Show of Hands

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

Why not?

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.

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

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

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.

Ok thanks for the clarification.

Interesting, autie! Thanks!

How does surrogate mother=human trafficking

You're buying a baby aren't you?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Team Whichend! 😃

gonzo 👍✋👊😉

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?"

Thanks grandma. ☺

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!

No, kind of like adoption.

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

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.

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

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

"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.

The definition of surrogate is:

sur·ro·gate sərəɡət,ˈsərəˌɡāt/ 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"

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

Fwiw, I messaged jaysin.

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?"

Thanks, GA.

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

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.

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?

No

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

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

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

Exactly drama

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...

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.

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

Thank you truenuff.

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.

Same here. I like bright, crystalline, Sunday morning clarity. Thank you truenuff, Whichend. Happy Sunday morning all! 🌝
😃👉🏼 ☕️

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.

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.

See susanr's thread above.

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.

Grandma, this is about the practice in ohio:
education.ohio.gov/Topics/Special-Education/Federal-and-State-Requirements/Surrogate-Parents-for-Children-with-Disabilities

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.

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. 😏

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?"

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.

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 ...

... 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.

"... 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! 😏

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

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

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.

😁 yes, I noticed that it bothered you. No worries.

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 ...

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

Why?

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

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

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

*country* stupid autocorrect

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.

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

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...

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

Of course, you're running to the extremes.

www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/30-appeal-to-extremes

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...

...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...

...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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

I'm not sure you know what logic is.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Arkansas has got to be trolling

Not in all states

Well said.

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

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.

advantage of*