Renee at Feministe has a post up about the ethics of surrogacy, particularly the morality of surrogacies in which higher- and middle-income families from the US hire lower-income surrogate mothers from countries like India, Mexico, Russia, Thailand, and South Africa.
She responds to an article on the issue from Women's ENews, and in her response somewhat reduces the complicated moral debate over surrogacy to a system of clear-cut profit and exploitation. She comments on the concerns of US families who can no longer afford to fly to their surrogate mother's country of residence (to, in the article's words, "monitor pregnancies and legal proceedings"):
Oh dear, due to financial restrictions you may not be able to aptly police the woman that you have chosen to exploit. Heaven forbid that western women are unable to make sure that the leash does not aptly restrict the blood flow. What if mammy forgets her place? What if Mammy makes a decision that is not in the best interest of my genetically superior child?
I find these words judgmental and unfair. I don't think the issue is that simple - or that shaming women who choose to seek out surrogate mothers is a good way to combat the exploitation that does exist.
She also opines:
It is arrogance to prioritize western biological imperatives in this way. Our DNA is no more necessary to the progression of humanity as a species than the DNA of an impoverished woman of Delhi.
Personally speaking, I agree with her. I believe that it is not worth the expense, both financial and ethical, to hire a surrogate mother in order to ensure that my genes are passed on. As someone who wants both to adopt and to have kids biologically, if I was faced with infertility I would take it as an opportunity to adopt all my children instead. But that's me. Other women should be allowed to make different choices. It's not fair to label all families who hire surrogate mothers as arrogant or exploitative. There is a great risk for exploitation - after all, as Renee points out, it is mostly impoverished women who are hired as such, and it is their bodies (which, as we pro-choicers know, are battlegrounds) which are being commoditized - but that doesn't mean that all women who hire surrogates are thoughtless or manipulative.
In many cases the exchange provides surrogates with opportunities for education, investment, and housing. This New York Times article tells the story of one such surrogate mother, from India:
Separated from her husband, she found that her monthly wages of 2,800 rupees, about $69, as a midwife were not enough to raise her 9-year-old son. With the money she earned from the first surrogacy, more than $13,600, she bought a house. She expects to pay for her son's education with what she earns for the second, about $8,600. (Fees are typically fixed by the doctor and can vary.) ''I will save the money for my child's future,'' she said.
There's no disputing that it's unfair that this woman, or any woman like her, must sell her body to finance her son's education or their living arrangements. But, from this example at least, it seems that by taking on work as a surrogate, this woman was able to positively shape her and her son's futures.
The morality of surrogacy, especially when the agreements cross international and class lines, is complicated and greatly disputed. As a young, privileged, white woman, I recognize that my thoughts are greatly biased and that I am overall somewhat ignorant on the issue. But I do not think that a blanket attitude of shame and accusation does anything beneficial for women who are exploited by this idiosyncratic system.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A look at the surrogacy issue.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/7765
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
I agree that choice is operative here. If you want to tackle the morality of poverty, then yes, taking 13 thousand dollars and handing it over to an impoverished woman out of kindness and kinship would trump purchasing a "service" like surrogacy. But realistic?
I have one daughter right now, plan on giving birth to one more and then adopting a third, possibly a fourth. My partner and I want a large family, and being able to share what we have with children already born is a goal. That said, I looked into being a surrogate. I loved being pregnant. I had a wonderful time. Here's what I found: in order to be considered for surrogacy programs, I would have to fit some criteria- be under 32, be completely done having children of my own, and have psychological evaluations or something of the sort. Essentially, that is not me- I'm 30 now, not done having my own kids and it doesn't matter than financially I want a 4 year gap between my biological children. I did not qualify to be a surrogate. It is no wonder to me then that women look elsewhere for surrogates.
Surrogacy has always been a tough topic for me to wrap my mind around, possibly because I am still ambivalent about the idea of children that I can't imagine the strong desire many women have to experience raising a child of their own genes. However, I think the above comment about how you can't blame women from going elsewhere for surrogates because its so hard to qualify here is a good one. It sounds again like privilege. Oh it's too hard here in my own country so I'm going to go elsewhere and take advantage of less strict guidelines and perhaps more desperate women.
If anyone has read the book "choice" the first excerpt is from a women who obtained a surrogate and this women passed the battery of tests required here and she still went through an immense about of trouble and pain. There is another article about cross country adoption which i think brings up some more of the points that Renee was talking about. These people became blinded by "their child" that they had decided to adopt that they didn't realize that many times in some cultures women do not go into these agreements willingly or at least happily
When any issue is viewed as black or white, at least one group of people is being mis-or-unrepresented. In the case of surrogacy, to phrase it as a scientific issue or yearning for DNA to be passed on no matter what the cost, oversimplifies a complex issue. The commenter on the Womens ENews article excludes any emotion those seeking surrogacy may have.
I would also like to point out that it is not just women who seek surrogates. Surrogacy is, in many cases, a mutual decision between partners both heterosexual and homosexual. It is common for men to seek surrogates for their sperm. I am unsure, though curious, how these facts apply to surrogates from third world countries. When considering issues like these, I find the best approach is to take a walk in someone else's shoes, one foot in that of the surrogate, selling her body to grow someone else's child, and the other foot in that of the parent, paying a stranger to give them their child. Really interesting articles and a very thought-provoking stance.
This also reminds me of egg and sperm donations, and even a bit of "natural" reproduction. All 4 cases could be examples of someone's right to reproduce vs. someone else's right to control of her or his own body.
mirandanyc quoted Renee at June 26, 2008, at 01:45AM: "Oh dear, due to financial restrictions you may not be able to aptly police the woman that you have chosen to exploit. Heaven forbid that western women are unable to make sure that the leash does not aptly restrict the blood flow. What if mammy forgets her place? What if Mammy makes a decision that is not in the best interest of my genetically superior child?"
Now I wonder how often it's "What if she needs my help and I can't be there for her?" instead.
mirandanyc posted at June 26, 2008, at 01:45AM: "she also opines:
"It is arrogance to prioritize western biological imperatives in this way. Our DNA is no more necessary to the progression of humanity as a species than the DNA of an impoverished woman of Delhi.
"Personally speaking, I agree with her."
Me too!