Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands July 26th, 2015 1:11am

Should it be legal for a woman to offer her services as a surrogate mother (clarification: to be artificially inseminated and deliver a baby for another couple) for profit?

62 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Renxxx America
08/02/15 8:27 pm

We have laws to protect us from ourselves and this is ok in my opinion as long as the person gets a license to do so, as in prepared to carry a baby then give it up and what to do after having the child etc. If people actually want this to be a thing

jamjay Atlanta, Ga
07/28/15 1:25 pm

Sure. All parties are entering into a business arrangement. I say good for them.
My reservation would be that the girl would renig after the delivery and want to keep the baby. It's not like you forcibly remove the baby.

cowboy Proud Father
07/27/15 6:38 am

No. The man should be able to impregnate the bitch the old fashioned way.

Reply
libertatheist Texas
07/27/15 11:00 am

But you probably also cry over the trampling of individual liberties right?

tydye
07/26/15 6:18 pm

I say yes but once the baby is born and she is paid there can be ABSOLUTELY no change of mind on her part and the child must be surrendered. No exceptions.

Reply
ParaguasPato Columbus GA
07/26/15 4:22 pm

Well, I mean, it's her body. She should be able to offer her services. Doesn't mean the recipient has to take the offer.

caboose2050 Blood Gulch
07/26/15 4:11 pm

No, I'd need to see proof that this doesn't have a negative affect on the child before I'd say it's OK.

Wooperth Blue Dog Democrat
07/26/15 2:06 pm

No... human life production should never be a business.

Reply
gatsbyxxv
07/26/15 1:26 pm

But every one involved must insure they are legally protected.

Reply
Vayl Reason over common sense
07/26/15 1:18 pm

Wait, there's actually people that think this should be illegal? The fuck?

Reply
ajsheed91 Iowa
07/26/15 12:16 pm

That would be like selling a baby.

Vayl Reason over common sense
07/26/15 1:25 pm

So you're against adoption as well? If you're against surrogates, you must also be against adoption in order to be logically consistent. It's essentially the same thing. The only difference is money.

Obsideon Orbiting Earth
07/28/15 7:47 am

The difference is that adoption usually gives a child without a parent someone to watch over them.

SonofThunder peace
07/26/15 12:06 pm

Why not? It's her business.

Reply
themahcrow Louisiana
07/26/15 11:28 am

I actually didn't know that it's illegal.

Reply
GrandmaALiCE
07/26/15 12:41 pm

It's not. The question is basically asking if it's ok or should the law be changed?

autiemom
07/26/15 3:03 pm

It's not legal in all states. NY banned paid surrogacy and many states won't protect the bio parents rights if the surrogate tries to keep their baby.

themahcrow Louisiana
07/27/15 5:05 am

Ok thanks for the clarification.

GrandmaALiCE
07/27/15 5:29 am

Interesting, autie! Thanks!

DoctorBradford
07/26/15 11:21 am

I'm surprised so many people do not think this should be legal...

autiemom
07/26/15 9:01 am

This is actually a journey I have recently started and it's encouraging that so many people are supportive.

Reply
Spiritof76 USA 1776
07/26/15 8:21 am

Why shouldn't it be "legal" if it's a choice between two consenting individuals? Some people just have an affliction with controlling others' lives.

Reply
corino Utah
07/26/15 7:40 am

Sounds like human trafficking.

Reply
goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
07/26/15 7:47 am

How does surrogate mother=human trafficking

corino Utah
07/26/15 7:58 am

You're buying a baby aren't you?

goalie31 OrthodoxCatholicChristian
07/26/15 8:00 am

Yeah... Typically because you are incapable of making one yourself. How is adoption any different?

singkitty In the cloud
07/26/15 9:18 am

You're not necessarily buying a baby. Often the couple uses their own egg and sperm so really you're just renting out a uterus for 9 months.

Gunfighter06 Iowa, since 1846
07/26/15 7:00 am

Absolutely. It's her uterus. She can rent it out.

