Legal or ethical - Who is mother of the child?

Who is the mother of the child?

- The woman who carries the baby for 9 months, bears the pain, and gives birth?

- Or the woman who donated the egg?

Legally: The mother is usually the intended mother - the one who enters into a surrogacy agreement and gains parental rights through law.

Biologically: She is the mother

Ethically/emotionally: Many feel the surrogate mother deserves more recognition for her role, sacrifice, and emotional journey.

The surrogate mother goes through a journey that’s more than physical. She takes medications, undergoes medical procedures, and faces emotional highs and lows, all while knowing the child growing inside her will be handed over at birth. She may form a bond with the baby, feel protective, and even face judgment from society, yet she often disappears from the narrative once the child is born.

She sacrifices her body, risks her health, and endures labor, without long-term support.

Does biology, paperwork, or emotional labor define motherhood?

What do you think?

Is motherhood earned by DNA, by law, or by love and sacrifice?

Legally as well ethically Abhira is the mother of the child not Ruhi. Ruhi is a surrogate and a surrogate cannot be called a mother just because she's carrying the child in her womb for 9 months. Abhira took care of Daksh as her own child and even breastfed him but Ruhi was Daksh's biological mother that's why the baby went to Ruhi. Now Abhira should get the baby because Ruhi had signed the documents that she will rightfully give the baby to Abhira once it's born. If at all Ruhi demands the baby and keeps it, it's totally unfair legally and ethically.

We can argue surrogacy legality but as per paperworks bageera is the mother

That's another topic if she's capable of being a mother

Originally posted by: Life_Is_Dutiful

Legally as well ethically Abhira is the mother of the child not Ruhi. Ruhi is a surrogate and a surrogate cannot be called a mother just because she's carrying the child in her womb for 9 months. Abhira took care of Daksh as her own child and even breastfed him but Ruhi was Daksh's biological mother that's why the baby went to Ruhi. Now Abhira should get the baby because Ruhi had signed the documents that she will rightfully give the baby to Abhira once it's born. If at all Ruhi demands the baby and keeps it, it's totally unfair legally and ethically.

So legality takes precedence over efforts of the individual? Because Ruhi is the one going through the ordeal of pregnancy

Now that she is not the mother, is she allowed to be careless? For example - she wants to forget pain of her losing husband and drink her pain away and considering the fact that the child isn't hers, can she go and drink because it is her body after all?

I don't know tbh. I personally feel surrogacy india main honi hi nahi chahiye as it's not done for money. Atleast ppl in western countries do it for money so they had other financial commitments may not get attached to the baby as by doing that they can not fulfill the goal for which they did this surrogacy. But here the surrogate is doing only because she is doing it for her family where there are chances that she will get attached to the baby as in the end she is not getting any benefits from being surrogate. I personally feel surrogacy should not be there as if a person can not give birth they can adopt kids. Pregnancy is not a joke that you make a woman go through delivary pain and if ruhi dies tomorrow who will take care of daksh.

Even though legally abhira is the mother of the child. The Ruhi is risking her life, investing her time and ruhi is going through all the pain without expecting anything in return. She even risking her own life with daksh for this baby.

I personally consider child belongs the ruhi as her life is at stake and if she becomes careless child will die. Abhira can not do anything to save the child in such cases. So since the child's survival is totally on surrogate I feel ruhi has more rights over child than abhira. If it was monetary surrogacy then i would have supported bio mother as deal was done based on monetary benefit and surrogate is getting something in return to give it to herself and her family. But here ruhi is risking her life for nothing.

This reminded me of one of the recent cases i read in news. A young woman who has a newborn opts in to donate her kidney to her relative who is 60+. But unfortunately relative survives and young woman died due to some complications.

It does not matter who decided to donate the kidney. It could be woman willingly wanted to donate or it could be her family forced her to donate. But question was raised on her family who did not stopped her from donating a kidney. As she was very young compared to her relative. Also she has small child. Now that child has no mother.

Surrogacy is one of the many cruel acts that proves how low humans can stoop. The worst thing is that some perverted women too support this exploitation of another women. Just goes on to show why the world is filled with criminals and r@pists because some of these perverted women give birth and further propagate their nasty thought process.

What could be more perverted then perceiving a live women as some incubator to carry some else couple's 'genetic material ' and then the audacity to separate the baby from the "real mother" who carried it for 9 months.

And above all how can a DAMN contract lead to a women losing rights on her own body , losing her right to take decisions concerning her own health and right to abortion.

Originally posted by: Life_Is_Dutiful

Legally as well ethically Abhira is the mother of the child not Ruhi. Ruhi is a surrogate and a surrogate cannot be called a mother just because she's carrying the child in her womb for 9 months. Abhira took care of Daksh as her own child and even breastfed him but Ruhi was Daksh's biological mother that's why the baby went to Ruhi. Now Abhira should get the baby because Ruhi had signed the documents that she will rightfully give the baby to Abhira once it's born. If at all Ruhi demands the baby and keeps it, it's totally unfair legally and ethically.

