The voice was commanding, slightly disdainful and officious.
"The legal issues in the United States are complicated, having to do with that the surrogate mother still has legal rights to that child until they sign over their parental rights at the time of the delivery. Of course, and there’s the factor of costs. For some couples in the United States surrogacy can reach up to $80,000."
This was "Julie," an American thirtysomething who'd come to India to pay a poor village woman to bear her baby. She went on:
"You have no idea if your surrogate mother is smoking, drinking alcohol, doing drugs. You don't know what she’s doing. You have a third-party agency as a mediator between the two of you, but there’s no one policing her in the sense that you don't know what's going on."
Would you want this woman owning your womb?
The Indian surrogate mothers quoted along with Julie in a report on American Public Media's "Marketplace" on NPR last week didn't much appear troubled by that kind of thought. After all, the money they were earning for their services — $6,000 to $10,000 – might have been a pittance compared to what surrogates in the United States might earn, but it was still, for their families, the equivalent of 10 to 15 years of normal income.
They couldn't hear Julie speaking in her awful, entitled tone. And if they had, would they have cared? "From the money I earn as a surrogate mother, I can buy a house," said Nandani Patel, via a translator. "It's not possible for my husband to earn more as he's not educated and only earns $50 a month."
We, however, can hear the imperious tone, so much more audible in radio than in the troubling print reports that have surfaced lately on Indian surrogate mothers' "wombs for rent." And we should care about how things sound.
Because what's going on in India – where surrogacy is estimated now to be a $445-million-a-year business — feels like a step toward the kind of insane dehumanization that filled the dystopic fantasies of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale. (One "medical tourism" website, PlanetHospital.com, refers to the Indian surrogate mother as a mere "host.") Images of pregnant women lying in rows, or sitting lined up, belly after belly, for medical exams look like industrial outsourcing pushed to a nightmarish extreme.
I say "feels like" and "look like" because I can't quite bring myself to the point of saying "is." And in this, I think, I am right in the mainstream of American thought on the topic of surrogate motherhood.
Unlike in France, where commercial surrogacy is banned, or in Italy, where almost every form of assisted reproduction is now illegal, laws in the United States are highly ambivalent on this most drastic use of reproductive technology. Commercial surrogacy is legal in some states, illegal in others and regulated differently everywhere, and little that's clear and conclusive about where a birth mother’s rights to a baby end and where the fee-paying mother's rights begin.
Like Warner, my first reaction to this story was revulsion.
On one side, I saw wealthy, spoiled Americans for whom the world is a giant marketplace of brown people who can be paid to take care of their every need.
Like many women my age, I know lots of women who have struggled with infertility and pregnancy loss. Intellectually I know we all want what we want, and the pain of not getting what you want from life is very real.
But in a deep, emotional sense, I have very little sympathy for people who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on fertility treatments and make a biological pregnancy the centre of their lives. Frankly, they make me sick.
I'm not especially concerned with whether people can have babies or not. Some can, some can't. Adopt. Or build a life without children. Accept that life doesn't always turn out as we plan, and move on. If infertility is a painful truth to live with, so is disability, so is cancer, so is losing a partner, so is... lots of things. Life is full of pain, and we adapt, and we transcend, and we move on. You can't buy your way out of everything.
And on the other side, I saw exploited women, forced by circumstance into selling their bodies. Of course, I immediately thought of The Handmaid's Tale, a nightmarish vision of women reduced to their reproductive functions.
But then I started reading the comments on Warner's post. And my mind started to change. Some excerpts:
While I have mixed feelings on this, it seems the wowen in this particular story are not being harmed. Rather, they are given excellent treatments and a chance to better themselves and their families. One article I read on the same clinic even mentioned how the women took english and computer classes during the day ro pass the time. I say let the women themselves and the parents of these babies decide if someone is being harmed in all of this. It seems that there is a degree of desperation on both sides, but at the end of the day, both parties seem satisfied.
. . .
A poor Indian woman does have other choices — she could always sell a kidney, couldn't she?
. . .
