Marketablility
Are certain goods not marketable?
Please read the following as pertains to surrogacy. Over the next two days, write your thoughts on this particular case. Then ponder whether the selling of organs. You might want to do some background reading on organ selling.
Mary Beth Whitehead, the genetic mother, was artificially inseminated with William Stern's sperm, making her the surrogate mother of his child. Whitehead responded to an ad in the Asbury Park Press seeking women willing to help infertile couples have children.[1] Despite what was stated in the surrogacy contract, Mr. Stern's wife, Elizabeth, was not infertile but had multiple sclerosis and was concerned about the potential health implications of pregnancy. A medical colleague had warned her that his own wife, who also had multiple sclerosis, had suffered temporary paralysis during pregnancy.[2]
On March 27, 1986, Whitehead gave birth to a daughter, whom she named "Sara Elizabeth Whitehead." Within 24 hours of transferring custody to the Sterns, Whitehead returned to ask for the baby back and threatened suicide. Whitehead then refused to return the baby to the Sterns and left New Jersey, taking the infant with her.
In 1987 New Jersey Superior Court judge Harvey R. Sorkow awarded custody of Baby M to the Sterns under a "best interest of the child analysis", validating the surrogacy contract.[3]
On February 3, 1988, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, led by Chief Justice Robert Wilentz, invalidated surrogacy contracts as against public policy, but in dicta affirmed the trial court's "best interest of the child" analysis. The Supreme Court remanded the case to family court. On remand, the lower court awarded William Stern custody and Mary Beth Whitehead visitation rights.[4][5] The court specifically addressed the issue of surrogates who were genetic parents, leaving open the question of whether gestational surrogates also had parental rights and whether gestational surrogacy also violated public policy.[6]
The case attracted much attention, as it demonstrated that the possibilities of third party reproduction had novel legal and social ramifications. The case exposed the dilemma of a birth mother created by contractual agreements and biological bonding. The case also split feminists who, on one side, argued that a woman has rights to her own body (that is, that she can decide to be a surrogate if she wishes), but who were also sensitive to the issue of potential exploitation. The surrogacy arrangement was heavily criticized.
The outlook of this can be judged in two different ways. Some people can look at it as the lady had a contract agreement and she knew that she would have to give the child up. Some other people may look at it as she is the true mother of the child and so she has more rights to the child. If we look at the birth of a child, when the doctors ask if the baby boy is going to be circumcised, they have to ask the mother, not the father because she is the one who gave birth to the baby. So this case can be looked at in two ways, and i am on the fence on them. I take no sides because both sides are correct.
ReplyDeleteThis Whitehead lady made an agreement with the sterns so there should be no debate on whos child it is because she made the agreement. I believe that she should have visitation rights but never have custody rights. I aqree with devonte tho on the both sides being correct but i would give the lady whitehead visitation and no custody.
ReplyDeleteI personally will agree and not agree. The reason i wont agree is that if she signed a contract with the sterns then there should be absoluetly no question about it. If she wanted to keeep the child herself she should have never signed the legal contract which was agreed by the two parties. On the other hand if you look at it she is the birth mother and the question is does she have any kind of rights. I understand what its like to have a child going through nine months and delivery and having to give it up. This lady might of thought it would be easy to just give up but once she had that baby she might have found some kind of connection or attachment, so she is not wrong for feeling that she has a right to the child.
ReplyDeleteI think that surrogacy is a difficult issue to discuss. Many women have trouble getting pregnant, but there are also many children out there that are put up for adoption. However when it comes to surrogacy I believe that if a woman agrees to a contract and signs it, then she should have to follow through with her decision to give up her baby. If a woman has any feelings of doubt before making this decision I think that she should not be able to go through with it. Even though the baby grew inside of her, it is also Stern's sperm, so biologically it is his baby as well. If a couple has problem with surrogacy, I see nothing wrong with adopting, after all there are thousands of children out there who are already created and waiting to find a home somewhere. I think society would like to think that surrogacy always works out but after all we're only human. I think it was natural for Whitehead to want to keep her baby, however legally it should remain with the Sterns.
ReplyDeleteWhitehead did agree to transfer custody, as well as to have the child for stern and his wife. Since she somehow grew attatched to this child, she should at most, be allowed to be a nanny, or something, but should not be that involved in the kid's life. Once you give up a child after birth, you do not deserve to be a primary part of his/her life.
ReplyDeleteI think that Whitehead has the legal right to fight for custody of the baby because she is the biological mother but because Stern is the father he also has the right to fight for custody. However, morally I believe Whitehead is wrong. She shouldn’t have agreed to become a surrogate mother if she wasn’t emotionally stable. I don’t think people should get a family’s hopes up just to rip the baby away.