'Legally' can be other matter but ethically the baby belong to ruhi and only ruhi, Get it. Its ruhi's baby whom she will be nurturing for months and risking her life for. Who the hell is abheera , a freaking egg donor , she doesn’t have any right on the baby ethically.

Originally posted by: firewings_diya

I don't know tbh. I personally feel surrogacy india main honi hi nahi chahiye as it's not done for money. Atleast ppl in western countries do it for money so they had other financial commitments may not get attached to the baby as by doing that they can not fulfill the goal for which they did this surrogacy. But here the surrogate is doing only because she is doing it for her family where there are chances that she will get attached to the baby as in the end she is not getting any benefits from being surrogate. I personally feel surrogacy should not be there as if a person can not give birth they can adopt kids. Pregnancy is not a joke that you make a woman go through delivary pain and if ruhi dies tomorrow who will take care of daksh.

Even though legally abhira is the mother of the child. The Ruhi is risking her life, investing her time and ruhi is going through all the pain without expecting anything in return. She even risking her own life with daksh for this baby.

I personally consider child belongs the ruhi as her life is at stake and if she becomes careless child will die. Abhira can not do anything to save the child in such cases. So since the child's survival is totally on surrogate I feel ruhi has more rights over child than abhira. If it was monetary surrogacy then i would have supported bio mother as deal was done based on monetary benefit and surrogate is getting something in return to give it to herself and her family. But here ruhi is risking her life for nothing.

This reminded me of one of the recent cases i read in news. A young woman who has a newborn opts in to donate her kidney to her relative who is 60+. But unfortunately relative survives and young woman died due to some complications.

It does not matter who decided to donate the kidney. It could be woman willingly wanted to donate or it could be her family forced her to donate. But question was raised on her family who did not stopped her from donating a kidney. As she was very young compared to her relative. Also she has small child. Now that child has no mother.

Surrogacy is actually something I don't support, especially in India, where women are conditioned to sacrifice themselves for family.

Like we had to ban sex determination, it is unique to Indian setting because of our socio-cultural dynamics, we can't adapt western practices as it is. Surrogacy is primarily a form of exploitation of women who don't gain anything out of it and we are still a country which has government schemes for regulating maternal mortality rates

I am strictly against a practice like surrogacy in India but wo alag hi discussion hai 😂

Originally posted by: ThukkadRajaShah

Surrogacy is one of the many cruel acts that proves how low humans can stoop. The worst thing is that some perverted women too support this exploitation of another women. Just goes on to show why the world is filled with criminals and r@pists because some of these perverted women give birth and further propagate their nasty thought process.

What could be more perverted then perceiving a live women as some incubator to carry some else couple's 'genetic material ' and then the audacity to separate the baby from the "real mother" who carried it for 9 months.

And above all how can a DAMN contract lead to a women losing rights on her own body , losing her right to take decisions concerning her own health and right to abortion.

Thats correct

A woman loses rights on her body, she goes through hormonal, emotional, psychological, physiological mess only for her pain to intensify post delivery

Surrogacy is an evil practice

Originally posted by: ThukkadRajaShah

'Legally' can be other matter but ethically the baby belong to ruhi and only ruhi, Get it. Its ruhi's baby whom she will be nurturing for months and risking her life for. Who the hell is abheera , a freaking egg donor , she doesn’t have any right on the baby ethically.

I usually refrain from commenting, but this is a sensitive topic. Based on your logic, fathers would have no rights and be reduced to mere sperm donors, correct? In this case, Ruhi was neither forced nor threatened into surrogacy—she voluntarily approached Arman and Abhira, fully aware of her decision and its implications. Legally and ethically, Abhira is the mother, and Ruhi does not automatically gain parental rights simply because an unfortunate event occurred in her life. She had the option to terminate the pregnancy if she felt it was necessary for her current circumstances, prioritizing her own child, Dkash. Since no one compelled her, it remains her choice. Neither she nor anyone else can claim that the child is hers—no way.

It’s truly heartbreaking that some people in the world require external assistance to have children. While adoption is always an option, it's well known that many parents or relatives prefer biological connections, making adoption a less favored choice for them.

Therefore, we cannot diminish the biological mother’s rights by labeling her as just an egg donor, nor can we elevate the surrogate’s role to that of the mother simply because she endured physical and emotional strain. That’s not how it works. Each party enters this process with full understanding, and as responsible adults, we must acknowledge the consequences and act accordingly. True character is defined by consistency—if you stand by your decisions in favorable circumstances, you must also uphold them in difficult times. You can't keep changing your stance to suit the situation.