Wombs for Rent, Cheap

68 thoughts on Wombs for Rent, Cheap

1. I didn’t get any whiff of coercion taking place in these transactions–I’m not quite sure there’s anything in the article that supported that notion. Choosing to do something because the financial benefits outweigh the physical risks is not coercion. Actually, most of the Indian women participating don’t come across as the poorest of the poor in Indian society- probably more like lower middle class, if anything.

   There’s some altruistic motives going on here as well. Notice how several of the women said things along the lines of “well, the extra money will be nice for X, Y, and Z, but it also makes me happy to know that this couple will get the joy of having their own child, which is a blessing.”

   And insofar as the American couples are “showering” their Indian surrogates with financial and medical attention, I fail to see how outsourcing surrogacy to a country like India is more morally problematic than it would be anywhere else. For instance, if you don’t have this kind of gut-level reaction to surrogacy in the U.S., why is this case different? I don’t think the image of surrogates as dirt-poor women with no other options is particularly true, or helpful, as it were. These are women who are weighing risks and benefits and choosing to engage in transactions that benefit themselves and the prospective parents.

2. I would hope that such couples have an interest in paying for prenatal care and food, to see that she (and therefore their baby) gets proper nutrition.

3. I agree with you. It makes me feel very uncomfortable to think of Indian women who are in potentially difficult financial and social situations to be wombs for rich Americans. The problem here, as you point out, is that if a woman makes a decision about her body, it is her decision and hers alone.

   I do think what you’re doing in opening this up and working it out is really smart. We can’t rely on simplistic answers (even when they seem feminist). Feminism is about humanism and equality and I think that this issue has very real implications for issues of the global imperialism and the US’s part in that.

   Even if the situation is ideal for one woman (let’s just take the best case scenario) there is something sinister about what implications are being reified–the non-US, non-white (perhaps economically limited) person is agreeing to let other people use her body for their own personal and her economic gain and cementing her position in the world as even more commodifiable and less human.

   We need to ask: What care/legal recourse will the birthmother receive? What are the specifics of her situation? Is it really ok for any body/corporation/agency to “sell” brown babies to white people? What are the implications of this socially and culturally? So much to be examined.

   If you want to explore more, I do know that South End Press is releasing a book called, “Outsiders Within: Racial Crossings and Adoption Politics” later this year that deals with transracial adoption.

4. It’s wrong the way shaming women for aborting female feti is wrong. Their body, their choice. It’s the choices which suck, and the patriarchy which determines the choices. Destroy the patriarchy and I bet you’ll see these women making different choices.

   And while I’m dreaming, I’d like a pony.

   As an aside, I find the racial undercurrents really interesting. I wonder how many of these couples would be willing to adopt an unwanted Indian baby? or an unwanted African American baby?

5. $5,000? You can’t even pay a thousand a month?

6. Two questions that seem relevant:
   1) Surrogacy in this case refers to an implanted embryo, right? So the child doesn’t care the surrogate mother’s DNA and therefore may not be the same race. Paying brown women to have white babies? I would not necessarily object to the surrogate doing that, but I definitely think it’s problematic for white people to do that.

   2) Will the surrogate mother receive medical care, etc, post-partum?

7. I think overthrowing the Patriarchy is a FINE idea. I myself have grown too heavy for a pony, I will need a full-size horse. A Gelding would suit PERFECTLY.

8. Choosing to do something because the financial benefits outweigh the physical risks is not coercion. Actually, most of the Indian women participating don’t come across as the poorest of the poor in Indian society- probably more like lower middle class, if anything.

   It’s safe to say that money is the issue here:

   She acknowledged that money was the primary reason these women had queued up to be surrogates; without it, the list would be short, if not nonexistent. Payment usually ranges from about $2,800 to $5,600, a fortune in a country where annual per capita income hovers around $500.

   So the question isn’t, “Are these women being forced to sell their bodies as wombs?” but rather, “If their income was equivalent to that of the western couples ‘renting’ their wombs, would these women make the same decision?” If the answer is no, then it isn’t a free choice. Like Jill says, that’s problematic–especially since it involves the potential of serious physical harm.

9. The risks of allowing this kind of trade don’t seem the same as the risks of allowing legal payment for organs. I think. The problem with paid organ donation for me is the horrendous possibility of organised crime getting in on the act once you create that market. There doesn’t seem to be the same risk of coercion here. Actually it also seems a lot less problematic than prostitution in that respect– presumably the western couples will want to monitor the progress of the pregnancy and have an interest in the wellbeing of the mother, and they will be relatively rich enough to pay for very good medical care. You could always legislate it by forcing buyers to read a shitload of literature about the effect of maternal stress in the womb on subsequent mental health…
   I would think the risk of coerced pregancy is actually much higher in the normal case where there’s no payment made for the job! It’s an interesting example for sure of how traditional “women’s work”, that is also traditionally completely unpaid, is being outsourced to women who don’t have the economic options that Western women do. I think it’s problematic but I also kind of like it. In my utopia, of which I admittedly have not worked out the details, people bloody do get paid for this shit, and highly too.

10. Christian Science Monitor did a story on it a few weeks ago (blogged about it here)

11. I have a question for you, and not a smarmy one. If this was being done with poor White women in Appalachia, would it be as big a deal? What if it was wealthy Asians paying those poor White women to be surrogates?

    Matan, would you still be concerned with White people doing that? Would it bother you that Asian people were doing that?

    And the article says “Western” couples – why is there an assumption that “Western” means “White”? After all, my sister-in-law from Monterey is 4th generation American, father and grandfather were middle-class dentists, and she is ethnically Chinese…?

12. If this was being done with poor White women in Appalachia, would it be as big a deal?

    Yes. In both cases, people with money and education are taking advantage of those who have neither. Any time you have one group systematically “using” (quotes because I can’t think of a better term) another with this kind of power disparity, it’s troublesome. The racial element merely exacerbates.

    I don’t think there’s an assumption that Western means white as much as Western means privileged in terms of money and education.

13. I have a question for you, and not a smarmy one. If this was being done with poor White women in Appalachia, would it be as big a deal? What if it was wealthy Asians paying those poor White women to be surrogates?

