Should surrogate mothers have the same rights as adoption birthmothers?

I disagreed with 'pre birth orders'. I don't think it's right that a surrogate can be contactually obligation to hand a child over when it's born. When a pregnant women agreed to give a baby to a adoptee couple she has the right not to do so if she can't part with it after it's born. Even if the surrogate isn't the genetic mother I think she should still get that option.Should surrogate mothers have the same rights as adoption birthmothers?
Please elaborate on what "rights" you are speaking of. I am a surrendering mother and the only right I had was to stay away. I had the right to go to jail if I didn't stay away. What's changed? What "rights" do surrendering mothers have now that they didn't have before?



If you are talking about opened adoption with visitation, there are no legal statutes on that yet, it is purely a handshake agreement between purchaser and relinquish-er.



I think the whole things is a sick and twisted practice for the kids who are manufactured to sooth someone elses need. I buy furniture, I purchase vehicles and home decorations, appliances. I have picked up almost ALL of my animals starving in the wild or in front of Wal-Mart. I invision a sad day indeed when something goes horribly wrong (or right) in adoption and there are boxes of infants and toddlers perched outside the super center free for the taking because they were irresponsibly mass produced to fill a demand that becomes outlawed. Yeah, I know, what I say is sooooo far fetched. Seriously look at what adoption has evolved into. It's a business, supply and demand. What does happen to those who have been petri dish engineered if this madness comes to an end? Will I be taking in those strays too?
Traditional surrogates do have those rights, but gestational carriers (not her egg) don't and I don't think they should. Bottom line is that when the surrogate signed up, she likely took a barrage of tests, both psychological and physical, and was counseled extensively on what to expect when the baby is born and having to give it up. You agree to do it, the couple spends upward of $30,000 to get their baby, they should have a very strong legal leg to stand on when the baby is born if the surrogate tries to keep it. The baby has biological and legal parents, neither of which are the carrier, and I really don't think the carrier should have the right to change her mind. The baby should be with his or her actual parents.Should surrogate mothers have the same rights as adoption birthmothers?
Until there is a foolproof way to trump Mother Nature, a woman who carries a baby in her body produces hormones that trigger the mothering instinct. We aren't there. Hopefully, we will never be. I am sure that there are some women who can turn it off and see it merely as a business transaction, but it simply is NOT. It is baby selling in its purest form.



I understand that in many states it is not legal and really and truly is simply adoption, but ordered up by design. The fact that many adoptees are less than thrilled to have been surrendered makes me wonder how they will feel when they grow up and find that they were special ordered, like custom draperies or designer furniture.



I think there is something despicable about creating 'orphans' intentionally. The jury is still out and will remain so until there are some who are old enough to state their minds., To me, however, it is just Adoption on Steroids, and therefore, the mother, the one who carries the child, should have the final word on surrender.
The surrogate Mother should never in a million years use her own eggs. Doing so will cause her to be the birth mother and for her to quite possibly get attached. Ideally the woman who wants to hire a surrogate should use her own eggs and if that is not possible donor eggs should be used. Infertile couples do deserve a chance to have kids. It's much better than them taking a baby from a vulnerable woman who will more than likely be scarred for life afterwards, not to mention the possible effect that it will have on the child.
In the US, most surrogates are gestational carriers. The egg is not hers.



In my state, as well as many other states, the mother is the whomever gives birth regardless of where the egg came from. She can change her mind and keep the baby. Provided the sperm used is that of the intended father, he remains the father.



However, if your surrogacy occurs in a state that supports such contracts, the baby goes to the intended parents. States like Texas only support such contracts for gestational carriers. They do not necessarily apply to a traditional surrogate (surrogate's egg used).
i agree with you to an extent but there is a slight difference, adoption starts because you decide you dont want to keep the baby then its their choice they want to give the baby away, surrogacy starts because you are having the baby for another couple not yourself. i can undestand in any case itd be hard to give a baby away even if its not yours because you carried them for 9 months, but thats why its such a huge thing and should be thought about long and carefully before starting it. if the mother decides not to give the baby up i guess its their right as they carried the baby but it would be unfair on the adoptive parents, i do believe all babies belong with their biological mother though.
No...at least not for gestational surrogates



If you aren't genetically related to a child and didn't raise him for years, why should you have rights to him? What gives you the right to steal someone else's biological offspring?



Out of curiosity, do you think sperm donors should have the same rights as birthmothers?
hence, why babies should be gestated in the wombs of the mothers who intend to parent them. and only AFTER BIRTH and the decision is made to not parent should others be allowed to do so.

babies should not be created just to be given away.

surrogacy is just an ethical hot mess, and i hope at some point, it becomes illegal.
Which is why surrogacy agreements are not legally binding in most countries.



And that's as it should be, in my opinion. Giving birth to a child makes you that child's mother.
It is called a contractual agreement. No one would ever agree to give their eggs/sperm that they want to raise to a surrogate if she had the slightest power to keep the baby. You aren't very smart are you?
There would be a lot of women who know they have trouble conceiving signing up to be a surro to get free IVF/IUI.



Not only that, but the woman knew what to expect when she signed up to be a surrogate.
I gave my daughter up for adoption because she deserved better. It hurts deep to carry a baby for nine months and give her up!!!
There's a reason why woman shouldn't carry babies for other people.
Pre-birth orders only apply in gestational surrogacy, in which the carrier has no biological link to the child. The gestational surrogate is carrying the child of the intended parents, who are the legal parents according to law (in states such as Illinois, there is legislation defining this process). Those of us who work in the legal field of surrogacy never recommend traditional surrogacy because of the ethical, legal and medical issues and complications. One cannot obtain pre-birth orders in traditional surrogacy, because the surrogate is the biological parent, and cannot terminate her parental rights until after delivery (if she chooses to do so- she cannot be compelled to). Women or IPs who engage in traditional surrogacy are typically doing so against legal counsel and are aware of the risks but may choose that method because they don't want to have to follow the "rules" for various reasons (money or they may not be psychologically or medically approved).

There are a number of misinformed people who are perpetuating misconceptions and stereotypes about surrogacy. Their ignorance and bias are mostly ignored by the many legitimate agencies, REI doctors and attorneys who work with gestational carriers and IPs everyday - all of whom benefit from the process - provided they participate in the structured, legal method and follow the recommended medical and legal steps. Many carriers become repeat surrogates because of their positive experiences with surrogacy. They are motivated for several reasons - they enjoy pregnancy and they feel blessed to help another family's dreams of parenthood come true. Sure, there are negative stories about surrogacy (baby-making "farms" in India), but those are rare situations by a few exploitative people which get sensationalized by the media always looking for a "meaty" story. There will always be criminals who will look to exploit vulnerable people and make a profit - adoption and surrogacy are not immune. Nor is the garment industry - I would wager at least one of the articles of clothing you are currently wearing was produced by child labor or exploited labor working for less than standard wages. People allow their personal biases to color their answers to many of these questions without research. One's personal experience is just that - personal/subjective. It doesn't meant that one's personal experience defines an industry. It's good to have an opinion, but there is a huge difference between a subjective reactionary belief and an INFORMED opinion.