Reply
bowtieguy wishin I was fishin
07/26/15 1:36 am

I have no idea what that means but if it's not hurting anyone else then yes

Reply
truenuff
07/26/15 3:53 am

A surrogate parent is a person who is appointed to act in the interests of an exceptional student who does not have a parent who can make educational decisions. The surrogate parent works with the school to plan the child's special education services

studlybme Lexington
07/26/15 6:16 am

Don't listen to trunuff. A surrogate parent is a woman who offers to carry a baby for for a couple who it unable to carry it themselves. Trunuff is talking about a custodian.

singkitty In the cloud
07/26/15 6:16 am

I think the point of this poll was asking about surrogate pregnancy. Meaning you hire a woman to carry your fetus for 9 months. But it was worded oddly.

Whichendisup uniquely unoriginal
07/26/15 6:57 am

Truenuff is correct, it is for kids whose parents/guardians can't be found or for kids who are guardians of the state. There are plenty of links to state documentation discussing this.

Whichendisup uniquely unoriginal
07/26/15 6:58 am

These surrogates do not live with the kids or take care of them outside of helping with their educational issues. And though it seems to be mostly geared towards those kids that have problems, it is also for gifted kids.

singkitty In the cloud
07/26/15 7:31 am

The question says "woman" and a surrogate parent by the definition you're referring to can be either a man or a woman. That's what leads me to believe this question was meant to be about surrogacy via IVF.

Whichendisup uniquely unoriginal
07/26/15 7:34 am

Sing, a couple of users have messaged the SoH minions. Hopefully there will be a clarification soon.

gonzoboy Northern AZ
07/26/15 7:53 am

Team Whichend! ๐Ÿ˜ƒ

Whichendisup uniquely unoriginal
07/26/15 7:58 am

gonzo ๐Ÿ‘โœ‹๐Ÿ‘Š๐Ÿ˜‰

GrandmaALiCE
07/26/15 12:44 pm

The question has been updated for clarity. "Should it be legal for a woman to offer her services as a surrogate mother (clarification: to be artificially inseminated and deliver a baby for another couple) for profit?"

Whichendisup uniquely unoriginal
07/26/15 5:24 pm

Thanks grandma. โ˜บ

trollthepoll Pro Choice
07/25/15 9:50 pm

Her body her choice! Hmmm kind of like abortion...

Reply
FlipFlopGirl Sic semper tyrannis
07/26/15 7:35 am

Not at all but nice try!

A surrogate is giving the gift of life to another person who cannot get pregnant. It's the exact opposite!

JosephP0415 Pittsburgh, PA
07/25/15 9:41 pm

That's capitalism. If someone's willing to pay and its not an illicit service then let them.

Reply
susanr Colorado
07/25/15 9:40 pm

SOH - Is the question intended to ask about bearing a child for another person or couple, or actually *parenting* a child? Users seem to be answering the question differently.

DuckAndCower
07/25/15 11:10 pm

It's gotta be the first one. The second one would just be asking if babysitters should be legal.

susanr Colorado
07/25/15 11:15 pm

That's what I figured too, but I see that some think otherwise, & the wording is a little strange if it means just carrying the pregnancy.

MissTake Dont Hate
07/26/15 1:24 am

Surrogacy is generally defined as bearing the child. If people are too dumb to know that then they need a dictionary and to not vote on the subject

susanr Colorado
07/26/15 3:22 am

Well, then, a number of states are "too dumb." Here's how the state of Florida defines "surrogate parent"; a number of other states do the same: "A surrogate parent is a person who is appointed to act in the interests of an exceptional student who

susanr Colorado
07/26/15 3:25 am

"does not have a parent who can make educational decisions."