    Are you sure about that whole honesty thing? Because I’m not. Why did evil even have to type the answer? Of course it would be a problem.

    Exploitation, I think, is the word for uneven trades like this one.

14. Not to mention that women’s bodies, frequently the bodies of women of color, are sites for imperialist battle.*

    * to quote someone else I can’t think of.

15. Couldn’t one equally well say that these unfortunate American women — caught in a vulnerable position, unable to have their own children, which is a fundamental human right — are being exploited by Indian women who take advantage of their vulnerability to get their money?

16. Another problem nobody seems to have thought of: what if men try to insert themselves into this moneymaking scheme the way they do with prostitution—i.e. pocketing the American couple’s payment in exchange for providing a woman to be surrogate—potentially forced, and probably paid less than the full amount, much the way men have inserted themselves into prostitution?

17. Couldn’t one equally well say that these unfortunate American women — caught in a vulnerable position, unable to have their own children, which is a fundamental human right — are being exploited by Indian women who take advantage of their vulnerability to get their money?

    Riiiiiiight. Just like Whole Foods, which has the temerity to take their money in exchange for white truffle oil, which is food, access which is a fundamental human right.

    Um, it is? I’d argue that it’s a fundamental human right not to be deprived of one’s children, nor to have one’s reproductive system taken over by fiat. I dunno if you have a fundamental human right to solve sterility by whatever means necessary, particularly if those means involve the exploitation or potential exploitation of other women’s bodies. Those women have a fundamental human right not to choose between renting their uteri and starving, don’t they?

18. caught in a vulnerable position, unable to have their own children, which is a fundamental human right

    Way to cast these women as poor, innocent victims of circumstance. I think that’s misleading, to say the least.

    I’d argue that it’s a fundamental human right not to be deprived of one’s children, nor to have one’s reproductive system taken over by fiat. I dunno if you have a fundamental human right to solve sterility by whatever means necessary, particularly if those means involve the exploitation or potential exploitation of other women’s bodies.

    Word.

19. So…. Those of you who view this as clear exploitation by economic means – do you feel the same about prostitution and pornography?

    Let me be clear about my own position: I think that pornography and prostituion are clearly exploitation (and if I run into one more feminist who calls my wife a Tool of the Patriarchy after talking about how cool Suicide Girls is, I am gonna’ need to go to confession for the urge to commit mayhem). I think that this surrogate motherhood scheme is also clearly exploitation.

    What do ya’ll think?

20. I hardly see the huge dilemna in this, if what I gather is accurate. Indian women renting out their wombs for cash? Why not? I don’t see any overt signs of the women being coerced into the deal, and they are apparently given good medical care. I don’t assume that these women are dirt poor with no other options though – they could be working class women who have decided that they’d get joy (and a nice dosage of cash) out of providing this service. I don’t understand how it is any more exploiting than an everyday job, in the sense that money is exchanged for service. Yes, in this case the western woman is using the Indian woman’s body, but it is possible that the Indian woman doesn’t see what all the hoopla is surrounding pregnancy and is probably laughing her way the bank. Just my observation, and my first comment on a blog I read often.

21. In both cases, people with money and education are taking advantage of those who have neither.

    Unless the couples renting the wombs are responsible for Indian poverty, how are they “taking advantage of” these Indian women? How is this arrangement hurting the Indian women? They have an opportunity to earn what, by Indian standrads, is a fortune. If these couples did not rent their wombs, they would have nothing.

    So the question isn’t, “Are these women being forced to sell their bodies as wombs?” but rather, “If their income was equivalent to that of the western couples ‘renting’ their wombs, would these women make the same decision?” If the answer is no, then it isn’t a free choice. Like Jill says, that’s problematic–especially since it involves the potential of serious physical harm.

    So it is more of a free choice for them to choose between poverty and surrogate motherhood, or for them to only have the choice of poverty? Because until the problem of poverty is solved, those are the two options on the table. It’s great to say that we should work on the underlying problem of poverty, but what are we going to do in the meantime (unless you think the problem can and will be solved in a few months)?

    Those women have a fundamental human right not to choose between renting their uteri and starving, don’t they?

    Are they risking starvation, or just poverty? Moreover, unless you believe that these couples ought to be paying $5000 in welfare every nine months to a poor Indian woman without receiving anything in return, I don’t see why renting these women’s wombs is so horrible, given that if these couples didn’t, many of the women would not have any opportunity to get so much money.

22. I still can’t get over it. Five thousand dollars. Five thousand. For giving birth to your child. For carrying your child to term, for giving life to it, for pretty much creating it for you. Five thousand dollars. That’s all it’s worth? Not even a thousand dollars a month? How much do you pay for your car? You’re kind of buying your child’s life here, and even if that’s not “priceless,” if I were going to attach a price tag to it, it’d be worth more than five thousand dollars.

    If adoption isn’t the right fit for you, if you’re really that determined to have a child from your own blend of sperm and egg, then go for it. That’s between you and the surrogate mother. And I don’t know the incomes of the would-be parents; I don’t know how much they can “afford.” And I suppose that buying your own child is a strange concept. But $5,000?

    Someone please help me out.

23. It’s a rather distasteful form of outsourcing.

24. Unless the couples renting the wombs are responsible for Indian poverty, how are they “taking advantage of” these Indian women? How is this arrangement hurting the Indian women? They have an opportunity to earn what, by Indian standrads, is a fortune. If these couples did not rent their wombs, they would have nothing.

    Their responsibility or lack thereof for these women’s poverty is not at issue. The fact is that couples who choose to do this have money and these women don’t, which puts the women at a distinct disadvantage. They don’t have much bargaining power and they’re putting themselves at considerable physical and emotional risk to let Western couples get a baby on the cheap side.

    We allow people to put themselves in harm’s way in exchange for money all the time. (Hazard pay, anyone?) But I’m not convinced that that makes it morally right. By saying these women aren’t personally harmed and able to earn a comparative fortune, you completely remove the transaction from its wider context. The commodification of pregnancy and birth is not without considerable repercussions.

