The problem is that it makes some people uncomfortable, and we can't have THAT.

Sigh. Look, I understand feeling ooky about surrogacy. What I don't understand is people or a system who hold that it's "my body, my choice!" when abortion is involved, then turn around and say that women should not be allowed a "choice" when it comes to surrogacy. These days, professional surrogates are carefully chosen -- they all have kids, have an easy time being pregnant and are not looking to keep the kids they bear (who generally aren't theirs genetically anyway). They're not paid for the baby -- they're paid for being pregnant and the difficulties and risks that that involves even for people who have a relatively easy time with the process. And their top motivation is typically to improve life for their own families. To me, this is a case of well-off politicians who have the luxury of indulging their "ew" reflex vs. largely working-class women who want to maximize the utility of their well-functioning reproductive systems. But then again, I read sci-fi at an early age, so my viewpoint tends to be an odd one.

(And I'm sure that momof4 will disagree with me on surrogacy...but momof4 also doesn't believe that "my body, my choice" reigns supreme when abortion is involved, either. All I ask for is consistency.)

Anyway, stories such as these make me wish that uterine replicators would get here already. (As I said, sci-fi at an early age. LOTS of sci-fi.)

To me ( a gal with zero baby-drive or mommy-instinct ) it seems silly to spend all that money on IVFs and surrogacy. Why not adopt? Adoption isn't cheap, but it's not $140,000 either. And in the case of IVF, at some point you've got to realize that nature/ your body just doesn't think you should get pregnant. My SIL did IVF and it took her six pregnancies to have two kids (not counting the times it didn't 'take'). Both of them are doing well now, but they had severe medical problems.

But hey, if there's a market then it's not my business how anyone spends their money.

I'm very troubled both by surrogacy and IVF because of all of the associated problems. There are very complicated legal issues that arise if the surrogate decides she'd like to keep the baby (it happens!), questions about how much control the bio parents can have over the surrogate, issues with surrogate's relationship with the child after the pregnancy, etc., that are very difficult for the child who was brought into this unwillingly. Also, being strongly against abortion, anything that creates "extra" embryos is a problem in my eyes.

Also, I want to see more people adopt. I'd like to see a culture where the go-to option for women who find themselves unintentionally pregnant is to give up for adoption, and many more couples look to adopt (FWIW, there is no shortage of couples at this time since very few women put their children up).

Should the law intervene because of these issues? Probably not, but I go back and forth on some of it. But I have no problems whatsoever with the "exploitation" of people voluntarily making a contract to buy and sell time, energy, stress, etc. associated with pregnancy. How silly!

These people think if a poor person takes money to carry a baby, then that poor person is being taken advantage of. Forcing the poor people to accept smaller amounts of money means they are taken advantage of less. see how simple that is? /rolleyes

I'm with Elle. That said, the reason more people don't adopt is that the state is completely happy paying women to breed like rabbits and sit on their asses all day. IMHO, those kids didn't ask to be born poor and live with a woman who is likely running around with a bunch of different men and not doing anything productive with her time. Their rights to a good life and parents who can take care of and afford them should supercede the right of their welfare-collecting mothers to keep them.

Yeah, it'll never happen.

> If they're fit parents, what's the problem?

One problem, and there may be dozens of problems, is that many parents aren't "fit", and the rest of the society is going to be expected to deal with this kid's needs when at least three parties (Mom, Dad, Surrogate) try to wash their hands of the matter.

Some people will say that's why we have government, to provide this adjudication as a customer service. Those people are wrong.

In other words, don't call it "meddling" when you're begging government to come up with all these new supports and exceptions to make things work.

> Friends of mine just did -- adopted a pudgy
> little Korean boy they named Milo.

Why are women so fascinated with baby names? I'm kinda serious. If he'd been named Edgar or Kim, would it have changed the applicability of this anecdote?

This blog story is all about the feminine will to demonstrate reproductive fitness at any cost and in any context. People are nuts

It will probably not surprise anyone that my view on this is not mainstream.I have watched the desperate measures women take trying to have a kid, or even adopt one in her second childhood. I remember a poor schmuck some years ago, who was bagging groceries in his late 70's to supplement his pension trying to pay for his old wife's desire to have a young family again.

Women who act like this are as disgusting as old men trying to hit on young girls, and pretty much for the same reasons.

