Skip to content

Surrogacy in India – Problems and Laws

November 1, 2007
tags:

The government is to bring in legislation to regulate the rent-a-womb business (some sources say it’s 20-billion rupees (£250-million) a year business) which is thriving in India. And it begs legislation.

From as far away as America, Canada, the UK and Singapore they come…and there are many of our own too, and they all want to fulfill their dream of having their own baby. It costs them less (approximately five times less) and there are fewer legal hassles, if any at all. Surrogacy in India is unregulated although the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has set “national guidelines” to regulate surrogacy, these are simply guidelines. All that this means is that surrogate mothers need to sign a “contract” with the childless couple. There are no stipulations as to what will happen if this “contract’ is violated.

True there are genuine cases where both the biological parents and the surrogate mothers benefit (this too is questionable but more of that later) but the lack of a law is gaping opportunity for exploitation, and no, this isn’t just about foreigners. Amit of India Uncut had brought this story to readers’ attention, a story of how young girls from orphanages were being ‘hired out’ for surrogacy and they (the surrogates) themselves never got any money. And even if the mothers do get the money, poor women often have little choice.

The downside of surrogacy
Pregnancy affects a woman’s health and one cannot know all the long-term consequences of repeated pregnancies. Studies have shown that repeated pregnancies can even affect cardiovascular health. Pregnancy can also aggravate existing health conditions and a poor uneducated woman in India may not fully comprehend the risks, either short-term or long-term, if she is aware of her health problem that is.

A baby soaks up nutrition from it’s host’s body and though the ‘mother’ might have a better diet during the pregnancy because of the money and care provided by the biological parents, her health may not be that good enough to begin with. In India women are not as healthy as they are in the developed countries due to poorer nutrition levels since childhood.

Read this to get the list of the short term and long term effects of pregnancy, any pregnancy. These are very long lists indeed! Short-term effects range from fatigue and vomiting to the swelling of joints and the long term effects range from scarring, varicose veins to loose skin and as for complications of pregnancy, they there are many…many! Some of these complications are life-threatening, like breast cancer. Poor women who rent out their womb do not care or even think about these things. And even if middle class women go for it, the motive is money. And that makes them vulnerable to exploitation.

Western countries often focus on the pain of giving up a baby which the mother has carried for 9 months and there are many court battles fought on this issue…but in India this is not the issue. Why, there are instances of desperately poor women in India selling their own (biological) babies because they can’t feed the rest of their family! And this doesn’t just happen in India. Poverty has driven parents to sell their children in other countries too.

There are other negative aspects of surrogate motherhood. There are some who feel that if surrogate motherhood becomes a legal ‘business’ then soon educated working women will start hiring wombs to prevent a break in their career! To take an extreme scenario, baby ‘factories’ could spring up!! A scene from a horror movie, which fortunately will not see the light of day as most countries have realised the downside of surrogacy.

Laws in other countries
In Canada, surrogate mothers are not allowed to accept payment but unfortunately this has driven the practice underground.
In Japan, it is the woman who delivers the baby, and not the woman who provides the eggs, who is considered the baby’s mother in a surrogate birth.
In Australia not all states have laws on surrogacy but the ones that do are Queensland, where surrogacy is illegal, Tasmania where it is an offence to make or receive payment for surrogacy and contracts are not legally binding, and in South Australia and Victoria where surrogacy contracts are illegal.
In South Africa, paying surrogate mothers is illegal.

Indian women are vulnerable
A poor country like India badly needs a law on surrogacy and it badly needs to make payments to surrogate mothers illegal. The poorer the country, the more fear of exploitation. If in the long term the mother pays a heavier price, all short-term benefits have no meaning. I have read stories of husbands encouraging their wives to go in for surrogacy…which I feel is disgusting. The combination of poverty, illiteracy and the lack of power that women have over their own lives in India are a deadly combination…

And hey, there is always adoption for those who want a child…

Update – July 08: A very interesting article on this subject appeared in the guardian.uk which you can read at this link. This link was sent to me by Shefaly.

