Should Surrogacy option be available to live-in partners?
The new surrogacy bill lays down certain rules for surrogacy that decides who shall and who shall not be competent to have children through the assisted fertility procedure. The bill is being greatly criticized by almost everyone who stands for the rights of live-in partners.
Is this a reform or a faulty, flawed regulation that is meant to violate the fundamental rights of those who prefer to be in live-in relationships?
For1. Redefining ethos: Foreign ministry is all about redefining our ethos when it considers live-in relationships as something that is against our culture. When the whole nation is crying for help from the orthodox rules we are stuck with, our ministers are happily enforcing them legally.
2. It is legal: There is nothing illegal about live-in relationships now. It is no more considered a crime if a guy and a girl prefer to live together without the strings of marriage. If staying together is not illegal, how can having babies be? Not that many live-in couples would prefer surrogacy but the bar is unnecessary.
3. Right to reproduce: Married or not, a couple can have babies if they want. She can choose to be living with that person and have his babies, perhaps not through the normal procedure but with an assisted one such as surrogacy. There is no reason for any rule to prevent her from doing so.
4. The old custom: A man and a woman lives together, plan on sharing a lifetime together and only then can they actually think about having a child through surrogacy together. It is clear that they are going to be there for each other and for the child which enables them to take such a big decision. The old myth that live-in relations are simply a pastime has to be done away with.
5. Commitment: One of the biggest myths of all time surrounding live-in relations is that they are people who have commitment issues. Even if they do, what has the government got to do with it anyway? Unless the government is about to offer them free top class psychological help, they have no right to try and interfere with their right to have a child through surrogacy.
6. Marriage is not for everyone: For various reasons, be it past broken marriages or an earlier incident in life, not everyone is up for the institution of marriage. That is theirs to believe and live without the supplementary baggage of marriage and still be as committed and honest in their relationship. They surely have the right to opt for surrogacy.
Against1. Unrecognized: Indian laws do not recognize live-in relations and so they can keep the couples from surrogacy if they want to. Fighting for the rights is not easy and does not serve the purpose always and this is one such case. Recognition for live-in couples is not happening anytime sooner and hence there is no point of allowing them surrogacy.
2. Unfortunate events: In case of an unfortunate event when the child of a live-in couple loses both the parents, who is going to provide for the child? Families of both sides would not want to do anything with him owing to our age old belief that a child born out of marriage is illegitimate. The future of the child will be doomed in such cases.
3. Identity crisis: Children born of surrogacy to live-in couples will face identity crisis and will be ridiculed by the society time and again. When it is a clear fact that the society would be so harsh so these children, what is the point in letting it be that way? The decision is a wise one if it is seen from the point of view of the rights of children in our society.
4. More confusion: The lives of couples in the no-string attached relationships are usually in deep imbroglio. They part ways more often than any other couples. When they part ways, what is to become of the child?
Commercial surrogacy and those that go against the bill will be on for a punishable offence of at least 10 years of jail term or fine of up to 10 lakh once the law comes into public domain. Whether we like it or not, live-in couples are doomed from having a normal family life.
