Wednesday, April 9, 2008

If you keep the child, you don't get paid.

Today on WCCO radio with Jack Rice, Attorney Steve Snyder said that gestational surrogacy is not baby selling.

No, paying a woman for carrying, birthing and giving up her child is analogous to paying a day care provider for taking care of your child while you work. (See his quote below.)

One thing is certain, neither gets paid unless they hand over the child.

I understand that Steve is passionate and believes in what he is doing, however comparing a uterus to a daycare center seems a bit of a stretch.

“Well, if I have a child that is born, and in the first week of it’s life (because my wife and I both work) we take it to the house of a daycare provider, who we have screened and have agreed to, to provide alternate care for our child, and that child goes there for a week and at the end of the week we arrive to pay for our child er, pick up our child, and pay for her services, we’re not buying our baby from the daycare provider.”

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

No, you aren't paying a daycare provider for the rights to your child, but then shouldn't that apply to surrogacy? If you are truly paying for her "pain and suffering" why is compensation contingent on her signing over all legal rights? Why is compensation withheld if she attempted to retain her legal rights as the birth mother (maybe not biological mother, but birth mother). Also, if it were not babyselling, why in many states is it allowable to pay a large sum of the compensation AFTER the birth and after the legal documents are signed? In daycares, many pay up front prior to care OR if they don't pay, they still get their child but could be sued by the care provider.

Anonymous said...

There is no way you can compare this to daycare. At the end of the day you get the child back. Whoever believes that is very ignorant and/or naive.

Anonymous said...

Ok if that's true then let us pay the money to the IP's and give us our children. Courts in Minnesota are currently not allowing this, they are finding in favor of fraudulent contracts that leave the surrogates hands, are altered, and notarized illegally instaed of following the actual law! This is FORCED ADOPTION and surrogates are treated almost as poorly as criminals when it comes to them having ANY RIGHTS whatsoever. Liz Cutter hennepin county attorney actually said to one woman that statutes about custody are for other women with boyfriends not for surrogates even if the child is the surrogate's biological child. She said, those laws don't apply to those women. Those women never signed away their rights, those women were the only parent on the birth certificate, those women are not drug addicts or unfit parents but those women go months and sometimes years before they see their children.

Notebooks said...

Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Notebook, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://notebooks-brasil.blogspot.com. A hug.

Anonymous said...

If you were a surrogate....did you offer to pay back the money? How much did you get paid? What makes a surrogate change their minds about where the child/ren whould be raised?

And why was Liz Cutter's name thrown in the miz here?

Sorry for all the questions but I'm really having a hard time understanding these postings.

Anonymous said...

Dear anonymous with the questions. What makes a surrogate change their mind? Possibly the misrepresantations of the IF's, broken promises, lies, and a realization that it is inherently wrong to sell your children. It is not natural for a child to be brought up without a mother, sure it happens and some people do the best they can in situations sometimes succeeding in a well rounded kid but it is NOT the natural way of the world. And any mother that changes her mind ought to be treated with the same rights as everyone else in this country, bottom line. As for your other questions, I'm sorry if you are having trouble reading. Maybe you should review the comments again.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry but this is referring to GESTATIONAL surrogacy. The surrogate is in no way related to the child. Why all the comments that she is "selling her child"? Biologically, this is not her child. Biologically the child belongs to the intended parents. Traditional surrogacy is very different.

Anonymous said...

The women that spoke were traditional surrogates.