Update: October 08: There has been a major change in Indian surrogacy laws which you can read about here in Indian Express. India is now the only country in the world to legalise commercial surrogacy, if this article is right about other countries of the world. Unlike in other countries, including the UK, USA and France, in India the surrogacy agreements between the two parties will be legally enforceable. The new law will protect all parties — the genetic parents, surrogate mother and the child.

The new Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill & Rules, 2008, states that the surrogate mother can receive monetary compensation for carrying the child in addition to health-care and treatment expenses during pregnancy. But the surrogate mother has to relinquish all parental rights over the child once the amount is transferred and birth certificates will be in the name of genetic parents. The age-limit for a surrogate mother is between 21- 45 years. Single parents can also have children using a surrogate mother.

Other countries of the world:

  • In a country like the UK, no contract or agreement is legally binding. All expenses must be justified to the courts, which can intervene and ask for proof if the expenses incurred by the genetic parents are too high.
  • In the USA, compensated surrogacy arrangements are illegal in many states. Also, four states in the US have held that such contracts, while not illegal, are unenforceable.
    In all states in Australia, the surrogate mother is deemed by the law to be the legal mother of the child as well, and any surrogacy agreement giving custody to others is void.
  • In countries like Canada and New Zealand, commercial surrogacy is illegal, but ‘altruistic’ surrogacy is allowed ie. without any payment.
  • In France, any kind of surrogacy, commercial or otherwise, is illegal.

(The first photograph is from the Telegraph India and the second photographs is from marieclaire.com and the and the third is by me.)

Related Reading: How easy is adoption in India
India’s tough foreign adoption laws to change
Abandoned baby girls finding homes in India

Share this post:digg it|kick it|Email it|bookmark it|reddit|liveIt

44 Comments leave one →
  1. November 1, 2007 8:57 am

    Very interesting, Nita.

    Those around me who have children – careers or no careers – have never been able to tell me why they had them.

    Some of my educated friends have told me that one can never love somebody else’s children as their own. I find it laughable (I have a step mother!) because it is theoretical for them to spout such nonsense.

    I think it is all about the capability to love. Period.

    If a woman could find a man some 25 years into their lives and claim to love him as much as she claims to, then a small, helpless child should surely be more easy to love. No?

    You say: “There are some who feel that if surrogate motherhood becomes a legal ‘business’ then soon educated working women will start hiring wombs to prevent a break in their career! ”

    This I think assumes something – rationality – on the part of educated and career-oriented women’s motives for having fewer children than uneducated/ non-career-oriented counterparts. It assumes rationality. In reality, I think that rationality is not about the career but the economics of having many children.

    So here is my hypothesis: another reason, why despite adoption being an option, most people prefer to make their own children is “genetic vanity”. I wonder if surrogacy – especially with a poor woman serving as the host womb – is something genetically vain people (educated, career oriented) would consider.

  2. November 1, 2007 1:40 pm

    It allows commercial exploitation of poor women. Unfortunately, exploitation is a fact of life.. Nothing can be done.

    Offcourse Strict law & regulation is very much required.. If a child is not born perfect & the couple who is responsible refuses or escapes… then what about the Child?

  3. Vivek Khadpekar permalink
    November 1, 2007 5:17 pm

    I was startled to see the term “genetic vanity” in Shefaly’s post. This is the first time I have come across this expression, and I am not sure I have understood it correctly.

    Does it mean procreational vanity? If so, isn’t it a very male vanity? Of course I know about how women in our society are conditioned to estimate their worth in terms of (a) whether or not they can bear a child; and (b) whether or not they can bear a male child. Barrenness is considered a curse.

    And yet one does find women (few, no doubt, and mainly among those who are educated and seek self-fulfilment outside home-making and motherhood) who choose not to have children, or are not unduly disturbed by their inability to have children.

    So what exactly is genetic vanity?

