Talk:Surrogacy

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled

Articles merged: See old talk-page here.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arnells26.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jkgrewal. Peer reviewers: EricChau.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical Mix up

here are many geographical mix ups, for example the section on Austria refers to Austria and Australia as the same country ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.113.173.89 (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about mix-ups, but the map is definitely wrong and I don't know how to find the orginal graphic to change it. You can see an up to date map of US state laws at https://www.creativefamilyconnections.com/us-surrogacy-law-map/ which clearly shows very different laws. For example, Oregon has a growing commercial surrogacy industry (https://www.opb.org/news/series/surrogacy-oregon/) but the map in this article shows it as not allowing compensated surrogates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.10.48 (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elder

I mergedfrom surrogate mother and redirect that here. RJFJR 01:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the word or ersatz mother from the phrase

A surrogate mother or ersatz mother

because it seems pejorative to me. If this is a common or important term then please reinsert it. RJFJR 01:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Should this be here?

Her favorite food is bananas.

-Marc

I doubt that that should be there. I'm removing it, since it's tangential. Rarr 21:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally vandalism such as this [1] should be removed without question. And it's not tangential but totally unrelated. Esmito (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religious views

We could talk about religious views towards surrogacy. I know that Roman Catholics in particular opposed to it (sorry, had a test on fertility treatments in religious studies today). Also, in the UK, it is illegal to pay someone for surrogacy. Baberlp 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio

Does anyone know the connection between our article and this website: www.surrogate-mother.net? The content is nearly identical. I'll act upon it in a couple of days - hopefuly, somebody will clear this up before it. --dcabrilo 20:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That link has been repeatedly spammed so we're now blacklisting it. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relatives as surrogate moms

The article is well written, but good to mention an increasing number of surrogate mothers who carried a relative's unborn baby full term. Thousands of news reports and medical records find a trend of other female relatives in child-bearing age (between 20 to 50) agreed to be surrogates for a (sister, brother, niece, nephew, aunt, uncle, son or daughter's) unborn child.

It's somewhat popular because they as biological relatives may share a blood type that's vital and won't damage the developing fetus, as well an easier option in terms of emotional intimacy to share between family members, esp. the surrogate mother is in good health and some say are physically "used" to multiple pregnancies or having children before (and are willing to do this).

I hope my comment based on fact and personal observation (my sister carried my brother's son full term, because his wife is infertile and they felt it's a more emotional, as well phsyiological bond to choose her a surrogate, and she has 3 kids of her own). I hope this info. will be useful and need much investigation before I entered this to the article. Thank you for reading. 209.247.21.245 23:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edits

added. A number of passages in this article appear to lack neutrality in the sense of being on the far edge of anti-surrogacy, for example "Is contracting for surrogacy more like contracting for employment/labor, or more like contracting for prostitution, or more like contracting for slavery?" Maybe comparison to kidney donation or a dangerous job (eg. linesman or nuclear power worker) would be more neutral than to prostitution, and comparison to slavery seems to belittle the unique crime of slavery.

Removed unsourced opinions like "accepted by almost everyone" (which is clearly false given that 6 states have laws making it a criminal offense) and added a section on legality, and improved academic tone. someone can clean up my cites.

Restingpulse 16:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)dave.[reply]

I removed the reference to the possible intended parent being "multiple males (usually a homosexual couple)" and changed it to say that the intended parent may be a single male or a male homosexual couple. The way it was worded before, "multiple males" gives the impression that in the past a group of several men came together to have a baby. There is no evidence to suggest that two straight men together or a grouping of three males or more have ever tried to conceive a child through surrogacy. When men without female partners opt for surrogacy it's either one straight male, one gay male, or two gay men together. No other alternatives exist. Shpilk (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made some minor edits to the methods of surrogacy section for conciseness and more up to date references Jkgrewal (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into Surrogacy. -- Thayvian (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Gestational carrier and Commercial surrogacy into this article and discussing the issues that are unique to each of them as separate sections in this article, while discussing the issues common to all surrogacy arrangements in other sections.