Yet, the women who do this are lauded as some sort of Mommy saint, while the men are mocked as idiots.

Wouldn't it just be easier to get a doll?

http://jezebel.com/5122258/women-living-with-fake-baby-dolls-treat-them-like-real-children

The Reborn Dolls and their "mummies" are a mega creepfest.

It seems as though these women are missing a major life component. Maybe their babies died and they never could have a healthy one. Maybe their kids are grown and they're having trouble identifying with their new, independent life. Maybe they never married and never had the chance to have kids.

In all the circumstances I could think of, as to why women are doing this, results in the conclusion that they are not mentally stable.

It's not a hobby. Working out, even if it's obsessively for a bodybuilding show, is a hobby. Having a craft room is a hobby. Getting together to talk about books, or to knit, or to cook for friends are all hobbies. Talking to an inanimate thing as if it were a human and doing human-like things with it is not a hobby. They have a lose screw. They are lacking something big. It is fucking weird and makes me scared.

"If they're fit parents, what's the problem?"

One quick question: where is this money coming from?

It is fucking weird and makes me scared.

Still better than treating real children like dolls.

I remember a poor schmuck some years ago, who was bagging groceries in his late 70's to supplement his pension trying to pay for his old wife's desire to have a young family again.

Eh. My mother was 48 and my father 60 when they adopted me. It worked out OK. Maybe it WAS a second childhood, but they did the work. Dad worked as a janitor until he was 80, but he probably would have done that anyway.

From the piece:
"His sperm had been used to fertilise an egg from an anonymous donor and embryos were implanted into the surrogate. "

If that's not a designer baby, I'm not sure what or who is. There's bio-dad, egg-donor, rent-a-womb, and Mummy at the airport. 4 adults to make 1 baby?

Can't wait til the kid's a teen--"I hate you, you're not my mother!"

"She was conceived and born in California as our child, and her birth certificate says who her parents are, so the courts [of Britain] should respect Californian law."

British courts respect British law. The benefits of British citizenship come at the expense of being subject to the constraints of British law.

Britain gets to decide who qualifies to become a citizen.

Also, IVF per se does not require third-party egg donation or surrogacy. They are not synonymous.

Britain is not required to provide the benefits of citizenship to offspring created using non-citizen DNA, outside the country, in violation of British payment rules. Granting citizenship to offspring under these conditions would likely have the law apply to all but the most wealthy British citizens.

"My mother was 48 and my father 60 when they adopted me." MP

I may be in that boat in about a decade. But I intend to get there by adopting someone out of the foster care system, which in my state currently offers subsidies for adoption of children in the foster care system and assistance in caring for their health and developmental needs. If I'm going to spend tens of thousands of dollars becoming a parent, I'd rather spend it on supplemental therapy fees for an older child than adoption costs for an infant. I hate the thought that I would help drive a market for the creation or theft of children rather than simultaneously meet a kid's need for a family and my desire to parent.

I understand that there are babies who need adoptive homes. I have a family member who was purchased decades ago in a common "grey market" transaction - no lily-gilding regarding "adoption fees." (http://www.immigrantships.net/adoption/blackgray.html)

But there's no need to bag groceries to pay to become a parent unless you're attached to adopting a healthy infant, for which the market demand exceeds the supply.

...and can we please drop the facade about "not a designer baby" and the stigma around designing a baby? Choosing to use your own dna and that of your mate is designing a baby, the old-fashioned way. Choosing to use your own dna and that of a donor is designing a baby, the more modern way. Considering whether to abort puts a fine point on our modern abilities to design a baby. Choosing who to adopt is designing your child. Choosing who to surrender is also designing not-your-child. The world over, people (and countries) design babies and determine who will and will not be their children.

I may be in that boat in about a decade. But I intend to get there by adopting someone out of the foster care system

That's what my adoptive parents did, after taking care of about 350 kids through the foster care system. Just a warning: Some of these kids are scary broken. I understand why people don't want to do that. It takes a very unique personality to be able to take in a child who's maybe 8 years old and really pissed off at life.

MonicaP - I want to clarify that my criticism was geared toward people who break the bank to parent infants, not toward the circumstances regarding your adoption. Your comment struck a chord with me b/c I'm likely to be in my mid-forties by the time I get my sh*t together to adopt.