  4. November 1, 2007 6:40 pm

    Shefaly, thanks. I agree that it is the capability of a human to love another that accounts for a lot of the love. However as you mentioned that aspect of genetic vanity (I love that term) I guess loving one’s child BECAUSE he/she is of one’s own blood can be a kind of exclusive thing. Only love’s one’s own and hate everyone else’s! I guess it’s a kind of self-love then.

    Bharath you have raised a very valid point, and there are no laws on this at all. I hope before they simply ban this surrogacy thing! I mean on payment of money. carrying a surrogate child for someone you love is entirely different.

    Vivek, genetic vanity would surpass the vanity that Indians have for carrying on their ‘name.’ genetic vanity is a desire to see a carrying on of one’s OWN genes. I guess everyone has it to some extent.
    Interestingly, this carrying on the name thing is the funniest thing in India. Because a girl is closer genetically to the father because of the XY combo as opposed to the boy’s YY combo but this is besides the point!

    • aaisha permalink
      February 1, 2011 12:41 pm

      its XX combo n nt YY combo…
      rest all i agree with shefaly…. n also with you nita

      thank you

  5. November 1, 2007 8:40 pm

    Nita
    Just wondering about the father’s angle here, how would he feel towards the surrogate mother
    I might be talking in terms of story of filhaal
    But isn’t that true?, I mean he is caught totally.

    not to forget about the baby’s attraction to the biological mother as well as the donor.

    very difficult to understand what mothers go through, both surrogate and the donor.

  6. November 1, 2007 9:11 pm

    Rambler, I am not sure whether you mean the biological father or the husband of the surrogate. these two can be different.
    In the case of the biological father I am sure he usually feels nothing much except gratitude as the surrogate mother is a means to an end. If an embryo is implanted in the mother, the surrogate mother has no genetic link to the baby.
    I suspect you are speaking of cases where there is a donor and the real mother is the surrogate as well, and she is the real mother, and this too is surrogacy, but this is not what is happening in India.

  7. November 1, 2007 9:24 pm

    I was talking about the biological father, I think its not that simple where he is full of gratitude.
    The bonding might be there with surrogate mother.

    I meant donor as biological mother

  8. November 1, 2007 9:31 pm

    So here is my hypothesis: another reason, why despite adoption being an option, most people prefer to make their own children is “genetic vanity”.

    Could be true in some cases, but in the US, some of my friends (and folks I know) who have tried to go the adoption route have met with nothing but frustration and as a last resort, decided to have their own baby, because of the rules and regulations in place to prevent any exploitation of adopted children. I used to think (and this misconception is shared by many people) that adoption should be an easy option, but it’s anything but. So, having one’s own baby is the easier and hassle-free way.

    Another issue is that in case of adoption of children who are not new-born babies, there’s almost always some abuse involved (physical, sexual), and that requires an extra level of love, caring, patience and compassion (and knowledge+training on how to raise an abused child) that probably wouldn’t come into play if one was caring for one’s own child. I don’t really blame people who decide not to go the adoption route, as it asks a lot of parents. It’s not always “genetic vanity.”

  9. November 1, 2007 9:44 pm

    Rambler if donor of the egg is the surrogate mother, the situation is entirely different. But I have read of cases of people who refuse to have any contact with the mother because they are afraid that the mother will get attached! some celebrity cases like michael jackson. I also know someone in real life and the couple has moved to another city, so afraid they are that the donor of the egg and surrogate mother will try to claim the child!
    I would say that the love between the couple surpasses everything.but ofcourse if there are any undercurrents of feelings, well, I don’t know. Maybe.