The Indian women quoted in your article are happy with the arrangement. YOU are squeamish. Under the guise of "protecting" women who are happy with the arrangement, you analyze its morality. Why are you qualified to set the moral standard?
Aren't you projecting YOUR "very meaningful" pregnancy experience onto theirs? And rather horrified, perhaps, that something that was very meaningful for YOU — is for sale by others & they are GLAD?
You have plenty of money. They don't. It's their call how to use their bodies.
...
Every day on the college campus where I worked, I saw solicitations for sperm donors, egg donors, and healthy medical research participants. These all seemed to pay well, and would be tempting to the college student in need of some extra cash. I agree the idea of "outsourced" pregnancies seems more disturbing, but perhaps it's just because the visual is more disturbing. Surely getting paid to take experimental drugs/vaccines or taking hormones in order to have eggs extracted is also "selling your body," and could be dangerous, as well.
Many jobs pay extra because of the physical risk involved. Why is only surrogacy problematic?
Commenters took all sides of the issues.
While I frequently find Ms. Warner's comments insightful and intelligent, I found this piece to be judgmental, harsh, and moralistic. Before you decide what is best for the infertile woman and her surrogate - walk in their shoes.
. . .
I have to say this is absolutely ridiculous! A woman who has to pay someone to have her child because they are soooooo desperate to be a mother needs a therapist. If a woman cannot physically give birth to a child she does one of two things. 1)Accept it and move on with her life, or 2) Adopt a child. There are thousands of children around the world who are in need of good, loving parents. A woman's world will not come to an end because she cannot give birth to a child.
. . .
This makes me ill.
. . .
Of course impoverished people are desperate enough to sell their bodies. Does that mean we should buy them? Should these people forever be resources to the "developed world" rather than further their own progress? And I don't understand the need for a surrogate 'womb' - please - there are millions of children that need parents. If it's a problem with the adoption system, fix it. Really, I don't get it. I'm a woman who is very very eager to have children but you know what, if it doesn't happen there's no way I'm going to pay someone to do it for me.
. . .
Am I missing something? What, exactly, is wrong with renting out your womb for a boatload of money (at least in your own country's economy)? It's not your egg or your partner's sperm. It's just your womb space. And you get a LOT of money. And medical treatment. In fact, as part of your rental contract, you have to be (oh horrors!) as healthy as possible for 9 months. Yes, I can see the moral issue here... oh wait, I can't. What's the big?
As part of the Haven Coalition in New York, I had the opportunity to work with feminists much younger than myself, whose attitudes I found more practical and less judgmental than many of my feminist peers. I had several Haven friends who had done egg donation to pay for college tuition, and I knew women who did sex work to finance their art. Their attitude: use what you have. It's my choice. Why shouldn't I?
There's little doubt that it would be a better world if these Indian women had more options through which to provide for their families. But that's not the world we live in, here and now. We can work towards that world, but these women can't wait for that day.
Once on this blog, I plugged a local food bank, and reminded people to give to the food bank in their own area. A commenter mentioned he doesn't donate to food banks "on principle," because charities relieve government from doing its job. I also think governments should do more to alleviate poverty. But what does that do for hungry people today? They can't wait for utopia to come to town.
It's all well and good to say "women shouldn't have to do this!" but then what do they do?
All my life, I've fought for the right of all women to control their own bodies. That goes for these women in India, too.
And if I'm disgusted at the lengths some people will go to have a biological child, my opinion doesn't change their reality. Likewise for the women who serve surrogates.
If this issue interests you, I recommend scrolling through the many comments at the Domestic Disturbances post. Good reading.
14 comments:
A deeply disturbing and complex issue. It seems to me to come down to a question of which side of the equation one focuses on—the buyer or the seller.
“But in a deep, emotional sense, I have very little sympathy for people who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on fertility treatments and make a biological pregnancy the centre of their lives. Frankly, they make me sick.”
I couldn’t agree more. I also think, with everyone else, that we have no business judging the women who rent their wombs in such a way. We really don’t know what it’s like to live in the kind of abject circumstances many women in the south live in--and even if we did, it still wouldn’t matter. And, as with the artist you cited, doing sex work on the side to supplement her income, even when the circumstances aren’t as impoverished, it remains the woman’s body, to do with as she likes.
Still, just as I wouldn’t wish prostitution on a woman I cared for, neither would I encourage her to rent her womb out to another. I likewise worry about the kind of society that gives an unhesitating green light to these sorts of activities.
Something in me will always recoil at the prospect of something so special, miraculous, even, as childbirth being reduced to yet another market relationship. There really seems to be no end, no corner, no hidden interstice of our existence, immune to the logic of commodification. I hope always to recoil from this kind of thing.
Thanks for your thoughts, TheIronist.
Something in me will always recoil at the prospect of something so special, miraculous, even, as childbirth being reduced to yet another market relationship. There really seems to be no end, no corner, no hidden interstice of our existence, immune to the logic of commodification.
Very well said - and so true. I think that's the basis for my initial revulsion. "Even this is being sold??"
But as you rightly say, we haven't walked in their shoes.
Also, just a side note, the sex work my friend did wasn't actually prostitution. It was done online, and on the phone. I don't know if she ever had physical (as opposed to virtual) sex for money - she might have and not told me. But the phone and online stuff paid really well, and she found it less demeaning than the office work I've always done (which I have never found demeaning). So there you go. Each to her own.
Courts addressing the issue of the legality of surrogacy contracts in the US have also on occasion raised the issue of whether these contracts raise issues of class: wealthier women will exploit the economic needs of poor women. Some feminists responded to these suggestions by objecting to the attitude which suggests women do not have the ability to decide what kind of contracts to enter into.
Some feminists responded to these suggestions by objecting to the attitude which suggests women do not have the ability to decide what kind of contracts to enter into.
Amy, that's a very good point.
When contracts are entered into between people of vastly unequal power, it's reasonable to ask if both parties can be said to have the same free choice. I think of the supposedly volunteer US Army. With so few options for education or health care, can it truly be said to be voluntary.
Employee contracts can be the same. I know many of my writing contracts have been take-it-or-leave-it - so I could agree to terms I didn't like, or not get the assignment, because the publisher held all the power.
Surrogacy can be seen that way. It may not be an accurate picture, though. But I can see it working on that model.
I teach the first year course in contract law, and I always start the course with the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court addressing the issue of surrogacy contracts and striking down the one at issue in that case.
Your point about whether there is a real choice on the part of the surrogates is always a key part of that discussion as are the problems of sexism and classism. It's a great way to start the year because it forces the students to think about what we mean by "freedom of contract." I think that it also makes it clear to the students that legal decisions implicate social and political values and cannot be viewed in a vacuum.
I think it makes a difference that the surrogates are already mothers. When I first read this article, I started thinking about how much money it would take to get me to be a surrogate mother, and I did arrive at a price. But then I thought about people with that kind of money to spend on surrogacy not adopting a child (or 6) because their own DNA is so fucking special, and realized I could never be party to that.
But if I had children, I would feel morally obligated to do it for the amount of money I had in mind (not 10-15 years income - it's way more than that). My qualms about people spending so much money to replicate their own precious DNA would be nothing when compared with ensuring that my own children are never ever hungry or homeless at all ever in their lives regardless of what happens to me and independent of my ability to invest the money.
Thanks L-girl for the thoughtful post - I'm still thinking about it and am far from reaching a conclusion. I think the comparisons that are being made with prostitution are pushing me back to my first reaction of disgust with the idea.
I think the role that prostitution has in objectifying women and making a commodity of sex has far reaching consequences in terms of the way society views and treats women at large. In a similar way there is a risk that forms of surrogacy and adoption where large sums of money change hands can change the way society views children - that in some way they could be seen as the ultimate 'big ticket' consumer item. Obviously I have nothing but sympathy for the Indian women involved - but empathising with someone's reasoning is not always a good reason to believe that what they are doing is reasonable or acceptable especially perhaps when the circumstances leading to the decision are so wrong in themselves. I think this is an example of the way that injustice is a disease that eats away at the humanity of all who witness it.
Another thought on this one - the article implies that surrogates in the US are also paid - is this the case? My understanding is that in the UK - and I assume many other countries - it is not legal for payment to be made for surrogacy beyond fairly nominal costs - and that as a consequence surrogacy is pretty rare. I think that this is probably a factor in my reaction. As I say I haven't really made up my mind yet but I certainly find the idea fairly disturbing.....
Another thought on this one - the article implies that surrogates in the US are also paid - is this the case?
In the US, this is a matter of state law, not federal law, and it varies from state to state. Some find all surrogacy contracts unenforceable, some place various restrictions on enforceability, and some states have not even addressed the issue. Although I haven't done a survey of all 50 states, it is almost always the case that states refuse to enforce a surrogacy contract that looks like baby-selling. Some states will allow the surrogate's medical expenses to be paid; some prohibit any payments at all.
Amy and WER, thanks for sharing those thoughts. Very important stuff.
I think it makes a difference that the surrogates are already mothers.
ImpStrump, your point about this is a big key to empathizing with the Indian women's POV, to the extent that we can.
My qualms about people spending so much money to replicate their own precious DNA would be nothing when compared with ensuring that my own children are never ever hungry or homeless at all ever in their lives regardless of what happens to me and independent of my ability to invest the money.
When taken together with how few options these women have to give their children that kind of insurance - and to give themselves the peace of mind that would come with knowing their children are economically safe - it becomes a much more understandable choice.
And then, in my opinion, our disgust with the arrogance of the buyers or our outrage over the commodification of birth, or any other judgments we make, are moot.
So far, I'm in total agreement with you, L-girl. And yet, I suspect we don't have the last word on the issue.
For example, as someone who works in politics, my immediate question is, what are the legal and policy implications of your/our position? Does our sympathy with the circumstances of the Indian women force us into a kind of hands-off role with respect to the industry (and yes, it is now an industry, if only in its formative stages)? What will be the role of government in regulating the surrogacy industry?
Or, if we're American, and as Amy has suggested (thanks for your comments, by the way, Amy), surrogacy is not allowed in US states the question becomes: how can we allow American citizens to engage in a form of commerce in India that is illegal in their own country? If we agree that Indian women should be able to engage in surrogacy for a price, do we then need to allow American women the same right? And if so, will we be content to narrow the terms of the exchange to such an extent that they can be fit within the frame of contract law? If in the end it becomes a question for contract law for purely pragmatic reasons—to ensure that the exchange takes place under strictly controlled and safe conditions—then fine. We must make these kinds of compromises when dealing with the real world. Still, the prospect makes me more than a little queasy. I’m also wondering what bodies will regulate this exchange both domestically and internationally?
And finally, on a more philosophical note, what will the subsequent bureaucratization and institutionalization of the practise of poor women renting out their wombs to wealthy ones do to us as a people—i.e., what, if any, will be the long-term spiritual consequences?
And yet, I suspect we don't have the last word on the issue.
We certainly don't, nor should we. If we truly stand for reproductive freedom, only the participants involved should have the last word.
That's never the case, of course. But I believe it's the proper extension of that position.
You raise a lot of interesting issues, all being dealt with as we write on an ad-hoc, we'll-deal-with-that-when-we-get-there basis.
Just one point of clarification, Ironist: I did not mean to suggest that surrogacy is not allowed in the US. Some states will not enforce the contracts, but as far as I know, no state has outlawed the practice. That is, people may enter into these contracts without penalty, but may have trouble enforcing them in SOME states. Other states will enforce them, if the contracts comply with specific conditions of that state's law, e.g., no payment of money beyond medical expenses, that the woman be represented by counsel, that the woman be over a certain age, etc. I in fact know parents who used surrogacy here in MA without any legal problems, even though the court here refused to enforce a particular contract that ended up in court when the surrogate refused to go through with surrendering the baby. So, just to be clear, surrogacy is NOT illegal in the US, but enforcement of the contracts may be a problem for someone seeking relief in court.
Hope that helps.
Amy,
Thanks. It does indeed help.
Post a Comment