"Just a warning: Some of these kids are scary broken." MP

I know, I know. My mother taught many special needs kids ("emotionally disturbed"). I spent some time as a guardian ad litem, and my mother is doing so in her "retirement." I do think it's appropriate that adoptive parents consider whether they can meet a child's needs, and whether the child they bring into the family will pose a threat to the children who are already there. This is especially the case with children who have become sexual or otherwise violent abusers.

In the U.S., I would appreciate more transparency and honesty about the choices we have and make regarding who we parent.

Your comment struck a chord with me b/c I'm likely to be in my mid-forties by the time I get my sh*t together to adopt.

I think that's great. I wish more people felt as you do. People tend to forget about these kids when they're not so cute anymore.

I think it's their money, their reproductive components, and if they're willing to pay reputable agencies, doctors, and surrogates, it's nobody's business. It certainly shouldn't prohibit the child from becoming a British citizen, like the parents. Do they do the same to adopted kids? Are parents required to show the British government how much money they've spent acquiring a child?

Madonna can go to Malawi and rip a child away from its poor parents, yet a couple can't use a surrogate to carry their own biological child? That's absurd.

I agree that adoption is wonderful, but it's not for everyone. Surrogacy is not as complex as it used to be because they rarely use the surrogate's own eggs, so she has no biological claim to the child, and they've perfected the legal contracts to better protect all parties.

My sister has considered surrogacy. Her husband doesn't want to adopt, and she has medical complications that have caused her be unable to carry a pregnancy. It would be her egg and his sperm, so their biological child. But it's expensive - around $30,000, she said - which is beyond their means right now.

I'm grateful that so many people here seem to agree with me about this, or at least hold their own visceral distaste for these arrangements. These concerns are not merely "feeling ooky". And Marion, for fuck's sake—

> Sigh.

Don't do that!

Lyssa gets it right:

> There are very complicated legal issues
> that arise if the surrogate decides she'd
> like to keep the baby (it happens!),
> questions about how much control the bio
> parents can have over the surrogate,
> issues with surrogate's relationship with
> the child after the pregnancy etc., that
> are very difficult for the child who was
> brought into this unwillingly.

'Zactly. As often as Amy links to some story about men's or father's rights being twisted or ignored, I don't understand why she thinks this is a good range of behaviors for people to pursue.

Y'know what people like? People like Legos. The Lego toys are joyously colored, and while there are a limited number of mechanical complications, they can be composed into any number of playful forms.

But they're not really good for much in practical terms. Unless you're very conservative in your design specs, they can't hold much weight, and disassembly is never more difficult than assembly (which is part of their charm).

Well, friends, human souls aren't even legos... Especially as viewed with the attachments that children can or will make. If you truly, truly want a child to do well, the need for tidy fundamentals is not negotiable. Developmental human nature doesn't work well when you press its boundaries for the whimsical impulses of selfish adults. (And once a human identity comes apart, forming it into something new isn't fun, fast or even probable.)

Not that this is going to stop anyone from pretending that contracted childbearing is a good idea, one in which government either should play no part or which government should carefully regulate, depending. That's how it is with human societies: If you push enough people around, and the tide of stupidity washes high enough in your culture, you can get away with all sorts of crazy shit in matters of soulcraft.

In the West, you can get shameless, impoverished single motherhood in absolutely devastating proportions. In the Middle East, you get women in burkas and all the other monstrosities that befall fully half the population. And no matter how many human spirits you grind into the soil, no matter how clear the warning from thoughtful people or your own crippled heart, you'll always be able to say "But... I meant well!"

As often as I admiringly quote Paglia, it's a surprise that no one her ever called me out on her later-in-life "motherhood". But I can't feign surprise at the outcome... Turns out baby never had 'two mommies' after all.

Truly, the problem isn't gender preference: It's Boomer narcissism.

