Legal or ethical - Who is mother of the child? - Page 11

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

She agreed to something and signed contract, now she has given her body for rent, she loses every control over it, she can't do anything for 9 months, if she dies in the end...tough luck

Her mental health, her well being takes a backseat because the foetus is more important

I want to understand, in which world a human living like this, is ethical?

Originally posted by: ThukkadRajaShah

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.

Happens when people see one side, we see that celebrities have had kids through surrogacy but we don't see the other side and that's the exposure to surrogacy, when you don't see the other side, how do you feel anything for them?

Originally posted by: MsWhiskerson

@Bold

She agreed to something and signed contract, now she has given her body for rent, she loses every control over it, she can't do anything for 9 months, if she dies in the end...touch luck

Her mental health, her well being takes a backseat because the foetus is more important

I want to understand, in which world a human living like this, is ethical?

Main reason why I am against surrogacy. The grey and dark side is scary

Commercial surrogacy was legal lot of abandonment also happened if it kid was not of the looks of gender they wanted 😩

Originally posted by: AnjuRish

Main reason why I am against surrogacy. The grey and dark side is scary

Commercial surrogacy was legal lot of abandonment also happened if it kid was not of the looks of gender they wanted 😩

In Indian context, when laws are made around reproductive rights of women, they are always on the side of what is easier rather than what is necessary

Ruhi can't abort the child unless she is in grave danger or there is a massive health concern, so once the decision is taken, you can't go back but you are putting your body and 9 months of your time on the line, that's just unfair

We had to ban sex determination because Indian conditions are different. SRK did sex determination of his surrogate child and there was an outrage, it is normal thing to do for the entire world and we can say SRK as a celebrity perhaps didn't do it because he wanted to abort female foetus but celebrities are not our benchmark.