ReplyDeleteIt was part of Whitehead's agreement to have the baby to give it to the Stearns after it was born, and because she agreed to this, she has no right to take the baby back. She could have said no to the surrogacy. The fact that she didn't means that the baby is the Stearns. I do, however, think that she should have the right to visitation if she wants it.
ReplyDeleteIf someone makes the agreement to "rent out their uterus" or sell a kidney or something like that, it should be an informed decision, but it should be their right to do so if they want to. They should only be able to market their own body parts, though - not those of their children or anyone else. There should also be some sort of contract so they can't go back on their agreement - they should be given all information before the procedure, so they can't sue or anything like that.
Nastalsia said:
ReplyDeletei dont believe Whiteheads should have had custody at all. they had a contract, if she started having mixed feelings about the situation, they should have had a meeting about it. But surrogacy arrangements should be looked into way more than just a piece of paper, not just a random woman. I can understand that it was may beth's baby also but she made an agreement. but why didnt they use Williams Stern's wife's eggs anyway? wasnt she fertile?
I think that if you are going to undergo the very serious matter of becoming a surrogate mother, and renting your body out you must be completely set on dealing with the consequences of such an act. It is your decision to make, and it should not be a decision taken lightly. If you agree, then it is not your child. Seeing as you brought this situation knowingly upon yourself, then you need to abide by this situation. If you are not 100% certain. then DON'T do it. This is a very weighty responsibility and experience and it is absolutely one that i would not personally EVER take upon myself. Seeing as the surrogate mother was not even biologically related to the baby, it is not her baby, she has no claim to it, and she was simply the vessel which she conciously rented herelf out to be.
ReplyDeleteThis is confusing to begin with, but before I delve In I agree with the judge’s decision. For this situation I think neither family knew what they were getting into because they did not think ahead of the consequences. For the decision of selling or renting your body I find it wrong and repulsive and should not be allowed. This is very hard because the black market is thriving on body parts but it needs be stopped. Besides in the course of the story if you want a child there are more than enough orphans in the world it just takes a little bit more work.
ReplyDeleteIn some cases surrogacy is a great idea because some people physically can't have children as the article stated...but then again that's why they have adoption agencies. If people shifted completly to surrogacy then what would happen to the orphans? When parents are given the option to choose between a brand new baby with hardly any strings attached and a 12 year old who has probbably moved from house to house they would probabbly choose the baby.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the lady should still have full rights to the child. she knew the risk she was taking and for her only to get visitational rights seems wrong. the lady went into th4e whole situation ready to risk her life to have the baby and she only can visit it.
ReplyDeleteThis issue is a hard one to interpret. On the one side, Mary Beth Whitehead is the biological mother, William Stern the father, making it seem reasonable that Mary Beth get some of the custody. On the other hand, Mary Beth did sign a contract, assumably stating that Mary Beth would grow and birth the baby and then hand it over to the Sterns. Although we do not know what the contract says, we can assume that it gives all right to the Sterns because they were the ones who advertised for surrogates who by definition carry the baby but then give it up. I believe that though the Sterns lied on their contract saying that they were infertile, Ms. Whitehead still knew what she was getting into when she decided to become a surrogate. Because of this, and the binding agreement that she signed, she should not be able to have custody of the child. Although in this case the biological mother does not have any means for legal custody, the many other cases similar to this one are more complex. It is similar to cases in which mothers give up their children for adoption and then change their minds. In any cases, if the mother signed a contract, and especially if the mother and father from the other family presented their DNA for the baby, the surrogate mother should not be able to assume custody over the child.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lyla completely. People should know what they are getting into when they agree to something like this.
ReplyDeletei would consider donating an organ. if a loved one of mine was in need theres no doubt in my mind id donate body parts to save their life. yeah theres a chance i get hurt, but that risk is worth saving that persons life.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lyla
ReplyDeleteI agree that she should not have agreed to be a surrogate mother if she wasn't dure she could give the baby up. However, she was the biological mother, they used her egg and Stern's Sperm.
Although many think this is a hard issue to decide which side is right, I believe that it all comes down to the fact that Whitehead signed a contract stating that this baby was to be given to the Sterns and she needs to comply with that document. Even though Sterns wife did lie on the contract that she was infertile techniquely making the contract non-binding the fact of the matter is that, Whitehead knew going into the pregnancy that she would not be keeping the baby. So for that reason the baby is the Sterns child, and depending on the terms of the contract, Whitehead should not techniquely have any rights to the child. Ever since she was insemminated the baby was not hers. Additionally her suicide attempt further pushes the issue that she is not mentally sound and shouldn't be the guardian to a baby.
