Annotation 3: Surrogacy: A New Hope for Gay Couples

        As I mentioned in the beginning of my paper, surrogacy can also give a resolution to gay couples who want to have their own children. We can see from the video that the gay couple was happy for having their genetic child through surrogacy, they showed their delight to have the child. It seemed that the surrogacy give them a new hope to their life, and having the child of their own are realizable. They are full of joy, and the child is their happiness.

        Besides, according to the article, we can know that there are many people that object to make gay couples adopt children because of their sexuality reasons in many nations. "Since it becomes very difficult for gay couples to adopt children, Surrogacy is the only option left for them to have a child." (Edwards, 2012) Otherwise, having their own genetic children through this way also has many advantages:

                They can as a result get pleasure from the security of having a child which

                is naturally theirs. They can also aid the surrogate mother at some stage in

                the tenure of her pregnancy and make certain of her good health and that of

                their unborn child thereof. Knowing the surrogate mother's past history will

                guarantee you of the health of your unborn child. (Edwards, 2012)

Thus, we can realize that the surrogacy not only help the couples who are unable to have their own children through fertility problems but also assist gay couple to fulfill their dream of having genetic children. Surrogacy gives many people hopes and happiness, so why prohibit it?

 

Reference

-Edwards, Christopher. (March, 2012). For Gay Couples, Surrogacy Is Like a Light of Hope Retrieved from http://goarticles.com/article/For-gay-couples-surrogacy-is-like-a-light-of-hope/6199140/

-NewsX Online. (February, 2012). Commercial Surrogacy: A New Hope for Gay Couples Retrieved http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLkUCfywazQ&feature=related

Reflection (1)

       I have discovered my defects including incorrect uses of grammar, redundant words and sentences, imprecise narrations, etc. Moreover, I cannot choose a strongly persuasive annotation for my issue, thus I always write weakly for my position. Otherwise, I may write the redundant explanations to sentences, thus I repetitiously mention the same points twice, making my paper look more tedious and seem to have less important and repetitious ideas. Moreover, I don't find the annotations toward a specific direction, I always find them randomly. Therefore, I cannot make my annotations be more connected and continuous. My whole article is read scrappier in the end.

        In order to improve these drawbacks, first, I will think twice before using the words. I will use more resources to make my word choices more precise, or ask for others' help. Second, check the sentences and words again and again to avoid writing them supernumerarily and making mistakes in grammar. I should make these seemingly subtle problems occur less, and write it as perfectly as possible.

        The matters that I mention above are relative slight and unimportant problems for writing an expository paper. The most critical matter in the paper is annotation. All the annotations are supporters. We should choose it wisely, thus our article can be persuasive. My annotations are not perfect. The first annotation didn't have certain resource on it, I don’t know surely where it came from, and thus I couldn't cite it rightly. Also, it's not a strongly persuasive annotation because it also mentioned the opposite position of its view point. It stands both positive and negative position. Thus, next time when I choose annotation, I will take a more resourceful one, then I can easily find the source of it. Next, I will find clear annotations that support a specific concept, thus I will not find it not persuasive enough in the article.

        As for the second annotation, I found it later that it talked about several things that some of them are not convincing enough for people, even for me. Otherwise, the second annotation was posted in 1998, it's far from now, thus it might not have some updating information, concepts, and values, therefore I might not be able to use it as an explanation to the phenomenon nowadays. Therefore, how I can improve these flaws is to read it again and again, realizing what it really wants to infer us, persuading myself first, and then using it. Besides, I will also find a more recent article as annotation lest it has problems I mentioned.

                In the end, the most crucial mistake that I made in choosing annotations is that I cannot make the annotations connective. They seem separated to each other. Hence, next time when I am looking for the next annotations, I will think of the former annotations first, and make the following annotations connect to the previous annotations.

        I hope I can improve these faults in the following steps of writings, thus make my final research paper as perfect as possible!

