| OCR Text |
Show SOCIAL POLICY Surrogate Motherhood The so-called "Baby M" case has recently brought surrogate motherhood into the spotlight for social policy experts. In "The Surrogacy Business," published in Social Policy, Fall 1987, Rita Arditti argues against the concept. While her views do not necessarily represent mine, I present her arguments here to promote thoughtful consideration of a difficult moral issue. Arditti indicates first of all that the term "surrogate mother" is a misnomer. She quotes a Canadian feminist as having said, "The woman who carries and labors to give birth to a baby with her own ova and from her own womb is clearly a real mother. She is, however, a surrogate wife to the man whose legal wife is infertile." Misnomer or otherwise, more than 500 babies have been born this way. Arditti further suggests that surrogacy reinforces the classic Western patriarchal view that the woman is the passive incubator of the man's sperm. She receives it from him and gives a baby back to him. Therefore, it is not a surprise that surrogacy contracts set up an enormous surveillance system for controlling women's lives. The woman has to agree not to smoke, drink, or use any drugs during pregnancy . . . and in the search for a perfect baby, prenatal testing must be performed during the pregnancy 'to detect genetic and congenital defects' and the woman must 'abort the fetus on demand' if these are found. If the woman refuses, the obligations of the sperm donor cease. One of ArdittL's major points is that contracts are drawn mainly between uppermiddle cla~s couples and working-class women. A psychologist who screens candidates for Surrogate Mothering Ltd. in Philadelphia told Ob/Gyn News: "I believe candidates with an element of financial need are the safest. If a woman is on unemployment and has children to care for, she is not likely to change her mind and want to keep the baby she is being paid to have for somebody else." 1 young Mexican woman was brought illegally to the U.S. to be inseminated by the husband of her cousin; the embryo would then be transplanted to the cousin. After the insemination, the woman was told it would not be possible to perform a transplant and she would have to carry the pregnancy to term. She was paid $1,500 to do so -- far below the "standard" fee of $10,000. After she signed the agreement, the father added, in handwriting, "I will give up my rights to the baby." The young Mexican woman did not speak English and is an illegal alien. She also wanted to keep her baby. She currently has visiting rights at her cousin's home, but could be deported at any time and lose any connection with her child. Arditti argues fervently that Third World women may lose the most by such arrangements because of in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Theoretically, a husband and wife could have their sperm and egg united in-vitro and the embryo could be transferred to a third party for maturation. This decision opens the door for the exploitation of women of color. Racism and the demand of a certain kind of look have protected Third World women from being used as rented wombs. But with new technologies, where the women's body will not furnish the egg, many more types of women become possible surrogates. Couples would be able to have Third World and poor women carry their children at spectacularly low wages. John Stehura from the Bionetic Foundation speculates that one-tenth the current surrogacy fee could be paid to such women. Asked what countries he had in mind, Stehura replied, "Central America would be fine . . . . We're bringing girls in from the Orient, from Korea, Thailand, and Malaysia." Arditti closes her arguments by quoting from Margaret Atwood's book, The Handmaid's Tale. Offred, a handmaiden whose only function in the world is to breed, says: "We are containers, it's only the insides of our bodies that are important . . . Now the flesh arranges itself differently. I'm a cloud, congealed around a central obje~t, the shape of a pear, which is hard and more real than I am . . . " I offer the above as food for thought . . . While the media focuses on the Baby M case, Arditti cites another case that portends an even more ominous future for women. A Shery 1 Gil 1 i lan Social Policy Chair Salt Lake Voter -4- AprJ 1988 |
