Idiots. My aunt had a surrogate egg implanted from a college student in return for a years tuition. Due to a medical condition she was unable to ovulate. She and her husband had a cute son. A law banning this transaction would have helped who how? How would it have furthered justice?

But thinking about it, that’s not really the point. The point is that somewhere in some ivory tower there is some pretentious member of the Japanese “intelligentsia” who just can’t stand the thought of people engaging in agreements concerning personal matters without their personal permission and self righteous condescension.

The pretense of protecting the parent’s and the child’s mental condition is at most preposterous and at least avoidable. First of all the woman has the decision to say yes or no, secondly this is not a flip of the coin decision (my aunt and uncle both screened the applicants and gave them two months to agree), third they have a period of time to come to terms with the surrogate agreement. Last of all the child is either a)not theirs , or b)one they have never met. If after all this the surrogate mother/father (hey don’t discount sperm donors) still is under some emotional strain they most likely have some mental imbalance and should have been screened out in the first place.

Secondly, strain on the children? First of all what adult would even try explaining to a child a complicated procedure like surrogacy in their formative years? By the time the child is old enough to understand the process of what occurred, they are more than likely mature enough to accept the fact that their biological mother and the mother that they know are one and the same person, just the woman who carried them in the womb was different.

Might there be some exceptional cases where someone comes out of the situation with some emotional baggage? Sure. Are there all types of situations in life where some people come away with emotional baggage? Should we ban them all?

The Science Council’s position is even more shocking in its apparent lack of thought. Apparently harm to the child or mother (no matter how inanely contrived) is completely inconsequential to them, what makes the act morally reprehensible enough to make it illegal is the mere fact that a couple might want to compensate the surrogate for their assistance. Perhaps I give the scientists too little credit, their legal propositions while less intrusive than the DOH would have the desired chilling effect on surrogates. After all without compensation how many 40ish couples would be able to find an 18 year old that they were able to convince to either a)undergo a surgical procedure to remove their eggs or b)hold a child to term. it would be next to impossible.

in the end i agree with edward. the only people that could come up with such a ridiculous proposition are chauvinists that believe adult women to be completely incapable of rational thought or decision making.

in addition it is presumptuous to assume that to bring children into the world to loving families puts the child at some risk of being any less normal than his peers.

in addition it is foolish to think that somehow adding compensation to an act automatically makes something immoral.

just my thoughts on the matter…

Bans on compensation are also why so many countries have organ shortages.

Also, it’s amazing how irrational cultural aversions often get dressed up in dubious medical concerns. It reminds me of how circumcision remains stubbornly common in the US.

I wasn’t suggesting it was simply down to chauvinism. I was hoping it would be taken as read that I held the claim to be safeguarding the mental wellbeing of those concerned to be entirely bogus. As well as horribly patronising.

The entire debate is, to my mind, an indictment of the decision-makers. But the real reason for their aversion, whatever else it may be, wouldn’t make them look any saner or more honest.