Mod 2 Assignment 3 Research Proposal

Example Research Proposal

NAME: Jordan Smith

THESIS: Surrogate parenting should not be banned by law.

BACKGROUND: Surrogate parenting is a controversial practice in which a woman becomes pregnant and carries a child to term for another person or couple. In doing so, the woman makes the miracle of parenthood possible for people who are biologically or ethically unable to give birth. At the same time, the surrogate can earn a much-needed fee for providing her services. For these reasons, legal restrictions should not be part of this very personal and private transaction.

OBJECTIVE: This topic will be developed through the use of scholarly journal articles and legal cases from recent years. Though it seems that there has been limited research done on this subject, it will be important to evaluate and analyze as many sources as possible to get a full view of the issue. It will be helpful to look at models for surrogacy and laws or restrictions that are in place in other countries to try to develop an ethical surrogacy system in the U.S.

SUPPORTING POINTS: Surrogacy benefits parents, because not every potential parent can have a child.

1. Some potentially wonderful parents cannot have children because they are infertile.

2. Some potentially wonderful parents cannot have children because they carry genetic diseases that should not be passed on.

3. Some potentially wonderful parents cannot have children because they are in same-sex relationships.

Surrogacy benefits surrogate mothers because it can be a way of earning much-needed income.

1. A surrogate mother can earn money for school without interrupting her studies.

2. A surrogate mother can earn money while being a stay-at-home mom.

3. A surrogate mother can earn money for a socially worthwhile purpose—helping others.

Surrogacy has no detrimental effects on society or governmental concerns. The government has specific legal duties, and these do not involve restricting private arrangements.

1. The right to privacy is implied in the law.

2. The decision to bear a child is a private and very personal decision.

3. The practice has been around for hundreds of years, and banning will drive it undercover but not eliminate it.

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS:

1. Surrogate practices are equivalent to baby selling, which is a crime.

2. A woman’s health can be endangered by pregnancy.

3. The legal complications that can arise are unavoidable.

RESPONSE TO COUNTER-ARGUMENTS:

1. Surrogate pregnancy is not selling a baby any more than adoption is buying a baby.

2. True, a woman’s health can be endangered by pregnancy, but surrogacy presents no more dangers than any other type of pregnancy.

3. True, legal complications can occur, including change of mind, decisions when a less-than-perfect childbirth occurs, questions of payments, and genetic traits, but these are no greater than in any other business transaction, yet we do not ban other business transactions.

IMPLICATIONS: As many people wait until they are nearing the end of their reproductive life to have children, it will be increasingly important for our society to understand the full benefits and implications of alternative means of assisted reproduction, such as surrogacy.

TENTATIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Constantinidis, D., & Cook, R. (2012). Australian perspectives on surrogacy: The      influence of cognitions, psychological and demographic characteristics. Human      Reproduction, 27, 1080–1087.

Gabry, L. (2012). Procreating without pregnancy: Surrogacy and the need for a      comprehensive regulatory scheme. Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems,      45, 414–450.

Glombok, S., Readings, J., Blake, L., Casy, P., & Marks, A. (2011). Families created      through surrogacy: Mother-child relationships and children’s psychological      adjustment at age 7. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1579–1588.

Hinson, D., & McBrien, M. (2011). Surrogacy across America. Family Advocate, 34(2),      32.

Jaiswal, S. (2012). Commercial surrogacy in India: An ethical assessment of existing       legal scenario from the perspective of women’s autonomy and reproductive rights.      Gender Technology and Development, 16, 1–28.

Markens, S. (2012). The global reproductive health market: U.S. media framings and      public discourse about transnational surrogacy. Social Science & Medicine, 74,      1745.

Rosenberg, M. (2011). Critical legal considerations for all parties to surrogacy      arrangements.  Family Advocate, 34(2), 23–27.

Vaughn, R. (2011). Advising “non-traditional” families in multi-jurisdictional surrogacy      arrangements. American Journal of Family Law, 25(3), 105–113.