Surrogacy: A Moral and Ethical Debate on Reproductive Technologies

This article discusses the moral and ethical questions surrounding surrogacy and reproductive technologies. It explores the conflict between individual rights and the rights of society, the flaws in surrogacy, and the benefits it provides. The article also examines the different forms of surrogacy and the need for good relationships between surrogates and intended parents.

Surrogacy
Student’s name
Institution Affiliation(s)

Surrogacy
The moral and ethical questions that arose from surrogate motherhood came about due to
advances in modern technology. Without new reproductive technologies (NRTs), questions
confronting ethicists and infertile couples today would have been moot and academic since the
only possible recourse would be adoption. An issue of surrogate motherhood does not involve a
few individuals only but rather the whole society (Ryn, 2014). A priori question that precedes an
informed debate on surrogacy rights is the conflict between individual rights and the right of the
whole society especially that of women's rights. There are some flaws in surrogacy that have
been identified by the article “Surrogacy a service that ignores mother-child bond.”
Firstly, the article suggests that surrogacy is a transaction that reinforces the divide
between the haves and the have-nots. Infertile or gay or image-conscious Western couples can
buy a baby. This statement is an error, and since for those who want children (infertile couples,
gay couples, single men and women), the only viable option left is to use surrogate motherhood.
There might be some moral, ethical and religious qualms about surrogacy but the fact is that new
reproductive technologies are here to stay. More and more people will resort to this option
because it is attractive, alluring and less expensive (financially, emotionally and psychologically)
and simply because the new technology is there for everybody to use (Papaligoura, Papadatou, &
Bellali, 2015). If there are life-prolonging devices in hospitals, why not use the same medical
technology and knowledge to beget and procreate human life? Surrogacy has essentially two
forms: the commercial and the non-commercial – hence the “have not’s” can use the non-
commercial option. There are compelling reasons for surrogate motherhood especially from
feminists, and even “gift” surrogacy is not spared from the debate. Both forms can take either the
traditional or the gestational surrogacy. Those who argue against surrogate motherhood always

try to exaggerate the rare cases where surrogacy contracts were not followed by all the parties
concerned. They conveniently ignored the other instances in which parents brought to their
homes a very much-desired baby. The happy parents are now given a chance to raise a child that
is genetically related to them through the wonders of new reproductive technologies and critics
of surrogacy disregard these new parental arrangements where everybody comes out happy, and
all the involved parties derived considerable tangible benefits (Carr, 2019).
Secondly, the article states that surrogacy should be outlawed because it was as
exploitative as prostitution. This statement is a flaw since surrogate motherhood, whether
voluntarily entered or coerced, is mostly an exercise of an individual's rights. Either commercial
or altruistic surrogacy involves freedom of choice in most cases and would be no different in
other equally contentious issues like smoking, gun rights, pornography or abortion. The rights of
an individual to smoke, carry a gun, have an abortion or view pornographic materials cannot be
abridged and are limited only when there is potential harm to others, which in surrogacy cases,
usually involve the child and the surrogate mother. The lack of federal law regarding surrogacy
has put the question to the states which, as mentioned earlier, vary widely. This extra state power
leads to differing interpretations, and one aspect of that is tort law (Gunnarsson Payne, 2018).
Regulating surrogacy rights and motherhood will eventually go the same way as censoring
pornography, good in theory but very difficult to implement. If we can recall, the early days of
the Internet also called for its regulation but rapid digital technological advances made that
proposition impractical. Medical technology advances plus a host of other issues (poor women)
will make surrogacy more widespread.
Thirdly, the suggestion that surrogacy disregards the intimate bond a baby and mother
stitch together in the nine months before delivery is also very wrong. Although efforts are still