My reasons for:

  • there are extensive issues that are relevant to all types of surrogate pregnancies, including legality of the surrogacy, who the legal parents are and validity of contracts assigning legal parentage from birth to the commissioning parents. On various websites, these are usually discussed as one issue.
  • many of the ethical issues overlap
  • the three articles are each rather short and moreover somewhat overlapping

Possible reasons against:

  • commercial surrogacy in particular has some unique ethical issues, including the commissioning of commericial surrogacies in countries where it is legal (eg Australians commissioning them in the US) or where it is cheap (Americans commissioning them in India)

Thayvian (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

I agree, simply because the articles overlap so much that there is a great deal of duplication. I'm not sure about the title of this article though. Surrogacy/surrogate can refer to many things. "Surrogate mother" would be more appropriate. TINYMark (Talk) 21:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Surrogate pregnancy"? The article already has a lot to say about other parties to the pregnancy. Thayvian (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There is an overlap here. Surrogacy is surely the subject, and commercial surrogacy is merely a sub-issue, being a particular type of surrogacy arrangement.[Andrew] 9 January 2008

Disagree

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Survivor (novel) in "Fictional representation" section

This novel by Chuck Palahniuk depicts a woman whose job is to be a surrogate mother but is illegitimate. I recomend that it be mentioned in the fictional representation section as the depiction sheds some light on the subject.--Funkamatic (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Vandalism

I have reverted mother-surrogate.com/en this link -- mother-surrogate.com/en -- to a Ukrainian money making surrogacy "plant" twice now. If it happens again could someone else take a look. I don't want to get done for 3RR. Thanks TINYMARK 08:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here[reply]

See meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#Ukrainian spam: mother-surrogate.net & mother-surrogate.com (permanent link).
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... Thanks A. B. I requested the blacklisting myself! I was hoping a brief block might bring the user to his senses ;-) Happy editing TINYMARK 19:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link Proposal

I would like to propose a link to surrogacy experiences - both surrogate mothers and mothers by surrogacy who tell their personal stories: Personal Surrogacy Experiences —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachinbar (talk • contribs) 11:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Removed link (www.fertilitystories.com/surrogacy.htm). For-profit site. Not useful. --Ofmdoug (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian bioethics

The article should maybe allow room for the official views expressed by the social doctrine of the Church. ADM (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Territory

The Northern Territory has no legislation governing surrogacy at all, however NSW recently outlawed surrogacy under the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 No 69 [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium and Netherlands

I'm not sure, how the legal aspects in Belgium and Netherlands are. So there should be a reference. 92.252.18.72 (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the netherlands altruistic surrogacy is allowed. this always works by means of the surrogate mother allowing for the child to be adopted by the social parents (pre-birth surrogacy-contracts are not legally enforcible. when the child is born the surrogate is the legal mother). so for the whole proceedings to take place the surrogate has to be labeled as 'unfit mother' by child-protection so that the child can be legally up for adoption (which is seen as undesirable, since it puts her in the same category as women who have their child forcibly taken away because of child-abuse issues). since gay-marriage has the same legal status as hetero-marriage the baby can also be adopted by a gay couple (adoption by single parents is legally allowed but extremely rare, this goes both for surrogates and for f.i. 3th-world-babies). commercial surrogacy is legally prohibited. people engaging in it are at risk of not just getting fined but also losing any parental rights to the child Selena1981 (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Belgium and the Netherlands altruistic surrogay is legalized. --Fregarute (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

France

The reference to french law, terse though it is, it complete and non ambiguous, with an accurate reference to the official legal texte applicable. There seems to be no reason for the challenge banner, which should therefore be removed or detailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.58.247.50 (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an accurate translation of the French Law?

French: "Toute convention portant sur la procréation ou la gestation pour le compte d'autrui est nulle." English Translation (from google translate): "Any agreement concerning procreation or gestation on behalf of others is void."