ReplyDeleteI agree with katy on the renting of organs because it should be the persons choice and have a contract so0 the person cant say i didnt want to do that or whatever
ReplyDeleteI believe that the way they dealt with this case could have gone better. Ms. Whitehead signed a contract that said she was only a surrogate mother and nothing more. I believe by her saying that she would commit suicide shows how unstable she really was and that she shouldn't be awarded the baby. But the fact that the baby is half hers creates a huge tie between herself and the baby. Even though the contract was signed it showed false information. The fact that Mrs. Stern lied about being infertile shows poor judgement because she should have been straight forward from the beginning. I think they made the right decision about letting Ms. Whitehead have visitation rights. I think that maybe the Stern family should have choosen a better fit for the surrogate mother because they could have avoided this entire mess but they couldn't have known that she would go to such extreme measures.
ReplyDeleteNastalsia said:
ReplyDeletei dont know what to think about the body selling business. If its done the right and true way then it could be helpful, but its such a dirty buisness, people lie and steal...it depends
I agree with Lyla completely. I think that if you are making this decision you have to stick to it. Also if you are unsure about it not to do it all. By becoming a surrogate, you are not only taking on responsibility for your body, but also another life and the future of this family.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alanna that this was completely Whitehead's choice. If she did not feel comfortable growing a baby inside of her, then she should not have answered the ad. Although a lot can happen over 9 months, she still signed a contract and cannot go back on that. It would be a completely different case if she was forced to concieve this baby, but she volunteered and knew at the time of signing the contract that she was going to have to give it up in the end.
ReplyDeletei agree with the sterns because i feel as though suicide is a sin and i dont beleive in it. also i believe that they have the right to be in the child's life if its his sperm. i think that whitehead has a mental issue going on and the sterns should had taken custody of the child. the sterns arent completely innocent in the situation also. they lied plenty of times throughout their time trying to prove their case saying its "their child". i think this whole case is just a bunch of bull and everyone needs to get along.
ReplyDeleteCertain goods can be marketable depending on what it is. Actually just about anything can be marketable. In this article I believe that MB Whitehead isnt irrational for the choices she made because she had feelings and the child came from her body so she most likely felt that it was apart of her. But I think that she made poor decisions because well first off I believe she didnt think this one through. Before even signing off on an agreement, she should have thought her options out more carefully and should have thought or made predictions of what could happen. She could have simply asked herself how she might feel after all of this, if she did the right thing, if it was wrong because the child came from her, or if shed grow emotional and feel helpless without her child. Its normal for any person to feel emotions over specifics and in this case the woman did have feelings and they were that the child is originally hers, she wants it back. It is unfortunate tho when a person signs off an agreement and makes a choice that im doing this for someone, that what I do I am choosing to help someone, but then changes their mind about what they agreed to just because their feelings changed. But having joined custody is appropriate in this case because the stern family gets to keep the child overall. They have the right to keep it since the woman agreed to give them a child. MB Whitehead will still have communication and visitation rights to the child, so if I were her, Id be content and stay satisfied because I put my self in the situation in the first place since I gave my consent and word.
ReplyDeleteIn response to candice i believe some people choose surragacy because of two reasons: in on way you can insemmenate the surragate with both of a couples egg and sperm causing the surragate to simply be a carrier of a child which has no DNA of hers at all. in another way many couples who are not fertile want a surragate so they can experience a pregnancy that they couldnt have when adopting.
ReplyDeletei believe with nastalsia that if mixed feelings or doubts began to surface, it was the responsibility of the surrogate mother to bring this up beforehand, as soon as possible. And i also am confused about the issue of the decception surrounding Elizabeth Sterns infertility. If you are going to go through with such a controversial and potentially problematic surrogate proccess you absolutely owe it to the surrogate mother to be truthful about everything. No upfront fraudulent information. Seeing as the contract was written in terms of Elizabeth being infertile, the whole document was invalidated anyways.
ReplyDeleteAs with anything, each case has different circumstances. Under this one it could kind of go a few ways. I don't believe a mother should ever be seperated from her child, impregnated surgically or not. However there was a contract and an agreement made. This is tuff, I'm really not sure on where I stand on this. There are numerous cases each and every day where a couple turns to a sperm donor in order to start a family which they have had complications doing themselves...so does that give the person the right to come back and say that they should take custody of the child was born?... Adoption also can be tied into this. ...Again a legal signed agreement kinda binds the decision so I'm left at a neutral opinion.
ReplyDeleteFor this situation I have to argue for stern's side because Whitehead had the choice to do this kind of action she should have been perpared for it. Also she has signed this contract she ahs to keep her promise. I feel bad for Stern because he and his wife is unable to have children because there will some disorder for the child, and its not their fault they can't hve children. But I understand it aslo hard for because carrying the baby for ten months there is bound to have feelings develope for the child. I also understand that in her phsylogical mind that she is concious she is now a mother.
ReplyDeleteTo conclude this I say that Whitehead can have visitation rights but no custody because she signed the contract and she had time to prepare herself to give up the child in the first place.
