Surrogate Motherhood - Term Paper Example

‘CARVE’ Principles Information Gathering The case en d “renting a womb?’’ leads to a very fascinating subject about whether or not couples who seek to own a child by virtue of surrogacy services claim the true ownership rights of that child (Connolly 56). Womb renting is a rapidly growing innovation in India as more than 25,000 children are born out of it since its legalization in 2002.This involves the implantation of fertilized eggs either where the egg and the sperm are from a very different sources or the case where the biological other provides the egg and the sperm from the biological father (Twine 114). In surrogate services, the mothers who serve to carry someone else’s child are normally very poor and illiterate. The strenuous moral principle in this kind of arrangement is in determining the real parents of a given child. On another realm, one sterile couple gets a child of their gene, while the surrogate mothers’ benefit from a service offered. The laws engulfing this do not fully incorporate the health of the surrogate women as it does to the child, according to some (NGO) (Twine 82). The truth is there is a lot of psychological pressure to these mothers and their unexplained pregnancy, and lies, not to mention the bed ridden moments they have to experience alone in the period of pregnancy. Even the rate of $5000 to $7000 per day does not render this endangering practice a good economic harbor, though to these mothers, it is. 2: Creative Solving of the problem Even though the Indian surrogate model receives a lot of credit for offering children to the sterile, many as equal do not approve of this proposition. The moral dilemma remains when one tries to deny the other the basic right to own a child from their hard-earned money simply because they do not subscribe to that and the right of that mother to benefit from utilizing her fertile womb and help others. This is a simple pleasure that the rich class enjoys, and the basic question here is whether every other couple (who do not feel the same way) or whoever needs a child should abandon the creator’s norm and bring forth children through surrogate motherhood. The moral choice here should be to make the surrogate motherhood an alternative and an option for the financially capable couples. This allows the institution of marriage to arrive at a competent decision as to which way should their son, daughter joins their world. In this manner, the rights and the autonomy of choice of individuals would have come under safe guard, hence going hand in hand with the principle of beneficence (Connolly 67). 3: Listing Pros and Cons Pros Cons 1st Option: Not allowing surrogate motherhood a) Allows he mothers to have the time to utilize the time they would have carried a baby not theirs to attend to their own family issues, and probably other children the mother gave birth to. By doing so, the mother saves herself and her bigger family, the risks involved from such exercise. (Principle of nonmalificence) b) It provides mother offering to be surrogate less chance to suffer and even face death traumas in the pregnancy period. (Principle of Utility) a) Denying people the privilege of such a service goes contrary to the principle of autonomy in promoting self-determination. Every person or couple should reserve the right to make a decision as to which form of childbirth is best for them. b) The right of ownership for such a child would come face to face with unprecedented risks, as in who carries the blame in an event when the whole service bursts up. 2nd Option: Allowing surrogate motherhood a) The service of womb renting would turn out to be the biggest economy earner in India to which it has been contributing significantly since 2002. (Principle of Utility) b) With more statistics of infertility increasing by the day globally and the issues of class and prestige taking its toll in European lifestyle, more mothers would have the opportunity to earn significantly act as surrogate mothers. This also boosts the economy since poverty level goes down. (Principle of Utility) a) The rise of exploitation of poor and illiterate Indian women would become uncontrollable, which does not promote the Principle of Positive Beneficence. Which does not promote the Principle of Positive Beneficence b) This would continue causing psychological trauma and segregation to these mothers and hostile living style and this is against Principle of nonmaleficence. 4. Analysis Factual Assumptions 1. Allowing people to turn to surrogate mothers would definitely tame the pressure of being infertile for couples. 2. Not allowing every other couple to go for surrogate mother’s service would serve as an awakening call for human race to bring out means to tame natural causes of infertility. 3. Forbidding womb renting would upset the Indian Industry, which specialist doctors have genuinely researched for its uprising. Value Assumption 1. Denying womb renting would be against human freedom of choice in both parties involved since it is a mutual agreement. 