"Do they do the same to adopted kids? Are parents required to show the British government how much money they've spent acquiring a child?" LS

Yes, many countries do the same for adopted kids. Some countries have arrived at a mutual understanding. See the CONVENTION ON PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND CO-OPERATION IN RESPECT OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION

http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=69

"Surrogacy is not as complex as it used to be because they rarely use the surrogate's own eggs, so she has no biological claim to the child [..." LS

Laws vary even between states in the US, and it creates massive complications. As of the last time I looked (about two years ago) New Jersey did not honor surrogacy contracts. So you could enter into one, but the surrogate decided to keep the baby, the courts of NJ would not enforce the contract for you. And other courts in the US have determined that a woman who carries a pregnancy thereby has a claim to motherhood. The circumstances in some surrogacy/ adoption legal issues have given jurisdiction to courts in two or more states, which are free to arrive at conflicting rulings. As are the governments of different countries.

"but IF but the surrogate decided to keep the baby..."

not quite awake yet. fingers faster than brain.

"Well, friends, human souls aren't even legos... Especially as viewed with the attachments that children can or will make. If you truly, truly want a child to do well, the need for tidy fundamentals is not negotiable. Developmental human nature doesn't work well when you press its boundaries for the whimsical impulses of selfish adults..."

There you go, again, Crid. I suppose, then, that even adoption would be destined to "ruin souls." Why bother if one can't give their child EVERYTHING in the way of a perfect childhood, even from the start? The soul of the adopted child is already ruined through its messy creation too - no perfect mother or father at the start.

I've always thought the idea of a wet nurse was "ooky" - using some other woman's body parts to nourish a child - but this was often done in the south and other cultures when women didn't produce enough milk to nurse.

Surrogacy is just an expansion of that idea, one that science has made increasingly more possible, so it's not going away...any more than IVF went away after everyone was so shocked over the first "test tube baby" in 1978.

Oh, and I believe there were all sorts of dire predictions for her outcome, as well, but she has turned out fine:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-394894/Worlds-test-tube-baby-pregnant.html

Michelle, it seems that the main international concern is trafficking, but this is so clearly different from trafficking. There's no monetary profit involved for these parents.

As for legal rights, we've had sperm donors for decades, and donors who signed up at banks surely waived all legal rights to their offspring. (It's becoming a little hairy for them now, as some children have begun tracking them down through DNA, but that's another matter). I don't see why a surrogacy agreement should be any different or less enforceable.

In fact, that is the problem. The states have tried to make this more complicated, which leaves these children in no man's land, as Amy says. This is a contract, like any other, and it should be enforced. For states like NJ to say they won't intervene, or countries like Britain declaring they won't give these children the same status enjoyed by their families is absurd.

It seems "classist" to me, like, "oh well, you're rich enough to create a baby this way, so we're not going to acknowledge your family or protect your legal rights."

I would do IVF or surrogacy over adoption. This was all stuff my husband and I discussed early in our marriage, just in case. He wanted a biological link to the kid... which adoption wouldn't do. I would be happy to have one, and adopt one, but he isn't into the idea.

Some people simply can't bond with a non-biological child, and surrogacy is a reasonable solution for them. Adoption can be disastrous if parents can't bond with the child as their own.

People are always going to find a way to solve each other's problems, whether government is on board or not. It's a capitalist principle. Supply and demand.

For instance, there are mothers selling breast milk to other mothers online now. Talk about "ooky", but obviously, there is a need and a supply to fill that need.

We can either have agencies and laws that assist the process of surrogacy, or we can have couples making private deals online, or with their families or friends (one acquaintance has already offered to carry my sister's child - for money). Yet, this seems more precarious in terms of child protection.

It's much wiser for states to acknowledge that this is happening - that it WILL happen, regardless of what they do - and they need to establish measures to make it as safe as possible.

My adoption papers were final. It was a contract between the state and my parents. If my biological parents had changed their minds one day after the contract was finalized, I would've depended on the state to protect my interests, and my adoptive parent's rights and honor that agreement.

They do that with adoptive children, so they should also do it with those conceived through surrogacy, who arguably should be even more protected, as they are often their "adoptive" parent's biological children.

> Why bother if one can't give their child
> EVERYTHING in the way of a perfect
> childhood, even from the start?

The (sarcastic) straw man argument is all you've ever offered here, pretending that minimal standards of interpersonal competence are exotic and improbable. You're a straw man eating sour grapes ('A loving family probably wouldn't be that great anyway....').

There are obvious necessities, things which demonstrate a true capacity for love... Not 'love' as in cuddly feelings in one's own heart, but actual warmth and sacrifice delivered as shelter of another. Stability, clarity, commitment, that kind of thing.

