Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T14:42:51.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ethics of Surrogate Motherhood: Biology, Freedom, and Moral Obligation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

Lisa Sowle Cahill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Proponents of the new reproductive arrangements tend to speak in terms of reproductive freedom, the right to be a parent, contractual obligation, and infertility therapy, while opponents speak of the natural bond of motherhood, the gift of a child, the integrity of the family, and playing God with the reproductive process. Underlying the rhetorical slogans are deep differences about the values that should guide evaluation of the disputed practices and policies. The proponents of surrogacy contracts place a high value on freedom and autonomy, and consequently on legally binding agreements to embark on birth projms that will alleviate for some the physiological blight of infertility. The opponents of surrogacy and other forms of nontraditional reproduction, on the other hand, defend the physical and genetic foundations not only of parenthood but also of marriage and family. The right to self-determination, they hold, should not extend beyond the personal relationships derived from the basic biological realities of marriage cemented sexually and natural parenthood.

Type
Ethics
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 16 , Issue 1-2 , Spring 1988 , pp. 65 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrews, Lori B., “Feminist Perspectives on Reproductive Technologies,” unpublished conference paper. Available from the author: Andrews, Lori B., American Bar Foundation. 750 Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60611.Google Scholar
Id.: 40 (emphasis added).Google Scholar
A prior question, which I consider less morally problematic, is the morality of interfering technologically in the human reproductive process in order to enable conception through an action other than sexual intercourse. Although strong statements have been made against such interference, I do not find the moral arguments against them to be strong, nor are such interventions legally questionable in the United States. For the negative arguments, see the Vatican's Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day, dated Feb. 22, 1987, and issued on March 10 with the signature of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The full text was published in the New York Times, March 11, 1987. For critical discussion of these arguments, see Cahill, Lisa Sowle McCormick, R. A., “The Vatican Document on Bioethics: Two Responses,” America, 156, no. 12 (March 28, 1987): 245–48; and Krauthammer, C., “The Ethics of Human Manufacture,” Conscience, 3, no. 3 (May/June 1987): 8–12 (originally published in The New Republic, 1987).Google Scholar
In re Baby “M,” 217 N.J. Super. 313, 525 A.2d 1128 (1987).Google Scholar
Id. at 323, 525 A.2d at 1132.Google Scholar
Id. at 373–74. 525 A.2d at 1158.Google Scholar
Id. at 375, 525 A.2d at 1159.Google Scholar
Id. at 328, A.2d at 1135.Google Scholar
Id. at 391, A.2d at 1167.Google Scholar
Id. at 388–89, A.2d at 1166.Google Scholar
Id. at 408, A.2d at 1175.Google Scholar
Id. at 331, A.2d at 1136.Google Scholar
Id. at 386, A.2d at 1164.Google Scholar
Annas, George J., “Baby M: Babies (and Justice) for Sale,” Hastings Center Report, 17, no. 3 (June 1987): 13–14.Google Scholar
Andrews, , supra note 1, at 14.Google Scholar
Rothman, B. K., “Surrogacy: A question of values,” Conscience, 8, no. 3 (May/June 1987): 2–3.Google Scholar
In re Baby “M,” 217 N.J. Super. 374, 525 A.2d at 1158.Google Scholar
Id. at 372, 525 A.2d at 1157.Google Scholar
Andrews, , supra note 1, at 33.Google Scholar
In re Baby “M,” 217 N.J. Super. 348, 525 A.2d at 1144.Google Scholar
See especially the nine criteria offered by Dr. L. Salk, in id. at 362–63, 525 A.2d at 1151–52.Google Scholar
Annas, , supra note 14.Google Scholar
Krauthammer, , supra note 3, at 12.Google Scholar