--Ofmdoug (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up this page

This page definitely needs to get cleaned up. I propose creating pages such as “Surrogacy in the United States” “Surrogacy in India” “Surrogacy in Europe” or some other variation and linking the new pages to this page. This "Surrogacy" page should explain what it is, its variations, its history and medical information.

Also going to try to reach out to legal people who work in A.R.T. in Europe, Asia, Central/South America. See if I can get some clarification on the surrogacy laws (if any) in their countries and perhaps english translation of the current laws.

--Ofmdoug (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Shouldn't it be French Court of CassationCour de Cassation rather than the French Courts the Cessation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.52.8 (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition Clean-up

Propose the following - please edit my grammar as necessary:

Surrogacy is an arrangement whereby a woman (Surrogate Mother) agrees to become pregnant and deliver a child for a contracted party (Intended Parents). Depending on the type of arrangement, the Surrogate Mother may or may not be the genetic mother.

A surrogacy arrangement falls into one of two categories: Traditional Surrogacy or Gestational Surrogacy.

In a Traditional Surrogacy arrangement, the Surrogate Mother is the genetic mother. The Surrogate Mother contributes an ovum which becomes fertilized with the Intended Parents' sperm or sperm from a donor.

In a Gestational Surrogacy arrangement, the Surrogate Mother has no genetic link to the child. The genetic material comes from the Intended Parents and/or from donor sources.

{Below this we can explain how traditional (sexual intercourse/artificial insemination} and gestational(embryo transfer) work. Also changed the definition to read "arrangement" instead of "method of reproduction"} --Ofmdoug (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit proposal

As noted in this article, there are various unnecessary words and text which could be deleted, making the piece a better reference point on this subject.

I am prepared to start this and intend to commence with the section on the UK which contains intersting background to then present law, but which is probably not now relevant.

If anyone has any objection, could they please post here within two weeks otherwise I will start to edit.

ALEXEIS —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALEXEIS (talk • contribs) 06:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical Issues

the secession of ethics goes straight into shooting down as what it sees as myths with out even properly explaining them.We should at least flesh out the augments against Surrogacy before telling the counter arguments. It's more than a little dismissive of any ethical concerns how it stands now.

Joeyjojo (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the current section reads like a pamphlet in a surrogacy clinic where they make money based on number of kids per hour. someone flag this as not NPOV Pär Larsson (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the whole page has way too much of a vibe of 'surrogacy is totally awesome and never has any real problems'. a list of the real concerns would be in place, with links to research that proves or disproves arguments (often there will be research in either vein, based on which special-interest group paid for the research to be done) Selena1981 (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account this feedback, I have re-written the ethical issues section to reflect the diverse ethical concerns surrounding surrogacy raised by various groups. While still trying to maintain politically neutral language, I attempted to more thoroughly explain opposing stances on surrogacy as requested. Please feel free to edit as you see fit however, in the case that the language is leaning too far in either direction. #macbhsc2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.69.109 (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable reference removed - October 2010

I removed a poorly sourced section that included edits sourced to a non-notable blog column by Jacob M. Appel. Please discuss WP:RS here and see Talk: Jacob M. Appel for discussions on spamming and sockpuppetry. Flowanda | Talk 07:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legality: United Kingdom

The United Kingdom’s Legality section for this article needs serious rework. I don't doubt the information present in it, however it seems to be written in an incoherent and often "Story telling" format.

I will be editing the article over the next couple of days however any assistance or review would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.197.105 (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

article needs expert attention

"The following statement, in the introductory section, is ambiguous at best: "It is a cultural assumption that normal women do not become pregnant with the premise of being reimbursed monetarily, and that women naturally develop a bond with the child they give birth to [3]" The citation provided does not include the title of the journal in which the article appeared, so it's difficult to assess the credentials of the author. However, at the very least the sentence is partly meaningless and partly inaccurate. First, there must be data available on whether surrogates accept payments beyond expenses. Second, whose "cultural assumption"? Remunerated surrogacy may not be a part of most cultures, but this is hardly surprising since the techniques have not been around long, and cultures typically have histories of tens, hundreds or thousands of years. Third, it seems contradictory to say that the fact that women naturally develop a bond with their child is itself a cultural assumption. Either it's Nature (i.e. biology) or Nurture (i.e. culture), or both. Fourth, there is abundant evidence that hormonal changes occur during pregnancy and that these have impacts on the mother-child bond. Please write plain understandable english with suitable supporting references!Paulhummerman (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Love, 1956 story by Anne McCaffrey

