Surrogate Mom’s Custody Claim

I think that you should have given more thought to your editorial (“Give the Baby to the Genetic Parents,” Sept. 22) position in the “Baby Boy Johnson” case. The problem appears to be more complex than your editorial would indicate. Traditionally, the birth mother has custody of a child. But is this because she is the genetic parent or because she has biologically supported the growing fetus? Until modern technology made it possible to transplant a tiny embryo into the womb of a surrogate “mother,” this question never came up.

Certainly, being a genetic mother does not give one inviolable rights or adoptive parents would have no legal standing. But, you say, in this case the Calverts never gave up the baby; they had a contract. Well, I seem to recall that contracts selling human beings are void, against public policy--something to do with slavery. In any case, what the Calverts gave up was a fertilized ovum, not a human, at least according to the laws of California. The nurturing, the life blood and the suffering that was required to change that blip of protoplasm into a human being was provided by Anna Johnson--the mother. Now, you have decided that the mother should give up her child to the “genetic” parents because of some contract. It seems to me that all that can be had from Johnson is a refund of the $10,000.

I wonder, if Johnson was not a poor black, would you be so willing to take the child from her? Certainly, the baby will have more advantages with his “genetic” parents. But the bonding of a birth parent is of considerable value, too. The point is, I think, that we must outlaw this whole surrogate process that treats a birth parent like a vending machine and reduces the mystery of human conception to an exercise in contract law.

STEFAN J. KIRCHANSKI

Santa Monica