I agree completely with claire because whitehead did sign a contract with the sterns and even tho the sterns lady lied on the contract whitehead sholdnt have gotten a bond with the child but i still believe she should be able to see her
ReplyDeletei agree with candice, but then again, stern's wife was able to carry a child and she was fertile, they could have used one of her eggs but they didnt because they lied about her being infertile. surrogacy is a great idea...if its done the correct way
ReplyDeleteThis is a very difficult issue I believe. With this whole issue I think they did the whole process wrong. Whitehead should have not had any attachment to the baby in any way. But since the process was done the wrong way Whitehead was the mother. Since shes the mother I believe she has all rights to the child seeing as the child is part of her.
ReplyDeleteIn response to zthoeri:I dont agree with your stament that if you give up your child you have no right to be involved only because some people give up their child for many different reasons, for the child to have and live a better life. You have to think about it oneday that child might find out that they are adopted and want to find the biological parents. They are doing this because they are apart of a family but really that isnt their real family meaning not their biological family. I understand that the child may be confused having the adopted family and biological family at the same time but you have to think what would you really want as a child or as a parent going through ADOPTION.ITS NOT EASY
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caroline
ReplyDeleteI think Whitehead should stick to the contract, she knew what she was doing. She is the mother of the child and legally she probably has the right to fight for custody but I don't think she should get it. I agree with the court's ruling, they did what was best for the child and put her with the family that wanted her from the beginning.
I agree with Candice on the fact that some people really rely on sperm donors to assist them in beginning a family of their own.
ReplyDeleteAlanna:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. Surrogacy is a tough topic to talk about because there is so much to say with opinions.
Whitehead signed a legal contract and the baby is to go to the Sterns. Although the Sterns didn't plan on having any difficulties with the surrogate mother they were obviously proven wrong. I think that surrogacy shouldn't be taken lightly because there are real lives at stake and the baby's future should NOT be taken lightly. Though it wasn't in this situation, the genetic mother should have known that she would need to give up her baby to the Sterns. The fact that she decided last minute makes me wonder a little bit how long she was thinking of keeping the baby. I think it might be possible that she was thinking about whether or not a mother with MS would be suitable. I'm not sure though.
i agree with Ivs that the surrogate mother does seem a little unstable because she was threatening to commit suicide and using that threat as leverage. in order to pursue the baby's best interest, the child should be given to the parents not the surrogate mother.
ReplyDeleteI agree with suramirez in the fact that the Whitehead should be very happy with the out come of the case. According to the agreement she legally and willingly signed she shouldnt have any rights to this child and doesnt need to have any visitation rights to the child. For me i wouldn't have given any more rights then the ones she was given by the contract.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Liz. I think that if this womanw was threatening suicide, then she is not fit to care for this child at all, and the judge ruled in the right decision. I think the Stern's maybe should have researched this woman more and surrogacy itself. It is hard to know however how detailed their search was and how qualified Whitehead may have been in the beginning. In the issue of Ms. Stern's condition, of Multiple Sclerosis, I think she should have been straight forward about it. Even if she is fertile, it is perfectly understandable for her to not want to risk her life to have a child, when someone else offered to do it for her. This may have been ther Stern's last chance at having a child, where as Whitehead most likely could concieve another. In terms of visitation I think this is something that should have been discusses up front in the beginning, and if agreed upon a closed surrogacy, Whitehead should not be allowed visitation rights. This goes the same with adoption. This may have just been a surrogacy gone wrong, however no one could have known that Whitehead would have taken these measures to get her baby back.
ReplyDeleteI agree with ALANNA because Whitehead signed a contract and you have to follow thorugh with that contract. But I understand that the baby is half hers and she wants to keep it but it still goes back to she signed the contract.
ReplyDeleteRasheed is absolutly right. A child is born because the sperm of a man meets the egg of a woman. Everybody knows this. The origin from which the sperm came from gets a say in what happens with child life and future. The woman also gets a say in the matter. Joined custody is the halfway point between both the mother and father with the child. That makes it fair and square. It isnt fair when either the mother or father feels they have all the control and they want more with the child or for the child.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Michelle, this isn't at all easy on/ for the mother having to give up apart of herself. Mother and child have a special bond that noone can replace.
ReplyDeleteI agree with caroline. she should be a lawyer. she wrote a lot.