  10. November 1, 2007 9:57 pm

    Amit, definitely it is not always genetic vanity, and genetic vanity might play just a small part anyway.
    about the factor of older children (above one year) who are adopted and have possibly been abused, that is a very valid point! the conditions in orphanages in India is pathetic! I myself worked in one for 6 months and I have seen some horrible things, not abuse, but just neglect. children are just numbers and are fed and clothed but there is absolutely no bonding with anyone and no one to talk to them! I appointed myself as someone who will talk to the babies and play with them and I always targeted the withdrawn, silent kids. It was so heart-breaking! And so rewarding to see the first smile on those blank silent faces! just holding those little one in one’s arms and cuddling them..that was all that was needed, it was more important than the food and the pretty clothes!
    the funny thing was that the director of the adoption agency thought my work was not important!
    anyway, I left soon enough…!
    In fact after I had my first baby I considered adopting but finally decided that it was easier to have a baby who was in my care from day one. I was too frightened to take that step into the unknown and it was my 6 months in the agency which made me think this way.
    But then, I had a choice of having my own baby the natural way. And if I couldn’t I know I would have adopted because surrogate motherhood doesn’t sit well with me.

  11. November 1, 2007 11:19 pm

    Nita:

    This is such a lovely post. I haven’t thought about this issue since ages. I like the Japanese law the best. I wonder why Canada, Australia etc. have declared surrogacy illegal. Does this mean that the law acts as a deterrent in this case? What happens to those women who do lend their wombs? I’m sure it happens more often that we realize.

    I shudder at the thought of women hiring wombs because they don’t want to take time off their careers. Does this mean that they don’t want to have a kid badly enough? Also, I applaud their spouses for agreeing on this, for whatever reason.

    I would never be able to do this. I prefer adopting a kid. This post reminds me of a Priety Zinta movie where she’s the surrogate mother for Rani Mukherji and Salman Khan. That movie focused on the emotions that the surrogate mother went through when the time came for her to give up her child.

  12. November 1, 2007 11:54 pm

    Nita: I find it amusing that you are defending and explaining a point _I_ made. You are doing a good job of it too🙂

  13. November 2, 2007 12:18 am

    Nita,
    I really feel amazed that there is such a bloody itch to legislate any human activity that is consensual and popular. If I want a woman to have my baby, and she is happy to do it for a price, why the hell should anyone have a problem?
    This cry of exploitation is just irrational: who put a gun on a woman’s head and said that ‘you have to bear my child or else..’
    It has to be appreciated that in a free interaction between consenting human beings, the terms of trade will vary from person to person. Sometimes people will realise they have made a mistake, and learn from it. It is stupid to try and stop something to which both parties are willing partners. Surely the State cannot claim to understand the interests of its citizens better than they themselves?
    The control freaks will try to legislate everything possible. This is one of the basic tendencies of all political parties and not a few intellectuals.

  14. November 2, 2007 4:50 am

    rambo d, your above statement assumes that the poor, uneducated woman renting out her womb to escape poverty has all the relevant information available to her (or that the person paying her will make that information available to her) that will enable her to make that decision. If it were a level-playing field with both parties being at equal footing, no one lies or misleads the other, and/or each party has the means to cut through the lies, then sure, agreement between two people is fine. But that’s rarely the case in real life. So government has some role to play to ensure no foul play happens. Because if things go wrong and someone dies, then people will clamor for government and make a big thing about the irresponsibility of their elected officials for not preventing it.
    If the woman makes a decision knowing fully well all the risks involved with her decision, then yes, the government shouldn’t regulate and play a minimal role. But I doubt that we’re there. Plus lawyers will be needed to make sure that both parties follow through on what they agreed on – so we’re already talking about a third and a fourth party.

    Sometimes people will realise they have made a mistake, and learn from it.
    Yes, if a woman makes a mistake and dies as a result of the other party lying to her or misinforming her, in her next life, she won’t make that mistake again. I didn’t know you believed in religion and after-life.😉

    There’s also the issue of a couple spending lots of money and the woman backing out after the baby is born. What would you suggest – that they duke it out in the streets with a gun each, just like it used to happen in the wild west?🙂

  15. November 2, 2007 5:02 am

    rambo d, this is somewhat tangential but you bring it up every time, so please tell me how many instances do you know in our world where two individuals engage in a trade? Other than going to my barber, or buying some grocery from the locally-owned store, or a restaurant, in most cases it is a corporation at one end and an individual at the other end. Given the resources and power a corporation has, the decks are already stacked against the individual. So, lead toys from China? Toothpaste contaminated with toxic antifreeze? Who’s going to tell the customer about the safety of such things? The company that makes them is surely not going to disclose that – we need a third-party. Or maybe you think that such concerns on the part of the individual are exaggerated, or since you are a doc, maybe you know that lead and diethylene glycol is actually good for the health.😉

