[dspakowsky]

Wombs For Rent... Trying to Have a Baby

I just watched Oprah. Her and reporter Lisa Ling did a show on surrogacy. In particular, a US family that traveled to India to have a surrogate mother carry their child, where women are stuck in severe poverty.

The part that's upsetting is this... half the show was about how allowing the Indian women to become a surrogate changes their lives for the better. They get about $5,000, which is more than they could ever earn and save. With the money they build a safe home for themselves and their family. So, "we" are using their body and what it creates, they get paid, tit-for-tat, and that's OK? They're saying it is. That's it's not exploiting these women who desperatly need "our" money for the use of their body.

Why is this acceptable, but "supposedly" paying a birth mother in Guatemala (same poverty conditions) so wrong? And in the case of Guatemala, the child already exsits.

I don't write well, but what I'm trying to say is I can see where UNICEF and others see huge red flags when "we" want something and we get that something from a poor nation. It almost makes them (the nation) vunerable and us VERY powerful with all our $$$.

Any thoughts on this? Is this alot different from adopting from Guatemala?

[Clare'sMom]

Yah.... didn't see it. Just read it. And yes, a little Freaked out...... I don't know why, these women know what they are doing, they seem to be screened carefully, they are helping their families etc.... Not much diffrent from college girls selling their eggs...right??

For some reason I think I am just suprised at the number of couples from the USA that are doing this. No problem with surrogacy, of course I prefer adoption, but this whole thing leaves me with an odd feeling........Ann

[GuatMommy2Be]

I did not see it... but I do have to ask..

Is that even legal?

I'll have to go read about the episode, or see if it is re-airing tonight before I comment.

[huganangel]

I saw this show and all it did was make me depressed about how every other way of becoming a parent is glorified and adoption is somehow seen as a crime. I think the difference that people see is that, in surrogacy, the baby is biologically that of the couple. In adoption, we adoptive parents make a commitment to a child who is not at all biologically our own. To much of the outside world, this difference makes it easier to imagine us "taking" someone else's child. Ours is a situation in which our happiness is balanced by the sadness of the birthmother. It truly is bittersweet. In the 3 years since I brought my daughter home, I've come to realize that people either get it or they don't. The couple with the surrogate in India said they get opposing reactions to their situation too. I guess we all need to do what seems right and best according to our own consciences. I've never regretted my decision to adopt. I am very content with the process I went through, the safeguards that were taken on my and the birthmother's behalf, and the story I'm able to tell my daughter now about how we became a family.

[Mommy2twins]

I don't see anything wrong with it. I didn't see the show but have a work associate that went the surrogate route here in the US. I knew another woman who's sister was the surrogate for her. It's just another way to create a family. I think that people just get funny about it or adoption because of the money. If it's all legit, meaning the birth parents consent and the baby is going to a loving and caring family, then the money really should be the focus. Unfortunately is all too often is the focus. I could scream about the number of times I have been asked how much my kids cost!
Shelly

[nmp0618]

Well, I didn't see the show, but I don't feel that by adopting I am "taking" someone else's baby or coercing someone into having a baby for my purposes.

A woman becomes, makes the decision to bear the child, then makes the decision NOT to raise the child. It is not until after all these decision have been made that I come into the picture as someone who is willing to raise the child that she has determined she is unwilling/unable to raise.

We're not doing each other favors. We two people who's decisions happened to coincide.

[Pipercub]

I too wonder if this is legal.

I did a quick google search (i know - you can't believe everything you read on the internet) and easily found papers written by authors in India that stated that "Commercial surrogacy, is against public policy enshrined in Article 23 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The courts are still to grapple with the legal implications of surrogacy agreements and the state of law, as a whole, remains inadequate due to complex ethical and moral questions involved....."

I missed the Oprah show and only read it. Did they address the legality of it from both the US and Indian perspectives?

I also found:

Australia - ban on commercial surrogacy; voluntary (aultruistic - "free") surrogacy is acceptable

England - Warnock Committee allowed, but set limits on, surrogacy

France - banned surrogate mother as violating bodies of women and subverting adoption

Germany - total ban on all forms of surrogacy

And here in the US the law seemed to vary by state:

Minnesota: criminal offense to enter or arrange surrogacy contracts.

Nevada: surrogacy approved with conditions (pre-insemination, court-approved agreement contingent upon fertility states of both women and clear-ance through the State Welfare Division; also court maintains jurisdiction until child is six months old).

New Jersey: not illegal, but contracts are unenforceable.

[IHOP]

how come surrogacy in the US is like $40-50K and just because it is in India they only get paid $5K - that is wrong, no?? I don't know, i didn't see the show. i guess the price difference would bother me.

[Synesthesia]

$5,000 is a lot of money in India, I imagine.
Still, it would be deeply depressing to carry a baby for someone else in a way.
The main thing is them going off to India because here t here have been cases, like one i saw on a show of folks suing for custody of children they have carried.
I don't think surragacy is a good way to avoid complications from adoption, especially when the embryo isn't biologically belonging to the parents but two other people.
Then things legally begin to get a bit sticky.
I haven't seen the episode though.

