The Ethics of Surrogacy | Debate: Emily Zanotti and Elizabeth Nolan Brown

Is surrogacy good for families and society?

By
7

Dispatch Managing Editor Michael Reneau moderates a debate between Emily Zanotti and Elizabeth Nolan Brown on surrogacy: Is it good for women and families? How should the law reflect the broad disagreement on the ethics of surrogacy? Is the commercial surrogacy industry predatory toward women? Should we have a surrogate bill of rights?

Show Notes:

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
By
Comments (7)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Lmvega

    Thank you for a very respectful conversation from different points of the debate.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    TJ

    One final comment what dignity. When Emily made the comment about the dignity of the child, Elizabeth Brown stated that dignity could also be thought of in the context of the parent. But that equivocates on the word “dignity“. Dignity, as I believe Emily was using the word means full equality and rights. To deny a child’s right to their biological parents from the get-go in the very process of their coming into being is to deny them full dignity, when dignity is defined as equal rights.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    TJ

    There was so much discussion of how difficult it is to be infertile. My wife and I have been dealing with this for 2 and half years. What really bothered me in the discussion is how both of the participants seemed to think that somehow that justifies an action. Of course it’s difficult. It’s really really difficult to lose a love one who can’t get a heart transplant as well. That doesn’t justify doing anything necessary to save that one person who needs a heart transplant. The arguments for surrogacy need to be able to stand on their own, not stand on how difficult it is to be infertile and struggle in that area.

    Obviously, the people who use surrogacy have a strong desire. But a strong desire should not be a determining factor in what is or is not ethical.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    TJ

    The anti-surrogacy advocate didn’t do a great job discussing the problems with surrogacy. For one, she didn’t appreciate the argument about child’s rights to their biological parents, and used the pro surrogacy argument that if a child has a right to their biological parents, then adoption is unethical. That’s utter nonsense. The differences between adoption and surrogacy are massive.

    -Adoption- seeks to mend a wound.  Third-party reproduction- inflicts a wound.

    -Adoption- the child is the client. Third-party reproduction- the adult is the client.

    -Adoption- adult supports child. Third-party reproduction- child supports adult.

    -Adoption is sometimes necessary.  Third-party reproduction never is.


    Surrogacy intentionally separates a child from their biological parent. We are in the process of fostering three kids, hopefully to adopt. We recognize that the children have a loss of their biological parents that is unfair to them. That isn’t how it was supposed to be, but we are going to do the best we can for them in the circumstance. That is simply a world apart from intentionally creating a child separated from who they are biologically connected to.

    A much better advocate for child rights than the gal who was on there would have been Katy Faust, who heads the organization “Them Before Us”.

    Collapse
    1. Dhetzel1

      I'm a little confused on the point you've made several times here about separation of a child from their biological parents as a reason to oppose surrogacy. Isn't surrogacy sometimes the implantation of a fetilized embryo using the genetic material of the parents desiring the child, with the surrogate being nothing more than the proverbial oven that has the bun in it? A gestational surrogate is a birth "mother" in the sense that they carried the child to term, but is certainly not a biological parent in any meaningful sense, so I'm not sure how that squares with your point about separation from birth parents in the surrogacy cases where the surrogate is not using their own egg in the process.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        TJ

        Really fair question. The way this is often talked about is that there are 3 mothers in many third party reproduction scenarios. There is the birth mother, the biological mother, and the social mother. It is ideal for the child that those are all the same person. Separating the birth mother from the child does cause a separation and a trauma for the child. The person that they have literally been connected to and who's voice they have heard and are familiar with goes away. Also, DNA between the two is exchanged in the womb. That is only another way to say that the bond created in the womb is real. So when doing family planning, we should be doing first what is in the best interest of the child. It isn't in the best interest of the child for that bond to be broken. At least, barring other factors (like neglect), that isn't good for the child. Obviously, there can be a good enough reason to separate a child from their birth mother, but as a plan right from the get go, it puts adult desire above the interest of the child.

        Collapse
  5. Betsybowditch

    There are only a few countries that offer surrogacy services. Thailand has restricted it to Thai nationals only after an Australian man, who was convicted of pedophilia, and his Thai wife employed a surrogate to give birth to their child.

    Americans have been discouraged from taking advantage of cheaper services in Mexico on the grounds it isn't recognized by the government in Mexico and that can make getting a baby a US passport very difficult.

    Collapse