is awful when you are broody and desperate for a child and you know you are healthy and it takes a while. But to know you may never have your own child must be heart-breaking.

So of course desperate times call for desperate measure and if surrogacy is the only option then how can any of us deny them that chance?

As for a woman who wants a child; but simply cannot be bothered with the whole process herself and pays another woman from wherever I find that wrong.

I am not saying there will be NO love for the child; I am sure they will. However, with the number of beautiful children who are in need of adoption; surely if you are not going to carry the child yourself, perhaps it would be nice to love, nurture and cherish a child that needs a loving home.

Actually I believe there are agencies that most couples go through who do the monitoring. The couple pays for food, medicine and check ups, but the agency ensures that the surrogate behaves themselves.

common nowadays for ultra rich couples to monitor the surrogate mothers. MAking sure that the baby will be fine when released by the surrogate mother!

I came in late on this discussion, and it seems nicely-rounded already.

But I have a question - when a woman agrees to be a surrogate only because she needs the money, especially as a means to alleviate poverty (case in point, the majority of the 'surrogacy tourism' in India), how does one keep a check on how the said woman lives during the period? I'm talking specifically of nutrition, other medical/physical issues and medications, alcohol, tobacco, etc.? Wouldn't this be of even more concern in the case of a woman living under impoverished circumstances? Funds provided for nutrition and care could easily be spent on more pressing daily needs.

Are there controls for this? What kinds of rights do the biological parents have to 'check' on the surrogate? What kind of accountability exists?

And how practical would actual checking and monitoring be in a case of 'surrogacy tourism', where by definition, the parents and the surrogate would be in different geographical areas?

I'm sure there are already cases like that Brit. Especially people who act as surrogate mothers for friends or family. I see no issue with it as long as all parties are in agreement.

In India, I think Gujarat is the state where you find the maximum number of surrogates.

there will always a consequences. It's good if positive, but when the negative consequence arise, then the problem begins!

Valid points.. However, in developing countries, a woman offerd money to alleviate her poverty may not care about or fully understand the legalities...

So, whilst we agree that surrogacy is a good option for parents "unable" to have children. Should we go for "altruistic surrogacy" only - where the commissioning parents only pay the surrogate mother medical and other costs associated with the pregnancy.

talks!

Everything can be dumbed down to personal choice. Where do you draw the line then?

Why should she have no reason to get emotionally attached? The whole development cycle after the embryo takes place in her womb.

Its easier to couch those in legal terms tryke? try asking those surrogates what they feel about having to give the baby away

Personal Choice. Live and Let live. No point in being all high and moral and passing judgment on others actions.

s_isale - of course it's written in the agreement and the surrogate mother will sign on it before they begin the procedure... if after giving birth the surrogate mother will suddenly change her mind, then that will be a breach of contract.. actually, it's not her own genes.. she just carried the baby inside her womb and she was paid for it...so she must abide with the contract to avoid legal dispute...

Formula S-Isale. Lots of children are fed by formula for various reasons. She's a womb s-isale, she has no right to get emotionally attached. She should never have agreed if that's the case.

s_isale... its just a business deal...no emotions attached to that!!

She isn't the biological mother if the egg and sperm belong to different people. She's just a womb. No court should side with her.

Who will have the most emotional attachment with the child? The surrogate or the biological parent?

How will the child be fed? Milk Powder?

HOw can that be Pilgram,. She carries the child and delivers the baby and you say she doesnt have any rights? Now is that sensible?

This happened quite recently in the UK and the judge sided with the biological mother, even though she had received payment.

Nightwalker: I was thinking from the perspective of the welfare of the child. I recall a case last year when a woman returned a child she had adopted because she "no longer wanted it"..

Similarly, there is a need to be laws and guidelines to ensure that commercial surrogacy is not used to exploit the poor..

Then the police would step in and take the child S_isale. But normally the surrogate doesn't even get to hold the child after birth. It's given directly to the parents.

What if the surrogate refuses to hand over the baby? Wouldnt the surrogate also be emotionally attached to the child?

brit- why should it be regulated for certain reasons? why should you have a right to dictate someone else's reproductive rights.... that is a slippery slope.

If there is a woman who is willing to be a surrogate than why should it matter? No one should have a say but the women and the father.

My cousin and his husband are discussing using an Indian surrogate. Frankly I see nothing wrong with it as long as everyone is in agreement.

it's a very good topic to share an idea with.. but i think i have no objection with the idea of getting a surrogate mother if my wife could not bear our child for health reasons.. at least it's a combination of my wife's genes and mine...

Since 2002, when India legalised the practice, it has become a world centre for surrogacy tourism, expected to generate £1.5 billion for the country annually by next year.

Source: Telegraph

There is a very fine line here. In Nicole's case, there have always been rumours that "she was too posh to push" ..

I agree that those women who cannot bear children should have the option of surrogacy. However, should we have a legal framework for ensuring that only those who meet a certain criterai should utilise surrogacy ?

A down side is that many women are using the high demand for surrogacy to "sell" their bodies and make ends meet. Should we address this also ?

Pilgram..

and as for the topic

I am with tinker on this....mother should go for surrogacy if it is the only available option left...

Pilgram...yes its becoming popular even in India..just google...many career oriented women don’t have time to carry a baby...

Intelligent I keep getting an error page every time I post. I didn't mean to post 3 times.

Nice to be back.

Just a question though, I've never heard of anyone who used a surrogate that hasn't had to...does anyone know if anyone actually HAS abused this system?

tinkerbell u forget to post the same thrid time. Pilgram did three times.

i took time out from my busy schedules to miss you :D

If I remember correctly Nicole Kidman had a very difficult time getting pregnant with her first child, and she's well into her 40's now so a natural birth is probably not an option. I doubt highly that many women who are capable of carrying a child would opt for surrogacy, however it is a good alternative for those who can't.

better is "ask the ladies"

would it not feel like a baby toy was dropped of by the mailman? The hormonal and physical cycle of the woman during pregnancy prepare the stage for a sincere happiness upon natural delivery of the baby by her biological mother.

Does anyone know if there is a sperm/egg bank here in Qatar?

So aptly put .. I would agree with you 100% :O)

okay, thank you for the correction tink :)

okay, thank you for the correction tink :)

thats still up for debates regarding the gens part...

Why not ? What would your reasons be ?

dp

Abortion is personal choice, but we can still disagree with it..

Would you as a woman opt for surrogacy when you could bear children ?

would you rather mix your genes with another other than your spouse?

this is not a good example especially if the woman is still fit and able to get pregnant.

being a baby mama is getting lucrative hmmmm