nurulathirahahmad.files.wordpress.com · web view1 surrogacy is a method whereby a woman enters...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Surrogacy is a method whereby a woman enters into a contractual agreement
where she has to carry a foetus conceived by assisted reproduction such as in-vitro
fertilisation [IVF] – derived from the genes of a donor or donors – with the obligation
of relinquishing the child at birth to the client or donor couple (Busby & Vun, 2010;
as cited in Pantich 2013, 276). In some cases, the surrogate is paid money for her
services and must terminate her parental rights, so the client may raise the child as
their own (Anderson, 1990). This essay will discuss four aspects: I) How surrogate
women in third world countries are exploited, using India as a case study, II)
Exploring how surrogacy commodifies a women’s body, III) Analysing how being a
surrogate involves self-alienation and distancing her feelings from the foetus she
carries, and finally, IV) Studying egg donation and the health risks associated with it.
2
Firstly, India is considered to be the hub of reproductive tourism and is
marketed towards first world countries as such; especially considering India has built
a $445 million a year business from it, according to an estimate published in Marie
Claire (Haworth, 2009; as cited in Banerjee 2010; Pantich, 2013). Commercial
surrogacy has raised many concerns, as it includes the exploitation of the reproductive
labours of underprivileged women by wealthy clients, along with the utilisation of the
cheaper labour and medical costs in India (Pantich, 2013; Bailey, 2011). Surrogate
women in India are lured by the promise of large payments for nine months of labour,
to carry a foreign or domestic couple’s baby. There is a large difference in the money
earned by the Indian surrogates and the American surrogates. For example, in the
United States surrogates can be paid anywhere between $50,000 to $150,000, yet
Indian surrogates can be paid between $2000 to $10,000 (Busby & Vun 2010, Twine
2011; as cited in Pantich, 2013). Gestational surrogacy is the surrogacy performed in
India, which means a woman is implanted with an embryo created by the egg and
sperm of the contracted parents or the sperm of the client and a bought or donated egg
from another woman (Pantich 2013, 276). Although California holds the destination
of choice for most reproductive tourists seeking gestational surrogates, clinics like the
Akanksha clinic in Anand provide comparable medical services of similar quality for
a portion of the price (RT, 2015; Pantich, 2013). The surrogates are paid by the client
couple and carry their child; they do not have a biological relation to the baby and
therefore are seen as merely a vessel (RT, 2015). In Gene Corea’s The Mother
Machine, the world is forecast to use the wombs of unimportant women as the
breeders for the embryos of important women, which signifies the manipulation of
poor Indian women as a lower caste to wealthy women from first world countries of
higher caste (1985; as cited in Bailey 2011, 716; Munro, 2001). Notably, no laws
regulate surrogacy work in India, and a surrogate is not treated as a person but as a
high-risk pregnancy - due to the high maternal mortality and pregnancy-related
morbidity rates of the country (Bailey 2011, 729). Although it appears as a choice of
the individual surrogate, it is the outcome of clear or subtle coercion whereby legal
surrogacy contracts seem to coerce women into making a choice they do not prefer
yet are unable to refuse due to the high price of rejection (Damelio & Sorensen; as
cited in Banerjee, 2010). Using words such as ‘use’ and ‘control’ projects the
surrogates as passive victims, with the language being worrisome when used in
transnational surrogacy as it reinforces the notion of stereotypical third world women
3
being inherently powerless to the higher forces (Banerjee 2010, 110). Indian
surrogates are paid significantly less than their western counterparts, are not as
educated on the shocking wage differential between them or the controversy of a
wealthy client renting their womb and using their body.