  16. November 2, 2007 6:57 am

    Amit,
    A consent for a surgery or for giving birth to someone’s child is the same thing. In principle, I have to take the responsibility of my knowledge or lack of it on my own self, and can’t expect, as MY right, that society will come in and feed me with all of it. It is a matter of free will. Human should be free to do what they do, for better or for worse. Invariably, the better option would rule.
    If a society wanted to destroy itself, say in the form of killing all female fetuses,
    then that should be the just fate of that horrendous society.
    That said, in a true free market (which does not exist, AFAIK), there is a free flow of information such that this is not an issue. There have been very many learned publications on this, not least by the likes of Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and Milton Friedman. Of course, Adam Smith had described the ‘Invisible Hand’ of the marketplace ages back.
    Poisonous substances are another issue. In this case, there is a genuine need for the State to protect its citizens, security (both internal and external) being one of the legitimate and critical functions of Government.
    In a free market, I can’t import radioactive nuclear waste and start my own nuclear plant, can I? I am not for anarchism. I am for a Government that knows where to keep its hands off. Which is mostly everything else except law and order, and security.

  17. November 2, 2007 7:47 am

    Rambodoc, I agree with Amit and I think he has given you a good argument. I am glad you agreed to some of this points.🙂

    Shefaly, hope you were not offended that i replied to amit? it wasn’t really on your behalf, I gave my own views. I am sure you would have a different way of putting it….

    Ruhi, because the laws differ in different countries couples who want to hire wombs simply go to another country and some of them just break the law! The need to have their own baby is just too strong! In fact there are stringent laws about donating eggs too in Canada and I read stories about couples going across to America.
    That aspect you brought out about girls not bearing to part with the baby can happen when there is a genetic link between the baby and the mother but in most of the cases where this is a brisk business this is not the case. It’s just the womb that is being hired out. However in developed countries this isn’t so. Over there women want to keep the babies even if they aren’t their own! I read about several court battles and there was this japanese woman who gave birth to twins for an american couple (not her egg) and then she didn’t want to give them up. A japanese court ruled in her favour. In a way it’s very sad, this whole business.
    I think this not bearing to part with the baby thing will happen only in 3 cases. One is if the woman is either childless (the reason why many couples prefer women with children), if she is not that poor and money is not the only motive, and/or if the baby is actually hers. That’s what I feel. Women in developed countries where their basic needs for food, shelter and education are met are more likely to get attached to the surrogate baby.

  18. November 2, 2007 8:56 am

    In principle, I have to take the responsibility of my knowledge or lack of it on my own self, and can’t expect, as MY right, that society will come in and feed me with all of it.

    “In principle” being the key word there. Well, you are an educated individual who has read a lot and knows the risks, or knows about rights. Can you say the same for an uneducated, illiterate woman? I’m not sure that I can be a first-hand scientific expert on all things that I buy or take part in – that’s a practical impossibility, so I am dependent on society (i.e. other individuals who are experts in their particular field) to get my information. And do you really think that in a free market, a poor and uneducated woman would know where to find the correct information related to risks with multiple pregnancies?

  19. November 2, 2007 12:26 pm

    @ Nita: why would I be offended? You explained it like I think it but with the added benefit of your way of communicating (I would have been harsher…)🙂

    @ Rambodoc: I think living in loony left state has made your mind very alert to loony right. You assume perfection of markets, perfection of information and perfection of contractual environment and structures. And in this case, as in many other cases, none of these exists in India and in many cases, such imperfections and asymmetries are easily seen in other countries too.

    Amit is making the same observation. Albeit he is more capable of using words sensibly, which are more about morality than about the economics of things.

