Should women enter into baby-carrying agreements with their husbands, much like surrogate mothers do?

In this question:



http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>



Some of the answers mention that a surrogate mother is legally bound to carry another woman's baby to term, as they have entered into a contract.



Well, marriage, as many women have made perfectly clear, is also a contract, and I'm wondering if that contract should be modified to obligate the wife to carry the baby to term.



What do you think?Should women enter into baby-carrying agreements with their husbands, much like surrogate mothers do?
If the couple feels their contractual obligations in said marriage should be modified to accommodate their needs, then yes - by all means do so. Of course it would make things more complicated for the couple, etc. blah blah blah

But the marriage contract and one of a surrogate are COMPLETELY different. But you knew that. :)



And why do I get the feeling this question was aimed at lil ol' me? :)



Oh yeah - you know you ARE comparing apples and oranges, too, right? Yeah... of course you did.
Well, first off, contracts are only worth the paper they are printed on so why bother.



Enough women have "broken" these carrying agreements and the courts have sided with them. They may have had to return any "payment" they received but they can keep the baby if they want. It's their body and ultimately they can do with it what they will, same as a married women.Should women enter into baby-carrying agreements with their husbands, much like surrogate mothers do?
I see where you are pointing with this question, but let's be realistic..... men and women usually do talk about their plans for children or remaining child free before taking a major step such as marriage.

It's the casual sex "oopsies" that cause the problems.
No.



Furthermore, if that clause were ever included in the marriage contract, there would be a lot fewer marriages.
The contract could be drawn up after conception, but at any other point it would not take into regards any possible other circumstanses that might occur in their lives.



I think it's a little sad if you have to draw up these contracts though. A baby should be a product of love, not some legal argeements. If you can't trust someone with out having them sign these things...I'd say you probably don't really love them, and then what are you doing being married to them at all?
are husbands going to start paying their wifes for the babies as well?
A woman is already legally bound to carry a baby to term if her pregnancy has progressed past the point of being able to have a legal abortion.
Sure, it seems only fair that both parents take turns at caring fore their child. They both took part in making it.
Its not quite that simple; such a contract is voidable.



Definition 'voidable contract'



"Contract that has legal effect and force when it is made, but is liable to be subsequently annulled or set aside by the courts through the process of rescission. Circumstances or features that make a contract voidable include (1) non-disclosure of one or more material facts, (2) misrepresentation, (3) mutual mistake, (4) lack of free will of a contracting party, or presence of one contracting party's undue influence over the other, and (5) a material breach of the terms of the contract. Contract that is voidable in only one or few parts may be saved by the process of severance. Not to be confused with void contract."



#4 obviously applies, and probably some of the others too.
marriage is not a contract to produce a child. i know several religions feel that way, but a lot of real people get married for reasons other than producing a child. so no, marriage doesn't bind one to sex, produce children, cook and clean, it is simply a commitment to be together. whatever rules are established from there are from the couple. marriage is not ownership where one is forced or obligated to do anything. a man doesn't own his wife's body after marriage any more than the wife owns her husband and can force him to do anything.
And how would you go about "modifying" it?



Should the contract also be "modified" to obligate the husband to help raise his child (financially and otherwise), regardless of the dissolution of the marriage contract?



EDIT-It's enforced by the courts, but it's not a contractual obligation. My point is that if someone is to be contractually obligated to bear another's offspring, shouldn't the other person be contractually obligated to support and raise that offspring? If the woman cannot bear children, she can be divorced (very old school, you know) and if the man refuses to support the child, he can be sued for damages (since the woman has already had the child, and can thus sue for damages acquired while pregnant...loss of wages, reduced physical health, etc. Sound fair?
Absolutely - it should cover everything including potential support payments, where they can move to, schooling, etc. If everything was agreed upon before hand and that was the way the divorce went - life would be much less stressful on the kids.





(Say my name Mellie!)
My brother in law is an OB/GYN, and he finds that married couples are always almost in agreement when it comes to keeping or terminating a pregnancy.



A contract is made void when any part of it is illegal. For example, if you make your wife swear that she will submit to sex every night, and you then sue her for non-compliance. The case would be tossed out not because it is silly but because you can't enforce a contract that nullifies someone's right to refuse sex. I assume a similar outcome would happen with any contract that removes your wife's right to make her own medical decisions while she is still concious.
There are too many variables in a women's ability and desire to have children. This would work only if the contract could be easily re-negotiated many times over.
That's what it's going to come down to. Thanks feminists!