The ethics of surrogate mothers
The new Vatican document on reproductive technologies, Dignitas Personae, makes only a brief, passing reference to one particular practice of assisted reproduction: surrogate motherhood. In this practice, a woman is commissioned or hired to gestate a baby whom she agrees to surrender to another family at birth. The genetic parents of the baby may include the gestating mother or one or both members of the couple who commissioned her, or one or both of the genetic parents may be third party egg or sperm donors.
Surrogate motherhood is always ethically and morally wrong. To put it more bluntly, surrogate motherhood is evil. In surrogacy, a child is commissioned (often purchased outright) as if he is a sculpture or a book rather than a human being.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, all reproductive technologies that involve outside donors, including practices from artificial insemination to surrogacy, "infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage" (CCC 2376). That paragraph bears a closer look, as it asserts a human right that many in the secular world have never even thought of:
All children have a right to be born to parents who are known to him.
This is a right written in the hearts of all babies. An infant knows his mother's voice before he is born. Newborns may not seem very aware of their surroundings — indeed, I have heard some atheists odiously describe them as not even being "sentient" — but they are, in fact, very aware of their surroundings, at least in the aspects that matter to them, and the item of foremost importance to a newborn is who his mother is.
Later in life, all human children are interested in their roots. They want to know who their biological mother and father are. If they are raised by others, this curiosity stays with them, sometimes turning into a burning search for their first parents.
According to another document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae,
Surrogate motherhood represents an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love, of conjugal fidelity and of responsible motherhood; it offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents; it sets up, to the detriment of families, a division between the physical, psychological and moral elements which constitute those families.Though this statement comes from a Catholic document, it makes no appeal to strictly theological principles. It asserts that the wrongness of surrogacy can be understood according to the principles of natural law.
Surrogate motherhood and adoption share some similarities. In both situations, a child is raised by people other than the mother who bore him. As an adoptive mother myself, I am keenly aware of the inalienable fact that all adoptions begin with a tragedy: the separation of a child from his first mother. In her book of the same title, Nancy Verrier calls this event "the primal wound," a permanent blow to the heart of every child relinquished for adoption, even those adopted as newborns.
In adoption, the primal wound is unavoidable, a cross to bear, a part of what makes this world (to quote the prayer) a "valley of tears." Adoption by loving parents is a step in healing this wound in a child who otherwise would have no parents at all.
In surrogacy, however, the primal wound is not a tragic circumstance, but a premeditated act. The adult parties plan in advance to tear the newborn from the mother he knows, the one who carried him. Even for non-Christians, surrogate motherhood should be viewed as universally wrong and a violation of human rights.
Comments (12)

Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity
Comments by IntenseDebate
Posting anonymously.
Related Posts
- Jesus is an elephant
- Are parents selfish if they have a big family?
- Embryonic stem cells declared probably defunct — on Oprah
- The human dignity of anencephalic babies
- Natural infertility treatments v. the IVF band-aid
- Not vaccinating? Your child could die
- Extreme traditional Catholics and extreme patriarchy
- 7 Quick Takes 2: Scientist Christians, a blessed Mythbusters event, and more
- An argument for celibate priests
Susan · 848 weeks ago
Ginkgo100 38p · 848 weeks ago
To my way of thinking, wrong = evil. Evil is a strong word and I don't use it lightly, but I am not afraid to use it either. In religious terms, I define evil as that which is opposed to God. Good is that which is compatible with God. There are different kinds of evil -- suffering is an objective evil, yet it is not evil to suffer. Causing suffering in others with the intent to harm is always evil. Causing suffering in others unintentionally, due to ignorance or impotence for example, is not necessarily evil. Intention matters.
Susan · 848 weeks ago
Eric Brown · 848 weeks ago
Rather than waiting on the Lord to provide a child or deciding to adopt (both ideas are highly praised in Scripture), it ends up making some sort of bizarre threeway - and merely a temporary one at that. Lots of ego.
Oh,, and sometime suffering may be caused to prevent greater harm - ie. surgeries - is actually good, but a consequence of living in a sinful, evil world. This is why Christians are to be in the world (i.e. surrounded and impacted by evil) but not of the world (i,e, producing evil and impacting others in wicked ways).
SparkleSprinkler · 837 weeks ago
Ginkgo100 38p · 836 weeks ago
For years, I was part of a loving, childless couple who couldn't do it on our own biologically. I have been there. I know what it is like. And I have never thought of it as a punishment, not for one second, not for us nor for any other such couple.
I want all infertile couples who want children to be able to "enjoy and appreciate one of life's most amazing gifts." I am deeply pro-life and this is part of being pro-life. Children, completely regardless of their origins, are always gifts.
According to Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, "the child...shall have the right from birth...as far as possible...to know and be cared for by his or her parents." (For more, see the blog Children Have Rights.) It is for this reason that I denounce surrogacy and gamete donation. The right of the child to know his roots is greater than the privilege (not right) of adults to have children. If having biological children cannot be accomplished without violating the rights of the child, then it should not be done at all. Period. This is natural law which can be known to atheists, agnostics, and theists, not some religious fiat that only applies to Christians. Couples in this situation can turn to adoption, as I did, or they can choose to care for children in other ways, such as having a child-oriented career (from daycare to pediatrics) or by caring for young family members (which I also did).
calisa · 534 weeks ago
Edward · 523 weeks ago
maria · 486 weeks ago
Reena Chauhan · 476 weeks ago
I thought you are provided details are really helpful for the treatments for infertility users. These articles and essay editing services are so much helpful to all the new users and essay editors and thank you.
Regards,
Reena Chauhan
Bravo Thomas · 355 weeks ago
RSMC Fertility · 310 weeks ago