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.
Buying Babies — by Rachel Lu
I’m writing a paper about “third party reproduction.” If you’re not familiar, this is what they call it when a person or couple decide to make a baby but involve a third party in the process, either as a source of genetic material or as a host for purposes of gestation. Surrogacy and artificial insemination are two of the primary examples.
Third-party reproduction is going to become a big bioethical debate over the next few years. It’s not a new thing, but the pressures to make it easier and cheaper are intensifying rapidly. The reason is obvious. Same-sex couples are creating a market for children. The fertility industry is looking to meet that demand.
I’ve been working on an analogy and I’m curious how it strikes people. I’d be grateful if people would tell me what intuitions they have about it.
Suppose we have an educated gentleman living in the antebellum South. He and his wife are unable to have children. This is a source of terrible grief to her. The gentleman isn’t racist, but he also isn’t a committed abolitionist; as a copious reader of history he sees slavery together with war, poverty, prostitution, political corruption, and a million other evils, as a part of the human story. It isn’t beautiful, but it’s a thing people do and he doesn’t feel personally called to interfere.
Since his wife so desperately wants a child, however, he sees an obvious solution. He goes to the local slave market and buys her a baby. He tells his wife if she loves him like her own she’ll find that this child can satisfy her maternal longings. She believes him, and they raise the baby as their son. When he reaches adulthood, they draw up the paperwork and formally emancipate him. They help him to find a job in the north where he can live and work as a free man.
How does this scenario strike people? Is it morally defective to acquire a child through a slave market, given the intention to love and nurture him? If so, can we find a morally significant difference between the couple that buys their baby from a slave market and the couple that buys their baby through a commercial surrogacy arrangement?
Published in General
I understand that the parents of the slave baby are wronged in a way that commercial surrogates don’t seem to be, because they don’t consent to give up their child. On the other hand, the baby was being sold in a slave market, so the detachment from his natural parents is a done deal; if the couple in question didn’t buy him he’d presumably fare much worse. So what’s the problem? He’ll have a much better life this way.
Thanks all. It’s great to get some other perspectives on this.
I think the real problem with my hypothetical couple lies in the intent to obtain a human being for the sake of one’s own fulfillment, by purchase. It’s intrinsically degrading to a human being to be bought, regardless of the intention of the purchaser. We might excuse it in cases where there is clear moral indignation on the buyer’s part (e.g. slavers capture my natural son and buying him back is the only safe rescue option.) But this couple seems happily complicit. That’s what’s really off about them.
Some people asked why the couple didn’t emancipate the child immediately. I would reply: does it matter? Kids don’t get a choice either way; we tell them who they have to live with. It seems reasonable to demand that we justify that edict. With natural offspring we can make a reasonable claim that our children are “naturally tied” to us, and adoption is a kind of “natural family mimic” in cases where biological parents aren’t available or suitable. In my analogy, if the child asked “why do I live with you?” the couple’s answer literally would be “because we bought you and therefore you’re ours”. But is it any different for the children of surrogacy?
When children are conceived in the ordinary way, their biological parents are following out the natural course of committed love. Children just happen, because that’s how committed love works and is supposed to work. They aren’t requisitioned. Surrogacy permits a reversal, allowing people with money to claim the right to be parents if they can raise the money to purchase a child. It’s a very dangerous, very degrading precedent to set.
I’m sorry, but that is incorrect. No one “needs” a child, no matter how they obtain that child.
I’d imagine that the number of parents who would say such a thing is on par with the number who would say “because your mother and I conceived you through coitus and therefore you’re ours.”
Perhaps I misunderstood your comment. In my mind, surrogacy is different from natural conception in a structural way. Under natural conception we understand that the child will be genetically linked to both parties–to both the mother and the father. Under third party reproduction, there is an explicit understanding that the child will be separated from one branch of his biological origins (or both branches perhaps).
It’s also different in a more subtle way. I think in both instances, couples may feel entitled to a child. That’s wrong, of course–I think we can agree that nobody is entitled to another human being. But under natural conception, there isn’t any recourse if the baby is delayed, or doesn’t arrive. Under natural conception, babies are not called forth at the will of somebody else–there is always an element of the unknown involved. In a subtle way, I think this preserves the dignity of the human person as a gift rather than an entitlement. (1/2)
It’s not that people conceived and born under third party reproduction are objectively worth less than other people, because they are not. But the stories at that site often express frustration at:
Surrogacy does NOT mean that the child will be separated from one or both branches of parents. In the case of heterosexual couples, it would often be the mother and father’s eggs and sperm, respectively, harvested and fertilized, and implanted into a surrogate through in-vitro fertilization. Surrogacy only means a rented womb, the biological parents are a separate matter. In the case of same-sex couples, only one parent can be in the dna. I don’t know why a surrogate would ever not be at least one parent, it’s kind of the point of using surrogacy.
Say it with me Jennifer – the plural of anecdote is not data.