This story involves a case of a fertilized ovum transferred from mother to her husband's sister. She wrote it in 1956, set 20 years in the future of 1976. It wasn't published until 1977. When was the first real such procedure performed? Bizzybody (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Insemination ?

Within a Traditional Surrogacy, the page lists many options to perform the insemination: via IUI, IVF or home insemination, anyway in artificial ways. It is of course possible that the surrogate mother agrees to intercourse with the father, in order to realise a natural inseminsation; do you know of surrogacy contracts stating that?

Found myself that 6 US states states "natural or artificial insemination" in their law about surrogacy. I am going to add to the page that the insemination could well be natural beside than artificial ref https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(fafd1pmmaskddt55stz4qvuo))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-722-853 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.205.194.4 (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pov

A lot of this article is written in a very POV form. Specifically it is imbalanced towards pro surrogacy. Any negative points are annotated with things like "but this could be because of..." But Tue other instances of correlation seem to imply causation, and don't hint at confounding (or possibly intentionally-hidden) variables McKay (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surrogacy and Adoption

I accessed this page because I didn't understand why surrogacy is needed when there are so many orphaned kids in the world who desperately need a home and parents. Having read it, I'm still none the wiser. Can someone fill in this gap with reference to any appropriate literature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.155.6 (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unintentional politicisation of map

Possibly unintentionally, the map - a very useful illustration for the article - shows the Falkland Islands as part of the territory of Argentina. Interestingly, the cited source map does not appear to. I would have thought that this article is probably not the right place for such politicking, even if unintentional? 193.108.78.10 (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Surrogacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Format of Content and Citations

The introduction lacks clarity and is vague in its explanation. The introduction also talks heavily about medical risks and legal/financial issues. It would be helpful to restructure the headings and subheadings currently provided. I would not include "Ethical Issues" about surrogacy to maintain neutral coverage in the information provided so readers are persuaded through particular viewpoints. Also, this particular section does not have citations.

In regards to structure, the heading, "Citizenship," can be placed as a subheading under "Legal Issues." The "History" heading is relevant to the article, but there are major gaps in the timeline and is not up to date.

There are claims cited that do not come from reliable sources. The link to the term jurisdiction is connected to a wikipedia article that is vague and needs additional citations for verification. Furthermore, the paraphrased statement from "Reproductive Law" is an official website with biased information. The heading, "Surrogacy centers," does not have any sources to support its claim and does not provide enough information. Also, is there a difference between "Surrogacy centers," "Surrogacy clinics," and "Surrogacy agencies"?

If anyone has any thoughts or input, please share! Thank you!

P18 (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Surrogacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Surrogacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Altruistic surrogacy

Altruistic surrogacy was legalized during the last five years in Denmark, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands. --Fregarute (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source for ethical issues regarding transnational surrogacy

I just skimmed through this article Cheney's "International Commercial Surrogacy". It really looks like a good source to me if anyone has time to expand the ethical section of this article. Happy editing! Fred (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Disambiguation Suggested

People tend confuse the topic of this article, surrogacy to make babies, with sexual surrogacy, a form of therapy. I suggest placing a disambiguation line at the top of this article, and also atop the "Sexual_surrogate" article. Rad314 (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted some edits to do with fertility tourism and India

With these 2 edits [3], I have basically reverted these edits [4] which eliminated the fertility tourism section. (Another editor later combined the 2 US sections and resorted the list to be alphabetical.)

