Non-biological Surrogate Mothers Should Have The Right To Keep The Child
Debate Rounds (3)
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: https://www.gov.uk...
Cited story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
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.
https://www.gov.uk.... Thank you and good luck.
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: https://www.gov.uk...;
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).  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.
 - https://www.childwelfare.gov...
https://www.gov.uk..., but then in your closing argument you used a source regarding the USA https://www.childwelfare.gov.... 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%.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.