I wouldn’t use the word “coitus”, no, but my 4-year-old is extremely aware of biological connectedness and babies being born to their mothers. If you asked him why he’s my son, he would be able to tell you that he lived inside of me once and was born to me.
It’s a defining element of our relationship, not some triviality. And for the couple in my example, the substitute is an act of purchase, a commercial transaction.
Bow chica bow wow…
There are obviously various circumstances. Sometimes it is the intended mother’s egg, sometimes not. Same with the intended father: often it’s his sperm but sometimes not. Even in the case where the intended parents are the biological parents, what is the answer to the leftover frozen embryos? There are now at least 600K of them in the United States alone. Also problematic is their legal status, often one of “property.”
I find it alarming that human life can be disregarded in this way, and classified as property to boot.
Maybe the big problem is that failure to recognize a child as a gift, but instead to see him/her as a product. I’ll try an analogy, imperfect as it is, to explain my point.
A gift carries with it a duty in the recipient. For example, a child gives his dad an outrageously ugly ties for Christmas. The father, I would argue, thereby receives a duty also: he has to wear the tie at least once so that his child will see that the gift is accepted and appreciated.
On the other hand, suppose dad goes out an buys an ugly tie. In this case he has no duty to wear the tie. He might get home, hear his wife say “wow, what an ugly ties,” and wisely choose to pitch it.
When a child is seen as a gift, this creates duties in mom and dad that are grounded in the very nature of the child. When the child is manufactured he is, like the tie, a mere commodity and, while the parents may feel the need to care for him, that duty originates in them rather than the child. This cannot help but erode the duty.
I think you are muddying the water with the idea of commercialization. Even natural born babies in a hospital are going to cost thousands of dollars in medical bills. Its not the act of money changing hands that make it any different. The focus on money makes this sound like a liberal screed. Instead I would focus on child well-being, what kind of family life is best for the child. I would also distinguish between surrogacy where the dna is from both parents with surrogacy where dna is from only one parent. Otherwise, different ideas are all getting conflated into one hodgepodge of disagreement.
[DOUBLE POST]
OK Rico 2.0 is finally up and (maybe) running for me. Hate the format. Have only gotten errors trying to post a comment earlier – let’s see if this one goes through:
Rachel, if you haven’t yet read “Price and Pretense in the Baby Market” (Google it – embedded linking isn’t working for me yet), please do. Same-sex couples aren’t “about to create a market”, there already is a market, and has been for some time.
Parental rights are quite different from slaveholder’s “rights”. Parental rights come with attached duties that, if not executed, can cause the parental rights to be revoked. Defining “parenthood” as the parental rights-duties complex, the so-called “market for babies” is really a market for parenthood.
Your conceit that the child must be purchased as a slave and then must wait until majority to be emancipated from slave status is an absurd one, and, dare I say it, even a slightly dishonest one.
Sorry… my comment begins at line 3. The first two are Midge’s.
As far as my example goes, I don’t think it’s absurd at all, given that the child is purchased for the purpose of being loved and nurtured. Legally perhaps he’s a slave, but the parents don’t regard him as such. Is the whole situation completely different just because the law would hypothetically step in if he were mistreated (which he isn’t)? That seems strange.
I agree with your concern over embryos. I only ask that we keep our logical arguments coherent. The situations of the child only having one or none of his parents be his biological parents, are a subset of surrogacy. When you have a problem with kids who are not the biological child of both parents, that does not equal a problem with surrogacy. You can, and seem to, have issues with Surrogacy that are not related to the biological parentage question, but have to do with ethics of creating embryos that will never be implanted. If we can just keep the arguments straight, I think everyone is better off.
I also don’t see what any of this has to do with a financial transaction. All babies cost time and money, no matter how they are acquired. Also wading into the weeds of the parents’ intentions is very problematic, and I don’t feel comfortable calling them selfish for wanting a child, or else every woman who’s biological clock is ticking is selfish, the only difference between her and someone using a surrogate is the natural option. And even good intentions are not a guarantee of good results.
Historically we have used biology as the primary principle in defining parenthood, and made accommodations from there as needed. If I am not mistaken, Rachel is calling into question a recent development: the idea that love should be regarded as the primary principle that defines parenthood.
She is also drawing attention, again if I am not mistaken, to the similarity between the two perspectives: the child’s perspective in her master/slave scenario, and the child’s perspective in modern-day third party reproductive situations. Both perspectives show how the biological principle for parenthood was disregarded in favor of the love principle at the behest of the adults.
This is different from traditional adoption. Traditional adoption shows respect for the biological principle, by requiring the state to prove that the biological parents have been found unfit, dead, or otherwise unable to care for the child. In adoption, the biological principle is first respected before it is disregarded; in the other situations, it is disregarded without being first respected.
There’s no reason to be condescending. Make your point, fine. But it’s outside the spirit of Ricochet to be nasty.
