Surrogacy
The real problem with the Pope’s extreme words about surrogacy
[...] Some “progressive Pope.” ...
Oh, did you guys only just now notice that Pope Francis is a conservative sexist?
Having said that, I do think there are valid concerns about surrogacy.
For one thing, it costs a lot (like around $200,000) and it does seem somehow disturbing that a lot of rich and famous people use it .. Kim and Khloé Kardashian, Paris Hilton, Nicole Kidman, Alec Baldwin's wife, Elon Musk's girlfriend, etc.
There's the worry that this practice will take advantage of poor women who don't have a lot of other money-making options.
I have read that surrogates say they do this out of the goodness of their hearts to help those sad childless couples have a baby, but I'm skeptical.
It seems like the last resort when a person has to make ends meet by selling/renting bits of their own bodies. Whether you're selling your eggs, sperm, blood, or just renting out your underparts for sex work or your womb for surrogacy, it reminds me of cannibalizing yourself when you're starving.
Here's a bit from a past opinion piece in The New York Times ...
Paid Surrogacy Is Exploitative
[...] The problem is exploitation. Women can make a considerable sum of money if they take fertility drugs, agree to the equivalent of medical prison confinement and bear a healthy baby. So what is the problem when a very poor woman makes money and someone goes home with a baby?
The problem is that the only motive for being a paid surrogate is poverty. Forget all the talk about wanting to help others. The only reason a woman in India, South Africa or Ukraine would be a surrogate is for desperately needed cash. If your only way to earn a living is to enter the sex trade or sell your womb, is that really a choice?
Some argue that women in these poor nations are allowed to do other menial, risky and difficult work, like making clothing in sweatshops. But, as the saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right. The women in the sweatshops are being exploited. They too deserve better choices and better options rather than the relatively well-off buyers who ignore their exploitation because they love the lower cost of clothes ...
I think fairly soon artificial wombs will be available for use and hopefully insurance will pay for that, reducing the possibility of exploitation: FDA advisers discuss future of ‘artificial womb’ for human infants
[...] Some “progressive Pope.” ...
Oh, did you guys only just now notice that Pope Francis is a conservative sexist?
Having said that, I do think there are valid concerns about surrogacy.
For one thing, it costs a lot (like around $200,000) and it does seem somehow disturbing that a lot of rich and famous people use it .. Kim and Khloé Kardashian, Paris Hilton, Nicole Kidman, Alec Baldwin's wife, Elon Musk's girlfriend, etc.
There's the worry that this practice will take advantage of poor women who don't have a lot of other money-making options.
I have read that surrogates say they do this out of the goodness of their hearts to help those sad childless couples have a baby, but I'm skeptical.
It seems like the last resort when a person has to make ends meet by selling/renting bits of their own bodies. Whether you're selling your eggs, sperm, blood, or just renting out your underparts for sex work or your womb for surrogacy, it reminds me of cannibalizing yourself when you're starving.
Here's a bit from a past opinion piece in The New York Times ...
Paid Surrogacy Is Exploitative
[...] The problem is exploitation. Women can make a considerable sum of money if they take fertility drugs, agree to the equivalent of medical prison confinement and bear a healthy baby. So what is the problem when a very poor woman makes money and someone goes home with a baby?
The problem is that the only motive for being a paid surrogate is poverty. Forget all the talk about wanting to help others. The only reason a woman in India, South Africa or Ukraine would be a surrogate is for desperately needed cash. If your only way to earn a living is to enter the sex trade or sell your womb, is that really a choice?
Some argue that women in these poor nations are allowed to do other menial, risky and difficult work, like making clothing in sweatshops. But, as the saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right. The women in the sweatshops are being exploited. They too deserve better choices and better options rather than the relatively well-off buyers who ignore their exploitation because they love the lower cost of clothes ...
I think fairly soon artificial wombs will be available for use and hopefully insurance will pay for that, reducing the possibility of exploitation: FDA advisers discuss future of ‘artificial womb’ for human infants
posted by crystal | 11:44 AM
2 Comments:
Yeah, surrogacy has always seemed exploitive to me. The exception might be someone who did it to help a family member who is unable to carry a pregnancy. But most of the time it's someone who is poor, especially if they are from another country. For the same reason I am against it being legal to buy or sell organs. One could for instance give a kidney to save a loved one's life. But no amount of money could pay someone for risking their life that way.
John Oliver had an episode of Last Week Tonight about organ donation and it's disturbing how wealthy people can optimize their chances of getting an organ way ahead of others.
Post a Comment
<< Home