See, the issue some are having is with the word "parent." It's really a legitimate issue, and they're not "dumb" people.

squib Northern New England
07/26/15 3:39 am

The definition of surrogate is:

sur·ro·gate sษ™rษ™ษกษ™t,หˆsษ™rษ™หŒษกฤt/ noun
a substitute, especially a person deputizing for another in a specific role or office.
"she was regarded as the surrogate for the governor during his final illness"

squib Northern New England
07/26/15 3:39 am

synonyms: substitute, proxy, replacement; More
(in the Christian Church) a bishop's deputy who grants marriage licenses.
a judge in charge of probate, inheritance, and guardianship.

squib Northern New England
07/26/15 3:42 am

So you can be a surrogate for practically anything. It is just that so people don't realize it had a mean before they started correctly using the word for non-biological mothers who are pregnant for someone else.

squib Northern New England
07/26/15 3:46 am

You could correct call a guardian ad litem a surrogate parent in court because they are deputized with some of the rights of the parents when the parents are guaranteed to watch for the rights of the child in say cases of divorce.

squib Northern New England
07/26/15 3:48 am

So since I do know the definition, as I showed you and I know of at least two ways that a person can be a surrogate for a child does that make me "too dumb" to answer the question?

squib Northern New England
07/26/15 3:51 am

This question is poorly worded. With that said I chose to answer assuming the colloquial definition of surrogate meaning a non-bio mother being pregnant for someone else.

truenuff
07/26/15 3:54 am

A surrogate parent is a person who is appointed to act in the interests of an exceptional student who does not have a parent who can make educational decisions. The surrogate parent works with the school to plan the child's special education services

GrandmaALiCE
07/26/15 6:42 am

The confusion is because SOH used the term "surrogate parent," when the context clearly implies "surrogate mother."

Surrogate mother has the well-known meaning of a woman who bears a child for another woman.

GrandmaALiCE
07/26/15 6:53 am

I discussed this further in the thread started by dramaschick below.

I wish somebody from SOH would answer your question. The question is badly worded, in my opinion.

GrandmaALiCE
07/26/15 12:48 pm

Susan et al, the question has now been updated for clarity.

"Should it be legal for a woman to offer her services as a surrogate mother (clarification: to be artificially inseminated and deliver a baby for another couple) for profit?"

jDinOR Oregon
07/25/15 8:51 pm

As long as any medical cost(s) be covered by private citizen including corporate citizen and not that of The Affordable Healthcare Act.

Reply
MissTake Dont Hate
07/26/15 1:26 am

Why not? If either woman had the baby herself her insurance would be covering it, just because a surrogate is having it for her shouldn't mean they lose out on their insurance

jDinOR Oregon
07/26/15 1:32 pm

MissTake Just another way for wealth to manipulate cost to the middle and lower class tax payer. If you think your going to get wealthy by being a surrogate then allow those who can afford to pay you as one pay all the costs and not my tax dollar.

MissTake Dont Hate
07/26/15 1:37 pm

If she pays her insurance bills we have no right to deny her healthcare coverage! If the babies bio mother had gotten pregnant then insurance would cover that so there's really no difference?

MaxineL New Jersey
07/25/15 8:31 pm

Aren't there companies that pair surrogates with couples?

Reply
Fox semirural
07/25/15 8:22 pm

Yes; such would likely expand the range of opportunities for those childless not by choice.

bnnt Los Angeles
07/25/15 8:13 pm

Of course. There should be some official agreement beforehand though.

MrMilkdud
07/25/15 7:55 pm

There's no way to enforce a law like that.

FlipFlopGirl Sic semper tyrannis
07/25/15 7:54 pm

Absolutely, but it needs to be in writing and completely enforceable in the court of law without stiff financial penalties.

Reply
dramaschick All ways in my head
07/25/15 7:23 pm

Isn't that called a nanny?

Reply
Whichendisup uniquely unoriginal
07/25/15 7:57 pm

That's what I was thinking - how are they different?

michaels
07/25/15 8:18 pm

Surrogacy is carrying a child to birth and then turning it over to the parents who hired the surrogate.

dramaschick All ways in my head
07/25/15 8:47 pm

It said surrogate parent not birth mother so my assumption is that they need to pay someone to raise their children which is like a nanny

gonzoboy Northern AZ
07/25/15 9:29 pm

drama, Whichend, YES. To be honest, I had to go BACK and read the poll a FEW times, and I see a difference with NO distinction between a for-profit surrogate parent, and a Nanny! The spelling, perhaps...