2. Possessing a child born of a surrogate mother, having been unable to get one, would be in line with the Utilitarian approach of realizing the greater good for surogate parents, for they can secure a family and raise children up. 3. Barring surrogate motherhood would also not be conducive to honoring the autonomy of both parties in the process they mutually agreed upon. 5: Justification Many legitimate propositions have come in support as well as in opposition to the moral right to allow the Indian way of ‘womb renting’ in place of natural childbearing process for couples. Due to this, I am inclined to propose that womb renting does more than good. It would be a good move to bring surrogate motherhood as part of family model. Restricting this personal decision, contradicts the principle of autonomy, and the person suffers a big blow (Twine 75).As a couple, one has the right to assemble and nurture a family in their will. Even though to some this would be going against naturalness of life, others find it a ray of hope, an answer to their unending quest for a child. Take the case of these poor Indian women, in their illiteracy state they are in, the law allows them to earn a livelihood for such a service hence they also contribute in the stats for reducing poverty level in Indian nation. Both the donors (couples) and the carriers’ (the surrogate mother) are merely exercising their constitutional right of right to life, liberty, and the pursuit for happiness. The value achieved for having a child, having struggled to get one, and the fact that one’s hard-earned resources get him his pleasure nullifies that coaxing is never involved for the surrogate mother to take that burden. Those women who are willing mutually agree with their clients, and this has become source of their income. One may tend to think also that, the extend of trying all the affordable chances to bring forth a life and embrace it is a greater good than living barren and envious, which does not help the society at all. To the Indian state, womb renting has re-energized the value of their economy of this age (Connolly 78). Therefore, allowing surrogate motherhood has a mutual advantage, in fact a triple gain if the government needs to the module as an Indian state did back then in 2002 (Twine 56). The idea of not allowing renting of the womb, since its a personal decision and not illegal in India, would mean that the personal freedom of making decisions is longer at these individual’s capacities. This means leaving their rights at the mercy of the law enforcers. Even though this module has given life to many families, some children, and others monetary gains, the exercise does not come on a silver plate. Surrogate mothers, who find value in this practice, provide for their own families as well as promoting other families. Again, as per the report card in India, many mothers have faced a lot of pressure, especially from those who are not practicing it. One would arguably claim that the belief of the surrogate womb renting is a personal decision and ought to be respected as long as the law approves of it (Twine 101). Not allowing this model contravenes other people’s rights. People can continue depending on technology to bring up families and as well practice natural means to those who are willing. However, the effectiveness of surrogate mother is to gift a couple, who are sterile, of a child, but not to substitute one responsibility for pleasure simply because one can afford to do so. That would be exploitation as the Indian report spills out.Others would claim that surrogate motherhood is a risky module since there is no clear stipulation in the law of who reserves the ultimate responsibility of the child. The success of this child depends on the mannerism of this surrogate mother, and this leaves the child at fault, however, the donor parents take full responsibility of providing for the mother, physically and psychologically for the welfare of the child to come (Connolly 120). One should also not forget that living the life of the stillborn in the hands of the surrogate mother is a choice made by the client’s parents. This is liberty that these couples try to exercise. Therefore, in line with the principle of positive beneficence, surrogate motherhood should remain as an optional philosophy for each person at liberty to choose from, not a must. The argument that no allowing surrogate motherhood lives the mothers with enough time to tender to their families seems to be built around utilizing autonomous ethics and is in line with the principle of utility (Connolly 90). On the contrary, not all mothers would want to spend quality time with their families. What is the explanation to that surrogate mother who sees this service provision as a means to ending her long-standing struggle and poverty? Not forgetting, this argument can as well go to both sides depending on the personal preference of each party involved. In summary, I am inclined to suggest that prohibiting people to abandon surrogate parenting is an act of violating their autonomy and individual rights. Many activists claim that each person reserves the right to sustain the control of their own life and arrive at decisions in accordance with their preference. On the same note, this ought not to be a law for every other person. Those who do not subscribe to this idea should enjoy the liberty to do it their own way. Surrogate motherhood is just but an optional decision. This would accrue to a fair compromise that would improve the family conditions of many struggling individuals due to the barren, reduce the rate of poverty level on the willing surrogate mothers, as well as still contribute in national building like the Indian & U.S.A Cases (Twine 124). Renting a womb is an individual consent, and it can be either I do this or I don’t do it. References Connolly, Peggy, et al. Ethics in action : a case-based approach. New York: Malden, MA : Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print. Twine, Winddance, France. Outsourcing the Womb: Race, Class and Gestational Surrogacy in a Global Market Framing 21st Century Social Issues. London: Routlegde, 2012. Print. Read More