Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Is Surrogacy Abusive to Women?
As someone who considers herself a reasonably committed pro-lifer (exceptions only for rape, incest, life of the mother), it was an unsettling — but useful — experience for me to find myself on the opposite side of a “reproductive health” issue from those who are usually my allies.
The June 28 edition of National Review Online featured an interview conducted by Kathryn Jean Lopez with Kathleen Sloan, a member of the National Organization for Women’s national board. Titled “Wombs for Rent: A war on women that Left and Right can end together,” it celebrated the potential political alliance between liberal and conservative women in opposition to “third-party reproduction.”
Kathryn Jean Lopez (whose devout, principled Catholicism I have long admired) presumably opposes third-party reproduction based on long-standing Church teaching, rooted in respect for the miracle and sanctity of human life. The interviewee, Kathleen Sloan, seems to oppose surrogacy based primarily on her belief that “[f]or millienia, across the globe, women have been sexually commodified in a patriarchal world; developments in biotechnology now allow for the reproductive commodification of women and their bodies.”
As an (orthodox!) Episcopalian, I am pro-life because I believe that each life is unique, irreplaceable and created by God. Certainly, assisted reproductive technology can always be misused — cloning, in my view, is wrong because it undermines the uniqueness of each life, for example — but that potential, alone, is insufficient to convince me that it ought to be banned. Perhaps there is something I’m missing (and I welcome the chance to be educated!), but it isn’t intuitively obvious to me that using medical advances to create life is morally objectionable in the way that using it to destroy life would be — especially if, as pro-lifers believe, no life is a “mistake.”
My discomfort with the right-left anti-surrogacy alliance isn’t just theoretical. As a matter of pro-life strategy, does it really make sense for committed pro-lifers (especially those who oppose virtually all abortion) to join arms with feminists like Sloan, who refers to surrogates as “women who sell their reproductive labor”? If pregnancy itself can be properly understood as “reproductive labor,” requiring women, by law, to carry pregnancies to term becomes tantamount to forced “reproductive labor,” i.e., slavery. And if — as those opposed to abortion exceptions believe — it is morally permissible to require rape victims to carry their pregnancies to term, why is it morally wrong to pay a willing military wife tens of thousands of dollars voluntarily to carry a child?
Finally, as a matter of overall political strategy, I have long wondered why committed, principled pro-lifers go out of their way to weigh in on “subsidiary” reproductive rights controversies like egg donation, surrogacy and in-vitro fertilization. With so many people still unconvinced, on libertarian grounds, about restrictions on actual abortions, wouldn’t it make more sense to emphasize areas of general agreement — like opposition to partial birth abortion, late term abortion, sex-selection abortions and the like?
Condemnation of assisted reproductive treatment (ART), used by married couples to have children, simply distances from the pro-life movement many women who would otherwise be sympathetic. It projects an image (for the most part, inaccurately) of pro-lifers as rigid and out-of-touch with the realities of many women’s lives. And it divides those who otherwise consider themselves pro-lifers, rather than adding to our ranks.
With the full understanding that few pro-lifers set out deliberately to alienate and hurt those who disagree with them, it was a valuable shift in perspective for me to stand on political ground I don’t usually occupy. Just about every woman I know who has availed herself of ART is sensitive about the subject; struggling to conceive and/or bear a child cuts to the very heart of our identities as women. That is a fact worth bearing in mind, along with the actual experiences of those who have been part of surrogacy agreements.
Indeed, a dear friend (and yes, it is a friend; I was blessed to be able to bear healthy twins at the ripe old age of 40!) and her husband were parties to a surrogacy agreement because of a medical condition that had always rendered her medically incapable of carrying their child. No one was “exploited” or “commodified” in any way — and having watched the child who resulted grow up, it is absolutely impossible for me to believe that any part of that decision was a mistake.
Published in General
My daughter could not become pregnant because, as a breast cancer survivor, it would have been too dangerous. So, before her surgery, radiation, and chemo, she and her husband had embryos frozen.
As I write this, I’m looking at my 3-year old twin grandchildren, one boy, one girl. The surrogate was a wonderful woman we did not know who had several children of her own (they were there with us for the birth), but for reasons that were private to her she was willing to do this for someone she had not previously met.
Both of these kids are the spitting image of their mother and father, and there is no doubt that my daughter and her husband were right in every way to do this.
This was a completely voluntary transaction, with no negative externalities. Forbidding it would have made a number of people unhappy, and to what end?
Yes. Yes. Yes. Exceptions for rape and incest are nothing more than an open door for abortion for any and every reason. Please reconsider your position, Ms. Liebau. Remember the lives of babies conceived in any manner are precious.
Abortion never improves the health of the mother. It is dangerous for all concerned.
I see it as being more demeaning to the kid … how would you like to know there was a receipt from when your parents’ bought you from your birth mom? ·9 hours ago
On the pro surrogacy side of things: many surrogates are surrogates for family members that cannot carry a child for a number of reasons. There are little to no expenses and the child is by no means “sold”. If surrogacy meant that the healthcare expenses for the pregnancy were covered, how does that mean that the child was sold?
Effectively, banning surrogacy is banning them. ·9 hours ago
No.
There’s a moral difference between the intention, the means, and the result. Just because the intention was noble and the result was glorious … doesn’t justify the means.
We have to be careful of the rhetoric. There’s an urge to say that a human life is sacred … so that however that life came into being is morally praiseworthy. No. To disagree with surrogacy is not to say that the children who come from surrogacy are themselves “immoral.” That’s a logical fallacy.
I’m not talking about the children being immoral – how could they be? I’m talking about them just being.
To disagree with surrogacy is not to say that the children who come from surrogacy are themselves “immoral.” That’s a logical fallacy.
If you say no surrogacy, you’re saying no more children like you. These children won’t circle around and find another womb to be in if you ban surrogacy – they just won’t exist at all. That’s the outcome of this ‘moral lesson’.
You did not grasp what I said.
I said that the intention and the result (which are praiseworthy) don’t justify the means. And, in turn therefore, it is not true that opposing surrogacy in any way insults or demeans the children who have come from it.
I think that surrogacy is a matter of a contract between consenting adults. Everyone wins.
Other than enforcing the contract, what moral right does the state have to say about any of it?
It might feel icky to some people, but that is not a state issue.
If you don’t like it, don’t do it. ·21 hours ago
Edited to add that I find it interesting that the title of the article and most of the pro posts are emotion based and not factual, as in what really happens.
What am I to tell my devout Catholic friend who abstained from intercourse outside of marriage, who only now that she is in her 40s has found a meaningful and long term romantic relationship? “Sorry, it’s immoral that your younger sister is willing to help you and your husband have a child because it’s creepy?”
How about “kids aren’t made-to-order commodities”? If your friend is a devout Catholic, she’s already not supposed to use IVF, even before one gets to the part where the biologically related to her kid would be mothered quite intimately by someone else.
Why use her eggs– the age of the mother is a risk for various outcomes, don’t want your product to be flawed; just have her sister get pregnant and give her the kid. Why not? Because it’s creepy? Dehumanizing to the kid and her sister?
Edited 0 minutes ago
Mary, even in the most hard-core libertarian pro-voluntary-slavery point-of-view, all parties *aren’t* agreeing. The child doesn’t get a say in whether he’d like to stay with his sperm/egg donors, the couple who ordered him out of the tissue warehouse catalog, or his landlord for the first nine months.
The sickening cases are where surrogacy is a commercial transaction renting the mother’s womb. Especially when it’s for women who are too rich and too busy to carry their own child, or for gay male couples who don’t need a woman except as a brood mare. But even genuinely infertile couples are using a strange woman’s body in a way that is abhorrent to me.
My understanding is even the commercial transaction are not wholly commercial. There is money changing hands, but the only people who “rent out their wombs” are those who deeply want to give others the gift of children but need the financial help to make is possible.
Many people have a love of their job– doesn’t mean their employment is not a commercial transaction. Are the good teachers who love their job not involved in a commercial transaction?
That said, that may be true in well-off USA, not so much for the outsourced labor. Pun not intended.
Edited 0 minutes ago
Mary, even in the most hard-core libertarian pro-voluntary-slavery point-of-view, all parties *aren’t* agreeing. The child doesn’t get a say in whether he’d like to stay with his sperm/egg donors, the couple who ordered him out of the tissue warehouse catalog, or his landlord for the first nine months. ·3 minutes ago
I know, but then they are just ‘bad’ Libertarians or perhaps Conservatives that don’t understand the core of the Libertarian social philosophy, or really are just small ‘l’ Libertarians.
Edited 0 minutes ago
Mary, even in the most hard-core libertarian pro-voluntary-slavery point-of-view, all parties *aren’t* agreeing. The child doesn’t get a say in whether he’d like to stay with his sperm/egg donors, the couple who ordered him out of the tissue warehouse catalog, or his landlord for the first nine months. ·4 minutes ago
I realize this but then they are just ‘bad’ Libertarians, or perhaps really Conservatives that don’t understand the core of Libertarian social philosophy, or maybe just small ‘l’ libertarians.
oops- Ricochet has been timing out and giving error reports this morning and I doubled it.
I personally would never do surrogacy or IVF. I’m much too cheap for that if it turns out we can’t have children. So we’d adopt instead. But moral or not, it’s not the state’s responsibility to tell (in this case) three consenting adults what to do. The usual litmus test for whether to involve authorities is when someone’s individual rights are being trampled on (property theft, assault, harassment, etc). Who is the victim in surrogacy? Maybe it’s distasteful, but as a matter of policy, leave the government out. Also, I find it curious that pro-lifers point to outstanding individuals and famous people whose mothers almost aborted them. Proof of what could be lost if you abort a child. Is the argument for surrogacy any less reasonable? Imagine all the beautiful children we would potentially lose out on.
To disagree with surrogacy is not to say that the children who come from surrogacy are themselves “immoral.” That’s a logical fallacy.
If you say no surrogacy, you’re saying no more children like you. These children won’t circle around and find another womb to be in if you ban surrogacy – they just won’t exist at all. That’s the outcome of this ‘moral lesson’.
So we should allow rape if we’re pro-life? Of course not, it dehumanizes a woman to be raped.
Kind of like being made-to-order dehumanizes the kid– or being sold to be delivered (again, pun not intended) at birth does. Someone born of rape is not required to not object to the actions of a rapist, and none of us would be here if not for a rapist back in the mists of time.
From another direction: unless you’re buying the beers, let’s not get into the “if your parents had never met, would you exist” stuff; we can say that the genetically identical person is very unlikely to come into being, yes, but that’s about all we can prove.
Ricochet 2.0 can’t get here fast enough…..
That’s probably just as expensive, if not moreso. Lawyers cost a lot of money. One round of IVF is about $10K-15K. Adoption can cost anywhere from $5K to $40K, depending on where you’re going, what agency you’re working with, and the kid themselves (local foster kids are at the low end). One of the above will only get cheaper with time, while the other one will likely only get more expensive.
That’s probably just as expensive, if not moreso. Lawyers cost a lot of money. One round of IVF is about $10K-15K. Adoption can cost anywhere from $5K to $40K, depending on where you’re going, what agency you’re working with, and the kid themselves (local foster kids are at the low end). One of the above will only get cheaper with time, while the other one will likely only get more expensive. ·0 minutes ago
The solution for a couple at my old church was work the grapevine to find a unmarried mom willing to adopt out instead of abort. When you can skip the agencies, it does get cheaper.
And just about everyone (my age, at least) knows someone who knows someone who’s dealing with an “oopsie” pregnancy/baby.
Mary, even in the most hard-core libertarian pro-voluntary-slavery point-of-view, all parties *aren’t* agreeing. The child doesn’t get a say in whether he’d like to stay with his sperm/egg donors, the couple who ordered him out of the tissue warehouse catalog, or his landlord for the first nine months.
I know, but then they are just ‘bad’ Libertarians or perhaps Conservatives that don’t understand the core of the Libertarian social philosophy, or really are just small ‘l’ Libertarians.
That’s a novel definition of Libertarianism: being unwilling to recognize the kid involved as a party to the deal. Had no idea it was the core of Libertarian thought.
Amy, we’re thinking of something like that or adopting an older toddler instead of an infant. I haven’t done much research on adopting in Alaska yet. We don’t plan on going outside the states.
But moral or not, it’s not the state’s responsibility to tell (in this case) three consenting adults what to do. The usual litmus test for whether to involve authorities is when someone’s individual rights are being trampled on (property theft, assault, harassment, etc). Who is the victim in surrogacy?
The kid, same as the kid is a secondary victim if conceived in rape. (Assuming they’re allowed to keep living.)
Incidentally, it’s up to five or six adults. Egg, sperm, womb, possibly someone being cloned, and a purchasing couple. In one of the gold-standard “why this is a bad idea” cases, only the husband of the ordering couple was related to the “defective” child they tried to force the surrogate to abort.
Given the dangers associated with egg donation, it’s sensible to shop around for some genetic input you prefer, and eugenic selection of sperm is old hat.
Crisis pregnancy centers might be a good start; iChoice in Washington has nice people.
I don’t think it should be banned, however I do think the medical community needs to do some serious debating of the ethics of fertility treatments.
http://ricochet.com/member-feed/Thoughts-on-the-story-of-the-surrogate-who-refused-an-abortion ·20 hours ago
This is a real horror story.
edit: Probably the same one Foxfier linked to just above. Great minds etc.
Pro surrogacy – it means that there are children existing today who would not exist without it.
Effectively, banning surrogacy is banning them.
Edited to add that I find it interesting that the title of the article and most of the pro posts are emotion based and not factual, as in what really happens. ·1 hour ago
Edited 1 hour ago
I fail to see what slavery has to do with this discussion. I did not mention slavery at all.
What we are talking about is paying someone for the use of someone’s womb. Please tell me how that is less moral than paying someone for the arms and legs for manual labor.
Zafar is exactly right. I view this the same way I do organ sales. I could at least understand religious opposition to it, however much I disagreed. But this? There will be more “wanted” children brought into the world, and with a guarantee virtually of being raised by two parents. We can harrumph all we want about the special uniqueness of children, but I don’t see how this is threatened by surrogacy. By the logic of opponents, should we also be opposed to nannies and babysitters since they are acting as temporary, short term parental surrogates?
Re comment 11
I’m dreading the day when science figures out not only how to fertilize a human egg in vitro but to carry the child to term entirely outside any woman’s body. The date of “birth” I suppose would have to be arbitrarily defined as nine months after the fertilization.
Should this happen, I predict all of liberaldom will herald it as the final triumph over the biological curse that women have had to face since the dawn of time. Girls will be expected to have their eggs harvested in their early teens, and then be sterilized, so that they can truly be just like men. Then, we’ll be wishing for the good old days when our problems were abortion, birth control and surrogacy.
The issue is not whether surrogacy is “creepy,” but is instead to be judged in accordance with the purpose of marriage and sexual intercourse. It should be obvious that the first function of sex is procreation. Therefore, to deliberately block conception is contrary to the most basic characteristic of sex. But sex has another purpose, and that is the unity of husband and wife which, hopefully, but not always, leads to a child. However, even when the first purpose is frustrated by physical infertility, the second, unitive function remains. But unity between a husband and wife is destroyed when a third party gets involved. In such cases,the unity is now between a husband,wife, and surrogate. The “oneness of themarried couple has been destroyed, with grave risks to the marriage. This, it seems to me,is the primary moral issue.
It is certainly sad when a married couple desire a child, but cannot conceive. But it seems to me that, since an intrinsically wrongful means is used to solve the problem, destructive effects will come about. Anything that interferes with the oneness of a married couple presents serious moral challenges.