ReplyDeleteStephanie
ReplyDeleteI think the agreement between the Sterns’ and Ms. Whitehead, in that the sterns hoped they could get the child after whitehead gave birth to the child but she did not HAVE to give up the child by law. There is no right or wrong. Whitehead is the biological mother so I think she deserves some rights to see her child, but Mr. Stern also has the same right to see his biological child in the same way, I think it should be shared custody on this issue. But when the egg and sperm are implanted I think the women who gives birth to the child should be allowed to stay in the child’s life as in this is “aunt” whoever. But not as a mom since she is not biologically related in any way most of the times, and since there is often money paid to the
women who caries the child from the parents.
rasheed, you didnt have to go that far but then again but both side were at fault, you say because she was suicidal she didnt deserve the baby, i believe the sterns didnt deserved the baby because they lied. she is the biological mother...this whole matter wouldnt be going on if the STERN'S DIDNT LIE!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteIn response to suramirez, I cannot even comprehend what it would be like to have to give up your own child, but then again it was the Stern's child as well. If the had decided to go to surrogacy, they must have weighed all other options as well. This baby is as much theirs as it is Whitehead's. This goes back to the issue of adoption. Although a woman can biologically be the mother or a man the father, they are not their actual parents. Their parents are the people who love, nurture and raise them. Because of this, I believe that the Sterns had the right to raise the child that they were preparing for and the child that they were expecting.
ReplyDeletewhitehead is an awful last name.
ReplyDeleteWell fact of the matter is that White head signed a contract and was not going to have the baby unless she was artificially inseminated and agreed to help Stern deliver a baby. The women that sign up for surrogacy should realize that no matter what legally they will have to give up the baby. Yes it the infant grew inside of Whitehead, but was the child of Stern and therefore his. The case was fair because the contract of surrogacy clearly states that the infant will not be Whiteheads, but Sterns.
ReplyDeletei do not kno rather to agree or not to agree because its a her child no quuestions asked on what a mother should or want to do with her child (benfiting the child i mean) but i also think since she had an agreement with the family that she should hold up to her end of the deal. and because she signed an agreement she has no choice but giving the baby to the family
ReplyDeleteMelissa:
ReplyDeleteI think that you're right in the sense that she should be content with the agreement she was granted. I think this case proves as almost a guinea pig for all future surrogate mothers. The fact that she double guessed her self and realized that she wasn't ready to give this baby up HOPEFULLY makes women try and choose the right choice from the beginning.
i agree with nate...its only fair because she new that the baby would not be hers
ReplyDeletepoopstick
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ivs that Whitehead was unstable and that the stern's should further checked on whitehead to see if she was ready for this kind of thing. I mean because if you understood the person better you could tell if they were better fitted to be a surrogate mother and it would have avoided all this chaos.
ReplyDeletein response to RASHEED: you have to realize that suicide is a sin but you have to think about what she is going through. YOu never know in the beginning she probly was all in agreemnent but when she began to grow with the baby for nine months it gave her some mixed feelings. when you look at it its kind of all of their babies in all ways. She did sign the contract but people have to take into consideration what she feels like being the birth mother. She probly felt horrible for giving the baby up even though genetically it wasnt hers, but it was hers for nine months.She has every right to feel the way that she does but shoe doesnt have the right to bring suicide in the picture to get her way. she could have went another way about it if she wanted something different. It may have helped her in the end.
ReplyDeleteI agree with AMANDAJ. People who cant have children gets excited when someone volunteers to give them their baby. Whitehead should feel connected to the baby because she carried it but she signed a contract and if she knew that she would feel a different way after having the baby then she should have never agreed to the contract. She can have visitation rights but not total custody. A DEALS A DEAL!
ReplyDeleteNastalsia this is for you:ok i dont agree with sperm doners anyway. i feel as though everyone should make a baby the old fashion way(just plain old sex) lol. i dont agree with any side because everyone of these people are dumb and doesnt have any common sense to deal with their problems like grown ups.
ReplyDeleteI disagree and agree with Justin because MB Whitehead should have a fair visitation right. As long as her visitation rights include only once in a while or whenever the Sterns feel like letting her see the child, it is completly wrong. But if she is getting at least 4 days out of a week to visit the child, there is no problem there. I guess it is ok though for the woman to have her child spend weekends at her house like for sleepovers and stuff, and possibly maybe once or twice a year she gets to take her child on a big trip.
ReplyDeleteI can of feel bad because giving birth to a baby is suppose to be a precious moment and is not the eaieest thing to do, so its natural that she gained feelings for theis child that was growing inside her...She is attached to the baby for she is the real mother..idk
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mr. Poopstick.
ReplyDeletePoop on a stick is a great idea.
Stephanie - In terms of who gets custody and what not, it depends on what information Whitehead was given before she agreed to become the surrogate. My understanding is that she went into it knowing she would be given the baby up, and if that is the case, she should not have any custody because it was not a part of her contract. I do, however, think she should have visitation rights - I can understand her wanting to see her baby and how it is doing. But the Stearns wanted to be a family with a child, they didn't want to have to "share" it. If they didn't express this from the beginning, then this is their fault for not doing so. But if they did, then Whitehead has no right to argue against it because she agreed.