25. I still can’t get over it. Five thousand dollars. Five thousand. For giving birth to your child. For carrying your child to term, for giving life to it, for pretty much creating it for you. Five thousand dollars. That’s all it’s worth? Not even a thousand dollars a month? How much do you pay for your car? You’re kind of buying your child’s life here, and even if that’s not “priceless,” if I were going to attach a price tag to it, it’d be worth more than five thousand dollars.

    Someone else stated that the average annual wage in India is $500. So we’re talking 10 years of wages here. Not that it can be equated to paying an American woman $[10*year’s wages], but you do have to take into account the relative value of the money.

26. I have a question for you, and not a smarmy one. If this was being done with poor White women in Appalachia, would it be as big a deal? What if it was wealthy Asians paying those poor White women to be surrogates?

    Yes.

    However, I still think it’s worth looking at this in the context of a global economy, where the global South is routinely on the bottom, and the global North (and West) is routinely on top. It makes it more systematic.

    And the article says “Western” couples – why is there an assumption that “Western” means “White”? After all, my sister-in-law from Monterey is 4th generation American, father and grandfather were middle-class dentists, and she is ethnically Chinese…?

    I noticed that, too. And the article was actually fairly specific that many of the Western couples are of Indian descent. Which is why I used the word “Western” in the post, instead of “white.”

27. By saying these women aren’t personally harmed and able to earn a comparative fortune, you completely remove the transaction from its wider context. The commodification of pregnancy and birth is not without considerable repercussions.

    I kind of suspected that opposition to this would boil down to “It might hurt (Western) women (me) in some way, so it must be opposed” (not me as in, you know, me, but as in the feminist “me’s” who oppose this). The couple benefits, the surrogate birth-mother benefits. Who exactly is hurt clearly by this? Wider context worries (how this will hurt society etc.) aren’t accepted (and indeed, are vehemently opposed) by most of the regulars here when it is two consenting adults having sex (be they of opposite or same sex), or a woman making reproductive choices (including abortion). (Perhaps it helps to point out that I support legal abortion and gay/lesbian rights too). Why did they become so important now?

    Practically everything is, and will be, commodified. Side effect of the money as a measurement device -idea, ofr every work (thus physical self) a value can be assigned. And of course, monetary inequalities exist in this day an the mere fact that someone making a deal is rich while the other is poor does not necessarily make the deal invalid or exploitative. Besides, there is no evidence that the women in question are doing it as a choice between death and pregnancy.

    However, I still think it’s worth looking at this in the context of a global economy, where the global South is routinely on the bottom, and the global North (and West) is routinely on top. It makes it more systematic.

    Protectionism isn’t the answer (getting on a tangent here, but since zuzu already compaired it to outsourcing, it’s free for all). Hopefully with some outsourcing, free (instead of the current system that is rigged in favor of the First World countries) competition, global stability and noncorrupt governments in developing countries the gap will start to close. Certainly India is one promising case with it’s fast growing economy. And Free Market isn’t a zero-sum game anyway.

28. And btw (to say something positive for a change), this was very thoughtful article (no, really). This isn’t easy, but any alternative to “okay, it is distasteful (or not), but banning it is highly problematic” is IMO worse.

29. Sadly, and shockingly, you are missing my point. Yes, one could equally well say that A is exploiting B, or B is exploiting A, and one would be wrong either way. Neither party here is the innocent victim, and neither party is the bad guy, either. Both are in situations they’d rather not be in.

    Yes, you do have a fundamental right to have children, and you also have a fundamental right to not starve. But you don’t have any kind of right force other people to help you do either of those things. In this situation, both sides are helping each other, albeit for their own reasons, rather than out of the goodness of their respective hearts.

30. Wider context worries (how this will hurt society etc.) aren’t accepted (and indeed, are vehemently opposed) by most of the regulars here when it is two consenting adults having sex (be they of opposite or same sex), or a woman making reproductive choices (including abortion). (Perhaps it helps to point out that I support legal abortion and gay/lesbian rights too). Why did they become so important now?

    What the fuck are you talking about? Is your English reading comprehension far more deficient than it seems? Do you have some short-term memory deficiency? If I had a nickel for every time I’d seen an explicitly feminist argument against heterosexism or prohibition of abortion on the grounds that both were bad for society in general, I could contract with a surrogate or three myself! Privacy rights? Religious freedom? Economic issues? Evolving consent? Bodily sovereignty? Lower burdens on taxpayers? If we’ve rejected arguments about how any given change will damage society, it’s because they’re transparently false.

    It’s all about the wider context; that’s precisely why the feminists made so uncomfortable by this arrangement are refusing to accept the simplistic money-for-services synopsis of this phenomenon.

31. Sadly, and shockingly, you are missing my point. Yes, one could equally well say that A is exploiting B, or B is exploiting A, and one would be wrong either way. Neither party here is the innocent victim, and neither party is the bad guy, either. Both are in situations they’d rather not be in.

    Those Indian women do not have the power to consign those Western women to a life of poverty. Nor do they have the power to deprive those women of all their reproductive options. Exploitation is a trade that takes place along a power disparity, not a trade that exists between two people who each want something from the other. If I get mugged, I want my life from the mugger and the mugger wants my wallet from me; does that mean that we’re equals in the transaction?

32. What the fuck are you talking about? Is your English reading comprehension far more deficient than it seems? Do you have some short-term memory deficiency?

    No (times two), and I don’t appreciate the insults.

    If I had a nickel for every time I’d seen an explicitly feminist argument against heterosexism or prohibition of abortion on the grounds that both were bad for society in general, I could contract with a surrogate or three myself! Privacy rights? Religious freedom? Economic issues? Evolving consent? Bodily sovereignty? Lower burdens on taxpayers? If we’ve rejected arguments about how any given change will damage society, it’s because they’re transparently false.

    Sure, I don’t believe those “social concerns” either.

    It’s all about the wider context; that’s precisely why the feminists made so uncomfortable by this arrangement are refusing to accept the simplistic money-for-services synopsis of this phenomenon.

    What are your proposed solutions (and btw, I don’t think the Indian women are as helpless as you make them seem in #31)?