    Besides, who is to say whether the “woman” who wants to have your baby really knows what she is doing? (I am reminded of Rosemary’s Baby but I MUST put away that image…😉

    The laws of consent themselves have varied through ages, and even now vary from society to society. What may look like an ok thing in one country will put you behind bars in another.

  20. November 2, 2007 12:27 pm

    Rambodoc: Some of my markets-related argument is on my blog and I am too lazy to repeat, or even cut-and-paste it…

  21. November 2, 2007 4:12 pm

    “Besides, who is to say whether the “woman” who wants to have your baby really knows what she is doing? ”

    If she doesn’t know what she is doing, she will have to pay the price that life extracts. This is the basic rule of life, applicable to all of us: with freedom comes the responsibility of taking the results of one’s actions: good or bad. One cannot justly hold society liable for one’s lack of knowledge, education, brains or judgment. Similarly, one should not be penalised by society for having all these qualities.
    If I am an poor, ill-trained doc with poor judgment, should I not bear the responsibilities of my wrong judgment? Or should society create laws to ‘protect’ me from such consequences?
    I repeat that these are the principles on which I think these issues should be judged, and specific individual cases may go one way or the other.
    And, Shefaly, I would rather be ‘loony right’ (right after all!) than muddled middle!🙂

  22. November 2, 2007 4:19 pm

    Amit,
    The above response was in part to you, too.
    You said: ” I am dependent on society (i.e. other individuals who are experts in their particular field) to get my information. ”
    Yes, true, but they are not obliged to help you. They may choose to do so. Or not. They may choose to be paid for such help. You may not be able to afford such information. Then you depend on charitable or open sources. There are plenty of options. That is the important point.
    There is no moral superiority in being poor or uneducated, and as such, such a person does not have a right on others’ help or advice or information.

  23. November 2, 2007 6:09 pm

    @ Rambodoc:

    If men could get pregnant, things would be argued very differently.🙂

    You say: “One cannot justly hold society liable for one’s lack of knowledge, education, brains or judgment.”

    It is not about society; it is about society conducting transactions as if it were a free market with unfettered access to information. Since this is an ideal state a market can tend to but never achieve, regulation is an essential evil but a useful tool.

    So I am afraid the principles you are using are ‘ideal’ and the world in which these surrogate women are operating is not. Hence the need to address the asymmetry.

  24. November 2, 2007 6:13 pm

    @ Amit:

    I just noticed there is another bit I didn’t see.

    “as it asks a lot of parents..”

    All parenting asks a lot of parents and there is no guarantee that their own children will never be abused, ex post as it were.

    That is a hypothesis and the more I scratch the surface, the more it looks like a plausible explanation🙂

    More on my blog on this stuff. Where some comments are very informative.

  25. November 2, 2007 8:57 pm

    Yes, true, but they are not obliged to help you. They may choose to do so. Or not. They may choose to be paid for such help. You may not be able to afford such information.

    Yes, and the individuals decided to pool together their resources into something called government-funded agencies like FDA, CDC, NIH etc. that hires people to do the work, pays them and makes the information available to citizens.
    =====
    Shefaly, you wrote:
    just noticed there is another bit I didn’t see.

    “as it asks a lot of parents..”

    All parenting asks a lot of parents and there is no guarantee that their own children will never be abused, ex post as it were.
    Yes, there’s no guarantee that the biological child won’t be abused and the parents won’t have to deal with that. It goes with my previous sentence that when comparing adoption and having a biological baby, if the adopted kid has been abused (the probability of which is greater) then the parents have to go over and beyond what they’d generally do if they had a biological child. Maybe “asks a lot MORE of parents TO START WITH”?🙂

    I know you have a very critical eye, but I hope you won’t treat all comments here with the same discriminating eye and standards as you would a PhD thesis. You’re bright enough to get the intent of the writers.😉🙂

  26. November 2, 2007 9:02 pm

    There is no moral superiority in being poor or uneducated, and as such, such a person does not have a right on others’ help or advice or information.