ReplyDeleteStephanie agrees with Lin; whitehead had a choice on if she wanted to carry the child knowing she would have to hand over the child after she gave birth to it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with nate that it was before head decided legally and biologically that the infant was to be Sterns child, and that white should have thought this carefully before doing this because she knew she had to give up the baby.
ReplyDeleteokay rasheed, stop being a dumba**, if she was supposed to be "infertile" who was he going to have sex w/ to get a baby...HIMSELF (he's not you honey) they lied about the whole situation...
ReplyDeleteIf someone is paid to carry around a baby then they are being paid for their services. When the baby is born I think it should be given to the paying people. If you pay someone for their services you expect them to provide that service. the lady should have thought about all possible situations when she delivered the baby including psychological challenges like the one she had. If she wanted to keep the baby she should have never agreed to do this.
ReplyDeleteRASHEED this is for you again: YOU ARE SO WRONG. HAVE A LIL EMOTION FOR THESE PEOPLE. ONEDAY YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE KIDS. WHAT HAPPENS WHE YOUR SPERM DIES... PLAIN OLD SEX WONT WORK FOR YOU ANYMOREE.THINK ABOUT THAT
ReplyDeleteemily said:
ReplyDeletei think that the whitehead lady choose to be a surrogate mother. that was a personal choice she made. She signed a contract that she would give up the baby to the Sterns. she should have to follow through on her decision. however i think the fact that she asked for the baby back and then tried to run off with it was wrong. even though it was technically her biological child she still signed the contract to give up full custody of the child. i think the judge made the right decision on the case and gave whitehead visitation rights.
Claire:
ReplyDeleteMakes a great point about how the surragate can carry the egg and sperm of a couple. Lets say there were some artificial way to make a baby with a couples egg and sperm I'm sure more people would choose that then having to deal with another human carrying a baby. Technology would make it possible to overcome surrogacy.
i think its messed up in both ways because im sure giving up your newboren baby isnt the most easiest thing to do, but at the same time she signed a agreement, and what about the familt that thought they were getting a baby. They probley put in a lot of time getting ready to bring the baby home. On the other hand while your carrying a baby you can build that special connection with him or her. i can see why they both were upset in this situation. i
ReplyDeleteStephanie also agrees with Amanda; some people who can not have children and want children try to have a surrogate mother in order to have a family
ReplyDeleteI think if nature has made it so a woman in barren then she should not buy a surrogate baby. Maybe she is not meant to have her own child. Nature is trying to tell her something. Adoption is a legitimate form of getting a child that has been working for some time. This new surrogate baby stuff is to complicated and to emotionally intertwined. If marijuana is legalized in the states, Tiger Woods would smoke it, want a surrogate baby, be forced to go to war, go deaf, and cut down a tree. He wouldldn't hear it.
ReplyDeleteIt was her own choice to be a surrogate mother, it's not like she didn't know what she was getting into in the first place. She should have thought about what part her emotions would have played after the child was born.
ReplyDeleteI think the selling of organs is fine because it's your body and you can do whatever you want with it.
She knew what she was getting into when she singned over her rights when she was prego. So therefore she should only have visitation rights because she chose to have those rights when she gave her rights up. Not custody.!
ReplyDeleteI agree with owen, why couldn't they just adopt?
ReplyDeleteI agree with zoe 100% the emotional after effect has nothing to do with how she was feeling when she first gave up her rights.
ReplyDeleteI think that she was for running with the baby and they had an agreement but sometimes people dont think about it until its rite there in front of you and thats when you change your mind even though she signed that agreement she should had at least some type of custody of the baby even if she only gets to visit once a week she part of the baby too but she did sign papers and this other famiy probably put alot into this baby
ReplyDeleteSurrogacy is a complicated topic to discuss especially in this situation. On one hand its understandable that the birth mother would have trouble giving up a child she carried for 9 months but on the otherhand she made the choice to give up the baby. The fact that she put the Sterns through so much trouble is ridiculous. She signed a contract stating she would give them custody and i understand her bond with the baby would be so strong but she should have taken that into consideration before renting out her uterus.
ReplyDeleteand i agree with jala too.! it is messed up on both ends because im pretty sure the preparation for the baby was pretty expensive and stuff. but the emotions that a mother gains through the process of pregnancy can make her want t keep her child no matter what the situation was before hand.
ReplyDeleteI agree and disagree with brittany she did know what she was getting into but at the same time you dont be thinkin all you think about is this is just helping a family out but after carrying a baby for 9 months you grow attach to the baby
ReplyDeleteThis is a difficult topic to comment on, this is one of those situation when every case is different.
ReplyDeletep.s. donating organs are'nt so bad. its your body, and yo can do wat you want with it.!
