Legal or ethical - Who is mother of the child? - Page 10

Hypocrisy at it's peak. Surrogacy in itself is unethical but instead people are more concerned about the outcome of surrogacy and how it should be ethical. It's just like a criminal advocating about justice. When the whole practice of surrogacy is unethical then howcome someone can talk about fairness in it's constituent processes.

According to brainless people a surrogate has to give up the baby under moral grounds but moral grounds are dismissed for couples who opt for surrogacy and decide to inflict someone else with the immense physical and mental pain.

No one questions ethics when a surrogate loses rights on her own body , right to abortion , right to take decisions concerning her own health and also on the being whom she gives birth to.

But everyone becomes a flag bearer of ethics when the baby is delivered and start vomiting their pseudo ethics.

Originally posted by: Ambajee

Manny this reminded me of Abhi and how unfair he was treated by not having been told abt Abhir’s birth! Precisely on point - Child’s right to be and to know the bio parent. This is wat was wanted for Daksh, this is what we wanted for Abhir too..! The legal, ethical, moral right for Abhimanyu to be made aware of Abhir’s birth and this where jamwali and her pati failed badly!

Abhimanyu had all the rights to know about his son's existence morally , legally and ethically . Had he rejected Abhir , even after clearly knowing about Abhir's existence , then I would have supported Jamwali giving fatherly rights to taxiwala . But that was clearly not the case. What Jamwali did out of spite , was a well planned cold blooded revenge to erase Abhimanyu's existence in the life of his own son .

Abhira is the biological mother and ideally , Ruhi should hand over the kid to her after birth .

But the irony is some people completely dismissed Abhimanyu's role as Abhir’s biological and legal father, instead overly glorifying Abhinav’s emotional contribution and presence in Abhir’s life. Yet the same people now argue that Abhira has the sole right over her biological child even though Ruhi will endure bone-crushing labour pain, risk her life, bear emotional turmoil and countless sacrifices , to bring Abhira's child into this world .

If someone’s efforts, love, and sacrifices make them a real parent in one case (like Abhinav), then the same should apply to Ruhi as well. And if biological ties are what matter, then Abhimanyu should never have been sidelined as Abhir’s father.

Originally posted by: MsWhiskerson

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?

I’ll simply say the age old statement, janam dene se zyaada bara palne wali maa hoti hai, legally biologically, it’s Abhira’s baby, emotionally & ethically Ruhi has very minimum role as it later period Abhira will be raising her own child. Just like everyone wanted Daksh to be returned to Ruhi, there should never be any discussion over the fact that the upcoming baby only belongs to Abhira. I’m sure no celebrity who conceived their children via surrogacy would entertain that nonsense. The only way a surrogate mother would ever have any involvement in the child’s life, it’s only when the biological parents allow it, else legally speaking, those babies are bound to be taken in custody. So neither party has a chance.

Surrogacy, in itself, is not inherently unethical. The ethics of surrogacy depend largely on how the process is managed, the motivations of those involved, and the protections in place for both the surrogate and the intended parents. It can be ethical when approached with respect, informed consent, legal protections, and when the surrogate’s autonomy and emotional well-being are prioritized. However, unethical practices can arise, particularly in situations involving exploitation, lack of transparency, or inadequate legal frameworks. Therefore, it is crucial to approach surrogacy with a strong ethical framework and clear legal protections for everyone involved.

There is no legal/ethical thing in surrogacy. And i would say do not bring your own emotions for a character to describe something that not even something to argue about in the first place.

People are either surrogate for money/doing it friends or family. Yes they are carrying a baby but they are aware of implications that baby is not theirs to keep. In this case Ruhi agree to carry the baby, and now if we start preaching about how she deserves to keep the baby this or that. Then there will many surrogate couples without their baby and surrogates will be keeping baby hostages over their head.

Originally posted by: Ria23

There is no legal/ethical thing in surrogacy. And i would say do not bring your own emotions for a character to describe something that not even something to argue about in the first place.

People are either surrogate for money/doing it friends or family. Yes they are carrying a baby but they are aware of implications that baby is not theirs to keep. In this case Ruhi agree to carry the baby, and now if we start preaching about how she deserves to keep the baby this or that. Then there will many surrogate couples without their baby and surrogates will be keeping baby hostages over their head.

This is tone deaf TBH

Surrogacy is a legally regulated process, I see most people continuously coming and giving examples of celebrities, which tells me that's their only exposure to the practice but today's reality is that no celebrity can do that process in India anymore because commercial surrogacy is banned - why? Because of legal and ethical concerns

Women are humans, you don't buy or rent humans, that's unethical

Originally posted by: MsWhiskerson

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?

Red : Yes, it does. Because both agreed to surrogacy with full knowledge of what will happen. No one was forced. Legally, Morally, Ethically, the child is of the biological mother, which Abhira.

Blue : No, she cannot. Because she agreed to care for someone else's child. Again legally, ethically and morally, the surrogate cannot put the child in harm. Can she drink? Ethically & morally, she should not. If she's no longer ready to continue the pregnancy, she can break the contact. If she hasn't, then she ought to put the child first.

See I'm always more in favour of Ru than Abhira. But the point here is purely on surrogacy. So Yes, unfortunately, she has to put the safety of the baby first, no matter what mental state she is, if she choose to continue the pregnancy. If she choose not to continue the pregnancy, she should make it clear.

Surrogacy is a very sensitive yet controversial subject. But become a surrogate is a huge responsibility. She deserves all respect and recognition and the child deserves to know who did the grace to bring them to life. But she is not the mother.

Also, you can surely disagree. Things around surrogacy is more about what's ethical and moral, which changes from to person.

Originally posted by: Misthi07

Red : Yes, it does. Because both agreed to surrogacy with full knowledge of what will happen. No one was forced. Legally, Morally, Ethically, the child is of the biological mother, which Abhira.

Blue : No, she cannot. Because she agreed to care for someone else's child. Again legally, ethically and morally, the surrogate cannot put the child in harm. Can she drink? Ethically & morally, she should not. If she's no longer ready to continue the pregnancy, she can break the contact. If she hasn't, then she ought to put the child first.

See I'm always more in favour of Ru than Abhira. But the point here is purely on surrogacy. So Yes, unfortunately, she has to put the safety of the baby first, no matter what mental state she is, if she choose to continue the pregnancy. If she choose not to continue the pregnancy, she should make it clear.

Surrogacy is a very sensitive yet controversial subject. But become a surrogate is a huge responsibility. She deserves all respect and recognition and the child deserves to know who did the grace to bring them to life. But she is not the mother.

Also, you can surely disagree. Things around surrogacy is more about what's ethical and moral, which changes from to person.

Bold: That's such a diabolical thought process of perceiving a live sentient being as nothing more than an incubator. Prime example of a primitive mindset. The women has every right on her own body and can do whatever she wants.

Every person has right to their own body , that's basic. Then howcome a practice such as surrogacy can be ethical which directly takes away the women's right on her own body.

A woman doing it due to commercial needs wouldn't have taken this path if she had other ways.

A woman emotionally manipulated into doing it suffers undoubtedly.

And lastly a woman doing it on her own will is getting exploited. There's no guarantee she won't suffer during the contract period , but there won't be any turning point because idiots will hold a damn contract against the basic human right on her body.