DeathSheep Michigan
07/25/15 10:58 pm

A surrogate mother is someone who carries the child til birth then gives the baby to its mother. This question just stupidly used the phrasing surrogate parents.

truenuff
07/26/15 3:54 am

A surrogate parent is a person who is appointed to act in the interests of an exceptional student who does not have a parent who can make educational decisions. The surrogate parent works with the school to plan the child's special education services

Whichendisup uniquely unoriginal
07/26/15 5:32 am

Thank you truenuff.

Whichendisup uniquely unoriginal
07/26/15 6:04 am

Also for clarity, the child's parents/guardians can't be found or the kids are wards of the state. And this fact may change my answer after some more thinking.

gonzoboy Northern AZ
07/26/15 6:19 am

Same here. I like bright, crystalline, Sunday morning clarity. Thank you truenuff, Whichend. Happy Sunday morning all! ๐ŸŒ
๐Ÿ˜ƒ๐Ÿ‘‰๐Ÿผ โ˜•๏ธ

GrandmaALiCE
07/26/15 6:46 am

Truenuff, that is correct.

However, from the context of the question, I'm sure SOH really meant "surrogate mother." A surrogate mother is a woman who bears a child for another couple, usually because the woman can't get pregnant.

GrandmaALiCE
07/26/15 6:49 am

First of all, there's nothing controversial about being a surrogate parent, as far as I can figure, but there have been some issues with surrogate mothers. Also, the question specified a woman. I think it was just poorly worded.

GrandmaALiCE
07/26/15 6:50 am

See susanr's thread above.

Whichendisup uniquely unoriginal
07/26/15 6:54 am

Grandma, I don't know that they did mean mother. They don't usually make mistakes like that. I'm sticking with "parent" which, though might not be very well known, is an actual thing from my quick Internet perusal.

Whichendisup uniquely unoriginal
07/26/15 7:01 am

It seems this is a state thing, so I doubt they're will be much info in one place. I found a bunch of links, but by state.

GrandmaALiCE
07/26/15 7:05 am

Which, I understand that. I'm glad that I learned about the practice, because I always enjoy learning new things. However, I am firmly convinced that wasn't the intent of this poll. ๐Ÿ˜

GrandmaALiCE
07/26/15 7:06 am

Imagine two alternative questions, each edited for clarity.

"Should it be legal for a woman to offer her services as a surrogate mother for profit?"

"Should it be legal for a person to offer his or her services as a surrogate parent for profit?"

Whichendisup uniquely unoriginal
07/26/15 7:10 am

Again Grandma, the poll writers for the main polls are not apt to make such mistakes, especially given the fact that only women, not both parents, can actually give birth. But, I guess we will wait & see. My hope is that jaysin or someone pops in.

GrandmaALiCE
07/26/15 7:11 am

The first is far more interesting as an SOH question. In fact, the second would make a fairly boring poll.

And you say they don't make mistakes, but clearly there *is* a mistake, either way. The first and second parts of the question are ...

GrandmaALiCE
07/26/15 7:14 am

... inconsistent.

"For a *woman* to offer *her* services" does not match "as a surrogate *parent*".

Anyway, Susan asked which was intended. I hope she gets an answer from somebody on the SOH staff.

GrandmaALiCE
07/26/15 7:18 am

"... especially given the fact that only women, not both parents, can actually give birth." That was exactly my point. They do ask about a woman.

"My hope is that jaysin or someone pops in." Me, too! ๐Ÿ˜

Whichendisup uniquely unoriginal
07/26/15 7:22 am

Grandma, I didn't say they didn't make mistakes, I said they were not apt to make these types of mistakes. And yes, they did say a woman and then said a surrogate parent, not surrogate mother. That distinction is what make me think it's not the usual

Whichendisup uniquely unoriginal
07/26/15 7:24 am

But I'm not suggesting that you believe otherwise than you do, simply showing you that a viable alternative to understanding the question exists.

GrandmaALiCE
07/26/15 7:26 am

I just messaged jaysin. I asked if he would pop in to clear up the confusion. Maybe somebody else wrote it, but he can probably find out.