(revised) Annotation 2: Surrogacy is totally morally wrong

　　We can inferred from this article that surrogacy is seen as a morally wrong way to use. One of the reason is that surrogacy will be destructive of intimate relationships by giving birth to the couple's child. That is, the surrogate mother will be seen as a third person through a marriage that was originally formed by a husband and a wife. "The involvement of a third person from whose flesh this child is produced means that the child is linked with another whose presence in the intimate conjugal relationship compromises that relationship."(Ozolins, 1998) The surrogate mothers also have the intimate link with the children, we cannot deny their position and importance to the children. And, this may cause the problem of self-identity to the kids. The children may be confused that who is their real mother. "Clarity about origins is crucial for self-identity, itself important for self-respect." (Ozolins, 1998) Therefore, we cannot neglect its influences to the children. These results are resulted from that we see the surrogate mother as a person not as a mean. We treat the surrogate mother as a person, then if we take the children away, it may be some kind of exploitation to her because we take away what she originally has the right to own. Also, except it's immoral to bring the kids away, it might cause the psychological problems to the surrogate mothers. How do they feel when the kids that they give birth to being taken away and how do they overcome the mood?

      Otherwise, I think the payment to the surrogate mothers is also a kind of exploitation to them. Nothing can pay for the psychological and biological hurt of surrogate mothers. Although some people may think they are willing to do that, they are struggling for life, especially for those uneducated women, they have no other choices but to take this as a career to afford the enormous fee for their life and their families. However, it's still not a good option for them to choose because it really has some biological harm to them. Moreover, the cheaper the payment is, the more exploitation they will suffer. Besides, for those parents who do not have the ability to bear their own kids can choose for adoption. Although the children are not genetic, they can be the same if both of you are growing intimate relationship, moreover, you can bring a originally unhappiness orphan to a new and happy life. Thus, why we must have surrogacy?

　　Contradict to treating the surrogate mother as a person, if we regard the surrogate mothers as "hired artificial womb" or "artificial baby carrier"(Ozolins, 1998) , then we treated her as a thing, we failed to treated her as a person. From this point of view, "she is no longer a third party intruding on the unity of the spouses."(Ozolins, 1998) However, there is claim that surrogacy is  morally illicit because it's the failure to treat the surrogate as a person. Everyone has the right to be treated as a person, if seeing these surrogate mothers as a mean is agreed by people, then the law cannot protect them from risks according to the law for human rights, therefore, they may be easily indulged in dangers and be exploited. They do not have methods to protect themselves. Accordingly, this side of thinking is also not a good way as an explanation for the solution to the moral problem that the surrogate mothers bring us. It seems that there is no balanced way to solve the difficulty. Thus, " the surrogacy is in all of the usual cases morally wrong"(Ozolins, 1998) and cannot be put into practices.

Reference

-Olizons, John. (August, 1998). Surrogacy: Exploitation or Violation of Intamacy? Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/OApp/OAppOzol.htm

Peer Response (2)

(1) April

[Comment 1] My first impression is, I understand your writing, and I agree with you. But I am more concern with this sentence "The involvement of a third person from whose flesh this child is produced means that the child is linked with another", it is a real problem because the baby will receive blood and nutrition from third party.

[My response 1] Thank you and yes, this is the main argument in this annotation and we can't find a balanced way to deal with it.

[Comment 2] If it is the main, why don't you give more space on it?

[My response 2] Yes, I will think more and give more space on it.

[Comment 3] In your writing, I understand that: the physical problem may cause psychological problem later on, is that your argument?

[My response 3] Yes, in this annotation, the main argument is that, and many problems resulted from it: children's identity, moral questions, and there seems no proper way to deal with it, the solution to both sides can also intrigue problems. Thus, in my point of view, I'm agree with this article, and the surrogacy should be prohibited.

[Comment 4] You should mention about in which cases it will be immoral, because not every cases are immoral, for example: the women cannot give birth.

[My response 4] One of the immoral is the origin parents treat the surrogate as a means to give birth to their children, and the other is if we treat the surrogate as a person, she also have intimate connection to the child, how can we take the child away, they're all immoral to the surrogate.