When the first intimate person to whom a child is (literally) attached, the child's mother, is planning to break the bond in an impersonal shitstorm of paperwork, lucre, and shabby promises from desperate adoptive parents, the rest of us shouldn't be expected to feign surprise (or maybe even much care) when things go wrong.

> But,

Whenever you start a sentence that way – a conjunctive interrupted by a comma– I know you're reeling, and I'm about to land some square punches. Wheeeee!

> should people partake of these things I don't
> really approve of,

WTF is that? Are you pretending to be open-minded? Do you think that's how real tolerance works, just by loosening the rationality on behalf of (or without regard to) imaginary Milos?

> I think they shouldn't be in danger of having
> their child be in a legal no man's land.

Whaddya mean "their child"? Who knows whose responsibility this kid is? A snickering Solomon would have found your fascination with legalisms telling: We're not talking about a new paragraph in a California Lemon Law, like what happens with the sun roof leaks on your used Oldsmobile. We're talking about naked, hungry babies. These people are toying with some of the most delicate and volatile feelings the human heart can carry, and then trying to be all contractual about it. They're the ones homesteading in a no man's land.

> should people partake of these things

"Partake"? So you admit this is indulgence?

We're discussing the souls of children, not a second Merlot on work night.

"This is a contract, like any other[...]" LS

From what I have read, it seems to me that most legislatures and courts disagree with you. On the finer points, they also disagree with one another (inter-state, intra-state, and between countries).

Many states have laws against adults contracting-away a child's right to support. These laws are understood to be distinct from the process of terminating parental rights in order to have a child be legally available for adoption.

Sour grapes are never eaten, but you know what I meant.

Dammit, I screwed up that whole edit. But it was going to be a powerful argument, believe-you-me: I win.

I don't see what how this is "contracting away a child's right to support." The child is going home to a loving family, just as I was. Moreover, the probability is that the child shares at least some of the parent's DNA, and usually none of the surrogates.

A foster placement occurred before I was adopted at 6 months, so by this argument, the foster mother should've been able to lay claim to me, although she was of no relation, and was merely acting as temporary caretaker, like a surrogate.

Despite Crid's exaggerations, there's no evidence these parents are less fit and cannot provide the child a loving, supportive family. Why? Because they're infertile or medically unable to carry a pregnancy to term? This makes them automatically unfit parents? What an absurd belief!

If anything, these parents, like mine, are probably more likely to be wonderful because of the lengths they are willing to go to become parents. They're not just people who carelessly popped out a baby. These are people who give it lots of thought and have the proven financial means, not only to conceive the child through this manner but to raise and care for it properly. How many parents meet this criteria?

Crid, I would think you'd be all for anything that would make becoming a parent harder, rather than easier.

LS, your adoption papers provided for the care of someone who already existed and needed care.

It's true that some women now become pregnant in order to offer the child for adoption at a profit. That said, although I don't know of statistics that measure this phenomenon, from anecdotes, it seems to me to be the exception and not the norm.

In contrast to adoption contracts, surrogacy and sperm/ egg donor contracts arrange for the creation of someone who does not yet exist. Contracts require government assistance for validity/ enforcement. A government is not obligated to enforce a contract that goes against its public policy. Governments/ communities benefit from allocating responsibility for the care of children who already exist but have not been claimed.

There is little to no incentive for a government or community to honor private contracts that provide for the creation of new children and sever those who are biologically responsible from the responsibility for care - especially when social resources could later be sought to fill in gaps in the child's care.

If someone contracts for the creation of a child and then needs to draw on public welfare to finance care of the child, tell me why public coffers should be tapped before emptying the pockets of the dna donor who made possible the child's creation?

Government support of contracts that formalize a person's choice to take responsibility for the care of children who already exist is one thing; government support of contracts that provide for the creation of children, and sever their rights to seek support from their dna-donors, is an entirely different phenomenon.

"If someone contracts for the creation of a child and then needs to draw on public welfare to finance care of the child, tell me why public coffers should be tapped before emptying the pockets of the dna donor who made possible the child's creation?"

Interesting points, Michelle, but I think it's a very slippery slope when government starts looking at children, unborn or not, as possible "drains" on the system, rather than potential contributers, and using this to muck around with procreation in general.