made to make adoption as smooth as possible, lack of a genetic connection with an adopted child
often results in a feeling of failure on the part of adoptive parents. A new option emerged through
the use of assisted reproductive methods but raised moral questions. Many infertile couples feel
to be doubly fighting an unseen enemy or struck by some natural disaster or uncontrollable
calamity when dealing with this very sensitive issue in their lives (infertility) and then when they
consider adoption as a solution, are often confronted again with a new set of psychological and
emotional issues (Stuvøy, 2018). Much of the literature here regarding adoption involves the
experience of adoptees who are more likely to seek therapy from emotional problems. Adoptive
children have vulnerabilities that adoptive parents should be acutely aware although some
experts point out that problems may not be due to the adoption itself but to attendant factors like
lack of good communications and stigma often associated with adoption. The use of surrogate
motherhood avoids these common pitfalls and provides another emotional benefit: knowing there
exists a direct genetic link (Kristinsson, 2016). Couples (especially married heterosexual
couples) dream of starting their own families and produce children whom they will love, nurture
and cherish. Nothing devastates a couple more than learning they will be unable to bring children
to this world. Whether the male or the female is sterile is often beside the point for these couples.
What breaks them is their dream of raising a family has been shattered through no fault of their
own. In older times, the only remedy for this bad situation is adoption and seek solace from their
religions. But the practice of adoption has always been fraught with risks and complications
(Ruiz-Robledillo & Moya-Albiol, 2016).
In conclusion, there have been several approaches suggested with regards to surrogacy,
but whether it is banned, allow non-commercial surrogacy (altruistic) but disallowing
commercial surrogacy or enforce both forms of surrogacy through contract and adoption laws,

surrogacy will continue to gain acceptance among couples today. This is especially true when
there are now more women in the workforce (and who may give more premium to their careers)
by not getting hindered with pregnancy, and also to the fact, there are now more infertile couples
due to lifestyle changes, more pollution and other factors causing infertility (such as stress).
People who resort to surrogacy need to develop good relationships with surrogates and also
reconcile their personal and religious beliefs to make the arrangement a successful one for all
concerned (Burrell & Edozien, 2014). In short, they need to have good chemistry among
themselves to make everything work out. At issue here are an individual choice and procreative
liberty which even the US Supreme Court tacitly recognized as extending to include a context of
non-coital reproduction (Eggen 1991). A child is the best gift anyone can ever give someone
today.

References
Burrell, C., & Edozien, L. C. (2014). Surrogacy in modern obstetric practice. The Interface
Between Perinatology, Ethics And The Law, 19(5), 272–278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2014.08.004
Carr, S. V. (2019). Surrogacy and ethics in women with cancer. Conservative Management of
Reproductive Cancers, 55, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.11.001
Gunnarsson Payne, J. (2018). Autonomy in altruistic surrogacy, conflicting kinship grammars
and intentional multilineal kinship. Symposium: Making Families - Transnational
Surrogacy, Queer Kinship, and Reproductive Justice, 7, 66–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2018.10.014
Kristinsson, S. (2016). Legalizing altruistic surrogacy in response to evasive travel? An Icelandic
proposal. Brocher Symposium: Perspectives on Access to Reproductive Healthcare, 3,
109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.12.003
Papaligoura, Z., Papadatou, D., & Bellali, T. (2015). Surrogacy: The experience of Greek
commissioning women. Women and Birth, 28(4), e110–e118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2015.07.005
Ruiz-Robledillo, N., & Moya-Albiol, L. (2016). Gestational surrogacy: Psychosocial aspects.
Psychosocial Intervention, 25(3), 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psi.2016.05.001
Ryn, C. van. (2014, September 7). Surrogacy a service that ignores mother-child bond. Retrieved
February 24, 2019, from https://www.examiner.com.au/story/2542298/surrogacy-a-
service-that-ignores-mother-child-bond/
Stuvøy, I. (2018). Troublesome reproduction: surrogacy under scrutiny. Symposium: Making
Families - Transnational Surrogacy, Queer Kinship, and Reproductive Justice, 7, 33–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2018.10.015