I don’t think your analogy really works. If I buy the use of someone’s uterus, I am buying production capacity, not the product. If your concern is that it allows someone to get a kid for selfish reasons, then I would say that is not enough of a concern to rule out 3rd party reproduction. I think that most of us had kids for selfish reasons. I mean, really, everything we do in our 20s is for selfish reasons. Then we figure out that there is more to it than just what we get, and we have to probably give more than we get, etc. So, I guess I’m just rambling on to say that I don’t think your analogy works. You aren’t buying a baby. You are renting a lawnmower.
Is it possible to separate the issue of surrogacy from the issue of abortion? As the laws stand now, unborn children can be destroyed if not wanted- or, if they are wanted, they can be considered commodities, to be bought and sold. That is the real problem: the fact that fetuses and embryos are considered to have no inherent worth, apart from whether someone wants them or not. If the embryo is wanted, then no expense will be spared: if he or she isn’t wanted, it’s off to the freezer for them. There is something wrong with this picture.
Rachel Lu’s example needs to be contrasted with a second case. Suppose there are two people who hate slavery wholeheartedly. They would like to rescue all the slaves, but only have enough money to buy one baby; and they are willing to accept all the joys and burdens of parenthood as part of the price they must pay to rescue that child from slavery. Coincidentally they attend the same auction as the first couple and buy their baby at the same price the first couple paid. Their actions are identical, but in the second case they spring from a universal charity, the desire to save another person from slavery. Unfortunately they can only save one child. In the first case the motivation sprang from self-love, they “needed” a child to cure an emptiness in their life. Purchasing a slave just happened to be the only available avenue. One hopes that the first couple will grow in love as they raise their child, and come to realize the defects of their original motivation.
I’m sorry is there any reason to think that the people who have their children through surrogacy are any less committed to their children? That seems to be what is being put forth here. That the means one acquires their child dictates their level of love and commitment. I frankly don’t see this to be the case at all. In fact considering the extra effort both legal and physical that needs to be put forth to have a child through this alternative means I would say these parents are far more committed, than two people who roll in the hay for one night.
I think it is very appropriate to ask about the by products of the artificial procedure, especially if it results in excess zygotes (as Jennifer brings up). That represents a real moral concern. But the one that comes to maturity I don’t think poses any problems.
Surrogacy doesn’t fit the analogy. A closer parallel to slavery is paying for adoption on an open market.
However, just because slavery seems analogous that does not mean that the practice of paying for adoption should be prohibited. The differences are significant.
The slave mother was not a free agent. Her baby is taken away and sold with or without her permission. In the adoption case, she has full authority to approve of the transaction or not. The mother can determine to whom her baby goes, and is in a position to consider her baby’s best interests.
Some babies are born out of the love of their biological parents. Some are not, but are conceived because their parents were not careful. Many biological parents don’t love each other or their children. Many children are loved by adoptive parents or step parents as much or more than they are by their biological parents. I can’t see any of these relationships as more sacred than the others.
My two sisters are adopted, and I dare you to tell my mother that I, being her only biological child, am more her daughter than my sisters, but that’s exactly what your argument implies. Our biological connectedness isn’t the defining element of our relationship, it’s because she’s my mom and she my sisters’ mom. Rachel, you and I may be more closely related genetically than my sisters, but I wouldn’t raise your kids if you died or drop everything if you needed me, but I would for my sisters, because they’re my sisters. Nuclear families transcend biology. Either you accept that premise or you don’t.
Thanks to Jennifer and also to Mike. I think your comments both really hit the nail on the head. (KC too, as usual.)
Michael Collins, I’d say that your cases illustrate well the difference between adoption and third-party reproduction. One case starts with the recognition that there are needy people that I can help. To be sure, this can dovetail nicely with my desire to nurture; in itself I don’t think this is “selfish” or reprehensible at all. It’s healthy and natural to desire children at a certain stage of life. But that desire needs to be tempered by the recognition that I’m not entitled to them, and never could be; the intersection of my children’s lives and mine is a gift and blessing, but it couldn’t possibly be an entitlement because they’re people in their own right, whose lives are just as precious as mine.
In the second case, the child is acquired more explicitly to fulfill a desire to nurture. But for that desire, his existence would have been a matter of indifference to the couple. That evidences an improper comportement towards parenthood from the start.
Karen, I readily acknowledge your adopted sisters as your “real” family, but surely your ultimatum is too strong. (“Either you accept that or your don’t.”)
Suppose you have two new mothers who are sharing a room in a maternity ward. (Back when they did that, you know.) The nurses bring the babies in (back when they did that…) and the one mother says, “Oh, my, your baby is so much cuter than mine!” Her roommate replies, “Oh, I was just going to say the same about yours!” It then occurs to them that really, they just met these kids, so why not swap? So they do.
Does this seem to you like reasonable behavior, or would you, like me, be inclined to say that neither woman should be embarking on parenthood given such a callous attitude? Why does it matter, though, if “family transcends biology”? Why shouldn’t each woman have the baby she finds cuter?