Rahul Mehta Gandhinagar LsCandidate

Surrogacy debate
.
Lets say woman A gives implants her egg in the womb of surrogate woman S after paying S whatever was the agreed amount. And say 9 months later, surrogate woman S gives birth to a baby. Then who "owns" the child?
.
The law before year 2005 said that surrogate woman S would own the child. And that was the law across world before surrogacy laws came.
.
So egg owner woman A and surrogate woman S would often sign contract before womb renting that "S must give the child for to A". But since there was NO law to legitimize the contract, the contract would get declared as "void from date of signing" aka "void ab initio".So contract becomes void. So in absence of law, the defacto law was --- "child belongs to mother who gave womb and not the mother who gave egg": And pre-pregancy contract would be void.
.
(Voiding pre-pregnancy contracts on handover of baby isnt new. And it is still practiced in non-surrogacy cases. eg say a man M i married to woman A and they are unable to have a child. So so M and A sign contract with woman B, that M and woman B will have relation, and woman B must handover the child borne out of relation to M and A. Now after child birth, if woman B refuses to handover the child, then contract is void).

Now lets come back to surrogacy. pre-2005 situation considered such contracts as void. And so S can now own the child. And S can demand a huge huge money from A to give the child to A.
.
So MPs in India printed law in year 2005 which said that courts would ENFORCE the "pre-pregnancy child handover contract".
.
So is cancellation of surrogacy law , and going to to pre-2005 notion --- which said that "child belongs to mother who gave womb and not the mother who gave egg" state intervention? NO. It fact, cancelling surrogacy law is REMOVAL of state intervention.
.
To enforce a contract or consider a contract unnatural is always a decision of society, and not individual alone. Just because a contract is signed, doesnt mean that it must be enforced. Consider nation A and nation B. Say nation B decides to enforce every contract no matter whether is unnatural or not. And A uses Jurors to decides if the contract should be enforced or voided. Then soon, nationA will become far far more powerful and enslave nationB.
.
So same way, when a law has to be made to decide whether certain types of contracts should be enforced or not, then citizens need to decide whether such law would strengthen India or weaken India.
.
The surrogacy law will weaken India, and strengthen West. The surrogacy will enable West to solve its population reducing problem. And as per poor woman in India, they will be better served by law-drafts like DDMRCAM, wealth tax etc then this two bit surrogacy law
.
Many suroogacy law support the law in the name of helping poor woman,. Such people also openly oppose DDMRCAM, wealth tax etc !!! IOW, all such people are openly psuedos and nothing more.
.
As per NaMo's decision to control surrigacy, it is drama only. NaMo has refused to print referendum law and us ereferendum law to end surrigacy. Instead , he has taken legislation route. Now BJP doesnt have majority in rajya Sabha and NaMo will refus eto call Joint session on this bill. And so the amendment will fail. And so surrogacy will go unchecked.