If we're going to allow women the right to choose, then we can't say they can't choose to create life, using their own womb, for themselves or someone else.

Men have been doing this for decades by donating sperm - without having to supply support for the offspring they contracted to create - and we have millions of IVF babies now, which the state acknowledges as belonging to the parents who are raising them, whether biologically related or not, regardless of how they were created and whether they may one day become dependent on the state.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, what these parents are asking for is to legitimize their child as being theirs once it already exists. They're not asking the state to pay for the process of creating the child. Of course not. They're paying for that and assuming responsibility for the child, just as any adoptive parent would.

Many adoptions are contracted prior to birth, and the adoptive parents often pay for the birth mother's expenses. The difference there is that the birth mother can more easily change her mind and back out of the deal because the child is hers genetically.

However, in that case, she and/or the biological father have the burden of providing support before it would fall to the state, and it's really the same in a surrogacy situation.

Whoever ends up raising the child, either the surrogate parent or the adoptive parents, should be responsible for the child's support. And, given the money involved, it seems unlikely that the child would be abandoned by all parties and left to the state...in fact, a lot less likely than when children are conceived naturally.

Again: who's paying for this?

Is this another misuse of welfare pretending to be "insurance"?

"Again: who's paying for this?

Radwaste, as best as I can tell, it's people like Sarah Jessica Parker or Kelsey Grammar, very wealthy people who can afford these costly treatments and the prenatal care and financial support involved. That seems to be the issue - not that these individuals are bad parents, but that they are RICH parents, who can pay poor women to carry their biological children. They're "unloading their whiteness", meaning they're exercising their privilege to take advantage of these scientific advancements that poorer people can't afford. That seems to be the biggest objection.

Did anyone else notice the "walking incubator" who makes "good babies"? That way of talking about the surrogate mother, who is, after a human being, sounds like usury. That's what made me feel icky about the article - in no way should that person have dehumanized or denigrated the woman who bore his/her child.

> it seems unlikely that the child would be
> abandoned by all parties and left to the
> state...in fact, a lot less likely than when
> children are conceived naturally.

Lunacy. Moon-barking madness.

"I think it's a very slippery slope when government starts looking at children, unborn or not, as possible "drains" on the system, rather than potential contributors, and using this to muck around with procreation in general." LS

Governments don't start off that way. They end up dealing with a mess in court because, for example, a child conceived in a laboratory using donor sperm now needs child support. Among the issues courts wrestle with is the phenomenon of the manufactured anonymity of sperm donors, and collecting child support from known sperm donors when welfare forms require providing the state with the identity of the biological father.

People use technology to muck around with procreation. The courts get involved when a parent declares that the kid is in need of support and turns to the government to get this support, either through welfare or through declarations of child-support obligations.

Also, the use of contracts to create dna-donor anonymity relies on use of a government-backed instrument. No means of enforcing the contract means, effectively, no contract.

Well, looks like the government is at fault. Either you do away with the idea of anonymity or you must honor it. The state knew my birth mom's name and information too but they didn't just give it to me when I asked at 19, so I could go track her down. They have a procedure in place, which promised her anonymity as long as she wanted (she chose to be contacted).

During my childhood, if my adopted parents had fallen on hard times, and needed welfare, the state wouldn't have been able to ask either of my birth parents for support...even knowing who they were.

Government messed up even opening that door. There's no reason an anonymous sperm/egg donor or birth parent should ever be on the hook for child support.

LS, adoption takes kids who already exist but are not being cared for by responsible parents, and creates an obligation/privilege connection between a kid and adult.

In contrast, dna-donor contracts-for-conception provide for the severance of this obligation/privilege as the foundation for creating children.

"There's no reason an anonymous sperm/egg donor or birth parent should ever be on the hook for child support."

I disagree. I think someone who knowingly engages in activities that are known to lead to and result in reproduction should be on the hook for support, unless they go through the court-managed process of terminating parental rights.

I think the process of bargaining away a child's right to support as a condition for creating their existence goes too far in treating a human being as a commodity.

How can that be "bargaining away a child's right to support" when they are desperately wanted and going to a loving home?

These contracts are drawn up before the child is born, often even conceived, without state intervention, and they are essentially adoptions. By the time the state is involved, the child is already existent, so as far as it should matter to the state, it is the same as adoption.

