NSW Surrogacy Ban

All of the studies on the subject have actually said that homosexual couples make just as good if not better parents than heterosexuals. The birth mother may not want a kid. She's just helping this couple out.

I think that this is probably for the same reason that female-female reproduction has been banned in Australia (yes, it's illegal even though it's not currently possible): to help ensure that reproduction and family are limited to one male and one female.

Regarding surrogacy itself, the woman has donated her uterus to serve as an exowomb for a childless couple; I see no reason why this cannot be a legitimate professional decision (a woman's body belongs to her, after all, barring situations where there is no such thing as freedom; this is not such a situation). I also see no reason why she should have a claim on the child after birth, or participate in its life. The job was a nine-month gig and she is neither the genetic nor the legal parent. (She is a third biological parent, in the sense that it was her fetal environment that influenced the expression of some of the infant's genes, and went through the hormonal changes caused by the pregnancy. But she signed away any philosophical rights that that might accrue to her when she agreed to be the surrogate.)

I haven't heard about that, link plez.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomosexualReproduction

Section: Real Life. (The article has a more charitable view on the subject of forbidding egg-egg zygote creation than I do.)

Well there is your answer.

Still I'm personally okay with banning it myself. It's not something we as a society should be forced to tolerant.

Firstly, it isn't even medically possible yet.

Secondly, if it were, it would be no business of the state to tell people who they could and could not have children with, if they are of legal age to do so. Society's approval is irrelevant, and usually society does need to be forced to be tolerant, because usually it is not, to terrible results.

Society should probably be forced to tolerate people living their lives the way they want, yeah, so long as the latter doesn't infringe on others' rights to live their lives.

Not everyone does believe in that principle, of course, especially not when it applies to things they don't like.

@Derelict Vessel: I'm okay with pre-emptive regulation of something where the technology is close to existing (and by close, I mean "it can be done as soon as someone builds the equipment and finds some subjects"). But I agree with you on the principle of tolerance.

edited 6th Jun '12 8:24:27 PM by Ramidel

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. No body has a right to other another person, nobody has got a right to children.

Those statements are contradictory. If you don't have any right to other people, you don't have the right to stop them from having children. What makes you think it's your business to tell someone they can't have children? What makes you think you're relevant to that at all whatsoever?

@joeyjojo: The latter has been rather conclusively defied by several courts throughout the English-speaking world.

@Ramidel: I think I have made my opinion of the court judgement clear.

Still I read this (A four-year-old cancer patient's parents will be forced to allow her to receive a blood transfusion despite their religious objections.) , in sunday's paper so it's not all bad.

I'm glad too see that aussie courts are still willing to step on parental rights when lives are on the line.

edited 6th Jun '12 9:09:19 PM by joeyjojo

The right to start a family is also a recognized universal human right, as per the UN.

As to the cited case of blood transfusion, that assumes parents have the right to kill their child in the name of religion in the first place. They do not.

I would rather us not get into a debate about reproductive freedom and negative and positive rights.

edited 6th Jun '12 9:32:35 PM by joeyjojo

You're the one arguing that we shouldn't allow same-sex couples to have children if they become capable of it via medical technology. Don't make arguments you won't defend.

My original post was objecting to the taking the surrogacy mother off the birth certificate. I'm would be happy to discuss the ethics of same sex reproduction in general but I feel it would be off topic.

I still see no difference between this and things like this apparent egg-egg fertilization and sperm donors. I feel that it should be handled essentially in the same way, as well.

Sorry, what do you mean by treating it the same way.

edited 6th Jun '12 9:57:35 PM by joeyjojo

In that it's not anybody's business to be disallowing so long as everybody is free from coercion.

Though in the case of mother surrogates there is no anonymity, so there's no reason to not list them on the birth certificate as the biological parent.

Well I support the repeal of anonymous sperm donation if that makes you feel any better.

I don't really have an opinion on the anonymity of sperm donors.

I think they keep it anonymous specifically because the men don't want to be bothered and the people looking for sperm are of the mindset that the child is entirely theirs in spite of using genetic material that isn't from them. And I can respect that. It's an adult choice all around.

And if a birth mother wants to remain anonymous I fully support that. The only information the prospective parents would really need would be general medical information in the vein of is the woman healthy and what kind of potential problems they should watch out for.

Hm. If they could do it in such a way that we'd know if the kid is going to have genetic problems, it wouldn't particularly bother me if they gave surrogate mothers anonymity too if they wanted it and treated it exactly the same as a sperm donation. The only real reason to have the birth mother on the birth certificate is if you need to find her for medical purposes, and if that's otherwise covered it's essentially unnecessary.

Well, surrogacy is a bit different than simply taking the genetic material. I imagine that in these cases the women have already been screened extensively as far as health goes. Also I'm pretty sure in most cases the parents meet with the woman to determine compatibility and such before taking it any further. They also screen the males for sperm donation, but I'm not sure how extensive it is. (They also tend to give out information like education level and career/career aspirations with the sperm in question. Also basic appearance.)

According to the article in a recent TIME magazine issue, the amount of screening and categorizing sperm banks do for donors borders on obsessive paranoia. Probably for good reason. It's actually sort of creepy, but it is what it is.

When it comes to a surrogate, there are different levels. There are those who use other people's genetic material through in vitro. Technically at this point they are contributing absolutely nothing to the child's genetic development and are just a walking incubator.

There is no reason why this person needs to be on a birth record. They will be on a medical record, without their name, but the medical progress of the pregnancy will be there and that's all the kid needs to know.

Now in the cases where the surrogate offers their own egg, they still don't need to be on the birth record. Adopted parents are on the birth records but normally with a special seal to mark the adoption. Because here is the thing, adopted parents are under no legal obligation to tell their child they were adopted and the records honor that.