[Niamh.]

They're debating this on the radio atm, what are your thoughts on it? Genetic mother V's birth mother? I would have thought that because the genetic mother actually made the child, it carries her DNA etc then she should be able to be put down as the biological mother on the birth cert because biologically she is the mother. I'm surprised that the DJ is arguing that it should be the woman who carries the child and gives birth to it should be the one put down for historical purposes (the DJ incidentally is adopted himself so that's where his views stems from I guess, having the option to those records)

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1107/657...urt-surrogacy/

The genetic mother of twins born to a surrogate has lost her legal battle to be declared the children's legal mother on their birth certificate.

The Supreme Court overturned a High Court decision declaring the genetic mother as the legal mother.

The landmark decision that maternity could be established on the basis of genetics and DNA and that the genetic parents could be named as the twins' parents on their birth certificates was appealed by the State.

Seven Supreme Court judges heard the appeal earlier this year.

Lawyers for the State had argued that the High Court decision was radically wrong and attempted to reverse the meaning of motherhood.

Lawyers for the family said the children had a right to have their links to their genetic parents recognised and protected.

The case came before the High Court last year, when the mother of the twins sought a declaration from the court that she was the legal mother of the children and could be named on their birth certificates.

She could not have children herself because of a medical condition, but her sister agreed to carry the embryos made by the woman and her husband at a fertility clinic.

The High Court gave a declaration that the genetic mother was the legal mother.

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court ruling in a six to one majority decision.

The genetic parents took the case after the Registrar of Births refused to register the genetic mother as the legal mother of the twins on their birth certificates.

The surrogate was registered as the twins' mother, while the genetic father was registered as their legal father.

In the appeal, the State argued a child's legal mother is the person who gives birth to them and that a child cannot, in law, have two mothers at the same time.

The State argued the definition of motherhood under public law was that the woman who carries the child to birth is the mother.

They said if someone else was to become the mother it cannot be by private contract but must be done by a process of public law, such as adoption.

The State said that if the High Court decision was allowed to stand, there would be consequences for many other women who had used donated eggs to have children.

Senior Counsel Michael McDowell had argued that the High Court decision opened up an appalling situation where these women would not be the mothers or guardians of their own children.

He said the decision gave rise to very serious difficulties for the interpretation of the Constitution and seriously compromised the capacity of the Oireachtas to deal with the issue of surrogacy and ascribing parentage.

Lawyers for the family argued that the children had a constitutional right to have the links to their genetic parents recognised and protected.

They said the ultimate proof of parentage was the presence or absence of genetic links established through DNA testing.

Their lawyers had rejected the suggestion that the High Court decision would lead to widespread legal difficulties for women who used donor eggs.

Senior Counsel Gerard Durcan said most donations are made anonymously or by agreement.

He said a birth mother would have rights unless or until someone else sought a declaration of parentage.

Surrogacy a matter for the Oireachtas - Denham

In her ruling, Chief Justice Susan Denham held there was no definition of mother in the Constitution.

She said there was nothing in the Constitution that would prevent the development of appropriate laws on surrogacy.

Ms Justice Denham said any law on surrogacy affected the status and rights of people, especially those of children, created complex relationships and had a deep social content.

She said it was quintessentially a matter for the Oireachtas.

Ms Justice Denham found there was a lacuna in the law and it should be addressed in legislation and not by the court.

Afterwards, the solicitor for the genetic parents, Marion Campbell, said the family was disappointed.

She said there were other families in similar situations. She said surrogacy was happening and legislation needed to be brought in.

Ms Campbell said children born as a result of surrogacy were exposed because there was no legal framework in Ireland to cover their rights.

[lily.]

Hmms... surely laws should be in place for this kind of thing.

Surrogacy isn't exactly 'new'.

I personally would class the woman who provided the eggs to be the biological mother, as the surrogate is merely an 'incubator' and is actually providing a service to the actual mother.

In the case where people use donated eggs for fertility (sometimes from anonymous donors), I would class the woman who carries the child as the biological mother, as the eggs were donated, to provide a service.. if you get me..

It's really weird that there is so much arguing going on about this. The lawmakers need to just make a law and stick to it, then people would know exactly where they stand before they go in for a surrogacy agreement



Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the sister doesn't want to be listed as the mother, so it isn't her who is keeping this argument going is it? Basically a bunch of stuffed suits are wasting taxpayers money by arguing back and forth about something that really isn't any of their damn business.

This opens up a whole can of worms for a surrogate who decides after the fact that she wants to be listed as the mother.. and have maternal rights etc... Oh, this is not good.. they need to tighten up the laws and have one rule for all.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by lily.

Hmms... surely laws should be in place for this kind of thing.

Surrogacy isn't exactly 'new'.

I personally would class the woman who provided the eggs to be the biological mother, as the surrogate is merely an 'incubator' and is actually providing a service to the actual mother.

In the case where people use donated eggs for fertility (sometimes from anonymous donors), I would class the woman who carries the child as the biological mother, as the eggs were donated, to provide a service.. if you get me..

It's really weird that there is so much arguing going on about this. The lawmakers need to just make a law and stick to it, then people would know exactly where they stand before they go in for a surrogacy agreement



Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the sister doesn't want to be listed as the mother, so it isn't her who is keeping this argument going is it? Basically a bunch of stuffed suits are wasting taxpayers money by arguing back and forth about something that really isn't any of their damn business.

This opens up a whole can of worms for a surrogate who decides after the fact that she wants to be listed as the mother.. and have maternal rights etc... Oh, this is not good.. they need to tighten up the laws and have one rule for all.

Well, the DJ here who's discussing it is speaking as someone who was adopted and for historical purposes and information about himself as such, he said he would rather the person who carried and gave birth to the child be the one named on the birth cert, nothing to do with what the parents want but for the childs benefit.

I can kind of see his point I guess, that would never have occurred to me before

[arista]

What a Poxy Mess

[lily.]

There needs to be a law drawn up to cover this and for the biological mother to be listed on the birth certificate, but something on the certificate to say it was a surrogacy.

It seems to me that the ones with the power are so far behind with the laws. The first thing needing addressed here is making laws to cover such situations.

[Marsh.]

I don't see why (for "historical purposes") a birth certificate can't have a section accounting for surrogacy? Why can't both the genetic parents and the "carrier" be listed?

[Niamh.]

Yeah, I agree Linda and Marsh, that would be the sensible solution to it

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I don't see why (for "historical purposes") a birth certificate can't have a section accounting for surrogacy? Why can't both the genetic parents and the "carrier" be listed?

I agree. It only requires adding a few words too.

Name: name surname
Birth Mother: name surname
Surrogate mother: name surname (or n/a)
Father:
date of birth:
etc. etc.

[Marsh.]

It just seems like such a pointless thing to be debated. As Niamh points out with the DJ person, each person will have different ideas of who they see as their true "parents" whether it's genetic, surrogate, foster, adoptive, relative etc so trying to pin down one person as the mother on a slip of paper seems to be trying to unnecessarily overcomplicate it.