33. I guess the point is, Piny, that in my experience feminists (and religious people, not that the two are mutually exclusive) like to keep the fallback position of absolute principle (but God told so, that would be uterus -slavery, privacy etc.) just in case the social argument fails. And do it somewhat selectively and/or invent new principles when they do not appky them universally.

34. appky…

    k is too close to l :(.

35. The only argument that anyone who isn’t troubled by this practice has made to distinguish it from organ selling is that “there’s no potential for organized crime.”

    Seriously? Women are kidnapped or lured into sex slavedom right and left, but you believe criminals are above forcing them to give birth?

    Seriously?

36. I don’t appreciate your continual “Feminists never [some demonstrably false and offensive assertion].” It’s tiresome in the extreme, particularly since you act like you’ve been insulted when feminists call you on it.

    I guess the point is, Piny, that in my experience feminists (and religious people, not that the two are mutually exclusive) like to keep the fallback position of absolute principle (but God told so, that would be uterus -slavery, privacy etc.) just in case the social argument fails. And do it somewhat selectively and/or invent new principles when they do not appky them universally.

    I see! So you’re backpedaling, in other words. We’ve made all those arguments, just like other groups, you just don’t believe them. And, I’m guessing for utterly self-serving reasons, you’re arguing that there’s some bright thick line between “absolute principles” like “slavery is wrong,” and social arguments like “slavery damages a slave-owning society.”

    What are your proposed solutions (and btw, I don’t think the Indian women are as helpless as you make them seem in #31)?

    I’m not sure what your parenthetical is meant to refer to; I know that you read for ammunition, so I don’t particularly care. What does this have to do with the assertion that I and feminists in general are dishonest and inconsistent, Tuomas?

37. I view this trade ALMOST in the same way I view the global sex trade that involves millions of western men every year flying to Latin America, Asia and Eastern Europe to go on sex tours to have sex with underage girls. This is an extremely lucrative trade and millions of nice respectable middle class and upperclass men in Europe and the US go on these tours every year. The girls certainly get paid for what they do. They of course see little of the financial benefits. I have to wonder just how much these Indian women benefit financially from renting their wombs out like this. The money goes to their families for basic necessities, and I don’t think lasts very long.

    I don’t think we can rely on this one article to judge the point of view of the women in India agreeing to rent out their bodies. India has very strong, vocal, articulate, active, well-organized feminist/anti-poverty activist groups whose opinions I would be interested in hearing.

    The issue for me here is one of unequal power relations. For me, feminism isn’t just about the western liberal capitalist smarmy a-political and decontextualized notion of “choice.” Brazilian feminists often say that water and sewage is a feminist issue, with a higher priority to Brazil’s poor women than, say, abortion.

    The women in India are not freely “choosing” to rent their bodies because if they were not desperately poor, they would not need to make the financial “choice” of undergoing 9 months of pregnancy and all the consequent physical/psychological demands. This is entirely about the shackles of poverty, not free choice.

    Frankly, I don’t think much of the couples taking this route. There are thousands of children in this country needing to be adopted. $5,000 is absolutely disgraceful, I don’t care how much that means to an Indian peasant. This entire trade is just one in a very long history of the rich countries of the north exploiting (which means taking advantage of) the poverty of those in the south for their own benefit, and paying very poorly in compensation. If a western couple really wants to go down this route, they should be forced to pay a very large sum of money, and be incredibly generous with their time and resources in caring for the health of the mother and child. I think they should also agree to forever help the mother after the child is born, throughout her entire life.

38. Jill,
    I noted that you said “Western”, but you also contrast “Western” with “brown people”. I was just wondering if that was an implication and if other people saw this as racist more than one of economic disparity

39. One more parallel, that is closer to this surrogacy trade, is the worldwide trade in organ donations from people in poor countries to those in rich countries.

    There is a very lucrative global trade in this — many poor people in Asia, Africa, Latin America “choose” to donate parts of their livers or kidneys or in some cases an eye, etc. to patients in western countries for cash.

40. Those Indian women do not have the power to consign those Western women to a life of poverty.

    I.e. the Western women are consigning the Indian women to poverty. Unless you are arguing that the western couple ought to give the poor Indian women $5,000 as a welfare check, and that they are stealing it from her if they don’t, it appears to me that the Western women are not consigning the poor women to poverty as much as offering them a chance to alleviate their poverty.

    Yes, getting rid of the poverty would reduce the number of women willing to rent their wombs. But I am not convinced that from an economic morality standpoint (by economic morality I mean the ethics of how we distribute resources, as opposed, to say, sexual morality or the morality of issues involving violence), banning the practice or making it more expensive to the point where people do not “outsource” the job anymore will benefit the poor Indian women; even if it is part of a comprehensive anti-poverty program, I am not certain that a program which bans surrogate motherhood would be better than one that does not.

    Of course, there are a lot of moral problems with the commodifcation o birth, I won’t deny that. But I don’t really see economic moral problems here.

41. Seriously? Women are kidnapped or lured into sex slavedom right and left, but you believe criminals are above forcing them to give birth?

    Seriously?
    ……….
    Was that for me? Of course I don’t think criminals are above anything, so put that strawman in your pipe and smoke it. I think I already gave my reasons for thinking the potential for forcing women to do this is limited… To repeat myself: surely couples are going to want to monitor the progress of the pregnancy and take an interest in the well being of the mother. That’s what usually happens in surrogate situations. And I don’t think even the kind of person who would be willing to pay for sex with a girl he knew had been forced into prostitution would be willing to pay, jointly with his wife, for a pregnancy that he knew was coerced… not because that sort of person is anything less than a scumbag, but because, again, people have a degree of emotional involvement and investment in surrogate pregnancies. Maybe I’m wrong. Or maybe it would be sufficiently easy to hide the fact that a pregnancy was coerced from the buyers (for nine months though? It just seems implausible to me that this would be a good way to make money on an organised scale.)
    But, (and I already said this too, but obviously not clearly enough, ) on balance for any given pregnancy, I’d say the odds that it is a coerced one are much, much higher in a situation where no money is being exchanged, purely because nobody is monitoring those cases.