While I have no strong opinions on the current design of the fertility tourism section, I do think it makes sense to have one since we do after all have an article, and surrogacy is one area it covers. The attempted changes to the India section were unacceptable since it appears to be a direct copy of the Indian government press release so raises serious copyvio concerns.

I'd also note that even the sources don't support the claim about a ban on commercial surrogacy anyway. It refers to a bill before parliament which at the time of the PR hadn't been passed into law so could be amended or simply fail to pass. Maybe at the time people wrote this, the bill had passed. I have no idea.

The correct way to handle that would be to summarise what reliable secondary sources are saying about the new law if it exists and it's effects (without excessively close paraphrasing). Not to copy old Indian government press releases. The other articles would also need to be updated especially Commercial surrogacy in India. I'd note that the existing information may be modified or reduced. It may not necessarily be eliminated. Historical information is likely to be of interest to our readers.

I'd also note that even if the law had passed in 2017 and took effect immediately, I have doubts the complete effect on commercial surrogacy in India would be completely known already. In any country and especially developing ones, the government banning something doesn't mean it's actually eliminated. Wikipedia articles should mention the law, but they should also mention reality.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legality

As with others, I agree the article generally is a mess. For example, in a few cases e.g. Finland and Portugal it says surrogacy or traditional surrogacy is illegal noting that traditional surrogacy can of course include artificial insemination without the aide of medical personnel or natural insemination, both of which would generally be legal if both parties consent. It could be that in either country if these acts are done with the intention of surrogacy, they are illegal, but it could be the actually situation is different. For example, perhaps it's simply that surrogacy arrangements are illegal which is a related but distinct point. I'd also note there is a difference between a surrogacy arrangement being illegal meaning someone can be fined or prosecuted for having such an arrangement even informally, and for them to be not legally enforceable. There is the related but again distinct issue of whether the birth and genetic mother (for traditional surrogates) can actually give up their rights even if they still agree to after birth. When people are adding content, they need sources which are clear on what the actual legal situation is. Nil Einne (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring the Laws sections

I would like to suggest to restructure the laws section by which countries permit/ don't permit commercial/ altruistic surrogacy. Perhaps in the format of a table in order to improve the organization of that section. However, would this lead to oversimplification of the laws in each country?

Leec82 (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

be bold :)--Mcbrarian (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Issues Section

Hi,

Based on feedback from other editors and my own assessment of the section on religious issues, I decided to supplement this section with additional research. I expanded upon prominent views held by scholars and religious authorities along with their justifications. In addition to adding to the sections already present on Catholicism, Judaism, Hinduism, and Jainism, I added additional sections on Buddhism and Islam. However, the information stated is only from research and not personal knowledge, having not come from a religious background. As such, I would welcome any editors with more knowledge to make further contributions or edits to any information that may unintentionally misrepresent any of the religions discussed.

Thanks, Hannah

  1. macbhsc2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HannahMarcus6 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of multiple issues and citations needed template

A group of third year McMaster Health Sciences students made significant improvements to this article. Kindly review and offer your suggestions re: removing the template for multiple issues and citations needed. They've been there for 10+ years. Mcbrarian (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for pointing this out. And thanks to the students who worked to improve the article! Colin M (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourrogacy regulations bills in India

@Colin M: Hi, Colin. I note that you reverted my recent edits to the article. I will take this opportunity to lay down the facts. The source cited in the section claiming that the law was passed by the parliament is wrong. I will lay down the facts first before going into WP:RS. The Surrogacy Regulation Bill, 2016 was introduced in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Indian parliament and was subsequently passed in December 2018. However, owing to re-elections in 2019, the bill lapsed. Parallels can be drawn with another controversial bill, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2016. Both the surrogacy and transgender persons bills were reintroduced post BJP winning majority in the 2019 general elections. There is an article on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, which narrates this history under the "history and background" section. A bill in the Indian parliament becomes an act and thereby a law only if it is passed by both houses of the parliament and is also subsequently assented to by the president. Note that Indian parliament is bicameral. While the Lok Sabha is the lower house and the house of representatives, Rajya Sabha is the upper house of the parliament. I am not citing a source here as this is obvious but let me know if you would want one. The 2016 bill was passed only by the Lok Sabha and had lapsed. The reintroduced 2019 bill was also passed by the Lok Sabha during the monsoon session in 2019 but has not yet been tabled before the Rajya Sabha. The parliament will be session only during the winter again. Now coming to the sources, I will stick to Indian dailies and policy research websites:

