Karen posted a link here to go to Anderson Cooper’s clip about babies being sold to the highest bidder. I watched that video this morning, and wondered about the outrage that these people in the clip showed.
I didn’t wonder about their outrage because I thought they were over-reacting.
I wondered about it because when you get down to it, there’s only one thing that differentiates this situation from a typical surrogacy situation – the time line.
In a typical situation, the intended parents pick out the egg, pick out the sperm, and pick out the woman who will carry the baby, then the woman gets pregnant, has the baby, and everyone is happy.
In this case, the intended parents come in at the end.
So it’s a matter of timing.
I do think that this is a terrible situation, but aside from the fact that this is illegal while it’s perfectly legal to rearrange the order of events, why are people getting their panties in a wad? If any of them thought this through logically, they would see that their anger and disgust should be directed at the entire industry that profits from the commodification of people, no matter when the intended parents come into the picture.
Come on, people, don’t let a timeline dictate how you see what is right and wrong!
Categories: General
Chicken? Egg? The “industry” or the “practice” in general? BOTH feed off each other. So what is REALLY wrong with this picture?
. . . and intentionality, and consent, and knowledge.
. . . and the baby having a biological link (usually) to the couple using the surrogate.
…And genetic/biological motherhood, family, identity, meaning and connections? TRUE ALTRUISM….With out ANY manipulative scripts? Wonder what the percentage of participants can be THAT open, honest and embracing? Not many I’d guess.
Karen, yes, you are right – the practice in general is the issue.
Jeffrey, intentionality? Do you mean that the people who are creating the baby are being intentionally deceitful?
Yes, there are minor details that are different, yet with respect to intent, if parents are intending to buy a baby – one with which they have no biological connection to (this would be an obvious outcome and one that only an idiot would try to hide as most people know that a pregnancy is 9 months, though I’m sure there’s someone out there who will be the exception to that rule).
How do straight couples really know that the surrogate is implanted with THEIR embryos? Wasn’t there a clinic or doctor at UC Irvine a few years ago who was busted for mixing up gametes?
The whole industry in general lacks a legal code, much less a moral code. How can anyone trust anything they say?
Ha, realized I didn’t finish my thought in the third paragraph.
Yes, there are minor details that are different, yet with respect to intent, if parents are intending to buy a baby – one with which they have no biological connection to (this would be an obvious outcome and one that only an idiot would try to hide as most people know that a pregnancy is 9 months, though I’m sure there’s someone out there who will be the exception to that rule) then their intent MUST be to purchase a baby who is not genetically theirs, whether they know the pregnancy is already in progress or not. But regardless of whether they knew ahead of time abou the pregnancy, why doesn’t anyone think about the ramifications of what they are doing? They are purchasing a human being.
Just like in adoption. Except in adoption they are purchasing a human being that has no biological link to the purchasers. At least with a surrogate, the baby has a biological link to the father and sometimes even the mother.
You do realize that in a traditional surrogate arrangement, the surrogate is carrying the biological offspring of (one of) the father and sometimes even has a genetic connection to the mother? So they are “purchasing a human being” only to the extent they are paying someone to carry their genetic offspring. In a (non-step-parent) adoption, there really is the purchase of a human being with no biological connection.
Jeffrey, I agree with what you are saying about adoption in that a person is being purchased. There is a lot about how adoptions are handled that I do not think is right.
I didn’t see you last comment before I left my last comment.
Yes, I understand how those arrangements work, and regardless of how much of the child is purchased (perhaps only the eggs), there is still a purchase taking place. My father only got paid $40 for his sperm, but there was still a purchase that took place. While it isn’t “as bad” as a surrogacy where the gametes are all purchased, it still isn’t “good”.
Since surrogates, in most states, are only allowed to be paid for expenses related to the pregnancy (the same expenses mom would incur for a pregnancy) does that count as compensation? Is it the money exchange that is a problem? Does it matter if the surrogate really isn’t making an income or profit, only paying for a doctor?
Paying for medical expenses may not be considered compensation, but I think we would be naive to think there’s no money exchanged under the table. However, let’s say that there really is no financial profit by the surragate herself – it’s still a consumerist version of baby-making, and the doctors and industry are sure as heck making money off of it.
There’s no way to get around the fact that money is exchanging hands.
This isn’t just a money exchange issue…
Yes, it’s so much bigger.
In Australia (where I live) it is illegal for adoptions to be arranged privately, so no financial transaction takes place EVER. Severe penalities are prescribed should any person/s seek to obtain or offer money in exchange for a child.
All adoptions are arranged by approved agencies; most are “open” adoptions whereby the child’s family of origin maintain some form of contact with the child and its adoptive family.
It is an indignity to any human life to have been bought or sold through adoption, surrogacy or donor conception practices.
stephanie timing is totally ignored