Surrogacy vs. Adoption

by Rachel Campos-Duffy (Subscribe to Rachel Campos-Duffy's posts) Jan 21st 2010 4:30PM

Categories: Newborns, Babies, Pregnancy & Birth, Twins, Triplets, Multiples

Forty-five year old British legal secretary, Jill Hawkins, doesn't have kids, but she's been a surrogate mom eight times. "I love being pregnant," she says, "It's a compulsion I suppose and I really miss it when I'm not pregnant."

Hawkins claims that, despite her enthusiasm for pregnancy, she has no desire to be a mom. Surely that makes her an ideal surrogate, but my guess is that her emotional detachment is the exception rather than the rule. Most infertile couples who choose surrogacy spend a great deal of time in fear of a breakdown in the agreement.

Take Scott and Amy Kehoe from Michigan. After bringing their twin babies home, the surrogate mom took them back (which she has a legal right to do in Michigan) after learning that the adoptive mom had a history of mental illness and a criminal past that had never been disclosed. While adoptions are no walk in the park, it seems to me that surrogacy presents many more potential pitfalls.

No doubt, the prolific British surrogate, Mrs. Hawkins, has made the couples who have "rented" her womb very happy, but are there cultural or social forces that encourage the arguably more complicated route of surrogacy over a traditional adoption?

A comment from the Daily Mail's story on Hawkins sums up my feelings on the subject of surrogacy versus adoption perfectly:

What a lovely and thoughtful gift to give someone. Now we just need to encourage more adoptions and break the public idea that a child always has to share our own DNA. We are a silly society when the left hand is terminating unwanted children and the right hand is spending a fortune on IVF. Imagine the joy we could share if it were more socially accepted to put these people together for the benefit of all.

As I sit here pregnant with my sixth child, I admit that I cannot purport to understand the emotional turmoil or decisions of infertile couples. However, regardless of one's opinion on surrogacy, at least we can all agree on the benefits of encouraging and celebrating adoption.

Related: Infertility / Childlessness

Comments (24)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Cari 1-21-2010 @ 5:02PM

Spot on Rachel!! Why does there have to be this notion that if your not of someones *womb*,that it's not the same! There are so many children in need of adption, and so many children who have been adopted by wonderful families! It's the definition of parenthood = loving a child unconditionally, and teaching ,providing for them, that makes a parent!!

Sara 1-21-2010 @ 8:16PM

The problem is that Adopting is incredibly difficult, even impossible for some couples because of crazy adoption laws.

If you have medical issues, sorry you can't adopt. If you're gay, sorry you can't adopt. If you're unmarried sorry you can't adopt.

Sifrina 1-24-2010 @ 10:04PM

Sara - I hear you - Some adoption agencies (and countries abroad) have viewpoints on what makes a good prospective parent that I completely disagree with - especially when parents are homosexual or there's just one parent, or when there were prior (but now resolved) psychological or marital issuses. Some countries have strict age restrictions. I used to get so frustrated thinking how any 15 year old can get "knocked up" several times before she graduates from high school but we will undergo so much scrutiny in this process. But all things considered I'm glad there's a process, the intent of which is to protect children as much as possible (though I AM opposed to discriminatory and arbitrary restrictions). The key is to keep looking - there are so many orphaned kids out there who need loving, qualified parents. So, it's not an easy road, but not an impossible one either; and defintely a worthwhile one to pursue if one is truly motivated.

Sifrina 1-21-2010 @ 8:31PM

I've never really fully understood surrogacy (on either end of the deal), nor in vitro, frankly, but I would support any of my friends for pursuing either arrangement if they thought it best for them and their families. Similarly, I would respect any woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy. These are deeply personal decisions that I know are not made lightly, even if not right for me and my family.

For me, it's a no brainer - adoption! Frankly, before I even got pregnant, I would watch "Adoption Stories" and cry happy tears for those wonderfully complete new families. Before we tried to get pregnant, my husband and I were very torn about whether we'd try to adopt or get pregnant. We were excited about how adoption is a whole other adventure in having a baby! We went as far as picking up the immigration forms, and selecting an adoption agency and a person to do our dossier. I wanted to pursue both efforts at the same time (pregnancy AND adoption) but my husband suggested "one baby at a time." There was no rush to start a family by becoming pregnant because I knew we were always open to adoption and that was great for us too. To our surprise, I got pregnant right a way (like, the first week we tried) and then much later, after a lot of discussion, we decided to stop with one child for a variety of reasons (if we had a second, it would have been internationally adopted; I'd be lying if I said I didn't sometimes crave that).