[Comment 5] I think the word must be "psychological".

[My response 5] I think the moral problems have something connections to the psychological.

[Comment 6] No, it's dependence. It depends in which case.

[My response 6] Depend, but also exploit, they depend on it because they don't have other choices, so they exploit them by paying low to use surrogacy.

[Comment 7] I don't think that it is exploitation, that payment is even higher than they got from their turmoil work with hands.

[My response 7] Yes, but the fee is different between India and America.

[Comment 8] CPI of each country is different, 10 US$ in US you cannot buy much, but in India, people could buy more think with the same amount.

[My response 8] Yes, but in my point of view, surrogate mother should be treated all the same in the world.

[Comment 9] Evelyn, do you need to determine your view, do you take a view from a baby's benefit, or from the third party's benefit or from the real parent?

[My response 9] Yes, I think in this annotation, I stand in the side of third party.

(2) Jessica Iveth Villasenor

[Comment 1] So you thing is morally wrong? May cause too much troubles after?

[My response 1] Yes, I think so. It will cause a lot of problems later.

[Comment 2] Maybe Evelyn you can explain about this two differentiations, and give more space for your own point of view.

[My response 2] OK, thanks. I will.

[Comment 3] I think the annotation is pretty good, just more explanation for the moral and immoral types of surrogacy.

[My response 3] Thanks.

[Comment 4] I think everybody has different point of view, add actually that is the purpose of the research, Evelyn has to convince others trough proves and articles that what she argues for is right.

[My response 4] Yes, thanks. That's what I will do in my revision.

[Comment 5] Maybe a clearer explanation of your point of view is ok.

[My response 5] Hum.....ok. I should think more about it, sorry.

[Comment 6] Maybe you can talk about each party, but always being clear about the one you argue for.

[My response 6] OK, thank you for you guys advices, sorry for that I'm not thinking so much, I will try my best to make it more clear.

(3) Ariel

[Comment 1] But why should that kind of things called immoral?

[My response 1] I think it's because we treated not properly, and hurt their personal rights, thus called "immoral".

[Comment 2] Even if they're lazy to born a child themselves, it's not a crime then.

[My response 2] OK, but the crime I think is to exploit the surrogate mothers.

[Comment 3] But what about the economical benefit they got? They're voluntarily to do that.

[My response 3] Yes, although they are willing to do it, but it's also somehow an exploit to it because as the video in annotation 1 mentioned, people go to India for surrogate mother is because it's cheaper there, so it's some kind of exploitation I think.

(4) Sharon Tsai

[Comment 1] I think this issue is somehow alike to Test Tube Baby.

[My response 1] Yes, it's similar, but it also a little different. Because the Test Tube Baby doesn't have strong relationship to a third party.

Annotation 2: Surrogacy is totally morally wrong

　　We can inferred from this article that surrogacy is seen as a morally wrong way to use. One of the reason is that surrogacy will be destructive of intimate relationships by giving birth to the couple's child. That is, the surrogate mother will be seen as a third person through a marriage that was originally formed by a husband and a wife. "The involvement of a third person from whose flesh this child is produced means that the child is linked with another whose presence in the intimate conjugal relationship compromises that relationship."(Ozolins, 1998) And, this may cause the problem of self-identity. The children may be confused that who is their real mother. "Clarity about origins is crucial for self-identity, itself important for self-respect." (Ozolins, 1998) These results from that are we see the surrogate mother as a person not as a mean.

　　However, if we regard the surrogate mothers as "hired artificial womb" or "artificial baby carrier"(Ozolins, 1998) , then we treated her as a thing, we failed to treated her as a person. From this point of view, "she is no longer a third party intruding on the unity of the spouses."(Ozolins, 1998) However, there is claim that surrogacy is  morally illicit because it's the failure to treat the surrogate as a person. Thus, " the surrogacy is in all of the usual cases morally wrong."(Ozolins, 1998)


Reference

-Olizons, John. (August, 1998). Surrogacy: Exploitation or Violation of Intamacy? Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/OApp/OAppOzol.htm