42. If I had the choice between working 12 hours a day six days a week in a factory (supplying cable for Nokia from China for example), or some such equivalent in India, for say $AUS9.00 take home pay a month – and being a surrogate mother well taken care of during the pregnancy – hey, it may be a case of no contest. My whole body and almost all my awake time- i.e. my life – ‘chained’ to one spot – (not to mention the fallout of power-fucker politics and personalities) in the former. A certain amount of freedom and far better money in the latter. The fact is that there are some types of work that only marginalised women would choose in most (though not all) cases and until the world is a very different place than it’s likely to be for a long time yet, what they need is legal protections, health and safety care, workers rights etc when they do choose to undertake those types of work. We just don’t stop trying to deal with the inequities – the broader picture – at the same time, so those kinds of choices aren’t necessary in the future. Let the individual women decide ‘what’s good for them’ in the moment, in their own lives. They only get one – it’s not a rehearsal. More power to them.

    Having said that, after imagining myself in that position (and I have worked long, mind-numbing, esteem sapping, skin cracking hours in factories when I was a young, directionless woman) I’m also aware of the dangers of coercion and furthur exploitation by ‘middlemen’, so I re-iterate the need for transparency and protection as far as is possible. It’s not ideal for sure – but neither are the alternative though seemingly more socially acceptable ‘choices’ – also involving obvious power inequalities – for many women. They’re all part of the same whole that isn’t getting fixed tomorrow. (I might set mysel up in a little business with the money…hmmm)

43. I don’t appreciate your continual “Feminists never [some demonstrably false and offensive assertion].” It’s tiresome in the extreme, particularly since you act like you’ve been insulted when feminists call you on it.

    Offense is in the eye of beholder, it wasn’t my intention.. My observations (about selectiveness), YMMV. “Do you have some short-term memory deficiency?” wasn’t “calling me on it”, it was an insult.

    I see! So you’re backpedaling, in other words. We’ve made all those arguments, just like other groups, you just don’t believe them.

    No, I’m explaining why I made the comment I did. Of course other groups support principles for short term gain too. Only backpedaling here is due to the fact that I don’t want to hijack this thread on round 497526 of “is feminism good or bad? -battle”. And I’m not sure what you mean by claiming I don’t believe them.

    I’m not sure what your parenthetical is meant to refer to; I know that you read for ammunition, so I don’t particularly care.

    I meant that comparing this to mugging on the level of personal choice involved (as in post 31) is bit paternalistic, and false.

44. Offense is in the eye of beholder, it wasn’t my intention.. My observations (about selectiveness), YMMV. “Do you have some short-term memory deficiency?” wasn’t “calling me on it”, it was an insult.

    No, it was a reaction to your utter failure to mention the wider-context arguments that feminists constantly employ to defend both of the examples you mentioned. Your slanted reading of feminist arguments in general is insulting.

    No, I’m explaining why I made the comment I did. Of course other groups support principles for short term gain too. Only backpedaling here is due to the fact that I don’t want to hijack this thread on round 497526 of “is feminism good or bad? -battle”. And I’m not sure what you mean by claiming I don’t believe them.

    No, you’re backpedaling. You argued that feminists were rejecting wider-context in general but that they mysteriously latched onto it in this situation. You’ve changed that to arguing that, well, okay, we do totally make those arguments in other situations just like we are now–you just don’t think they’re genuine.

    I meant that comparing this to mugging on the level of personal choice involved (as in post 31) is bit paternalistic, and false.

    I did nothing of the kind. I disputed a definition of “exploitation” that was untenably vague such that any trade on any terms would carry equal potential for “exploitation.”

45. No, it was a reaction to your utter failure to mention the wider-context arguments that feminists constantly employ to defend both of the examples you mentioned.

    Yes, they make them, too. Happy? If I had made a long post that addressed all the nuance, I fear the point would have been lost. I admit it was bit hyperbolic.

    You’ve changed that to arguing that, well, okay, we do totally make those arguments in other situations just like we are now–you just don’t think they’re genuine.

    No, you got that backwards (meaning I haven’t changed anything, but you are changing the goalposts): I think the wider context worries are genuine: It’s the invidualism that is not genuine, and is simply used to deflect opposite wider context -worries with: “Even if that is true, it still violates bodily autonomy, end of argument.” (demographics etc.)

    I did nothing of the kind. I disputed a definition of “exploitation” that was untenably vague such that any trade on any terms would carry equal potential for “exploitation.”

    Please. You implied it.

    Exploitation is a trade that takes place along a power disparity, not a trade that exists between two people who each want something from the other. If I get mugged, I want my life from the mugger and the mugger wants my wallet from me; does that mean that we’re equals in the transaction?

    And if you think exploitation is similar to mugging, and you think womb-renting is exploitation… Now who’s moving the goalposts and backpedaling?

46. Renting wombs of poor Indian women, not in general.

47. Yes, they make them, too. Happy? If I had made a long post that addressed all the nuance, I fear the point would have been lost. I admit it was bit hyperbolic.

    Your original statement was that they didn’t, and that they furthermore rejected them from other people:

    Wider context worries (how this will hurt society etc.) aren’t accepted (and indeed, are vehemently opposed) by most of the regulars here when it is two consenting adults having sex (be they of opposite or same sex), or a woman making reproductive choices (including abortion). (Perhaps it helps to point out that I support legal abortion and gay/lesbian rights too). Why did they become so important now?

    No, you got that backwards (meaning I haven’t changed anything, but you are changing the goalposts): I think the wider context worries are genuine: It’s the invidualism that is not genuine, and is simply used to deflect opposite wider context -worries with: “Even if that is true, it still violates bodily autonomy, end of argument.” (demographics etc.)

    Bodily autonomy is a wider-context argument, for one thing. For another, bullshit. I’d love to see a cite for this, but I know better than to actually ask.

    And if you think exploitation is similar to mugging, and you think womb-renting is exploitation… Now who’s moving the goalposts and backpedaling?