Everyone I talk to who had fertility issues (and did in vitro and then later adopted) said they wish they pursued adoption from the start! (I hope anyone contemplating in vitro considers this.) The appeal in adopting (for me) has nothing to do with vanity or a negative pregnancy experience (it was fine, but I'd never sign up to be a surrogate!). Just a whole other exciting, morally resposible adventure with the same result - a baby (or babies) to love and raise as your own.

Heidi 1-22-2010 @ 1:00PM

I wonder do people think if we've adopted three children, would it be considered selfish to either adopt another one or have my sister in law be my surrogate for a fourth child. I've had five miscarriages, the last one just recently, and it does make me wonder if the problem is not the egg and sperm but rather the environment from a disease I have. She could use her eggs if mine are not good but I think we'd both prefer to use my eggs and hubby's sperm.

That said I wonder if it is selfish to keep going when so many are still waiting to adopt?! Or who really need a surrogate for their first chihld.

Bev 1-22-2010 @ 8:28AM

I find it odd that someone who is pregnant with her 6th child is talking about celebrating adoption. I mean Rachel has the same urge that those using surrogacy have - which is to have a biological child. I'm all about big families, but I often wonder why Rachel doesn't adopt children. She's always very vocal on her anti-choice stance, which is totally fine, but why not adopt some of those children you tell other women they have to have?

I come from a family where adoption is popular (my mom, sister, and 4 cousins were all adopted) so I know what a great thing it is and why it should be celebrated, but I always find it kind of hypocritical when someone with lots of biological children start telling others they should adopt.

rachelcamposduffy 1-22-2010 @ 4:59PM

We were looking into it just before I got pregnant with my 6th. We are still open to adoption. Have to wait a bit till the baby comes.

Sandyone 1-24-2010 @ 9:16PM

Why, Bev....are you telling Rachel what she should do with her womb???

It seems that Rachel is telling people that encouraging adoption would go a long way to reducing abortions, surrogate pregnancies and other methods of artificial reproduction (IVF/IUI/etc.).

Bev 1-25-2010 @ 8:39AM

sandyone - no not telling her what she should do w/her womb, just curious at the opposing ideoligies (always saying she's "pro-life" yet not adopting, but somewhat criticizing surrogacy while she's have all biological children). She has put her ideology out there and up for discussion. As we all do when we put up a comment. I just happen to know MANY anti-choice proponents (actually ALL the anti-choice people I know) who NEVER EVER adopt, have never put themselves through the process, yet rally around the idea of adoption as a solution. I am a firm believer that you have to walk the walk (adopt) if you are going to talk the talk (anti-choicer). So in my opinion, it is only logical that if someone who is "pro-life" does not adopt kids then you really aren't as "pro-life" as they say. Sure they are all about being vocal and rallying, but they don't want to take care of the "life" they are so about "saving". They want their own biological children. Yet they don't want others to use surrogacy to have biological children - they want those who have fertility issues to adopt. Another commenter made a great point - why should only those w/fertility issues adopt.

As I stated before adoption is HUGE in my family and I am grateful for it because it helped create the family I have.

Sandyone 1-26-2010 @ 4:33PM

I was being a bit facetious when I asked you that, but your comments do seem to question Rachel's reproductive choices while at the same time you're chastising her for making the choices that she has. You're 'attacking' her right to reproduce and/or her right have an opinion and express it.

Bev, it's just silly to think that everyone who is against the killing of unborn children must go and adopt someone in order to hold the opinion that it's wrong to kill unborn children. Would you also say that, unless a woman has had an abortion, she may not advocate for it's continued legality? Personal experience isn't necessary (or even always desired) when forming opinions.

I'm not sure what pro-lifers you're hanging around with, but a quick look online will find you any number of pro-life groups offering help to women in crisis pregnancies...maternity homes, Birthright, doctors offering free or reduced services, etc. They're out there, helping women to continue their pregnancies, guiding them through motherhood and helping their children. And, yes, there are plenty of pro-lifers who adopt.

It seems that you're saying that if a person hasn't adopted a child, they have no right to recommend adoption to anyone else.

In another post, I gave a short summary of what I think Rachel is posting:
I think the point of this blog entry is that surrogacy and adoption are both routes to parenthood, but that the use of IVF/surrogacy/abortion could all be reduced if adoption were a more attractive option than artificial reproductive techniques.

