Sperm donors and surrogate mothers.
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
| druscilla. Bleeding on the Floor  Age: 37 Gender: Female Posts: 1671 | A sperm donor is somebody who donates their sperm to a blood bank. A mother/couple can then use the sperm to impregnate the mother and she can have a child. A surrogate mother is somebody who carries a child to term for another mother/couple if the mother cannot do so herself. Should these people have custodial rights? Should a surrogate mother be able to keep the child she carries? Should a sperm donor be able to find his child and demand custodial rights? I say no. Basically these people entered into a contract and they should not be allowed to terminate it. That's my legal opinion. Personally, I will be having children using a sperm donor. As far as I know, two women can't have a baby together yet without sperm. I do not want my child to have a father. S/he will have two mothers who love him/her greatly. I would never want the sperm donor to walk to my door and ask to see his child. He gave up his sperm. He has no say to my child. |
| xXtRaGIc_AffAiRXx Jazz Hands  Age: 36 Gender: Female Posts: 356 | yeah i agree with you as far as i know they have to sign somethng saying they have no rights to the child anyway ... but i might be making that up also a sperm donor is likely to donate more than once so how are they to know all of the people to whom their sperms gone to ... and would they demand rights to all their children? and also with surrogate mothers, you agree to carrying the child for someone else so i dont think its right to turn around and decide you want rights although admittedly its probably harder for surrogate mothers as they have carried the child for months, whereas the sperm donor simply donates and then carries on with their day |
| nothing Bleeding on the Floor Age: - Gender: - Posts: 1406 | I agree with you 100%. They entered something, and they know what they did. It's basically not even their child anymore. Though as xXtRaGIc_AffAiRXx said; It's probably harder for surrgate mothers, because they become extremely attatched to their child. However, they still know what they signed up for, and have to go through with it. So totally agree there. |
| Cigarettes And Suicide Bleeding on the Floor  Age: 38 Gender: Female Posts: 1725 | Deeeefinitely. Sperm donors/surrogate mothers turning around and deciding they want to be involved in the child's life only causes everybody a bunch of misery - if they weren't sure they could remain detached, they shouldn't have entered into the equation to begin with. I think it's for the emotional turmoil reason that surrogacy is illegal in Queensland - which is hard because it makes it that much harder for couples who are unable, for whatever reason, to conceive naturally. They have to travel interstate and then go througha major legal process of adopting what is, at the root of it, their own flesh and blood. Sperm donors wanting rights to the children resulting from their donation is absolutely ridiculous - you masturbated into a cup in a clinic and walked out, there's absolutely no connection to an actual child there as far as I'm concerned. Surrogate mothers are a bit of a different story, seeing as how they actually grow the baby in their womb for nine months, and go through the trauma of squeezing it out, but I've heard too many stories of women who volunteer to be a surrogate mother for a friend or relative, or even complete stranger, and then halfway through the pregnancy (and usually after being paid a shitload of money by the prospective parents), she turns around and backs out of the whole situation because she's become attached to the baby. It's a load of crap - you don't think you can handle giving up a child you carried (that, by the way, isn't even your egg or your partner's sperm), then don't enter into the contract and destroy somebody's hopes of becoming a parent. And if you think you can handle it to begin with, and then find that you can't, you just go through with it anyway because to do anything other than that would completely devastate the 'parents'. Seriously. I know I could never hand over a baby to somebody else, but I would do it anyway if it wasn't mine, because I would prefer to shoulder the grieving it would entail myself, rather than destroy somebody else's hopes. |
| My Hero: Demolition Lover  Age: 84 Gender: Female Posts: 18210 | I don't think they should have any costodial rights, I mean they did this knowing the outcome, so they should not be able to keep the child. |
| xxSweetxxRevengexx Killjoy  Age: 32 Gender: Female Posts: 62 | I don't think they should have custodial rights. They were the ones who volunteered to do this. They new the child wouldn't be theirs, and if they wanted to keep the child, they shouldn't have donated sperm/agreed to carry the child. |
| girl interrupted. Salute You in Your Grave  Age: 30 Gender: Female Posts: 2792 | Maybe I'm watchin too much Legally Blonde, but I agree with what they said on that. If a man even wanted to see a child which was the result of his sperm, he'd have to contact every single sexual partner he's ever had, including one-night-stands, to see if a child was the result of those partnerships. But then again, it was and is his sperm. So I guess I'm pro-choice. But for Surrogate Mothers, it would be harder, as they have carried the child and they may get attatched. It's unfair for the woman who wants the child to say "Now I have the child, you can't ever see him / her again!" but it's also unfair for the Surrogate Mother to refuse to give up the baby. They knew what they were getting into. |
| druscilla. Bleeding on the Floor Age: 37 Gender: Female Posts: 1671 | Kathryn Catastrophe.: a) I don't think it's unfair to not let him see his child. He gave it up, he has no rights, end of story. I'd probably punch any guy who showed up and laid claim to my child. b) I don't think it's unfair for the woman to say the surrogate mother can't see their child again. I think it would be upsetting for the child. They should know they didn't come out of their mother's body but they don't need to have a close relationship with the biological mother. It's not his/her mother. It's a "womb for hire" for lack of a better definition. [I know that sounds quite cold but I can't think of another term.] |
| The Doctor Salute You in Your Grave  Age: 33 Gender: Female Posts: 2094 | I think that surrogate mothers should be allowed to see their child, but that should be the parents choice. It should be discussed before they have the child, not sprung on the parents afterwards. Also, it depends whether the parents are going to tell the child that they are a surrogate, and not fully biologically theirs. |
