This question took me back to years ago, when I was very much younger and adoption just started to become a thing as another means of having children.
Then, it was very frowned upon, especially in African society, Nigeria, to be precise. Many would argue that a child that wasn't your flesh and blood and didn't have the same biological composition as you wasn't yours. In some homes, if a couple overlooking the talks and disdain from other relatives went ahead to adopt, then the child would not be treated as a whole. The child may not even be regarded. Some relatives would prefer that the man gets another lady pregnant in order to have a child of 'his own'(because it was always assumed that the woman was the cause of childlessness in the home).
Today, more and more homes/families are becoming open to adopting children albeit a lot of them would rather adopt infants inorder that they experience every stage of the child's life and also, I assume, so the child never gets to learn about his history but feel absolutely a part of his new home.
You see, times changed, and people adjusted.
In today's time, there are even more methods of child birth that have been built upon and have proven to be efficient.
Surrogacy, as we would discuss now, is one of such methods. I should mention that this is a very subjective question with very many viewpoints.
Quite in line with its name, surrogacy is an assistance for various childless couples who have no hopes of natural or medically assisted pregnancy.
In the light of how and why surrogacy is an option for living a parenthood dream, various countries pose objections and lay down guidelines as to how such a treatment should or should not be performed.
Surrogacy, is opted majorly when a woman is incapable of conceiving either naturally due to cases as,; not having a uterus, the size of the uterus is insufficient of holding a bady and support foetal growth, when a woman has had multiple miscarriages, when a woman had faced complications in her previous pregnancies, when she has been adviced by the doctor to not conceive, as it could pose threat to her life or the feotus.
The righteousness of a surrogacy program certainly rests with the core idea to help/assist such couples and help them lead a life as parents.
However, the darker side of the system is not unknown either. In several cases, medical associations put restrictions on the motive is sale of children or when the couple has good possibility to conceive other than surrogacy.
Surrogacy has helped millions of couples live a dream of a family. It would be absolutely wrong to not mention. It also provides bread and butter to families of surrogate mothers.
I have nothing against surrogacy. Good for us, civilization has brought us to the pint where the child carried by the surrogate mother has genes of both his parents(who hired the service of a surrogate) and I think we should consider ourselves fortunate to have this much. After all, back in the day, we only had traditional means of birthing children, and many women died from distress until CS was introduced. It wasn't accepted either back then, but here we are.
I can't be a surrogate, I know you know that, but if I or anyone else had this as an option to being parents, then we'd take it. It'd only be important that we follow due process.
And abandoning this for just the traditional means is a no-no. Surrogacy is here to help couples get a chance at becoming parent(s), and it should be embraced completely.
I hope that this was interesting to read. Thanks for coming around.