ReplyDeletePersonally I have mixed feelings about the sort of situation. I feel that it is obviously going to be complicated to do the rented mother stuff because, when you carry a child for nine months you become very emotionally attached to it. And even though she agreed to have the child under those circumstances I feel she has every rite to see and spend time with the baby after all she gave birth to it. I think it would be in the child's best interest to grow up in a household with the father and his wife because it serves a child better to have two suitable parents at home. However I think this is also a bad thing because the child needs to know it's biological mother, if not there's always going to be a void. I also feel that if you're not able to give birth to a child go adopt one there are plenty of beautiful babies being born under the worst circumstances and they need good loving parents. I think that it's fine to donate organs after you die or it's ok to donate an organ that you have two of and can live off one. I think it's horrible that she isn't allowed to to have any custody of the baby. I personally don't care what the initial plan was to do with the baby, if a woman carries a child for nine months and her body has been stretched all sorts of ways she has every rite to be apart of that child's life. I think she changed her mind and wanted to keep the baby because of what I previously stated, she became emotionally attached to her child and having it taken away from her even though she was very capable of taking care of it, can really take a tole on her mental and emotional state of a mother.
ReplyDeleteSurrogacy is not an ideal choice for anyone. I think that the child should be with the the Stern's. Just because someone carried a child doesn't mean that they are a mother. The women that carried the child will have a connection to the child but that does not make her a suitable mother to that child. The surrogate mother chose to do this as a job and should follow through and give the child up to the family after birth no matter how hard it is. She should have understood that, that was part of being a surrogate.
ReplyDeleteI think that Whitehead has rights but when she signed the contract she gave some of those rights up. I don't feel that i can judge her because I 'm not in her postion, but from the outside looking in, shes in the wrong because she signed the contract to give this couple their baby and at the last minute she changed her mind.
ReplyDeletei agree with Zoe, although it may not be socially acceptable, people can do what ever they want with their body as long as it is voluntary.
ReplyDeletei agree with owen, if you are not capable of having a child why go through this twisted method of having a baby. There are plenty of children who need to be adopted and just cause a child may not share the same dna does not make them any less your child. Surrogacy just doesn't seem natural.
ReplyDeletethere should be no argument here. The surrogate mother agreed to a contract and when the time came for her to say goodbye, she reneged on her duty. It seems that she is a bit selfish. Although she went through a lot, and did carry a child with her for 9 months which is no small task, she agreed to the contract that she would give the baby up afterwards and did not. People that answer ads like this had better be prepared to face the hard task of giving up their child completely or not sign up at all.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI can't really decide whether I agree or not. At first I was thinking that even though she signed a contract saying she would give up her baby, and even though the baby is genetically half of William Sterns, the baby IS part of her too. She carried the baby for nine months so of course she eventually felt some attachment to her. It's still her baby, more so than the Sterns woman's. No matter what a stupid contract says. If the Sterns wanted a baby that badly, adoption would've been the best option: no nine month wait, no connection to the biological parent, and maybe even saving a child in an unfortunate situation. And how would the Sterns woman feel, knowing that this child that she has to care is made by her husband, by another woman. In my opinion the decision the Stearns made was probably not thought through enough. "Let's have a woman carry our baby, suffer when she has to depart it, and go through the childbirth." Nice guys.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, a contract is a promise. Sure it's wrong to take back a promise. And yes, Whitehead should have known how this would impact her. No, based on the suicide threat she isn't fit to be a parent. But my reasoning is based on feeling, so I think my opinion in the above paragraph overpowers what is logical in the situation.
I agree with Travisha this is a very touchy subject!!!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Owen in the sense that adoption would have been a better decision but, If a family thinks that surrogacy is the best option they should be able to do so.
ReplyDeleteI agree with SotastudentT. The couple should have chosen to adopt. It would take out all emotional battles of the biological mother, as well as the fake mother because she would know that her husband didn't have this child with some other woman and that she's helping a child out by adopting.
ReplyDeletein response to Rebma:
ReplyDeleteI think that surrogacy is a legitimate way of having your own child for those that are barren. It is not a twisted method at all, just one that people are not always accustomed to using.
