Western baby outsourcing
Mon, 2007-12-31 10:45
#1
Western baby outsourcing
Mon, 2007-12-31 10:45
#2
According to [url=http://http:http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/361454.html//..., there is an increasing industry in India of outsourcing pregnancy -for pay. This brings all sorts of ethical issues. Firstly, I have trouble with the idea of surrogacy for pay (something all women are supposed to do, like getting married and having a white picket fence).That entire system is a baby making factory profiting from desperation (there was a nifty article about it in [i]Herizons[/i]).It puts a price on life. Secondly, although not all the infertile couples are non-Indian,I feel that there's an issue of race I just can't put my finger on. These women probably woulnd't go this route if they had another choice of making a good living- again its money exploiting desperation that comes from poverty in an industrializing country. On the other hand, it seems that these women are being well informed about what they're getting into.
Mon, 2007-12-31 11:03
#3
You can also buy "donor ova". Cheaper in South Africa. Google "reproductive tourism". The principle involved is to preserve White Dad's genetic link with the intended offspring. Huge unsurfaced race/patriarchy issues in that field. Allegedly no money for impoverished mothers and kids stuck in reserves or inner cities, but zillions being spent to preserve white, rich folks' Family Options.
[ 31 December 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Mon, 2007-12-31 15:31
#4
you can't put a price on life - my opinion is that this should be banned and not regulated like [url=http://www.australasianbioethics.org/Newsletters/063-2003-02-14.html#rep... article suggests it should be. However this would probably result in a black market (although it probably already exists), so in the end regulation is probably better. This entire industry commodifies women's bodies as a resource.
[ 31 December 2007: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]
Mon, 2007-12-31 21:54
#5
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:
you can't put a price on life - my opinion is that this should be banned and not regulated like [url=http://www.australasianbioethics.org/Newsletters/063-2003-02-14.html#rep... article suggests it should be. However this would probably result in a black market (although it probably already exists), so in the end regulation is probably better. This entire industry commodifies women's bodies as a resource.
To be honest I'm very surprised you're taking such a position. I had the impression you were very prochoice. Is it possible I'm confusing you with someone else, or are you somehow disassociating abortion rights with a right to be a celibate mother for a fee?
I think I'd probably consider something like this if I were somehow infertile, for at least one child. (To preemptively answer Martin Dufresne, no, I'm not Caucasian). Wanting to be a dad is something that's been in me for a very long time, way earlier than most, seeing how my kid would be similar and different etcetera. If a family is desperate for a child they can't have for medical reasons, and if a poor third world woman would really benefit from $15, 000, I think it'd be heartless for people with no conception of these worries to step in with the force of government and say "no".
[ 31 December 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Tue, 2008-01-01 06:58
#6
Makwa
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]If a family is desperate for a child they can't have for medical reasons, and if a poor third world woman would really benefit from $15, 000, I think it'd be heartless for people with no conception of these worries to step in with the force of government and say "no".[/b]
Are you seriously defending the practice of buying children from poor women in the developing world? The trafficking of human beings from developed countries is an abhorrent practice, however nacsent the stolen people may be.
Tue, 2008-01-01 07:42
#7
quote:
If a family is desperate for a child they can't have for medical reasons, and if a poor third world woman would really benefit from $15, 000, I think it'd be heartless for people with no conception of these worries to step in with the force of government and say "no".
Sure, in an ideal world, this family is going to embrace this child and they will be one big happy family. But this isn't the reality of "black market" baby trade. It is a slippery slope with horrifying implications, where regulations need to be imposed.
Tue, 2008-01-01 08:14
#8
quote:
Originally posted by Makwa:
[b]Are you seriously defending the practice of buying children from poor women in the developing world? The trafficking of human beings from developed countries is an abhorrent practice, however nacsent the stolen people may be.[/b]
I was referring to surrogacy not to kidnapping children.
Tue, 2008-01-01 09:26
#9
Failing to be pre-empted, I would suggest that discussing morality between rich people deeming themselves "desperate" to have a child (or a kidney or whatever) and people so poor thay cannot deny rich people/countries' requests is a nonsensical proposition.
In the realpolitik of family/"children's aid" systems, morality rarely resists the weight of big money and State power: offers cannot be refused or children are merely taken.
I know how, even without going to the formal route of so-called surrogacy/baby buying arrangements, in Canada or in "Third World" countries, impoverished and marginalized young women are daily pressured or sued into signing away their offspring, even before they are born, under intense pressure from government-appointed social workers. This is policy, I have first-hand knowledge of it. All is done in what is alleged to be the child's best interests, of course, and buttressed by hate discourse about young women's lack of morality, care, resources (see the slippery slope?).
Because the criteria used to 'place' these (preferably Caucasian) snatched babies have everything to do with household income, stability, i.e. class. Until this comes to perceived as a scandal, the self-serving principle exemplified by '500 Apples' statement will rule. But victims' voices are stifled when
bourgeois 'morality' rules.
[ 01 January 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Tue, 2008-01-01 09:46
#10
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[QB]
Because the criteria used to 'place' these (preferably Caucasian) snateched babies have everything to do with household income
Ok.
The link in the first post doesn't work.
So what I did was I read the first post. I'm assuming we're discussing hiring surrogate mothers, and not Angelina Jolie type "adoptions".
Tue, 2008-01-01 11:41
#11
There's always an ethical problem with surrogacy because it involves a wealthier woman purchasing the fertility of a poorer woman, whether she's in India or here.
