In her article “Two videos highlight the immorality of surrogacy,” Andrea Widberg steers readers to two clips that made social media in April. The first depicts a gay man, a surrogate parent, holding the child being raised by him and his partner. The man repeatedly asks the baby, “Who do you want, Dada or Pop?” The baby replies “Mama,” and the men laugh until the baby begins crying.
The video upset many folks, who thought the man was intentionally tormenting the baby.
As Widberg correctly points out, however, the baby wasn’t responding to the man’s question. “Mama” or some slight variation, is most often the first sound a baby makes. “Whether spoken with an American, English, Spanish, Italian, German, Russian, Greek, Arabic, Turkish, Chinese, Swahili, Finnish, or Quechua accent, it’s always the same word: Mama.”
Nevertheless, “there’s something deeply wrong with deliberately removing a mother from a baby’s life,” Widberg writes.
It’s happened throughout history because of misfortune – maternal death, adoption in a time when unwed single-motherhood was impossible, abandonment – but it’s never been considered a good thing. The baby-mother bond is biologically unique, and it’s good for babies. To purchase a baby to raise it in a home from which a mother is completely excluded is morally wrong.
The second video tells the story of a surrogate mother, probably living in Slovakia, and the “commissioning parents” who want a perfect baby. When the surrogate mother discovers that the child she is carrying is missing two fingers, the commissioning parents demand that she abort the baby in the third trimester. Under extreme pressure, the woman gives in, and the baby is killed.
Widberg then tells a 2016 story of a 50-year-old single man, living with his invalid parents, who wanted a baby. When the surrogate mother, Melissa Cook, found that she was carrying triplets, the man demanded she abort one of them. She claimed the man told her three babies were beyond his financial means; he claimed he urged her to get the abortion for the sake of her own health.
Widberg doesn’t give us the rest of the story, so here are some follow-ups. Cook, who had already served as a surrogate mother, including for a gay couple, was in her late 40s when she agreed to have the in-vitro fertilization from the man’s sperm and the egg of a 20-year-old donor. The man, identified in court records as C.M., paid her $33,000.
When C.M.’s sister Melinda Burnett found out about this arrangement, she wrote to her brother, “This is wrong on so many levels. . . I have felt sorry for you for years because I can see how lonely you are. But you have to be happy inside your own skin. Children will not ‘make’ you happy.”
The babies were born 10 weeks premature. When the time came for them to fly back to Georgia with C.M., the hospital staff were so concerned about his clear incompetence that several nurses accompanied him on the flight.
Later, in a case brought against C.M., Burnett leveled multiple charges of her brother’s unfitness as a parent, including his paranoia, temper tantrums, and previous acts of cruelty toward animals. C.M.’s attorney denied all these claims, stating that the babies “were doing phenomenal.”
Partly because the case was tried in California, the court ruled against surrogate mother Cook. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case because of jurisdictional issues, as surrogacy is decided on the state level rather than the federal.
Lest you think Cook the hero in this drama, I suggest you read her own account of what happened. The picture she paints of herself isn’t pretty, though she intends it as a defense of her involvement. In my case, her story roused pity and revulsion.
Based on my brief leap into this dark pool, here’s my takeaway on surrogacy.
First, it’s lacking in supervision. States vary in their responses, going from highly restrictive rules to a wide-open, do-as-you-please policy. Some might call for more government regulations, but that would only bring more financial burdens to the American people and the intrusion of a government which has already failed on fronts ranging from education to budgeting.
Second, unless surrogacy takes place between two parents and a surrogate, it seems to me the child comes last in consideration. (Indeed, some, such as Them Before Us advocate Katy Faust, would argue that even in this situation, it’s still not about the child.) Instead, it’s all about the adults.
Third, I agree with Widberg and many others that a child needs a mother and a father. Call me old-fashioned if you like, but there it is.
Recently, I wrote an article about the ugliness of swearing and coarse language. Halfway through writing this article on surrogacy, I stopped and emailed the following comment to my editor: “It's a good thing I wrote that "Soap in the Mouth" article. Otherwise, I'd be sending you some unprintable (but right on target) comments about what I’ve learned.”
Instead, I’ll just end with this question: What in the world have we become?
Jeff Minick is a father of four and grandfather to many. A former history, literature, and Latin teacher, Jeff now writes prolifically for The Epoch Times, American Essence Magazine, and his Substack.
This culture article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal, a project of 1819 News. To comment on this article, please email [email protected]. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News.
Don’t miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