    I didn’t say anything about moral superiority in being poor or uneducated. I was simply pointing out that it’s not a level playing field aka asymmetry. I think Shefaly has addressed your comments in a better way than I could.🙂

  27. fabian permalink
    November 8, 2007 12:09 am

    Exploitation is when somebody is forced to do something thats/he doesnt want to do and has to do it for an extremely small or no pay. Surrogacy therefore is not exploitation. Indian women who act as surrogates choose to do it instead of working in sweatshops for miserable pay to produce cheap clothes for westerners. The latter is exploitation, not surrogacy.

    BTW, research shows that surrogate parents are better parents than thos who got their children in a normal way…

  28. wishtobeanon... permalink
    December 31, 2007 3:54 pm

    Hi Nita,
    Saw an article on MSN today. Here is a link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22441355/

  29. September 10, 2008 5:36 pm

    hi,
    what will we do if the surrogate mother refuse to give the child to intended parents after the birth of child.how can the intended parents get their child

    Rajan, a contract is usually drawn up before the birth and it has to be followed. If not, one can go to court. If no contract is drawn up, you can do nothing. – nita.

  30. Gamaliel Isaac permalink
    September 29, 2008 6:38 pm

    Laws and regulations if they are not the correct ones do not always make things better in fact they will probably make things much worse for the woman in India and the couples who want children. Activist lawyers who see surrogacy as exploitation are likely to hurt a lot of people. They will hurt the Indian women by taking away their opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty and bring their families a good life. They will prevent couples from realizing their dream of having a child. All the wealth that is flowing into India because of surrogacy will stop. In the United States all the laws and regulations mean extremely high costs of medical care because of lawsuits and mean that fewer and fewer people can afford health care. I do think the following laws should be passed though
    1) The surrogate must be doing this of her own free will
    2) The surrogate must be getting all the money for her services and not a second party.
    3) The surrogate must already have had a baby.

  31. Supriya permalink
    February 25, 2010 12:29 pm

    Just one comment, girls have the XX combo and boys are XY🙂

    • Site King permalink
      March 9, 2010 2:32 pm

      Hi,

      I find that the ‘approximately 2 to 3 kilos of calcium’ that is extracted from the surrogate mother has not been attended to in any case, anywhere.

      See these women are referred to as vessels. Excuse me.

      Vessels give you only what you put in. mix it up and you can take it out. The law or the money cannot – repeat cannot ever replace the lost calcium in the woman’s body lost to the child because of child birth. Osteoporosis sets in , and we find more women losing their hips after middle age..

      There is no known source by which the calcium can be replaced in such a huge quantity – i mean never ever.
      I believe , even when on a very healthy diet, post partum, women can only absorb few micrograms of calcium in a day !!!

      Not just calcium (although I am not aware of exact amounts), but also other nutrients are leached from a woman’s body. These poor women don’t even know what they are doing to themselves! It’s tragic. But then in India women tend to sacrifice. Why, 95% of organ donors in India are women. – Nita

      Love

  32. gyaney permalink
    May 2, 2010 12:51 pm

    i wanted to know what would be the name of the mother in the birth certificate of the child if i use my husband sample with some egg donor+surrogacy??

  33. Somnath Nandy permalink
    June 5, 2010 10:49 am

    I really wanted to know the surrogacy agent in Kolkata?

  34. RAJESH permalink
    June 12, 2010 8:32 am

    Indian Govt. ART provisions make it complicated and create a breed of unknown parentage.

    The bill states that know friend or known person or relative can be a gamete donor making it costlier for Indian opting for ART
    At the same time helping the ones ie single men /woman/gay /lesbians from other counties to buy the gametes.

    Complete secrecy is maintained in the process this is not acceptable for Indian mindset After all we are people of the country where Mahatma Gandhi was born. A man known for truth and transparency.

    By preventing known donor to donate the gametes what the bill is achieving I don’t know at least it is not making a caste less society as presumed by the committee. It is crating only a breed of children whose parentage is unknown and who can not accept it in public even if it is Known May be a group of Bastards .

