Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
The word “altruism” is defined as, “the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or
devotion to the welfare of others”(Random House, 2014). People that are categorized in my mind
as being altruistic are those that do things solely for the purpose of creating happiness for others,
and expect absolutely nothing in return. Commercial surrogacy was legalized in India in 2002
(Surrogacy Laws: India, 2014) and since then, infertile couples have sought refuge in order to
pursue their lifelong dreams of having a child. When thinking about surrogacy, altruism comes to
mind. The woman is carrying the child “for” the parents. However, ethical dilemmas arise
concerning commercial surrogacy, where payment is offered up for a human life. This negates
the altruism and happiness that both parties are acquiring from the experience. Along with
numerous other quandaries, it can go as far as not being able to take the child back into your
home country and having trouble gaining citizenship, (Saxena, Archana and Malik, 2012), the
fact that some surrogate mothers have been forced to take on the task by their spouses only to
make money and the financial exploitation that can arise from this, lack of surrogacy law
reinforcement, and poor care for the Indian women after the child has left the womb (CNN,
2013).
In 2008, the case of Baby Manji Yamada versus the Union of India arose. A Japanese
woman implemented the use of commercial surrogacy in India in order to have a child of her
own. In Japanese law, in order to be considered a mother, you have to have given birth to the
child. In their eyes, a woman attempting to bring a child into their country and call it her own,
was in violation of the Japanese Civil Code (Radhakrishnan, 2008). When looking for an
alternate route, Manji’s father went to adopt him, himself. Stated in Japan’s Guardian Wards Act
of 1890, “a single male is prohibited from adopting a child” (Pasayat, 2008); a different plan had
to be put into action. After procuring a birth certificate that showed Manji’s father’s name on it, a
1
certificate that lacked nationality, mother’s name, or religion was issued to Manji as a way to
identify him. A passport was not released and the certificate was not to be used as a transit
document (Radhakrishnan, 2008). Under Japan’s laws, Manji was deemed motherless, even
though in reality, he has two mothers, a biological as well as a maternal. In this instance,
commercial surrogacy caused great problems in this poor family’s life and this struggle for
Manji’s citizenship will continue indefinitely.
Baby Manji is not the only case where citizenship complications arise. Germany is also in
disapproval of commercial surrogacy. Just one year after Manji’s case, two baby boys were born
for Susanne Anna Lohle and Jan Balaz through commercial surrogacy in India. In this case,
Lohle was unable to produce eggs. This caused a dilemma with commercial surrogacy because
the egg from the mother is supposed to be fertilized with the father’s sperm and then implanted
into the surrogate via In Vitro Fertilization. Thus, the child still has DNA matching that of the
awaiting parents. An anonymous Indian woman donated an egg to be fertilized by the father so
that there would still be some relation (Radhakrishnan, 2009).
When Balaz Nikolas and Balaz Leonard were born, Lohle’s name was absent on their
birth certificates. In her place was the surrogate mother’s name, Marthaben Immanuel Khristi
(Radhakrishnan, 2009). Because of this mistake, the children’s passports were taken for
conflicting information on birth certificates and passport applications; Khristi was stated as the
mother on the boys’ birth certificates, while on their passport applications, Lohle was. In order
for this family to move their lives to the United Kingdom as the family had wished, citizenship
had to be found in Germany for the boys first.
Germany declined their applications and denied baby Nikolas and Leonard of their
passports, for they were born in India. Unlike Manji’s case, the baby boys had already been
2
identified so a certificate could not be produced for them where Lohle’s name could then be
written in as their mother. Indian legislature declared the boys to be Indian citizens and released
passports. However, this difference in citizenship will eventually lead to a wedge in the family’s
dynamic. As per the contractual agreement that Nikolas and Leonard’s parents and surrogate
mother agreed to, they will not have contact with Khristi, who is listed as their mother on both of
their birth certificates. To find that out as a child, or to have to tell that to your children as a
parent, would be devastating and shameful. Although, in this case the boys were quite lucky to
not have been taken to the State orphanage because of the slip-up (Radhakrishnan, 2009).
In 2012, a gay Israeli couple had their twins taken from them when a “Tel Aviv Family
Court judge set a precedent by recognizing a woman whose twins were born via a surrogate as
the legal parent.” This forced the surrogate mother to adopt both children to save them from
3