Let's wait and see.

For some weird reason, it bothers me. That's strange, I admit.

Whichendisup uniquely unoriginal
07/26/15 7:32 am

๐Ÿ˜ yes, I noticed that it bothered you. No worries.

GrandmaALiCE
07/26/15 12:55 pm

For anyone who didn't notice, the question is updated for clarity. Please excuse my multiple posts. There are separate threads, with the same confusion. It turns out that Michael and DeathSheep had the correct interpretation.

However, thanks to ...

GrandmaALiCE
07/26/15 12:57 pm

... this mixup, I did learn about surrogate parents, something totally different. Thanks to truenuff and which for that enlightenment.

Liberty 4,032,064
07/25/15 7:11 pm

Of course. Government has no authority to prevent her from doing so.

Reply
breanne Denver, Co
07/25/15 7:07 pm

I am doing just that, under a very clearly stated contract and willfully. It's really a win-win for all parties.

Reply
redoverture Massachusetts
07/25/15 6:55 pm

I think the emphasis on the poll here is 'for profit'. The debate isn't more about surrogate birthing, but is meant to focus on the morality of charging money for it. I personally think it is her choice to charge money or not.

Reply
Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/25/15 6:53 pm

Surrogacy should be illegal.

Reply
FlipFlopGirl Sic semper tyrannis
07/25/15 7:57 pm

Why? What about women who can't get pregnant due to how their bodies function?

singkitty In the cloud
07/26/15 6:19 am

Why shouldn't I be able to help another couple start a family?

autiemom
07/26/15 9:09 am

Well you may be living in the wrong state then. Arkansas is one of the most surro-friendly states in the countries.

autiemom
07/26/15 9:10 am

*country* stupid autocorrect

Vayl Reason over common sense
07/26/15 1:18 pm

What the fuck? Why would you comment this if you're not going to explain yourself? That's completely pointless. Either explain why it should be illegal, or don't bother commenting.

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/26/15 3:30 pm

Children deserve to be birthed and raised by their own parents. Surrogacy detaches a developing child from his biological mother.

Vayl Reason over common sense
07/26/15 3:49 pm

Why do children need to be raised by their biological parents? What if their biological parents are extremely abusive? Or completely incapable of properly taking care of a child? Their biology shouldn't matter. Children deserve to be raised by...

Vayl Reason over common sense
07/26/15 3:50 pm

...whoever knows how to raise a child, and whoever actually wants to raise one, regardless of biology.

Vayl Reason over common sense
07/26/15 4:03 pm

I honestly have no idea where you got that fallacy from my comment. The argument I made literally has nothing to do with an appeal to extremes. My argument was that if a child's parents are either not fit to raise a child and/or do not want to...

Vayl Reason over common sense
07/26/15 4:05 pm

...raise one, then it makes since for those people to give the child to someone else who is both able and willing to raise a child. You claimed that a child deserves to be raised by their biological parents. I merely pointed out that being the...

Vayl Reason over common sense
07/26/15 4:07 pm

...biological parent of a child does not necessarily mean that you should be required to raise that child, nor does it automatically make you the best candidate to raise that child.

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/26/15 4:13 pm

We're not talking about the separation of an existing child from his parents for a compelling reason; rather, we're talking about the purposeful creation of a new child away from his mother and father as if the child were a commodity.

autiemom
07/26/15 4:15 pm

Very few people choose traditional surrogacy anymore. Gestational surrogacy, where a fertilized embryo is transferred to an unrelated surro, is much more popular. The parents who raise the baby are the bio parents. The surrogate is not related at all

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/26/15 4:21 pm

That's wrong. What kind of person abandons her child to the care of a stranger for nine months?

singkitty In the cloud
07/26/15 4:43 pm

The kind that unfortunately is physically unable to carry said baby themselves. Does that really need to be spelled out for you?

autiemom
07/26/15 4:54 pm

You obviously don't care about logic so I won't waste my time. That's the most ridiculous statement I've seen all day.

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/26/15 5:21 pm

I'm not sure you know what logic is.