    This provision only brings a big secret, which is very hard to keep and at the same time to accept, in to the life of Parents and Children born Out of donations that too at a huge cost . So it is better if the bill allows for known donors .

    Preventing the ART cleanics from hiring surrogates is a good idea in preventing unethical practices.
    Establishing ART banks helps only the foreign gay/unconcerned couple. India is society divided on the basis of caste so people tend to choose their surrogates on the basis of caste is not very much true choosing will be there on the basis of caste/color/looks etc.It is just because, unlike the west most Indians are not unconcerned with the well being of the mother of their child . They like to care for her, even long after the job is completed. In case they have to bring her to their home ,or visit her if she of the same caste, it helps hide the real fact from peeping eyes .
    So it is better to Ask the commissioning couple to bring their own surrogates through paper advertisements .
    ART banks help only in commoditizing the woman.
    Helps only the Foreigners at the expense of Indians

    Draft wont say anything about the unmarried women working as surrogates and the child living status of the surrogate mother . It should be made mandatory for woman to have at least one surviving child of her own to act as a surrogate .

    Lastly the bill is aiming at commoditizing human life may be that of the child /surrogate etc. Aiming and facilitating the ends of foreign nationals and a bunch full of ART cleanics all the while giving wrong signals to the society.

  35. mrs raza permalink
    July 18, 2010 2:17 am

    need a valid address for surogatory centre in india

  36. From India permalink
    July 23, 2010 2:44 pm

    To those of whom feel that uneducated women who do not have full access to the information, emotional and psychological complication of surrogacy should realize that even the publics are not given all the information surrounding surrogacy and egg donation.
    there are huge underground, black-market where eggs are being sold illegally.
    Paid Doctors write up certification that they are not fit for bearing a child even thought she can perfectly have a child.
    Many couples choose not to have a baby due to physical complication and body-image issues.
    Are you telling me that some women in India with absolute no education should be informed about all these atrocious acts?

    Even the women in developed countries like United States have no clear idea on How their eggs are being used and sold or forcibly performed. Even the most educated women have no idea what really goes on underground and blackmarket where anything you imagine can be sold and traded.

    It’s absolutely disgusting and vile. In this over-populated earth we live in, I believe those selfish people who feel so strongly about preserving their eggs by destroying a female body do not deserve to have their genes replicated.

    And the selfless educated women who want to do something good for their life once should not go around donating eggs and volunteer to become surrogate mothers either. because if they were good couple in the first place, they would go help other helpless child in adoption center. these women have no idea what they are actually doing and Who they are essentially helping: selfish rich greedy monsters who eat away souls of selfless hearts.

  37. Vaidehi B. Mehta permalink
    August 26, 2010 9:24 pm

    The topic of surrogacy has cropped up in some conversations I have had recently. I read the comments on this blog with interest. I feel the same way as Shefali does and agree with Nita and Amit. And don’t feel the same way as Rambodoc, although I can understand what he is saying.
    It’s not a perfect world out there – so Adam Smith’s Laissez faire nor Karl Marx’s Communist State are no longer anything more than theories. That’s the reason they do not exist in the conceived pure form.
    I shudder to think of what is happening right now with no laws on surrogacy. I do believe we need laws to regulate surrogacy in our country. Even so, they are likely to be circumvented and / broken.
    Still, we do need adequate legislation to protect all parties concerned – the child, the parents (all 3 of them) and everyone else in between.
    Each is case specific and there are many happy stories too. But who watches out for the rest?
    Its not simple. But is anything that involves lives so simple.
    Is it?

  38. October 21, 2010 3:03 pm

    excellent information about surrogacy laws in countries.

  39. October 21, 2010 3:22 pm

    If you are looking for a surrogate or thinking of becoming one, you’re best advised to research the laws in your state or surrounding states before jumping into a contract. You never know what you may be getting yourself into.

Trackbacks

  1. Maybe baby? « La Vie Quotidienne
  2. Surrogacy law on the anvil | DesiPundit
  3. Maybe baby? | La Vie Quotidienne

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: