The "outsourcing" of surrogacy, from a feminist perspective.

[BlueIris]

So, I found this thread in LBN (now moved) yesterday, about an increasing number of women serving as surrogates in India for couples from other nations.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2554576

Just wondering if feminists here wanted to comment.

No, really, I'm just aiming for feminist perspectives on this issue from our posters here.

For the record, I think it's questionable.

[Branjor]

1. It's worse than questionable...

Limits have been put on surrogacy in the U.S. because of its exploitive nature. It exploits poor women the most because very few women would do it if not for the money. Women are treated as mere incubators and beyond that their motherhood is considered unimportant.

Some good reading on the subject:

Sacred Bond: The Legacy of Baby M by Phyllis Chesler

The Mother Machine by Gena Correa

[BlueIris]

3. Thanks. "Exploitive" was the word I wanted to use.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. From a feminist standpoint it disturbs me

Basically I foresee a time when wealthy women who don't care to go through the rigors of childbirth will routinely "outsource" this function to poorer women.

As for surrogacy for situations where a woman is physically unable to bear a child, I gotta say I'm kind of ambivalent about that too. Sure, it's completely your choice if you want to do that and a friend or relative agrees to do it, or you hire a stranger. But honestly, aren't there enough children who need homes in the world? Why do people need to go to such lengths to have their "own" babies?

[BlueIris]

4. I often wonder about the second issue you raise...

'cause when I read about surrogacy situations, I often find myself thinking of the bio parents and asking, "You gotta have your 'own' biological kids that bad? There's nobody you can adopt or foster?" But I have heard a number of infertile couples say that for various reasons, they aren't considered eligible to be adoptive parents or even to explore foster-to-adoption scenarios. And I do know that it can be very, very difficult to adopt a child, even if you do meet all the requirements mandated in your state/country or by other applicable authorities.

Still, I personally can't envision ever wanting to raise a child (bio or adoptive) so badly that I would feel entitled to exploit someone to do it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

5. I guess I hadn't considered that

It is unreasonably hard to adopt in this country. On the one hand it's good because it keeps kids from going to just anybody, but I also hear that a lot of good people are denied the ability to adopt for some pretty arbitrary reasons. Then again, you have a great point about it still possibly exploiting another person.

What's really outrageous is that there are still thousands of kids who don't have parents in this country. Every week my local newspaper runs these heartbreaking stories about kids in foster care who want to be adopted. Most of them are older, and some have disabilities, so they probably won't be.

[lizerdbits]

7. I think a lot of times the available kids are the problem for the parents

People want babies, usually white. Not older kids taken out of abusive/neglectful homes that may have emotional problems from the conditions they were in. I think they also want a child who looks like them (race) and who won't be old enough to know they're adopted until the adoptive parents want to tell them.

One of my sister's friends is close to getting a baby from Guatemala. Wife is white, husband from India, they had one child and she was not able to get pregnant again. They picked an area where the adopted child would have the same skin color as their biological child. I see her on christmas and find out that Guatemala has now banned adoptions to other countries starting next year but they were supposed to be grandfathered in since the process was already underway (they were there shortly after the child was born and have lots of pictures). Sort of OT since it's not surrogacy but the fact that their adopted child look like the biological one was really important to them.

Edited to add 'for the parents' to the subject line, it sounded like blaming children up for adoption if they were taken from bad homes.

[BlueIris]

8. What saddens me most about the motives of most people seeking to have or raise

children these days is how the parents put their own needs first.

[lizerdbits]

9. Mostly agree

I try to imagine it from a parent perspective (which is odd since I'm not interested in kids myself) or from an adopted child perspective (which I'm not).

Really wanting a child that looks like it's biologically similar I think is ridiculous, the reason for my sister's friend was so the child wouldn't feel "left out." I don't know this couple really well but I'm not sure I buy that. I'm sure there are plenty of white, black, etc children in the area that would love to have a permanent home. If I were one of those children it's hard for me to imagine feeling "left out" because I don't have the same skin color. But not being adopted I can never truly know.

As for the parents, children with emotional issues require more attention and maybe some counseling which is expensive. If I had a spouse and we both had to work full time to support everyone that would really be an issue because we couldn't afford to cut back our hours to give the child the attention (s)he needed. Although in that financial situation I don't think I'd be considering adoption and they probably have income requirements, I don't know details about the process.

Hope that's not too rambling, I'm getting ready for bed. :)

[ismnotwasm]

6. It's bullshit.

From a pure ethical standpoint. To put a different spin on it, I work in transplant. There are physicians who feel that allowing people to sell their your kidney is a great way to increase the supply in the wake of terrible need and demand. Ethicists are appalled at this concept.

Say, you get $250,000 plus all medical expenses paid to donate your kidney (I can't remember the dollar amount quoted, but it was more than 100 grand) It's your kidney right? Your body right? Well who would do it? The ones who need they money, the ones who don't understand the risks fully, and again the ones who need they money. Scattered in there would be the altruistic folks who donate ALREADY out of a giving nature. There are many, even most, successful living donors, one might argue.

But what an opportunity for those who see a large dollar amount and think hell yes. And again, the question are who are these donors? The selection process is fairly rigorous, drug addicts are out, HIV positive folks are out. Folks who have had cancer are mostly out. People with certain genetic conditions are out. People who are not altruistic and don't need the money aren't going to do it.

So you're left with a smaller population that it first appears. Who are these donors? The longer are harder you look at it, it becomes the poorer people, the desperate ones, and eventually the scam artists and exploiters will move in. It opens doors wide that are frightening to look into.

So back to this developing nation surrogacy. Women are already exploited to the hilt in the sex industry. I can see baby brothels run by unethical assholes who would feel perfectly justified taking 14 year olds and have them pop out a few babies to sell. In fact, I'd bet my best paycheck of the year it's already being done.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

10. You know it.

The best surrogates will be young, healthy women who probably wouldn't choose it if they had other options. Just like sex work. And like prostitution, there will be all sorts of "inducements" applied to the women, and their families.

[BlueIris]

11. "...and their families"?

See, even I hadn't taken it that far.

Scary.

[MountainLaurel]

12. I hadn't either

But I can see that being an especially important factor in a very patriarchal culture where women may have little to no control over their own lives. The same fathers and husbands who sell their daughters to brothels probably aren't going to be ethically challenged when it comes to renting out their wives' uteri.

And since medical personnel working with first-world partners in third-world countries aren't known for their strong ethical tradition (remember, stories like "The Constant Gardener" are based on true events), I could see normal protections like informed consent going right out the window depending on whose wallet is getting fatter.