The Instigator
Con (against)
5 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Non-biological Surrogate Mothers Should Have The Right To Keep The Child

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,182 times Debate No: 46567
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




This will be somewhat of an informal debate; I'm interested in hearing other people's views above all else.

I've recently become aware of a case in which a couple supplied embryos to a surrogate mother, making the surrogate genetically unrelated to the children, but due to UK surrogacy laws, the surrogate was able to 'change her mind' and keep the babies as her own, despite the biological parents desperately wanting them.

I believe that non-biological surrogate mothers should NOT have the right to keep the child, or be classed as the legal mother; full rights and custody should be given to the biological parents that produced the embryo with their own reproductive cells.

You (pro) will argue that non-biological surrogate mothers should be allowed to keep any children they birth, regardless of the biological parents wishes.

Note: this is a debate on whether non-biological surrogate mothers should be allowed to keep the children, not on the laws and regulations of the UK, or any other nation.

UK Rights for Surrogate Mothers:

Cited story:


Hello, I would just like to say that I am excited for this debate! It was a good topic! First off I would like to explain my side of the argument, I am coming at this also as I do the topic of abortion. I believe that it is the woman's body, she goes through the birth and the pain associated with it. She is the one that is harboring a life inside of her. Now that you know where I stand the ball is back in your court.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks -- good luck!

People who turn to surrogates are often desperate for children, having tried unsuccessfully for many years. In vitro fertilisation is a tricky and costly procedure that can produce many failed attempts. The biological parents often pay the surrogate mother to support her through the pregnancy, and in some countries, pay her a lump sum just for doing the job. All of this puts great financial and emotional strain on the budding parents; it can be a very stressful time filled with fear and hope that everything will pan out smoothly.

Surrogate mothers are aware of all the proceedings before they accept to carry a child. I find it immoral for them to change their mind, breaking an agreement as well as the hearts of the biological parents, by keeping a child that is not biologically theirs. I do not believe that the 'woman's body' argument is valid because the surrogate willingly elected to go through with it -- surrogacy is not a spur of the moment decision.


Now an extremely large number of people will see this debate, and think like almost all do that the Con side has the moral high ground and I would agree with that. On legal grounds the surrogate mothers have the right to keep the baby if they would like to, Biological or not. It states in law this, and I will offer a source to this. Thank you and good luck.
Debate Round No. 2



In regards to your lawful rights argument, I refer you back to the notice in round one: "Note: this is a debate on whether non-biological surrogate mothers should be allowed to keep the children, not on the laws and regulations of the UK, or any other nation."

I also remind you and the audience that the source you have given is identical to the source I gave in round one: "UK Rights for Surrogate Mothers:;

I therefore reject your argument on the grounds of irrelevance. This debate is not about the specific rights of a single nation; if this were the case, I could easily cite the surrogacy rights from other nations that state completely different things.


Although Pro has conceded to all of my contentions, I would like to add an additional argument.

Adoption has been been shown to have negative effects on many children; identity development, loss and grief, self-esteem, unknown genetic information (parent's medical history). [1] I would like to make it clear that a surrogate forcefully keeping the child will not only hurt the biologically parents, but also set the child up to feel the same grief and anger that adopted kids do.

I would find this specific situation to be even more detrimental than adoption because the child would eventually learn that its biologically parents never wanted to give them up -- their birth mother had made them. In essence, their birth mother had created a big mess for the child that could have easily been avoided.

[1] -


I would like to apologize first because I realize I gave the same source to my argument. But now I will go into my main argument. What I believe is that the parents of the child didn't want to go through the pain of a pregnancy, which means they didn't want to go through the hardship of it. Rather, they wanted someone else to go through the pain. Which begs the question if the parents really want the child. The surrogate mother cares about the baby. And to me if she wants it she can have it. The surrogate mother feels the baby kick, she feels the personality brewing within her body. Also if there isn't a contract drawn up then you would question the mother's want to have the child. The parents of the child can make a contract insuring this does not happen, if a contract isn't drawn up it is almost as if the parents are daring her to keep the child. I am also confused that you brought up a source in the beginning that was from the UK, but then in your closing argument you used a source regarding the USA So I did not understand what country you were talking about this specific issue about because I sure know as well as you should that the UK and the USA operate very differently. and I will contest your last statement that the surrogate mother caused a mess for the child. I would say that the child's biological mother made the mess. She could have taken the precautions, this may not have happened, she could have made a contract to make this not happen. But have it be she was lazy, or wanted to believe the surrogate mom wouldn't do this. It is her fault 150%.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Taylur 2 years ago
Would just like to mention again that this debate had no relevance to legal matters, making contracts null and void. The UK does not accept contracts for surrogates, for example. Also, most people who use a surrogate have tried to become pregnant for many years, as a previous round stated, so not becoming pregnant themselves is not a reason to question the biological mother. Thanks for the debate. :)
Posted by CrazyCowMan 2 years ago
This seems like it'll be pretty interesting. I agree with Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments seemed stronger to me. Pro's final argument I see as a huge misconception on Pro's part. Parents use a surrogate to have the baby when it is biologically impossible for the mother to carry the baby. Couples do not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a surrogate because they are too lazy. This is ridiculous. Con also gets sources, because the only source used by Pro was a source that was copied from Con.