Surrogacy contracts

[sledger]

Should these be legally enforceable?

I don't know what it is like in the rest of the world, but in the UK such agreements are not legally binding in any form. Which, in my view is probably correct.

However, I was surprised the other day when I asked a class full of students this question, and they almost all said that yeah, they absolutely should be. I did not think this would be the mainstream view at all.

 

[hendrix]

Tough issue.

I think if both the sperm and the egg are donated then they should be relatively binding.

If just the sperm is donated then I don't know.

Also...it's kinda the woman's body up until term. So...yeah it's a tough one.

 

[TNT]

My initial thoughts are a "mothers bond" v "surrogate parents bond".

Very distressing for both but I tend to lean towards "mothers bond".

 

[sledger]

Tough issue.

I think if both the sperm and the egg are donated then they should be relatively binding.

If just the sperm is donated then I don't know.

Also...it's kinda the woman's body up until term. So...yeah it's a tough one.

Yeah, this is what it boils down to for me. Whilst there is definitely a nuance that affects things re: whether both sperm and egg are donated, I am not sure exactly how this should effect things. But the fact that it is the woman's body regardless is the kicker here for me.

I guess the argument is that an autonomous and informed person should be able to make their own decisions about body usage, which includes the ability to enter into contractual agreements etc. and presumably be bound by such.

But at the same time, if we think about situations involving surrogate mothers who have never had a child before, how can they be expected to know the emotional and physical commitment etc. and how that will effect them? For such persons to be bound by a contract regarding handing over the baby upon birth...nnnngh that just does not feel right to me at all.

 

[harsh.ag]

Think it should only be legally enforcable after the kid has lived with the surrogate parents for a certain amount of time.

Just after birth, no.

 

[sledger]

Well after the kid has lived with the parents for a while they would likely have legally adopted the kid anyway, so there wouldn't be much option to go back on the agreement after that in any event.

 

[Burgey]

What's the going rate for a surrogate kid these days anyway?

 

[Athlai]

Yes, but the surrogate parents must buy a beanie baby surrogate upon the biological parents request as a fair exchange.

 

[Burgey]

That doesn't really answer my question though. What's the going rate? If the surrogate parents have invested significant money and time into this exercise, then the bargain should be kept. Market forces have set a price for the property in question, and how often are we lectured to around these parts that nothing is more important than the free market and individual property rights?

 

[Athlai]

I don't think the free market should be able to determine ownership of children.

We should all belong to the government.

 

[TNT]

That doesn't really answer my question though. What's the going rate? If the surrogate parents have invested significant money and time into this exercise, then the bargain should be kept. Market forces have set a price for the property in question, and how often are we lectured to around these parts that nothing is more important than the free market and individual property rights?

Opens up a whole new range of scenario's. What if the surrogate mother gets a better offer from a rich couple who will pay more, can she sell to the highest bidder?.

 

[Burgey]

Opens up a whole new range of scenario's. What if the surrogate mother gets a better offer from a rich couple who will pay more, can she sell to the highest bidder?.

No, because once you have a contract, then you have established private property rights in the child, so there's no way the sanctity of the original couple's proprietary interest in the child can be usurped. Same if the mother wants to keep the child. Markets and private property uber alles I'm afraid. She has to suck it up.

I know that might sound extreme, but I'm afraid you are not allowed to criticize me for holding this point of view, because I am consistent. And that's really, really important. Even if all evidence and sense of decency is against me, I'm consistent and that somehow makes me pure.

 

[harsh.ag]

Hey, the choice to renege shouldn't necessarily be cost free. The couple in question should be able to demand some reimbursement if they wish to.

 

[Ausage]

No, because once you have a contract, then you have established private property rights in the child, so there's no way the sanctity of the original couple's proprietary interest in the child can be usurped. Same if the mother wants to keep the child. Markets and private property uber alles I'm afraid. She has to suck it up.

I know that might sound extreme, but I'm afraid you are not allowed to criticize me for holding this point of view, because I am consistent. And that's really, really important. Even if all evidence and sense of decency is against me, I'm consistent and that somehow makes me pure.

I don't know if you're trolling or genuinely this obtuse but either way I'm embarrassed for you.

 

[Burgey]

Noooooo. They own that child. It's in a contract. A sacred pact between the parties which cannot and should not be broken.

 

[Burgey]

I don't know if you're trolling or genuinely this obtuse but either way I'm embarrassed for you.

Are you saying the rights of the individual aren't paramount here? Am very disappointed.

 

[Ausage]

Are you saying the rights of the individual aren't paramount here? Am very disappointed.

Which individual? There are a few in this hypothetical.

 

[Burgey]

There are but three who are capable of entering into a binding agreement. It's those rights which are paramount.

 

[Ausage]

There are but three who are capable of entering into a binding agreement. It's those rights which are paramount.

Yes.

 

[GIMH]

That doesn't really answer my question though. What's the going rate? If the surrogate parents have invested significant money and time into this exercise, then the bargain should be kept. Market forces have set a price for the property in question, and how often are we lectured to around these parts that nothing is more important than the free market and individual property rights?

Another day, another stack of straw man drivel from Burgey