An Online Row last week outlines something we all know but which one wants to ignore. There is something that is not right about giving up. Fur started with a post on Lily Collins’s Instagram post: a picture of her new daughter, Tove, in a small basket, where the Emily in Paris The actor expressed “endless gratitude for our inconvenient surrender”. The reaction is divided into unpredictable lines – the favors of surrender, and the battles.
What is noteworthy is that it also separated from another fissure: Collins’ possible motives. It’s okay, some feel, to use a surrender if you have infertility problems. But not to maintain your figure, help your career, or because the pregnancy is taxing and you’re rich enough to outsource it.
People are also divided into motives of surrender. All well and good if he is driven by a desire to help Collins and his wife. But not if the real reason is the need for money.
Collins’ wife Charlie McDowell, hit the “unfamiliar message”, writing: “It’s okay to not know why someone may need surrender to have a child. It’s ok to not know the motivation of a surrender whatever you assume.
But he is wrong to think that motives are not related to it. This row touches a central surrender problem. As it helps to die, motives are important. If surrender is forced by financial need or other people, that is a problem. If the rich deliver pregnancy to others just because they can, that is another.
The problem is – as helped dying – there are several ways to ensure that a person is doing something for the right reasons. You cannot peek into the souls of the people, their true reasons are divine and to be enacted accordingly.
There is a defensive version of surrender, involving parents who are truly in need and a “gestational carrier” that is not forced by his conditions. But there are many, there are many unspecified versions, and there is no definite way to watch over them all. If some factors for surrender are not accepted -accepted morally, so is the practice itself.
Proponents tend to focus only on infertiles who want a child. But there is no removal of the fact that the birth of childbirth is the maintenance of the rich. This is especially common in Hollywood, for example: Sarah Jessica Parker, Nicole Kidman, Paris Hilton, Grimes, Khloé and Kim Kardashian, Priyanka Chopra, Rebel Wilson, Lucy Liu and Naomi Campbell are all reported to use a surrender to have those child.
After the Newsletter Promotion
Liu said his decision was not driven by the loss: “It was a right choice for me because I was working and I didn’t know when I could control it.”
It may make sense. If infertility is a great reason to use a surrender, then why not keep your career? But in this way a “need” for a surrender changes to a “right”. If career goals give you a surrender, how about failing to find a good enough relationship? Increasing the number of single men uses surrogates on that basis. An Japanese businessman accumulated 16 who surrendered to the children “because he wanted a big family”. Rational step by rational steps, you enter a dystopian world.
The motives are also important when it comes to surrendering itself. For the most part, the driving force has no doubt the need for money: most surrenders are hard-up young women in countries that have difficulty paying for to rent their womb. Some countries, the UK with them, attempted to change the equation simply by allowing “altruistic” surrender, which costs can be paid and not yet. But ethical pitfalls remain; Potential wrong reasons are increasing.
What if a surrender is driven by the belief that he is building an important bond with a couple, only to be cut off when his or her service is complete? There is every reason for the clinics and will be parents to encourage a special feeling of connection but there is no obligation to continue it after giving the baby. The “best” reason for surrender is the mixture of pure altruism, which does not depend on how commissioners treat you. But we must ask that the motive in a world where self -sacrifice is traditionally glorified. In most countries, women are more likely to be kidney donors, and men are the recipients, even if kidney disease is more prevalent in women.
At the root of the surrender problem is the fact that human emotions, attitudes, connections and relationships are important, but they cannot be controlled or implemented. We cannot be sure that the relationship between surrender and parents will remain sweet. Nor will we reduce the bond that forms between the mother and the child. Surrenders suffer as a result. And so do children: without the urgent emotional bond, parents seem to be easier to give them away. Many babies are thrown into surrender or to the orphans when commissioners change their minds.
Surrogacy is an emerging industry – worldwide is estimated at £ 14bn. Between 5,000 and 20,000 babies are given each year. Parents will become parents especially turn to commercial surrender to countries that are firing poverty, where it is cheaper. The number of Britons using both commercial and altruistic surrender is rising. We should look at all this as a problem. Surrender can work properly, but there are so many risks that are not.
Martha Gill is a observer columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues that have been raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to consider for publication, email us to the [email protected]