What difference should it make whether the adoption was preconceived before the child or vice versa? If the contract demands anonymity - of a sperm donor/egg donor, or birth parent - that is what should be upheld.

I can't believe you think that every woman who has ever donated eggs or a man who has donated sperm to a bank should now be tracked down by the state to support the possibly hundreds of offspring this generous act has brought forth to infertile couples.

They are NOT the parents. It was never the intent for them to be the parents. The parents are the individuals who legally assume that responsibility and obligation, and in the case of surrogacy, they are usually far more financially capable than the average parent.

Honestly, how many children conceived through surrogacy are really being dumped on the state?

I would imagine that what you are seeing are unwed mothers who claim to have gone to sperm banks or anonymous sources rather than name the real biological father. That's not the same as a true surrogacy arrangement.

LS - family road trip. Sporadic and short access to internet. Not ignoring your points but can't give them the response time they deserve. Will get back to this as able.

How can that be "bargaining away a child's right to support" when they are desperately wanted and going to a loving home? LS

"Support" in the financial sense - payment for room & board, food and medical care. Also, the right to inherit. Generally speaking, until recent technological developments complicated the connection between biology and reproduction, the responsibility/ presumption for child support could be characterized by "pay-to-play."

Most of our current laws regarding responsibility for child support were not written with current technology in mind. And now that we have that technology, courts and legislatures have had a new dimension added to the question of how to allocate not just support responsibility, but parenting privileges.

Adoption laws deal with how to sever/ allocate responsibility for children already in existence. The adoption contract, like any contract, requires government approval in order to have the benefit of government backing/ enforcement. Otherwise, the contract is only as effective as your local "informal economy" (mafia? neighborhood?) private ability to create consequences for lack of compliance.

In the US, when someone wants to adopt, the prospective adoptive parent(s) are subjected to intense scrutiny through home visits, personal references, investigation of finances & medical status, possibly sworn testimony/ affidavits. Even family members have to undergo home visits to make a formal adoption of a family member. You want to reproduce private, fine. You want to create a family with assistance of government intervention - for instance, a government-backed instrument called a "contract" - then in exchange you get vetted by a government agency.

Turning to sperm- and egg-donor created children - in these instances, the sperm donor and the egg donor each receive financial compensation in exchange for two things - the genetic material and the parental rights they relinquish to any resulting offspring. (The contract language may insist otherwise. Governments have honored or disabused those claims as they have determined appropriate.)

Unlike adoption, nowhere in this process does the government investigate the intended parents to determine if they are financially, emotionally, medically, or communally suited to be parents. But if one or both of the parents shirks their responsibility, the remaining parent approaches the government for assistance in supporting the kid - through welfare. The government in turn seek child support from the person genetically related to the kid, and sues that person, which is what generates the court case (unless the case is started by a surrogate or dna-donor seeking partial custody).

So tell me why some person who received cash in exchange for their dna (sperm, eggs) should be off the hook for the financial needs of this child, but the public should pay, even though the public wasn't consulted about whether this was really a viable setting for the kid?

To answer your question - yes, I think donor anonymity should be abolished from this point forward, and retroactively wherever it was not granted by the state government. I think children, as humans beings, should be given the right to be wanted and supported by their blood-family - sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, grandparents - even if their biological parents are disinterested or otherwise unfit.

First, the present trend give "donors" the cash benefits while potentially leaving citizens to foot the bill. Second, children are human beings with a right to be claimed and cared for by their blood relations, in addition to their adoptive families. Children do not have a right to "support" in a bottom-line dollar amount - we have long acknowledged that the importance, support, and protection of a biological family can not be measured against a dollar amount. Third, the lack of that biological connection puts children at a demonstrated disadvantage. It is against their best interests and ours to create policies that allow for the whole-sale disconnect between biology and family as norm rather than the exception that gets created to provide secure homes for children who need them.

...and the server ate my response. I think I just said, essentially, "the dog ate my homework." Sorry about that.

Will get back to this on Monday. Wrote back to you between running errands and making a birthday dinner, but gotta get to the dinner now. I hope you're having a great weekend.

Relief! Thanks. I didn't know that possibility existed. And I just learned that we're going out for dinner - bonus.