    For fuck’s sake. Here, I’ll spell it out for you. The definition of “exploitation” presented by the commenter I responded to boiled down to “offering someone else something they want in exchange for something they have.” That definition, which is incorrect, is so loose that it would include any trade between any two parties. If I offered someone my kidney in exchange for a meal, I’d be exploiting them because they want my kidney. The commenter proceeded to use that non-definition to make that non-argument: since any trade is exploitation, there’s nothing wrong with exploitation, and no party in this situation can be said to be more vulnerable to exploitation.

    I pointed out that by that logic, a trade as uneven as mugging still wouldn’t be more potentially exploitative for the guy with the gun to his head: I want something, my mugger wants something, ergo no disparity between us. Since that’s laughable, “exploitation” cannot possibly have the definition that dumbass commenter was working under. At no time did I compare this situation to mugging or say that the Indian women were being mugged.

48. It’s so wonderful when people start arguing about arguing.

49. What, no Simpsons reference?

50. Obviously I was unclear in: Wider context worries (how this will hurt society etc.) aren’t accepted (and indeed, are vehemently opposed) by most of the regulars here when it is two consenting adults having sex (be they of opposite or same sex), or a woman making reproductive choices (including abortion).

    I meant reject wider context worries against the said things. Nowhere did I claim that feminists routinely reject them altogether: My point was that they’re playing with loaded dice, using wider context worries themselves and screaming about “oppressive values” and similar libertarian-lite arguments when conservatives etc. make them (and come to different conclusions). Of course such hypocrisy is in no way limited to feminism or feminists (nor are feminists the main culprits in the phenomena). It’s easily observable among any ideological movement where ends justify the means.

    For fuck’s sake. Here, I’ll spell it out for you. The definition of “exploitation” presented by the commenter I responded to boiled down to “offering someone else something they want in exchange for something they have.” That definition, which is incorrect, is so loose that it would include any trade between any two parties.

    Fuck your condescension, too. I get that.. And since people here seem to be operating under the framework of “this is exploitation of the less privileged”, I don’t think it was simply for purposes of illustration (as is evidenced by the power disparity concerns, see below).

    For one thing, mugging isn’t usually considered “trade between two parties” in everyday speech.The victim isn’t compensated by the mugger. Power disparity isn’t the issue there, the threat of violence is.

    Surrogate motherhood with (relatively) generous compensation is a trade, is it exploitation? Should rich Western people stop making economic transactions with less privileged people, or stop it, because of the power disparity? How does this help the less privileged (hint: It doesn’t)?

    Bodily autonomy is a wider-context argument, for one thing.

    Agreed there.

51. I meant reject wider context worries against the said things. Nowhere did I claim that feminists routinely reject them altogether: My point was that they’re playing with loaded dice, using wider context worries themselves and screaming about “oppressive values” and similar libertarian-lite arguments when conservatives etc. make them (and come to different conclusions). Of course such hypocrisy is in no way limited to feminism or feminists (nor are feminists the main culprits in the phenomena). It’s easily observable among any ideological movement where ends justify the means.

    I know what you said, and I think it’s bullshit. Feminists do not reject wider-context arguments against those things; they counter them with wider-context calculi of their own. A pro-life argument that banning abortion is good for society is traditionally disputed by all the reasons why it’s not; same with gay marriage. And if you think that feminists, particularly the ones most vocal on the subject of reproductive freedom, are “libertarian lite,” then you just haven’t been listening.

    Fuck your condescension, too. I get that.. And since people here seem to be operating under the framework of “this is exploitation of the less privileged”, I don’t think it was simply for purposes of illustration (as is evidenced by the power disparity concerns, see below).

    For one thing, mugging isn’t usually considered “trade between two parties” in everyday speech.The victim isn’t compensated by the mugger. Power disparity isn’t the issue there, the threat of violence is.

    Surrogate motherhood with (relatively) generous compensation is a trade, is it exploitation? Should rich Western people stop making economic transactions with less privileged people, or stop it, because of the power disparity? How does this help the less privileged (hint: It doesn’t)?

    Fuck your bad faith. You can think whatever the hell you want. I’m telling you that it was for purposes of illustration, that it was a reductio ad absurdum. I did not imply that mugging and this situation are comparable. And yes, exactly. The point I was making is that his working definitions had nothing to do with everyday speech; that they rested on definitions that we don’t use. But as far as “compensation,” that’s not true. The victim gets life in exchange for his wallet. He’s paying not to be shot.

52. The point I was making is that his working definitions had nothing to do with everyday speech; that they rested on definitions that we don’t use. But as far as “compensation,” that’s not true. The victim gets life in exchange for his wallet. He’s paying not to be shot.

    We don’t use them because they’re not valid. Compensation, as defined by American Heritage:

    Something, such as money, given or received as payment or reparation, as for a service or loss.

    Not being shot is not something given. You’re describing extortion, coersion, theft. It is not meaningful to equate these things to trade, as much as leftists would like it to be.

53. Not being shot is not something given. You’re describing extortion, coersion, theft. It is not meaningful to equate these things to trade, as much as leftists would like it to be.

    It’s not the leftists who want to ignore coercion and extortion when they affect the terms of a trade, thanks.

54. But as far as “compensation,” that’s not true. The victim gets life in exchange for his wallet. He’s paying not to be shot.

    And the mugger may as well shoot anyway.

    It’s not the leftists who want to ignore coercion and extortion when they affect the terms of a trade, thanks.

    You’re trying to keep the cake and eat it – it’s extortion (as is mugging) but it’s not comparable. What?

    And if you think that feminists, particularly the ones most vocal on the subject of reproductive freedom, are “libertarian lite,” then you just haven’t been listening.

    I have. I guess we have to agree to disagree. I’ve listened and participated in the said discussions – I’ve noted that pro-choicers when faced with tough opposition just tend to say “well, it’s still slavery, so I oppose it” (conversely, pro-lifers do the “well, it’s still murder, so I oppose it”). At least the ones who haven’t delved deep in to the issue, and are uncertain of the validity of their chosen position (having picked it because that’s what they’re “supposed” to believe).