4
Furthermore, putting a dollar value on a women’s body is clear mistreatment
and devalues her as a person, suggesting she is only worth a certain amount that is
dependent on a variety of factors. Exploitation occurs from the profiting of
vulnerability (Goodin, 1986; as cited in Pantich 2013, 280). Commercial surrogacy
involves the sale or rental of a woman’s womb (Pantich, 2013). Commodifying a
woman’s body – specifically her womb – and her reproductive capabilities degrades
her to being seen as a baby factory and a product (Anderson, 1990). For something to
be seen as a commodity is to claim the market is suitable for controlling its
productions, trade and satisfaction (Anderson, 1990). The commodification of a
person can relate to slavery, where they are treated according to market norm in how
the owners, or clients, may use them to satisfy their own interests without regard for
the commodities own interests. This shows evidence that surrogates are seen as
objects of use by clients, and not as real people. In a society that is already profoundly
saturated in high levels of sexual commodification of the female body by advertisers,
pimps, the media and celebrities cashing on their sex appeal, surrogacy is a dangerous
progression down a route that emphasises a woman’s body as a commodity – a
product to be bought and sold at a good price (Munro, 2001). According to Radin
(1987; as cited in Munro 2001, 24), ‘If a capitalist baby industry were to come into
being…how could any of us…avoid subconsciously measuring the dollar value of our
children?’ Markedly, not only is a woman’s womb given a price but also the sperm
and egg used to impregnate her, meaning a child is given a price of how much he/she
is worth. This is not a good example for future surrogate children to learn of, that they
were worth an x amount of dollars, and this can be similarly attributed to surrogate
woman knowing their womb is worth x amount of money. An example of exploitation
via surrogacy is how in India, the gestational surrogates are bound under contract to
live in a surrogate house for the duration of their pregnancy (RT, 2015). They are
provided food, medical check-ups and housing, while also being allowed limited
interactions with her family such as her husband and any children. Also, by providing
differing amounts of payment to women in the United States and in India for their
services provides an insightful effect on what the industry or client thinks of the
women. To pay a western woman $50,000 for her surrogate service, and an Indian
woman $10,000 for the same service is saying the western woman is valued more
than the Indian woman. Current practices suggest that donors and surrogates are
picked based on their caste, skin colour, religion, intelligence and attractiveness
5
(Bailey, 2011). The criteria favours fair skin, lighter hair and light-coloured eyes like
blue or green. These conditions are only for gestational surrogates, meaning the
surrogate mother is not biologically related to the foetus (Bailey, 2011). Surrogacy as
a practice is considered a ‘moral quagmire’ (Pande 2010; as cited in Bailey 2011,
725). Considering the insufficient regulation of surrogacy work and severe social
inequality, it threatens to transform the bodies of women into tools for use by the
more privileged (Beeson & Lippman, 2006).
6
Moreover, a surrogate knows that when she signs a contract – even if she is a
genetic relation - she will have to give up parental rights once the child is born and
from the first month of pregnancy begin to distance herself from the baby she carries.
She will have to distance herself of any maternal feelings that arouse, any love or
bond, essentially self-alienating herself from her own womb and passenger (Munro,
2001). The genetic surrogate agrees to carry the client’s child to term and transfer
custody to the father in return for a labour fee and medical/legal expenses (Anderson,
1990). The surrogate has to do everything possible to effect the transfer of the child to
the intended father, including repressing motherly feelings so she can do her job of
being the vessel for the client. The surrogacy process manipulates and denies
legitimacy to the surrogate mother’s evolving perspective on her own pregnancy,
showing how the industry degrades her. These acts convert women’s labour into a
form of alienated labour (Anderson, 1990). Utilising a women’s womb to do such
labour contributes to a shrinking sense of human personhood, as she is essentially
bought and sold, therefore considered physical property (Holland, 2001). Although
wage labour includes selling an aspect of oneself to a point, it is inapplicable to view
the surrogacy market as equivalent to wage labour, when the disaffection involved in
the latter transaction is of a detrimental nature (Pateman, 1988; as cited in Munro
2001, 21). Commercial surrogacy forces women to suppress all human feelings for the
foetus growing inside and effectively see the child as a product of her labour, for
which she is being paid to take care of. Self-alienation fundamentally ushers away any
core relation between the female surrogate, her body and reproductive capacities,
which results in a level of objectification. Observing the motivations behind becoming
a surrogate, an altruistic surrogate is driven by concern, kindness and friendship
whereas a commercial surrogate may have some of these feelings but is mainly
monetarily motivated (Pantich, 2013). When a woman sells the use of her body, she is
basically selling herself - as she is downgraded to being an ‘incubator’ (Anderson,
1993; as cited in Pantich 2013, 279).