i agree with lyla (which is way up at the top) you really need to think long and hard about what you do because you might regreat it in the end
ReplyDeletei agree with peter about you did look in the newspapper but in the end after 9 months you never know. but really whats so wrong with abortion
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with owen about the part of sticking with the adoption proceess and throwing the surrogacy process in the garbage.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article for today Wednesday the 13th, I look back at this article and I guess you can compare them. Like in this article, one person paid to have a child be born from another female. What if someone such as a volunteer, family member, or friend signed an agreement inwhich they give up one of their organs to another person in need of it. What if that person who gave up their organ wanted it back? It would be wrong for them to take it back. First off they cant physically take back their organ because its internally apart of the other persons body now. They prolly would try to file a court case because they want their organ back, but i highly disagree that they will win the case. Also they can not have any shared connection with organ compared to this article. In this article, the woman got the court case and has visitation rights of the child, you cant visit an organ you gave up. You can visit that person whom your organ went to and check on them to see if their health is progressing but you cant visit the organ or borrow it back and forth.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the birth mother was wrong in a sense of trying to takre back the child because she signed a contract, answerewd an ad and obviously knew what she was doing. she wasnt in any way tricked nd new that the point of her getting pregnant was to give the child toan infertile family. I agree with the court's later decision to allow her to have visitational visits because there's is always an unexlainable and strong bond between a mother and her child. she spent 9 or more months carrying a child and i can only imagine how difficult it was to actually give the baby u. i think the visitational rights was a good balance between the mother giving the child up but still being able to be in it's life while the couple recieved a child of their own.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to organ selling i have mixed emotions about. if the organs are sold on the black market, which they probably are, then i dont agree with it because those organs are probably stolen and its disrespectful to a person whether they be dead or alive to violate their body in such a way without any consent. now if a person chose to do this and gave their consent then i dont really see the problem in doing so.
I mostly think that arguing over rights to a child is a weird idea. The focus shouldn't be who is right and who is wrong, but who is going to raise the child best, because the child is what's important here. And that causes an interesting dilemma. Is it better for the child to live with its biological father and his wife, who, although she isn't in the best of health, has presumbably been planning for motherhood for quite sometime? Or is it better for the child to grow up with its biological mother. The point is, these three people caused the birth of this child. It doesn't matter who, and it doesn't matter how, the point is, someone's got to take care of it for the next 18 years.
ReplyDeleteIf you're selling something doesn't that imply that you are waivering your rights to that product?
ReplyDeleteIf you're selling your uterus, you no longer own what is produced within them. You sold that off, you do not have (in most cases) the right to renege on your word once the exchange has happened.
I agree with Chandel, that the birth mother definitely knew what she was doing. Maybe she thought she could escape with both the money and the baby. (My source is the movie "Baby Mama", but surrogate mothers are paid, right?)
ReplyDeletei do believe women have the right to say what they want done to their body. Everyone should be in control of theirselves and should have the right to keep something the created.
ReplyDeletei agree with you chandell!!!!!!!
ReplyDeletei am also feeling the same way as krissy. I can't really decide whether i agree or not
ReplyDeleteI agree with Yanni, adoption would have been an excellent choice, but if the couple wanted to do surrogacy, and they went through all the right steps, they should be able to use that method. And adoption isn't exactly simple. My understanding is that the parents have to meet infinite requirements, be very patient, and be willing to take a lot of crap. With something like surrogacy the parents are probably a little more in control, and it only takes 9 months, as opposed to the years that adoption can take.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lyla:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely. Once you have made the conscientious decision you are fully responsible and you do not have rights to the child. If you have doubts before making this commenting then you shouldn't do it at all. In the end, someone's life is in the playing field and it is something all parties should take VERY seriously.
In response to Tyler:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you to an extent. I do believe that a person's first option should be adoption since we have to MANY orphans.
I agree with maya about all this organ donating stuff
ReplyDeleteChandel i couldn't have agreed with you more!(about the organ donating)
ReplyDeletei agree with anyone who says not to choice a side, because i cant choose at all. both sides can be right and wrong
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone who suggusted adoption.
ReplyDeleteI believe once again people should be in control of their body. Im not to comfortable on the subject of people using and donating organs to other bodies. However I do not agree with doctors using dead people's organs without the consent of the family.
ReplyDeleteI agree with jala too, because as expensive it was to prepare for the baby, the emotional part of the lady carrying the baby has to be looked at too, so again both sides are right and wrong
ReplyDeleteIm not sure what i feel about this. because im adopted i think adoption is a better choice in some cases but i thinik its werid how they didnt want her egg implanted in the suraget mother. I know she had heath problems though. I think if the suragate mother agreed to hold the baby she should give them the baby once the baby is born. But again its a werid situation to begin with because its half her baby and she probebly changed her mind. She shouldnt of gotten herself into this situation because its too risky.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Lyla, she shouldnt have done this if she wasnt willing to handle the consequences. But just because the mother is not the babies biological mom doesnt mean its not her child.
ReplyDeleteI agree with tyler that couples and families should really consider adopting chldren a lot more. there are too many children that are without homes and families so why not open up your hearts to one of them.
ReplyDeleteI agreee with harriett that the main focus n this whole situation would be the best option for the child. who would take care of it the best way apossible and who would be more fit to give the child a more secure, stable and safe home. who's right or wrong shouldn't matter.
ReplyDeletein response to felisa:
ReplyDeleteyou are correct. i feel like the only reason this had any legitimacy in a court case, is because it was a surrogate and the child had that mother's dna. she agreed to something, and could not perform her whole duties when the time came. If i was the judge, i would tell her that she really shouldn't have custody rights.