Surrogacy contracts

[Burgey]

The market has decided mate. Just deal with it.

 

[TNT]

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 raise you with a ethnic minority.

 

[Burgey]

Well, it takes a village

 

[Dan]

Conversely, what if the parents pull out mid-surrogacy and leave the surrogate mother with a child she may never have wanted, or may not have the means to support? I don't know what the research bears out, but I'd expect the surrogate mother, on balance and generally speaking, to be significantly more vulnerable than the prospective parents.

I don't know how that factors in against the potential for someone to be compelled to hand over a baby they literally just gave birth to.

Very, very messy area from a legal and policy point of view.

 

[sledger]

Conversely, what if the parents pull out mid-surrogacy and leave the surrogate mother with a child she may never have wanted, or may not have the means to support? I don't know what the research bears out, but I'd expect the surrogate mother, on balance and generally speaking, to be significantly more vulnerable than the prospective parents.

I don't know how that factors in against the potential for someone to be compelled to hand over a baby they literally just gave birth to.

Very, very messy area from a legal and policy point of view.

Aaaah, this is what you meany when you were saying about it earlier. I did not realise exactly what you were arguing...

But yeah, this sort of thing is commonly invoked as a reason for why surrogacy itself (not just surrogacy contracts) should be banned. I don't think much of that argument, personally, but the issue itself is a concerning one.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, it leaves me in a bit of a bind on this one, given I'm running with three wholly incompatible base principles:

1. Any policy on surrogacy should not generate a situation whereby a woman is compelled, by the state or courts, to hand over a child she just gave birth to (i.e. may choose not to honour the contract)
2. Any policy on surrogacy should not generate a situation whereby the proposed parents can leave the surrogate mother with a potentially unwanted child (i.e. must not break the contract)
3. Contracts should be equally-binding for both parties.

I guess you can kinda make it non-binding as long as an adoption network is sufficiently strong.

 

[the big bambino]

Nothing like an uncommon circumstance to be commonly invoked for banning something because of instances where things occasionally go wrong.

 

[Dan]

Good policy design needs to be able to handle fringe cases tbf.

 

[the big bambino]

I wouldn't suggest your 3 points to be a guiding basis for it.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

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.

i'm gonna hazard a guess that the class did not include many parents

 

[Dan]

I wouldn't suggest your 3 points to be a guiding basis for it.

'base' principles probably a poor way of putting it, yeah. more like fringe cases/unintended consequences to be avoided, I suppose.

 

[Ausage]

Another day, another stack of straw man drivel from Burgey

Probably wants the men with guns to come in and shut the whole thing down. You know, being a baby hating leftist and all.

He was conspicuously silent on the Governor of Virginia's comments a couple of weeks ago. Must be a closet satanist.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

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?

Are you sure you're a "Labor" man?

 

[StephenZA]

Why are we worried about this in a few years it will all be done in a test tube anyway.....

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Why are we worried about this in a few years it will all be done in a test tube anyway.....

IVF has been done for 40 years, but we're still nowhere near an artificial womb. Suggests this is waaay too more complicated than you think

(and who do you sue when the child from the artificial womb has developmental problems?)

 

[sledger]

i'm gonna hazard a guess that the class did not include many parents

Not to my knowledge. They were all female though, interestingly.

 

[Burgey]

Probably wants the men with guns to come in and shut the whole thing down. You know, being a baby hating leftist and all.

He was conspicuously silent on the Governor of Virginia's comments a couple of weeks ago. Must be a closet satanist.

Strangely enough I have no idea what the Governor of Virginia said a coupe of weeks ago, or indeed at all. Likewise the Mayor of Butt**** Idaho.

 

[Anil]

Strangely enough I have no idea what the Governor of Virginia said a coupe of weeks ago, or indeed at all. Likewise the Mayor of Butt**** Idaho.

here it is...

 

[Burgey]

Sounds like a proper ****wit.

Also Ausage, got nothing against Satanists. They serve a very useful purpose in winding up Christians into apoplexy.

 

[sledger]

IVF has been done for 40 years, but we're still nowhere near an artificial womb. Suggests this is waaay too more complicated than you think

(and who do you sue when the child from the artificial womb has developmental problems?)

IVF also has a very low rate of success iirc.