[annaguat]

I guess the bigges problem I have with surrogacy is why these people then don't adopt from India a child that is already there and needs a family. What if the woman doing the surrogacy dies or gets major health issue because of the pregnancy? Anna

[brinawynne]

Well, I guess I saw a diff side to it. I did watch the show and had a lot of sympothy for the parents. You could tell how much they had been through dealing with infertility and all that they had been through prior to going to India. I don't know if it's legal or not, I assume yes, or the parents wouldn't have done the show, but who knows. I've heard lots of negativity about surrogacy both here and in other countries and although I don't think I could ever do it, I don't judge those that do. For us, adoption was the way to build our family, but we did look briefly into surrogacy. I don't think adoption is right for everyone and for those families, surrogacy is the way to build a family. I feel for those who carry a child for other parents the same way I feel about our son's birthmother. Yes, there is no biological bond between surrogate mother and child, but their is still that bond of a mother and child as she carries this baby for 9 months. Is it wrong? No, I don't think so. I was actually happy with the way that Oprah did this show. She showed the 'other' side to surrogacy. The side that we rarely see. The view from the surrogate mother and what happens after the baby is born. I thought it was a positive show. Personally, with all the negativity about surrogacy, I was glad to see that she put a positive spin on it. I would love to see her do a show about Guatemala adoption...and show all the positives to it.

Just my 2 cents...

[Kama]

dspakowsky-

Isn't the concern (or one of the concerns) with Guatemala about women getting pregnant knowing that they will give the children up because they are being paid money for it, because there is demand in the adoption world for Guatemalan children? I do not believe this to be the case in all of the cases in Guatemala. But, if there are cases like this, I think ethically it is worse than the Indian case because there is lie/lies involved. In the Indian case it is clear up front to everyone what is going on, in the case when adoptive parents are led to believe that they are saving the child from poverty because of high fertility in Guatemala and ignorance of women (that is why they do not use birth control because they are ignorant and poor, this is the explanation I have heard at least). Of course, we are just speculating here, it is a hypothetical only.

annaguat-
Why aren't people more willing to adopt older children from Guatemala, who are already living and live in horrible conditions in orphanages there, my understanding is that a lot of people feel they MUST adopt infants. I am guessing this is the the answer to your question about India.

Originally Posted by dspakowsky

Wombs For Rent... Trying to Have a Baby

I just watched Oprah. Her and reporter Lisa Ling did a show on surrogacy. In particular, a US family that traveled to India to have a surrogate mother carry their child, where women are stuck in severe poverty.

The part that's upsetting is this... half the show was about how allowing the Indian women to become a surrogate changes their lives for the better. They get about $5,000, which is more than they could ever earn and save. With the money they build a safe home for themselves and their family. So, "we" are using their body and what it creates, they get paid, tit-for-tat, and that's OK? They're saying it is. That's it's not exploiting these women who desperatly need "our" money for the use of their body.

Why is this acceptable, but "supposedly" paying a birth mother in Guatemala (same poverty conditions) so wrong? And in the case of Guatemala, the child already exsits.

I don't write well, but what I'm trying to say is I can see where UNICEF and others see huge red flags when "we" want something and we get that something from a poor nation. It almost makes them (the nation) vunerable and us VERY powerful with all our $$$.

Any thoughts on this? Is this alot different from adopting from Guatemala?

[EZ2Luv]

The difference is the surrogate is NOT genetically related to the baby. The baby is a result of the parents egg and sperm. The surrogate is NOT giving up her own living child. Surrogacy IS legal and has helped create many families. Many see it as alot more ethical than adoption. Not only that the women are not coerced or fored into giving up their own child, they are just used to gestation.
IMO, there is a huge difference between the two
EZ

[arepa]

Kama-

Why do you come over here to constantly attack Guatemalan adoptions????????????? Yes there are problems, BIG PROBLEMS, that need to be fixed. I will be the first to tell anyone that Guatemala needs a major face lift, and adoptions should halt for a year or so. As for older child adoptions, some families wish to adopt an infant, and for some of us that was thereferral we recieved. We would have welcomed an older child, and language would not have been an issue.(my husband is Venezuelan and although my spanish is not on par with him it is good enough) Finding and older child in Guatemala was difficult for us,since the orphange my agency worked with only took Christians-we are Jewish!
I do not look down on those who chose to adopt babies, those children need homes as well.

Cut us some slack please!!

[maccafan]

Originally Posted by EZ2Luv

The difference is the surrogate is NOT genetically related to the baby. The baby is a result of the parents egg and sperm.

I know in many (maybe most?) cases, the parents provide both the egg and sperm. I don't really have a problem with this kind of surrogacy, whether in the U.S. or India.

But, I do know someone who acted as a surrogate, and they used her egg. The child is now a teenager, and this hasn't had the best outcome. The child wants my friend to be more involved with her as her birthmother, but my friend doesn't feel at all attached to the child. She did the surrogacy because a) she wanted to help a couple who couldn't have their own bio kids, b) she loves being pregnant, and c) she needed money to go to graduate school.

This probably has nothing to do with the story on Oprah, just thought I'd share since it's kind of a twist on the process.