7
Additionally, egg selling or egg donation consists of a woman attending a
fertility clinic in order to sell off her eggs for money, involving the clinic surgically
removing her eggs from her ovary after she undergoes treatments including the
hyperstimulation of her ovary to produce multiple eggs in one cycle (Almeling, 2007;
Beeson & Lippman, 2006; Robertson, 1988). Egg donation involves IVF, by
hyperstimulating the ovary, removing the multiple oocytes [eggs] after a successful
cycle and fertilising them externally before placement in a uterus – the uterus of a
woman who has not provided the egg, meaning she will use a donated egg to rear a
child she is not biologically related to but can give birth to (Robertson, 1988). Egg
donation provides an unusual twist on parentage, by its split of the female gestational
and genetic role. Being an egg donor is a lucrative deal, but the egg procurement
process is invasive and risky (ABC News, 2015; Almeling, 2007). The egg industry is
competitive, with some donors selling their eggs for $50,000 – although according to
the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, to compensate a donor with sums
totalling more than $10,000 is not appropriate (ABC News, 2015). There are multiple
health risks accompanying egg donation. The harvesting of multiple eggs often
involves taking hormonal drugs that have not been properly studied for their long-
term effects on women despite research providing evidence of significant harm to
women in both short and long term (Beeson & Lippman, 2006). Egg donation is a
two-stage process that requires multiple clinic visits, numerous hormonal injections
and minor surgery, minimum. Ovarian stimulation requires strong hormones to
manipulate a woman’s body into forcefully producing many, often a dozen or more
eggs in one cycle instead of the normal one or two (Beeson & Lippman, 2006). One
drug that was commonly used in the first phase of egg harvesting is called Lupron,
which had not been pre-approved for this purpose – reportedly the US Federal Drug
Agency currently had 6000 complaints on file regarding the drug, including 25 causal
deaths (Lazar 1999; as cited in Beeson & Lippmann 2006, 2). Considering the
multiple health risks related to the selling or donating of eggs, women should be
cautious to educate herself on what she is signing up for and egg clinics should be
bound by the law to do their job of informing the donor of all important information
so she can make an informed decision.
8
In conclusion, surrogacy and egg donation/selling exploits women’s bodies
and portrays the image that a woman’s body is a commodity that can be easily
purchased, rented, sold and used. This reinforces the notion that a woman can be
objectified and viewed as a machine, particularly with her womb as the sole focus.
Surrogacy also clearly exploits underprivileged women in India and the United States,
by offering their bodies for wealthy clients to place their baby into. Surrogacy allows
the mistreatment of Indian women by paying them far less than their western
surrogate counterparts, due to the difference in developed or developing country
status and economic currency. The surrogacy industry largely contributes to the
exploitation of women’s bodies, by allowing a female’s body to be treated as a
product to be traded on the market and sold to the highest paying client.
BibliographyABC News (2015), ‘The Big Business of Egg Donation’, viewed 24 May 2017, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zV8SVLMP1w>.
Anderson, E. S. (1990), ‘Is Women's Labor a Commodity?’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 19(1) 71-92.
Almeling, R. (2007), ‘Selling genes, selling gender: egg agencies, sperm banks, and the medical market in genetic material’, American Sociological Review, 72(3) 319-340.
Bailey, A. (2011), ‘Reconceiving surrogacy: Toward a reproductive justice account of Indian surrogacy’, Hypatia, 26(4) 715-741.
Banerjee, A. (2010), ‘Reorienting the Ethics of Transnational Surrogacy as a Feminist Pragmatist’, The Pluralist, 5(3) 107-127.
Beeson, D. & Lippman, A. (2006), ‘Egg harvesting for stem cell research: medical risks and ethical problems’, Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 13(4) 573-579.
Holland, S. (2001), ‘Contested commodities at both ends of life: buying and selling gametes, embryos, and body tissues’, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 11(3) 263-284.
Munro, V. E. (2001), ‘Surrogacy and the Construction of the Maternal-Foetal Relationship: The Feminist Dilemma Examined’, Res Publica, 7(1) 13-37.
Pantich, V. (2013), ‘Surrogate Tourism and Reproductive Rights’, Hypatia, 28(2) 274-289.
9
Robertson, J.A. (1988), ‘Technology and motherhood: Legal and ethical issues in human egg donation’, Case Western Reserve Law Review, 39(1) 1-40.
RT (2015), ‘Wombs for Rent in India’, viewed 23 May 2017, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSXZSdMmRdg>.
10