Michelle 1-22-2010 @ 12:09PM

Why is it that only people with fertility problems should adopt instead of pursuing the options that are available to have a biological child? Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-adoption, but we can't deny that there is a drive to have children with a biological connection and that doesn't change just because you have trouble concieving. Rachel, you are extremely lucky that you were able to concieve naturally so many times and you are right, you have NO IDEA what it is like to not be able to do that. Since being "pro life" and supporting adoption is so important to you, why haven't you adopted one or two children (or all your children - after all, DNA doesn't matter, right?) If someone like you in the public eye who is not infertile adopted, that would certainly go a long way to encourage adoptions.

Sandyone 1-24-2010 @ 9:16PM

I don't think Rachel is advocating that only folks who suffer from infertility should adopt. There are plenty of families with both adopted and natural-born kids.

I think the point of this blog entry is that surrogacy and adoption are both routes to parenthood, but that the use of IVF/surrogacy/abortion could all be reduced if adoption were a more attractive option than artificial reproductive techniques.

SKL 1-22-2010 @ 1:53PM

I don't think it's a black / white issue. I think for every prospective parent, there is a line beyond which it makes more sense to adopt (assuming that wasn't the plan from day one). For example, my personal line would be where there would be a significant pregnancy risk to either the child or mother. Another reasonable consideration would be the cost - though both adoptions and fertility assistance can be very costly.

I do not feel that a low-risk surrogacy is any different from a run-of-the-mill pregnancy as far as the parents' ethics are concerned. (This assumes the surrogate is emotionally mature and totally on-board - though if that's not the case, I'm not sure that's the prospective parents' issue unless they have a specific reason to doubt.) I mean, either way, the parents are choosing to create a new life and choosing not to parent an orphan who is already alive somewhere. Adoption is wonderful, but it's not for everyone.

On the other hand, I don't support IVF performed in a way such that it is likely some of the embryos will not survive and be born healthy. And I really question interventions that enable women to have babies past their natural childbearing age. The risks to both mother and child would not be acceptable to me. It is in essence taking life lightly, in my opinion.

Joanne 1-23-2010 @ 4:13PM

I assume the reason that Rachel has biological children is the same reason I do, which is that we are Catholic and Open to Life.

EH 1-23-2010 @ 8:12PM

So, Catholics don't face fertility problems?

EH 1-23-2010 @ 8:06PM

So, catholics don't encounter fertility problems?

Sandyone 1-24-2010 @ 10:12PM

Sadly, infertility afflicts people of all sorts and I haven't heard of any group that is immune.

Rachel has lots of babies because her body works correctly *and* she is open to life (and her husband's body works properly).

There are lots of ways to be open to life...have lots of children, have just one child, have a few children, have no children...do any of these either naturally or through adoption. Infertile couples can be open to life by giving themselves to their community. Whatever your life leads you to, do it with love and charity. (Hmmm...that got weird...my point is that 'open to life' doesn't just mean 'have lots of babies', so infertile couples can certainly be open to life.)

EH 1-25-2010 @ 12:14PM

The couple mentioned who opted for surrogacy (the twins are not genetically the couples children, either) were unable to adopt so surrogacy was the only option.

Both adoption and surrogacy are wonderful options for couples who cannot have their own children. Of course their are pitfalls in either situation. I don't believe their is a big debate over one being better then the other. Each situation is unique to the couple.

"but are there cultural or social forces that encourage the arguably more complicated route of surrogacy over a traditional adoption? "
I don't believe an infertile couple yearning for a child cares about cultural or social forces....they go the route that gives a result.

Those that can and have had their own children should not even be part of the debate. It is not the responsibility of infertile couples to adopt over paying big bucks to have their own genetic children, if they choose that route. It's a pretty basic evolutionary fact that all species want to reproduce their own genetics....basic survival of the fittest 101. Thank goodness our emotional yearning of parenting and loving any child can be fulfilled by adoption and surrogacy when couples AND singles face fertility challenges.

JMV 1-25-2010 @ 1:09PM

Personally, the thought of someone else birthing "my child" kind of creeps me out. Besides, there are needy children and babies all around the world who need good loving homes and families. You can adopt a beautiful child from our very own wonderful country or any other country located on planet earth. A baby doesn't have to come from your womb for it to be yours, children touch our hearts in so many ways. If you can't concieve yourself, chances are if you tried, you would be able to find a child to adopt that you love just as much as they love you. And trust me, they love you. I have family members that have adopted both their children. One from Europe and one from a teen mother here in the States. And those kids aren't any less theirs cuz they came from someone else's gene pool. They're family all the same.

Chere 1-27-2010 @ 6:42PM

I listened to an interview with Rachel on Relevant Radio that discusses this article. Please listen to the interview and I think it gives clarity to this artcle. Rachel is encouraging and celebrating adoption as a beautiful choice. She also discusses how she has considered adoption and still does. Interesting article Rachel and great interview!

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments