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
But don’t get the government involved.
You have no proof this is slavery of any sort.
More argument by assertion.
Please at least pretend to respond to the arguments offered.
Also, the military can have you working for 9 months straight: it’s called deployment. Even when sleeping, are they really “off the clock”? I think not.
Been there, done that, and on call is not the same as actually doing the job for 9 months. ·14 minutes ago
Yes and being pregnant is not like traditional work. The point is more than you are never off the clock one way or another. The job may be less demanding during an on-call period, but you still have to be available and ready to do what needs doing. As for abortion, I don’t really see how that comes into whether surrogacy is abuse unless you’re talking about forced abortion which actually is abuse. I suppose, perhaps, people should know their surrogates and their opinions on abortion?
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. ·3 hours ago
Because you’re purchasing the child they give birth to? Because there is no lunch break or ability to just quit?
Pregnancy is not the same as pushing a wheelbarrow or inputting data.
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. ·3 hours ago
Because you’re purchasing the child they give birth to? Because there is no lunch break or ability to just quit?
Pregnancy is notthe same as pushing a wheelbarrow or inputting data. ·5 minutes ago
You are not purchasing the child. Children are not slaves of parents.
Pregnancy is different in form than pushing a wheelbarrow or inputting data. Fighting Fires is different from those too.
I am pretty sure women get to eat lunch and take breaks during pregnancy. As far as “quitting” you are doing what you contracted to do. Lots of contracts don’t let you just opt out. The Army can force you to stay in. Not sure that is slavery either.
You are upset about what other people do with their lives and money in a way that does not hurt you. Why?
You are not purchasing the child.
Yes, you are; you give the woman– or the company– money, she– or they– give you the child you ordered.
If you can’t figure out the qualitative difference, there’s an issue. I thought that your apparent missing of PracticalMary‘s argument was simple misunderstanding, but you are acting as if you can’t recognize it.
Feel free to refute her argument, preferably with something besides more equivocation.
“During,” not “from”– and eating lunch is not the same as having a lunch break.
Even the military cannot have you working for 9 months straight through, even if one ignores the kind of regulations that would be involved.
Re comment # 66
“If you don’t like it, don’t do it. But don’t get the government involved.”
But Brian, in a manner of speaking, isn’t the government already involved ?
From : Wombs For Rent…
“Those seeking to have a child through surrogacy try to use the health insurance provided by the federal government to military personnel —Tricare—which covers prenatal care and childbirth, to cover surrogacy pregnancies. There is no policing by Tricare to determine whether a military wife is having a child with her husband or selling the use of her body—and using taxpayer dollars to pay for—a surrogate pregnancy. They can simply lie.
You are not purchasing the child.
Yes, you are; you give the woman– or the company– money, she– or they– give you the child you ordered.
If you can’t figure out the qualitative difference, there’s an issue. I thought that your apparent missing of PracticalMary‘s argument was simple misunderstanding, but you are acting as if you can’t recognize it.
Feel free to refute her argument, preferably with something besides more equivocation.
Even the military cannot have you working for 9 months straight through, even if one ignores the kind of regulations that would be involved. ·53 minutes ago
First: you don’t get the child you ordered. You get the child that was birthed. Sometimes, this means cerebral palsy or a premature child or god knows what else. You get the child that was born to you, even if it was by a surrogate. Control what you like, there’s only so much control to be had.
Also, the military can have you working for 9 months straight: it’s called deployment. Even when sleeping, are they really “off the clock”? I think not.
You are not purchasing the child.
Yes, you are; you give the woman– or the company– money, she– or they– give you the child you ordered.
If you can’t figure out the qualitative difference, there’s an issue. I thought that your apparent missing of PracticalMary‘s argument was simple misunderstanding, but you are acting as if you can’t recognize it.
Feel free to refute her argument, preferably with something besides more equivocation.
Even the military cannot have you working for 9 months straight through, even if one ignores the kind of regulations that would be involved. ·53 minutes ago
First: you don’t get the child you ordered. You get the child that was birthed. Sometimes, this means cerebral palsy or a premature child or god knows what else. You get the child that was born to you, even if it was by a surrogate. Control what you like, there’s only so much control to be had.
Also, the military can have you working for 9 months straight: it’s called deployment. Even when sleeping, are they really “off the clock”? I think not. ·11 minutes ago
Yes.
If you don’t like it, don’t do it.
But don’t get the government involved.
You have no proof this is slavery of any sort.
You want to crusade against something? Sex slaves are a real problem. This is not worth the energy at all.
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.
Buying actual bodies/parts -vs- their service, etc.
As for not realizing this part of Libertarianism, look at their abortion arguments, suicide, etc. There is nothing but the contract and ill-defined non-aggression. I agree it’s not logical.
But don’t get the government involved.
You have no proof this is slavery of any sort.
You want to crusade against something? Sex slaves are a real problem. This is not worth the energy at all. ·13 hours ago
I am saying they are same issue. Why would a Libertarian be against sex slavery as long as ‘both agree’. That battered woman can just leave, right?
I would be interested to know Carol’s thoughts on the con-arguments on this thread. Did she miss these arguments, not think they are correct, or just think they are mean?
That’s the heart of the disagreement.
If people start to see sex and pregnancy as something that can be legitimately commodified and sold (by consenting adults, so not slavery), does it have an impact on people who don’t see sex and pregnancy as something that can be legitimately commodified or sold? Does it, at some level, degrade both of these at a societal level?
Pregnancy isnotthe same as pushing a wheelbarrow or inputting data. ·
I do see your point wrt rape and pregnancy, but I don’t agree that surrogacy and rape sit in the same category – because one is consensual and the other is not. Rape is bad for a whole lot of reasons, none of which (imo) holds good for surrogacy.
But don’t get the government involved.
You have no proof this is slavery of any sort.
More argument by assertion.
Please at least pretend to respond to the arguments offered.
Also, the military can have you working for 9 months straight: it’s called deployment. Even when sleeping, are they really “off the clock”? I think not.
Been there, done that, and on call is not the same as actually doing the job for 9 months.
First: you don’t get the child you ordered. You get the child that was birthed. Sometimes, this means cerebral palsy or a premature child or god knows what else. You get the child that was born to you, even if it was by a surrogate. Control what you like, there’s only so much control to be had.
Thus, aborting those that are not going to be what was ordered, as has been pointed out at least twice in the comments here.
That some of the products are discovered to be defective after delivery doesn’t mean that they weren’t made to order.
Yes and being pregnant is not like traditional work.
At least you’re willing to agree on that….
For the rest, it’s been covered in comments already. I’m done repeating myself or others.
I am saying they are same issue. Why would a Libertarian be against sex slavery as long as ‘both agree’. That battered woman can just leave, right?
It doesn’t hurt me, they’re consenting adults and because it doesn’t directly affect me I have no standing to object. *sarc*
“If you don’t like it, don’t do it. But don’t get the government involved.”
But Brian, in a manner of speaking, isn’t the government already involved ?
From : Wombs For Rent…
“Those seeking to have a child through surrogacy try to use the health insurance provided by the federal government to military personnel —Tricare—which covers prenatal care and childbirth, to cover surrogacy pregnancies. There is no policing by Tricare to determine whether a military wife is having a child with her husband or selling the use of her body—and using taxpayer dollars to pay for—a surrogate pregnancy. They can simply lie. ·6 hours ago
Edited 6 hours ago
My name is: Bryan. With a Y.
It is RIGHT there as part of my name every time I post.
If you are unable to read my name well enough to type it out right, are you really paying any attention to the rest of what I have to say?
Pregnancy does not = slavery.
It appears to y’all that is the case.
I don’t see it that way. I see pregnancy as a 9 month process, that places some strain on the body, but is not as life threatening as other occupations can be.
Our core starting points are different. That being the case, there is not much room for middle ground it seems to me.
Thanking you in advance for your patience and understanding—Ansonia
If you are unable to read my name well enough to type it out right, are you really paying any attention to the rest of what I have to say?
From someone that has consistently done argument by assertion, and can’t grasp very simple arguments laid out for him, that’s rich.
The old line about when you should pound on the facts, the laws and the table comes to mind.
-someone whose name is misspelled more often than it’s correctly spelled, not counting nicknames.
It appears to y’all that is the case.
If that is what you’ve gotten out of the wide range of arguments, then it’s clear that trying to reason with you is useless. You’ve been told yellow, blue and red, and apparently heard green.
Since it’s clear that you won’t be swayed, I’ll let the sound arguments made stand and take my leave.
Apparently, Foxfier, you think I should not take offense at the misspelling of my name. It is a life-long complaint, and frankly, the fact my name is part of the text quoted means that getting it wrong is really a feat. And yes, I take offense at it. At least it is my real name.
As far as other arguments made, as I said, when you have a difference of basic starting point, you cannot use arguments based on those starting points.
At no point have I argued people should change their minds, so I have no reason to try to do that. My argument is that you do not have a right to impose your will on others because you don’t like what they do.
I don’t think that is Libertarian, or libertarian, or conservative. I think it is embracing freedom of choice.
Foxfier
As far as other arguments made, as I said, when you have a difference of basic starting point, you cannot use arguments based on those starting points.
At no point have I argued people should change their minds, so I have no reason to try to do that. My argument is that you do not have a right to impose your will on others because you don’t like what they do.
I don’t think that is Libertarian, or libertarian, or conservative. I think it is embracing freedom of choice.
Foxfier ·47 minutes ago
Some criticize surrogacy as “commodifying” the child or the mothering process. That a charge leveled by socialists who don’t approve of profiting on the sale of necessities.
Is it wrong to commodify health care by allowing doctors to sell their services, or to commodify religious observances by asking for donations, or to charge a market clearing price for necessities during a crisis? No, no, and no. Same for surrogacy. It’s not wrong. ·7 hours ago
I feel the birth mother is the child’s mother. Up to that point everyone else’s role in the child’s creation has been minimal. You may not agree but I think in many states it has been defined that way. So she is selling her child, and children are not like other goods; civilized people don’t buy and sell them. This is hardly socialism.
“Bob” is rarely misspelled.
Unless the child’s adopted, in which case the adoptive mother would be. Right?
I feel the birth mother is the child’s mother.
As a general point, I feel there’s a lot of “social conservatives have to stop imposing their views on others” talk on various issues, when nobody’s doing any imposing. It comes across as “How dare you judge anyone else’s actions” which of course we all do and must do, all the time. One might keep one’s judgment quiet, but Ricochet is specifically for expressing opinions, and here in this post a question was asked and people answered.
I feel the birth mother is the child’s mother. Up to that point everyone else’s role in the child’s creation has been minimal.
I suppose there is a sense in which the “birth mother” is the child’s mother, but in a more important sense she is not. It is not her biological child, and everyone knows it and feels it. Her connection to the child is ephemeral. She is unlikely to care much about what happens to the child in the future.
The child is not being sold. It was never the “birth mother’s” to sell. Before the child was conceived, she had already agreed that she had no rights to it. Moreover, the state should not recognize such rights for the surrogate.
The one somewhat persuasive objection to “baby selling” is that the child might go to the highest bidder, and thus to less-than-optimal parents. This is not the case here, as it goes to the people who care about it most in the world.
The error made by surrogacy opponents is to overestimate the connection a surrogate has to the child she carried, but to whom she is not related.
I probably shouldn’t jump in here (and obviously the comment quoted is sarcastic), but when you apologize and in the same breath talk about extenuating circumstances, the apology rings hollow. If you’re really sorry, simply apologize, don’t try to drum up sympathy for yourself. In my opinion, apologies shouldn’t contain excuses. ·11 hours ago
Oh the message is clear, Mike: I should not have been offended.
Sarcasm cancels out apologies.