Well, I strongly disagree with you here. First of all, not all adoptions are vetted by the state - only the state ones are. There are many private and oversees adoptions, where only private agencies are interviewing prospective parents.

This has it's own problems, as was just demonstrated by the poor Russian boy sent back to Russia by his adoptive mother, but the state still honors the adoption once the paperwork is in place. In fact, she did not have the right to send him back because he is HER child. Children need the security of knowing that their legal parents can't just dump responsibility for them back onto birth parents, and this is why it's so important that the state supports the legal agreement over biological ties.

Whoever is on that child's birth certificate and assumes the legal obligation is the parent and the parent is expected to provide support, just like any other parent. Some do well, some do poorly, just like parents producing naurally.

The state does not - and should not - track down the biological parents in some oversees orphanage if the child ultimately needs assistance years later. They have surrendered their parental rights and are no longer parents, and it is really no different with sperm/egg donors.

If we open this door, then adoption will cease. I understand the desire of an adopted child to know his/her birth family. I felt it myself, and was fortunate to be able to meet them when I was an adult. But I'm very grateful they were not able to interfere with the bond I have with my real parents, the ones who raised me. I'm glad they had no legal rights or obligations to me, nor I to them.

In fact, I had to wrestle with what my legal and moral obligations were to my birth mother when she went through hard times, and particularly after she became ill. I was not her daughter legally, and therefore couldn't act in that capacity on her behalf, or benefit financially from her estate. So, this might even work both ways if you loosened up these contracts and abolished anonymity. A biological parent with a birth child in more favorable financial conditions might even pursue assistance from them.

At any rate, if the state essentially opens up the biological family component for donor or surrogacy children, you can bet every adopted child will petition for the same. And I doubt they would lose.

Without anonymity, adoption as we know it would end because one of the main draws for birth and donor parents to give up their children (or potential children) is the anonymity. Especially for poor birth parents (as mine were, and most are), the relief of financial obligation to care for this child is one of the main incentives.

This would be so unfortunate for children. The whole concept of adoption is to give them a better shot at life than what the biological parents can offer.

As far as being wanted, a child conceived through surrogacy or through IVF, certainly knows they are desperately wanted and that everyone involved gave ample thought to their creation.

I, on the other hand, was conceived through a thoughtless fling. It would've been much nicer to think my birth parents gave as much thought to creating me as a those involved with surrogacy.

My understanding is that inter-country adoptions, at least those involving the US, fall under the purview of the laws of each country involved. Private agencies might conduct the home studies, but in the US those agencies are licensed/ regulated. The US also bars adoptions of children from some countries pending resolution of violations of US requirements.

The failings and inconsistencies of adoption processes are not a rational basis for creating yet another avenue for severing children from a likely network of support.

Disconnecting the pay-offs of engaging in behaviors that lead to reproduction (be it sexual or financial gratification) from the responsibility/ obligation of caring for the resulting offspring, as a condition for bringing humans into the world, puts a fine point on treating children as commodities.

"At any rate, if the state essentially opens up the biological family component for donor or surrogacy children, you can bet every adopted child will petition for the same. And I doubt they would lose." LS

Thanks to technology, now more than ever the anonymity of biological birth parents and sperm/egg donors is at best a fervent hope and not a guarantee. Even if the biological parents never register with a dna/family lineage tracing website, if their sibling, other child, parent, etc. does register, kids can go onto the internet and find them. And they're doing just that.

As these kids mature, more and more adults will need to get their dna tested to be sure that they're not blood related through anonymous egg/ sperm donors.

People who do not want to be found by their biological children need not to reproduce.

That's a stough stance, Michelle. I see your points, but I still think there's a difference in being found - like allowing a child an opportunity to meet their birth parents or know their genetic heritage someday - and holding the biological parents responsible for support.

You've probably never experienced infertility, and I hope you don't, but for couples who have faced it, these technological advances are a blessing. I really hope government doesn't adopt the measures you support.

There is a difference - they are different issues with entirely different considerations.

Infertility that can be overcome through IVF or pure surrogacy, with no dna donation, is one thing.

Using a government-backed instrument to separate children from their biological lines as a condition for their creation, and with no government vetting to boot, is quite another.

The focus on the wishes of the infertile adult(s) in question rather than the rights - or lack of rights - of the children being created is what commodifies children.