    Of course they are not libertarian lite (being mostly socialists etc.), just making an argument on similar grounds. It’s just that they cherrypick whatever happens to support their chosen politics, a tactic that will probably backfire in the long run. Getting off topic…

55. And the mugger may as well shoot anyway.

    What does being able to default on one’s side of the deal have to do with whether or not it qualifies as a deal? You could make that argument about all kinds of trades, particularly those occurring across national borders and jurisdictions.

    You’re trying to keep the cake and eat it – it’s extortion (as is mugging) but it’s not comparable. What?

    What “it” are you referring to? If it’s something I didn’t mention, it’s probably not something I’m talking about.

    I have. I guess we have to agree to disagree. I’ve listened and participated in the said discussions – I’ve noted that pro-choicers when faced with tough opposition just tend to say “well, it’s still slavery, so I oppose it” (conversely, pro-lifers do the “well, it’s still murder, so I oppose it”). At least the ones who haven’t delved deep in to the issue, and are uncertain of the validity of their chosen position (having picked it because that’s what they’re “supposed” to believe).

    And how is your example not an argument of a wider-context social argument? Is slavery some moral abstract?

56. *Sigh*

    Some people do not agree that it is slavery.

    What “it” are you referring to? If it’s something I didn’t mention, it’s probably not something I’m talking about.

    “The cake”. Extortion of “brown women” is wrong (according to many here, ot at least problematic) because of extortion and power differentials, muggery is (in your comments) wrong because of extortion and power differentials.

    You could make that argument about all kinds of trades, particularly those occurring across national borders and jurisdictions.

    So you think the Western couple can just decide to not pay and still get the baby?

    Care to answer the relevant questions on the issue:

    Surrogate motherhood with (relatively) generous compensation is a trade, is it exploitation? Should rich Western people stop making economic transactions with less privileged people, or stop it, because of the power disparity? How does this help the less privileged?

    Or will we continue these lawyerly games?

57. I’m opposed to surrogacy outright. If you read the book The Mommy Myth, it will remove all doubt from your mind that the only reason that surrogacy is even considered acceptable, much less commendable, in our society is because it’s the patriarchy on crack, a perfect way for a man to turn a woman’s body into an incubator for his child. If I’m not mistaken, the child is often genetically the father’s and the surrogate mother’s and of course the surrogate mother provides all the effort and material for creating it and then is forced to hand it over to its “rightful” male parent. Surrogacy is the wet dream of the patriarchy.

    Using women’s poverty to extract this “service” from them is probably worse than prostitution.

58. Amanda: there’s generally a distinction made between surrogates and gestational carriers. Surrogates carry the baby to term, but they’re also the biological mother, impregnated via artificial insemination with the husband’s sperm. Gestational carriers are women who are merely implanted with an embryo on behalf of another couple. Said embryo can either be the couple’s or not.

    In plenty of states in the US, surrogacy is illegal owing to the Mary Beth Whitehead and Baby M drama. Gestational carrying, however, is not.

59. Pingback: Patriarchal imperialism on crack at Pandagon

60. I’ve just wandered over from Pandagon, and having read the comments here and thought about this a little, I think this issue bugs me in the same way that the issue of sweatshops does. Certainly, the poor people who work in a sweatshop are better off having a sweatshop job than no job. Certainly if I was in their position, I would choose the sweatshop just as they do. And certainly it’s their goddamned inalienable right to make that choice. I can’t help but respect their determination to better their lives by the only means available.

    But as a middle-class westerner with much more personal economic power (and a share in vastly greater national economic power) than the sweatshop employees, well, I feel really uncomfortable about the notion that I benefit from their labor. In my ideal world, nobody should have to have such a shitty job, or at the very least, their pay should be commensurate with the shittiness. We shouldn’t have large groups of people so desperate for employment that they’re willing to take on shitty jobs for microscopic wages. Pregnancy for pay might not be quite as shitty as a sweatshop job for some of the duration, but I hear there’s bits at the end that are pretty bad, and there’s the health risks, and so forth. And prostitution and other sex trade things seem to me like they’re probably similarly shitty.

    However, there are two important differences between sweatshop jobs and pregnancy/sex-trade jobs, which I think make a difference in the appropriate response. The obvious one, of course, is that surrogacy and the sex trade are shitty jobs nearly exclusively populated by women (surrogacy being, naturally, 100% female). So all the usual gender issues come into play here, and I won’t discuss those in detail, since it’s been done already.

    The other difference is that purchase of surrogacy or of sexual favors is, um, entirely optional. It’s not a life necessity. Even though it may make vast improvements in the purchaser’s quality of life, it’s still essentially a luxury good. Many sweatshop products, on the other hand, are such things as affordable and decent clothing, often with a target audience of poorer Americans. It’s hard for me to make the argument that the purchase of sweatshop clothing by someone who can’t afford decent alternatives is an ethical lapse. And I recognize that if I choose to avoid purchasing sweatshop clothing myself then I’m exercising my middle-class privilege. But the option to purchase surrogacy isn’t even available to poorer Americans, much less members of less wealthy societies, and somehow they survive without it. Choosing surrogacy is a choice to acquire something beyond the basic necessities of life, and when one makes such choices, the ethical implications start to matter far more than in choices about necessities.

    It’s not that I begrudge westerners with fertility issues the ability to have children who share their genetic material. I know the emotional significance of having one’s “own” child. But I think it’s important to recognize that even when both parties end up better off after a transaction than they were before, it doesn’t mean the transaction is not exploitative. I can’t quite bring myself to say the western parents are wrong to engage in such a transaction, but I’d still be disgusted if an acquaintance of mine did it, in the same way (but to a greater degree than) I’d be disgusted if they hired a prostitute. I’d find myself wondering how their desire to have their own genetic child could possibly trump their awareness of the social issues, when there are so many other ways to adopt a child which are less potentially problematic.

    So, anyway, this has gotten kind of rambling and long, but it’s was just what I was thinking.

61. Agreeing with Evil Fizz. Sometimes the future mother’s eggs are used (i.e. in the case where her eggs are fine, it’s her uterus that’s the problem). Other times it’s a “donor” egg, bought or given and mixed with hte man’s sperm. Then the embryo(s) are implanted into the gestational carrier, who has no legal claim on the resulting baby, because she has no genetic connection to it.