--Tamravidhir (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamravidhir: Thank you for the very thorough explanation. However, note that Wikipedia stands on verifiability, not truth. So when correcting an error, it's important to also provide a citation that verifies it. Otherwise it will be confusing to readers that the article is saying X along with an inline citation that points to a page that says something completely different. I see that you've done another edit now that introduces some new references, so that's great. As for the underlying facts, while your outline of the status of this particular bill seems sound, it seems like (foreign?) commercial surrogacy is illegal, based on a variety of RS. For example, see the note at the bottom of this page: [5]. I think for the purposes of this article, that's probably the most relevant piece of information, and the fine details of individual pieces of legislation can go in the Commercial surrogacy in India article. I may take a stab at migrating some of the content at some point. Colin M (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin M: I do understand that it was not right on my part to add new references which I have done now. I have also replaced the source which had provided wrong information with a newer one. With regards to Surrogacy in India that article is heavily outdated and has been on my to-do list for some tine. I will indeed copy some of the information from here under the "India" section to there. Also, help with the Indian article is very welcome! I have not explained too many details of the Indian bills but only briefly mentioned what's up with them. It assumes relevance on a global scale as if passed it will ban commercial surrogacy in India and will allow only selective surrogacies to take place legally, consequently ending up fuelling a thriving illegal black surrogacy market leaving women vulnerable. --Tamravidhir (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamravidhir: Speaking of Surrogacy in India, I just noticed you renamed it recently from Commercial surrogacy in India. Unless you're imminently planning on adding to it significantly with information about non-commercial surrogacy, I think it would be better to keep it at the old title, since, as it currently stands, the article is basically all about commercial surrogacy. What do you think? Colin M (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin M: I do note that commercial surrogacy is banned in India per also [6] and [7]. With regards to the renaming of the article, I did so because given coverage of the IMA guidelines, ART and Surrogacy bills it's certainly beyond only commercial surrogacy and I did intend to expand it which I have not been able to do yet. --Tamravidhir (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed inaccurate map

On the map some countries are listed as "No legal regulation" and others as "Unregulated/uncertain situation". But what's the difference between these two categories? No legal regulation=Unregulated. The map is unencyclopedic and it needs to go. 2A02:2F01:51FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5A4A (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Confusion of artificial and "natural" insemination

The article states "traditional surrogacy (also known as partial, natural, or straight surrogacy) is one where the surrogate's egg is fertilised in vivo by the intended father's or a donor's sperm. Insemination of the surrogate can be either through natural or artificial insemination." This separation of "artificial" implies that "in vivo" is taken to include standard sexual intercourse, but this source (https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/in+vivo+fertilization) states "in vivo fertilization union of the sperm and ovum within the reproductive tract of the female; usually taken to mean _artificial_ insemination in which the sperm is artificially introduced into the vagina, cervix, or uterine cavity". The more usual understanding shows that natural sexual intercourse is not considered in parity with the artificial method (commonly used for prime livestock, racehorses etc with a large syringe). In any case, can there be a "tradition" in surrogacy as it is a relatively uncommon practice with unique features to every couple/trio? 2.31.164.103 (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Film about gestational surrogacy

I added an example of media that highlights the experience of gestational surrogacy and added under that heading. Thanks! Daisychild (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: LGBTQ Reproductive Health

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 21 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WgsSuma (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by WgsSuma (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Minorities and Subcultures in East Asia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 18 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TEreSsAAA (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by TEreSsAAA (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Surrogacy"