Slightly OT but sort of pertinent, this Christmas we visited with one of my husband's cousins, who recently spent time in Guatemala, a place that has very high rates of child abduction. Kids there are told that if they see a policeman staring at them, they need to run away, because kids are taken and sold to families in the US, who are led to believe these kids are orphans.
Tue, 2008-01-01 12:40
#12
Makwa
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]I was referring to surrogacy not to kidnapping children.[/b]
I realize that. The exploitation of impoverished women in developing nations to force them into breeding for wealthy westerners so that they can subsequently 'harvest' their children and remove them from their mother's culture is not greatly distinct from kidnapping. In fact, in the way it forces these women to collaberate, with no opportunity to 'ransom' the child back to its culture, extended family and homeland, it is equally cold.
Tue, 2008-01-01 14:49
#13
You're absolutely right, I am pro choice when it comes to abortion- this involves a woman's choice of what she does with her body. But commercial surrogacy brings up the issue of choice- if the surrogate is in a 3rd world country, does the woman really have a choice ? As to being a "celibate mother" most women choose this route because they want to have some biological tie with their child and they are physically unable to do it otherwise (in other words they can't do it the usual way).
Tue, 2008-01-01 15:22
#14
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Failing to be pre-empted, I would suggest that discussing morality between rich people deeming themselves "desperate" to have a child (or a kidney or whatever) and people so poor thay cannot deny rich people/countries' requests is a nonsensical proposition.[/b]
There's also the ethical question of whether or not it is right to bring more children into an already stressed planet. This is especially pertinent when you consider that it's wealthy parents who'll pay for this, these children will likely be brought back into the first world, and will be brought up with destructive consumptive habits moreso than children born in the Third World.
Sat, 2008-01-05 09:17
#15
Evidence of the money and power dynamics involved. Predictably, the NYT presents this as a case of women oppressing women, "third-party" and fathers' benefits remaining conveniently obscured...
quote:
"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.
[url=http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/outsourced-wombs/?8ty&emc=ty]NYT story: Outsourced Wombs[/url]
[ 05 January 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Sat, 2008-01-05 12:07
#16
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
[b]There's also the ethical question of whether or not it is right to bring more children into an already stressed planet. [/b]
Do you support taking advantage of infertility to reduce population growth?
Sat, 2008-01-05 12:49
#17
remind
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]Do you support taking advantage of infertility to reduce population growth?[/b]
WTF, 500_apples do you have reading comprehension problems?
Stated by Michelle on January 04/08:
quote:
I concur. Sven and 500 Apples need to stay out of the feminism forum from now on. Sven has been asked many more times than once, and he argues it every time, and I'm sure he'll argue it this time, but if it wasn't absolutely crystal clear before, then consider this to be the absolutely crystal clear request.
in response to oldgoat's statement of January 03/08:
quote:
500 Apples and Sven, I have a fairly disctinct recollection of both you guys being tossed from the feminism forum for good at one point, and possibly more than once. Sven, while I recognise that your above post is in fact merely a point of clarification, I'm 90% sure neither of you are supposed to be here.Could you please not post until Michelle and I can get our heads together and discuss.
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=001310]h...
Frankly, I am starting to think there are some here whose sole purpose is to derail each and every topic and thread in the feminist forum.
Sat, 2008-01-05 12:57
#18
You have paranoia issues, and you should see a therapist, you need serious help. I am not the only person you snap at, you have likely snapped at most of the forum.
I'll also note that you're not the moderator.
I don't go into the "feminism forum". I go into the TAT. I'm not going to stay on alert 100% of the time. Feminist forum topics have the same font, even though it has different rules. I do not look at where each topic is posted. Some topics are obviously feminist. This came off as an international issues topic, perhaps one of economic exploitation.
quote:
Frankly, I am starting to think there are some here whose sole purpose is to derail each and every topic and thread in the feminist forum.
You'll find her in a mirror.
Sat, 2008-01-05 13:12
#19
remind
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]You have paranoia issues, and you should see a therapist, you need serious help. I am not the only person you snap at, you have likely snapped at most of the forum.I'll also note that you're not the moderator.
I don't go into the "feminism forum". I go into the TAT. I'm not going to stay on alert 100% of the time. Feminist forum topics have the same font, even though it has different rules. I do not look at where each topic is posted. Some topics are obviously feminist. This came off as an international issues topic, perhaps one of economic exploitation.
You'll find her in a mirror.[/b]
Sat, 2008-01-05 13:22
#20
Oh for Gods sake 500 Apples, you only know what you're posting to from the TAT??!!!
You're not getting it!!!!
Further, your remarks to remind are totally out of line.
You've made me use up 7 exclamation marks in two sentences, and I'm suspending your account for two weeks which will hopefully give you time to figure out what it says at the top of the page when you post.
[ 05 January 2008: Message edited by: oldgoat ]
Sat, 2008-01-05 13:45
#21
It only seems fair to be against surrogate mothers in all cases, If a couple brings their sperm and egg to a woman in India willing to give birth to a child for them for a certain price, then it should be also wrong for a neighbour/or any woman here to do it.
If the problem is the exchange of cash or it's the broken emotional/chemical bond developed through pregnancy between the birth mother and the child, if it's wrong in India isn't wrong anywhere?
Sat, 2008-01-05 16:24
#22
What oldgoat said.