    Here in Canada selling eggs is illegal, they must be given for free. But in the US eggs are for sale. I came across a really disturbing California-based site with photos of all their prospective donors, genetic details, academic achevements, race, etc. Rather than each donor changing the same fee, the fees varied, presumably because some highly-in-demand donors can make more money out of the whole messy business (and egg donation is a heck of a lot more trouble than sperm donation). Started looking at prices, wondering how they’d determined how to set them, and soon discovered that white women without any education beyond high school were charging significantly higher rates than similarly placed minority women. White women in college, or with college degrees, were especially sought after. However, the black medical student’s price was strikingly lower than the prices charged by white women with a comparable academic record.

    Couples who choose egg donors generally go nuts over highly educated women, assuming that they’ll pass on ‘the smart gene’. But I noticed a white woman who was an undergrad at a university that is not at all well-known, could still charge more than the African-American med student at one of the top five schools in the US.

62. It’s not the leftists who want to ignore coercion and extortion when they affect the terms of a trade, thanks.

    You’re changing your statement. Before, when you gave the example of a mugging, the extortion was the trade. Now you’re arguing that it is affecting the terms of the trade. The trade is “your wallet for nothing in return,” and the extortion/coercion is “if you do not accept this trade, I will shoot you.” So, now you’re making a valid comparison. Congrats.

    Beyond that, though, your statement is a nonsense. Leftists, when they’re not saying that trade itself is theft or coercion, love it when certain types of coercion effect trade, just like some right-wingers do. It’s impressive, though, that you can argue that with a straight face when people in this very thread have stated that trades like the ones described in the article shouldn’t be allowed to occur, or should be required to occur at a higher price. How do you think that will be achieved, other than by coercion?

63. Raincitygirl, technically, in the US, eggs are not for sale, but the donor must be compensated for her time and trouble.

    However, as you see, the amount of compensation varies widely.

64. You’re changing your statement. Before, when you gave the example of a mugging, the extortion was the trade. Now you’re arguing that it is affecting the terms of the trade. The trade is “your wallet for nothing in return,” and the extortion/coercion is “if you do not accept this trade, I will shoot you.” So, now you’re making a valid comparison. Congrats.

    No, I’m not. I argued that coercive trade counted as trade under a definition that did not recognize coercion. Then, in response to a different statement by a different person (you), I’m saying that it ain’t leftists, generally speaking, who refuse to recognize coercion when it occurs. They’re different statements involving different things.

    Beyond that, though, your statement is a nonsense. Leftists, when they’re not saying that trade itself is theft or coercion, love it when certain types of coercion effect trade, just like some right-wingers do. It’s impressive, though, that you can argue that with a straight face when people in this very thread have stated that trades like the ones described in the article shouldn’t be allowed to occur, or should be required to occur at a higher price. How do you think that will be achieved, other than by coercion?

    I haven’t seen many people arguing for cervix tariffs, here or in other discussions about surrogacy, whatever strawman-baiting Tuomas would like to fool around with. Jill and most of the other people here, myself included, are not advocating making this practice illegal.

65. *Sigh*

    Some people do not agree that it is slavery.

    So? That doesn’t mean that working under a different definition of slavery means that you’re inconsistent.

    “The cake”. Extortion of “brown women” is wrong (according to many here, ot at least problematic) because of extortion and power differentials, muggery is (in your comments) wrong because of extortion and power differentials.

    *headdesk* No! This situation is potentially wrong to the extent that it is exploitative. Mugging is clearly wrong because it is clearly exploitative! Would you just drop the offhand analogy in response to a completely different argument already? You’ve chewed it to death.

    So you think the Western couple can just decide to not pay and still get the baby?

    Probably not, but what does that have to do with this topic?

    Care to answer the relevant questions on the issue:

    Surrogate motherhood with (relatively) generous compensation is a trade, is it exploitation? Should rich Western people stop making economic transactions with less privileged people, or stop it, because of the power disparity? How does this help the less privileged?

    Or will we continue these lawyerly games?

    These lawyerly games are exactly why I have zero interest in discussing this with you. But: not necessarily, not necessarily, and why would it?

66. Jill and most of the other people here, myself included, are not advocating making this practice illegal.

    Granted, and appreciated, that you nor Jill have not been arguing to outlaw this particular practice, though other threadizens have. But the point stands that, when it comes to certain kinds of coercion affecting trade terms, y’all are all for it. “Fair” trade restrictions, child support mandates, income redistribution via social security, welfare, public school funding, health care, etc., all manner of sin taxes (cigarettes, gasoline, luxury goods), are all coercive influences on trade, which many leftists support, often without even recognizing their coercive elements.

    No, I’m not. I argued that coercive trade counted as trade under a definition that did not recognize coercion.

    Fine, if that’s what you were arguing, I accept that.

67. Probably not, but what does that have to do with this topic?

    It had relevance to the mugging comparison. It is not exploitative to the extent of mugging because the deal holds here, and has to be met by the womb-renter too. Power imbalance therefore is not nearly on the same level.
    Refutation to your claim about the:

    And the mugger may as well shoot anyway.

    What does being able to default on one’s side of the deal have to do with whether or not it qualifies as a deal? You could make that argument about all kinds of trades, particularly those occurring across national borders and jurisdictions.

    (emphasis mine)

    Don’t play stupid. So you clearly could not make that argument about this kind of trade. It was IMO relevant to the case to completely refute the claim that this situation is similar, otherwise the “it’s kind of like mugging” would have sticked. Perhaps it was your intention not to make it stick, but that’s how it looked like (sorry for the bad faith).

    But I’ll drop it now.

    But: not necessarily, not necessarily, and why would it?

    Okay, good. Some here have, and those posters have not cared to explain their reasons in detail (other than “It’s just wrong/patriarchy, etc.!”).

    I already did say that I thought this was a good article (#28), and people who hold a position close to Jill and you are not the ones I have problem against. It’s the ones who step on the next level: Banning this.

68. Pingback: catallaxy » Blog Archive » We’re in favour of reproductive rights, except when we’re not

Comments are currently closed.