FlipFlopGirl Sic semper tyrannis
07/26/15 5:54 pm

Surrogacy also is an egg and sperm from another couple, the surrogate only carries the child. Maybe the woman's eggs were good but due to other issues she can't carry full term.

FlipFlopGirl Sic semper tyrannis
07/26/15 5:57 pm

You have no idea what it's like hearing at 25 that the chance of you getting pregnant is slim to none bc of your cycle. Imagine having the eggs but your cycle makes it near impossible for conception and carrying full term.

FlipFlopGirl Sic semper tyrannis
07/26/15 6:02 pm

At 25 I was told I could have a complete hysterectomy, have version of radiation therapy, or go on the pill. At least I'm not in doing HRT and decided on the pill. Why shouldn't I be allowed to use one?

FlipFlopGirl Sic semper tyrannis
07/26/15 6:06 pm

I pray your wife and kids don't face what I have! My issue is a medical condition through no fault of my own. I didn't do anything that caused it, it started when I was 14 and slowly got worse! Next thing I knew I cycled 4-5x a year for 3-4 weeks.

Vayl Reason over common sense
07/26/15 6:22 pm

Arkansas, the whole point is that a mother wouldn't practice surrogacy if she didn't have a compelling reason to do so. Obviously, if she didn't have a reason to be a surrogate, she wouldn't be a surrogate.

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/26/15 6:53 pm

We've seen how well "trust the woman" works. Fifty years ago, liberals were telling us that women wouldn't be getting abortions without "a compelling reason to do so." What a lie that was!

Unless we act, children will become Build-a-Bears.

singkitty In the cloud
07/27/15 4:34 am

Ark it's men like you who need to keep their politics off women's bodies. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Until you know what it's like to have ovaries and being told you can't conceive your opinion is pretty null and void.

singkitty In the cloud
07/27/15 4:40 am

Flip flop I'm so sorry to hear about your struggles and to see the ignorance displayed here by others. Your personal experience speaks volumes on why surrogacy could be such a profound life giving choice for some.

GrandmaALiCE
07/27/15 6:44 am

I agree 100% with singkitty, except that it isn't really "others," just ONE other.

Arkansas, that's a pretty messed-up analogy with abortion.

Vayl Reason over common sense
07/27/15 8:09 am

That wasn't a lie, Arkansas. Not wanting a baby is certainly a compelling enough reason to get an abortion.

Vayl Reason over common sense
07/27/15 8:10 am

Also, it is extremely fallacious to compare surrogacy to abortion.

Genome Praise Poseidon
07/27/15 12:01 pm

Arkansas has got to be trolling

TiredofIt Texas
07/25/15 6:52 pm

It already is.....

Reply
Nos4at2 demented weirdo
07/25/15 6:30 pm

Her body, her choice, as long as she is not being forced and has no health issues that would pose a negative effect on the embryo.

Reply
Congressman Louisiana
07/25/15 6:23 pm

No valid reason not to.

Reply
Zod Above Pugetropolis
07/25/15 6:22 pm

Yes, but more importantly, no woman should be forced to perform that role against her will, paid or not.

Reply
afnj1 The TARDIS
07/25/15 6:20 pm

Sure, everyone wins in this situation.

Rotavele Alabama
07/25/15 6:18 pm

Of course. They've already started out sourcing that business as well.

You can hire a surrogate in India for $7,000 (cheap for a surrogate, but over 1 years salary for a woman in India.)

TiredofIt Texas
07/25/15 6:53 pm

No way! I've never heard of this but I guess I'm not surprised haha!

croopertrooper Greater Cincinnati Area
07/25/15 7:38 pm

I remember watching something about the surrogacy market in India, and apparently it is HUGE. I think it might have been on Vice? Not entirely sure.

TKswoop
07/25/15 6:14 pm

Yes but a concrete financial agreement needs to be settled beforehand to prevent either party from being taken advantaged, i.e. the surrogate can't demand more money or otherwise refuse to give up the child after the contract has been drawn up.

Reply
TKswoop
07/25/15 6:14 pm

advantage of*