| Fezzik Salute You in Your Grave  Age: 34 Gender: Female Posts: 2748 | ^A surrogate is fully biologically theirs. A couple that can't carry a child have an embryo created in a lab of the woman's egg and the man's sperm, and then that embryo (and many other) are implanted in the surrogate mother's uterus. So the surrogate mother carries the child, but it's not biologically hers. |
| druscilla. Bleeding on the Floor Age: 37 Gender: Female Posts: 1671 | Resurgam: Sometimes that's not true. I've heard of cases where if the mother is carrying a genetic disease that can be passed onto their child they'll use the surrogate mother's egg. |
| Cigarettes And Suicide Bleeding on the Floor Age: 38 Gender: Female Posts: 1725 | druscilla; in rags: I agree with druscilla on the 'womb for hire' stance - if I, god forbid, was unable to carry my own child to term, I would still want to have a child, and if surrogacy was an option, I would take it - but no way in hell would the surrogate have any further involvement in the child's life once the umbilical cord was cut. That child is mine, my flesh and blood, and I feel that if the surrogate mother was allowed to be a part of the child's life, it would cause confusion for the child and pain for the surrogate, who may become jealous or otherwise interfere in future. Meanwhile, the poor mother is standing back trying to put on a brave face and feeling like she's going to lose her child to another woman. They knew full well that they were essentially just being used as an incubator, if you will, for nine months, and probably got a pretty terrific cash payout for their generosity, but the association ends there as far as I'm concerned - even if the child were conceived with their egg, it's still not their child - they've agreed beforehand to carry said child, then hand it over to the parents and that's the end of it. If you want your own kids, go have your own kids - don't be interfering with somebody else's kids, even if you were the vessel that carried it for a while. Chemical-x-Star: Surrogacy isn't adoption. In most cases, the surrogate mother has absolutely no biological ties to the child in question - it is the parents' sperm and egg that makes the embryo that gets implanted. Therefore the parents have no need to try and explain later on that they're not 'really your parents', because they are. Usually a surrogate is needed when the prospective mother has something like an inadequate cervix, which ruptures a few weeks into the pregnancy and all the stuff comes out - she can't carry a baby to full term but is able to conceive naturally. I believe that a baby born of surrogacy has absolutely no need to be informed of the circumstances, and if they are, they still don't have to be involved with the woman who carried them - they are still their parents' child and to bring another person in on that relationship would only cause confusion, misery and pain on all sides. |
| Lovesick Melody. Bulletproof Heart  Age: 84 Gender: Female Posts: 25760 | Well Im from New Zealand, and I actually saw a couple of days ago a article that was titled something like "Female = Female = Baby?" And basically by taking both the womens DNA they can somehow make some sperm from them, can this be true? |
| Fezzik Salute You in Your Grave Age: 34 Gender: Female Posts: 2748 | druscilla; in rags: Yeah, I actually thought of that about twenty minutes after posting it. But I don't know if that counts as surrogacy (well, it doesn't according to merriman-webster, but that's probably too literal a definition). Even so, for the most part surrogate mothers aren't biological parents to the child they carry. |
| bloodredruby69 Banned  Age: 36 Gender: Female Posts: 8293 | Resurgam: Technically, you're right Resurgam, it's not surrogacy in that case. What is done (theoretically, I dunno if this has actually been done yet) is taking a single sperm from a donor male and removing the nucleus and genetic code of the man, and inserting the genetic code of the female, as well as (I think) the nucleus from one of the woman's eggs. This is just my understanding of it though. Once the sperm is altered, the sperm is no longer (genetically) the man's sperm, so he holds no biological claim to it. |
| alexander Killjoy Age: 33 Gender: Male Posts: 47 | I strongly agree...But then again they will someday probably want to meet thier child. |
| Cigarettes And Suicide Bleeding on the Floor Age: 38 Gender: Female Posts: 1725 | fullmetalfreek: But it's not 'their' child at all. They were just a blood supply for nine months. The egg belongs to the actual mother, and the sperm belongs to the actual father, not the surrogate's partner, therefore the surrogate has no claim or attachment (other than the one in her own mind) to the child. Besides, she gets to meet it when she gives birth, then hands it over to the real mum and dad. That's enough in my opinion. And as far as sperm donors go, well, their only involvement is to go to a clinic and beat off into a cup, sign a paper and go home. They have absolutely no claim or involvement with any children resulting from their donations, because they willingly gave up their stuff to be used by those who need it (eg a couple in which the male partner has a zero- or low-sperm count). In my opinion, sperm donors are not fathers unless they are married and have their own children the normal way you or I would. Being a father is much more than simply contributing sperm, and I don't know what kinds of legislation exist overseas, but in Australia, sperm donations can only be used by married couple who have been trying for children for a certain amount of time, have had certain tests done, etc, so in those cases, the children resulting from donation already have loving, caring fathers, who are their father in every way except biological. How horrible would it be for some random guy to come barging into their happy family (where, chances are, the child isn't aware that they're the result of anything except a normal conception), wanting to lay claim to a child he's never seen, never heard of, and ruin their lives? |
| rock_is_dead Fabulous Killjoy Age: 34 Gender: Female Posts: 111 | I really don't think they should at all. If they want to hang around and be a figure in the childs life, then I think they can. But nothing more than that. |
| xxWolvenPrincessxx Joining The Black Parade  Age: 36 Gender: Female Posts: 200 | If their willing to do what they're doing then no, they're doing this to help people who can't have children. |
| Jenny. Moderator Age: 30 Gender: Female Posts: 19720 | I think it's up to the biological parents of the child. If they want the surrogate mother/sperm donor to be part of the child's life, then yes, they can be. But if not, then no. The sperm donor/surrogate mother went through with it understanding that they will have no say in the child and therefore cannot go back on that, in my opinionl. |
Options
Go back to top
Go back to top