The Patriot Post® · Pope Condemns Surrogacy

Pope Francis, leader of the Catholic Church, has stated his position on surrogacy as follows: “I consider despicable the practice of so-called surrogate motherhood, which represents a grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child, based on the exploitation of situations of the mother’s material needs.”

For a pope who usually tends to use the cover of vague language to give wiggle room to other culture war issues, this is a very direct condemnation. National Review’s Madeline Kearns does point out that on issues concerning children and their lives, Pope Francis does not equivocate. He believes abortion is murder and that choosing to substitute pets for children is not laudable.

The Motivation

However, it is interesting timing concerning this particular strong stance from the pope. Just a month ago, he was in hot water for seeming to use language that might give leeway for priests to bless same-sex marriages. Pope Francis’s cleanup crew had to clarify that he was not condoning same-sex unions or saying that the Catholic Church now allows same-sex marriages, but the damage had been done. Some Catholics feel that his lack of clarity on this particular subject could cause a schism. That is not a good look for Pope Francis.

However, surrogacy as a moral issue is fraught with lots of tension.

The Implications

Pope Francis’s very clear sentiments on surrogacy are cause for contemplation. In a world where our medical knowledge and innovation are ever-changing and growing, it can prove a challenge to navigate. Surrogacy, because it is a promising solution for couples struggling with infertility, is a loaded issue.

The medical innovations of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy seem to be an answer for those who are unable to conceive children. Infertility is a devastating struggle for those couples who have tried without hope or success to create their own family. These interventions seem to be a godsend. Should they not be allowed to take advantage of a medical intervention that provides them with the desires of their hearts?

Different types of surrogacies are available as well. In Europe, the only kind of surrogacy that is even allowed is altruistic surrogacy. This type is one in which the woman who has offered to carry someone else’s child is not offered any sort of compensation. I.e., it is out of the goodness of her heart. In the U.S., surrogacy is a different story. It is largely a commercial enterprise wherein anyone can buy the necessary pieces to create a child. You can pay for an egg, or sperm, or both, and you can rent a woman’s womb to carry that child to term. Is one method of surrogacy morally better than another? If so, is an outright ban, as recommended by the pope, fair? Or is surrogacy inherently dehumanizing both for the preborn babies and the surrogates who carry them?

One person who has used surrogacy as a way to build her family had some very valid reasons for pursuing this particular method. When she was a teenager, she was in a car accident and was seriously injured. Her body was not physically able to bear the demands of pregnancy, but she did not feel called to adoption. Is the pope telling her that she was an accomplice to human trafficking?

Another example is a lady quickly approaching her 50s who only has one child. She had struggled for years with miscarriages and chemical pregnancies and her only options left at this point are either a miracle from the Lord or surrogacy. Does she just have to accept that another child isn’t in the cards for her?

As opposed to such sympathetic cases, there are same-sex couples. The very nature of their relationships means they are unable to procreate. Purchasing an egg or sperm to implant in a rented womb might be the fastest way for them to start a family. If surrogacy is banned, these couples are going to have to find other means of starting a family.

The Moral Quandary

Surrogacy is rife with bad actors. This is particularly true in the U.S., where surrogacy has turned into a commercial enterprise. A pedophile, if he has enough money, can buy his own child without setting off red flags. Prospective parents can force a surrogate to abort at any time during the pregnancy. In a very real sense, surrogates are donning the red cloaks of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” the only difference being that they are paid. This does produce a sort of human trafficking. In some cases, surrogates are forced into this practice because they have no other means of making money. Does that make the nature of surrogacy more moral or not?

One also has to consider the rights of that unborn child versus the rights of the prospective parents. That baby has spent the first nine months of his life in the surrogate mother’s womb. He knows her voice, her laugh, her habits. She is his world. When he is born, he is given to virtual strangers, even if that child is made from their biological material. How is that different from adopting a newborn child?

If adoption is a choice, and one without as many ethical dilemmas attached to it, why not have that as the first choice?

It is true, every child should be with his or her mother and father, but in this broken world that is not always possible. Adoption is a beautiful solution to a tragic brokenness.

If there is no difference between surrogacy and adopting a newborn, then what is the justification for surrogacy when the need for adoption is greater?

Eugenics also is a big aspect of this enterprise. Even the fertilized eggs are rated from most viable to least viable. Fertility doctors can help a couple choose if they’d like a boy or a girl. The science behind IVF has gotten so sophisticated that doctors can basically build a baby. Paris Hilton infamously has several children on ice because she wanted a girl and all she was producing was boys. Does that seem ethical?

Another question that needs to be asked is about the medical inaccuracy still accosting the field of IVF and surrogacy. Doctors end up harvesting lots of eggs in the IVF process because the mortality rate for implantation is extremely high. Say a couple is trying to be as moral and ethical in their approach as they could possibly be. They only have the doctor fertilize as many eggs as they are willing to have children. But that still leaves the possibility that all the children created in this manner might still perish in the process of implantation into the surrogate’s womb. Is that moral?

In Conclusion

This question of surrogacy should be thought about deeply and seriously. It’s not just the desires of the prospective parents — as well-intentioned as they may be — that should be taken into account. A child made in the image of God and the women used as surrogates also have rights.

Perhaps after wrestling with these particular moral questions you will find, as the pope has, that surrogacy is more akin to human trafficking than it is a blessing of medical intervention.