There's no need to worry Melinda, technology is charging to the rescue -

Guardian
Men redundant? Now we don't need women either
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,648024,00.html

And that article was dated 2002. Much development will have occurred since. No need for surrogate mothers soon with artificial wombs just around the corner.

Interesting, isn't it?

But look on the bright side - governments and corporations won't have to pay maternity leave anymore, women can "have" babies without ever missing a day off work. Women can be stay-at-work-mums just like the dads. Won't that be nice?

What is the difference between the "genealogical bewilderment" suffered by children who are born through surrogacy, and adopted children?

"Genealogical bewilderment" is surely also an argument against adoption. Given that some people are not ready to parent and find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy, what kind of guilt-ridden choice does that leave them?

I'm not sure why you think it's okay to argue against surrogacy in this way Melinda, especially when you would presumably be very upset by any woman's decison to have an abortion.

I agree that surrogacy is an area fraught with issues of personal ethics and individual circumstance. But if we would agree that children are "the ultimate gift", why can't we accept that gift in they way it has been presented in the case of Senator Conroy and his wife?

well said, seether!

I'm going to sound rather cold here, but I can't help but feel this is one of those articles that values emotional rhetoric over reason.

Reist starts by pointing out the scientific terms used to describe surrogate mothers, presumably in an attempt to paint the situation as having vulnerable women sujected to a cold, sterile scientific process.

She then continues by quoting a series of emotive statements.

Fair enough - though where are the emotive statements from the surrogate mothers joyful at being able to help their friends or sisters? Presumably they can be found too.

Basically, I'm saying I didn't find a whole lot of substance here. I'd be willing to concede there are serious issues associated with this process, though this particular article... well, in my humble opinion, there's not a whole lot to it.

The author said: "But we cannot deny that for many surrogate mothers and their children there is no happy ever after."

Why wouldn't a child feel valued and wanted by parents who went to this extent to bring him/her into existence? Is it any better to owe one's life to an act of reckless abandonment through an excess of festive spirit?

The author appears opposed to any artificial assistance with fertility including donor sperm. Or is it that she wants the owners of the genetic material to be made known to the child? Maybe in a follow-up article the author could clarify and make some suggestions as to how childless couples could be helped.

To Seether and Billie if you exert your intellect just a little I'm sure you'll see that there's a monumental difference between adopting a child because its natural parents can't or won't care for it, and deliberately conceiving a child with the intent of removing it from one or both of its natural parents. The purpose of adoption is to provide a child with a safe and loving environment in which to grow, which for whatever reason cannot be provided by its natural parents. On the other hand the use of surrogacy and donor sperm or ova have nothing to do with the welfare a child and everything to do with fulfilling a desire to possess a child, even if it means causing some emotional problems later in life for that child/person.

It is quite clear that those who support surrogacy and the use of donor sperm or ova give little consideration to anything other then having their own wants fulfilled. It really is just another symptom of the 'me' mentality which is so intertwined with feminist thinking.