Posted by Helen on: 01.14.2008 /
I heard Chuck Colson’s daily commentary on the radio this morning as I was driving home after taking one of my children to school.
In today’s commentary, Wombs for Rent, he objects to women paying other women to have babies for them. He quotes a columnist who also objects to it, but his reasons for objecting are different from hers:
I would submit that the reason for the revulsion [we feel about the concept of surrogacy] is that we cannot get away from the law written on our hearts, which tells us that the Creator has an intentional design for our families that benefits and protects men, women, and children.
Ten years ago I would have felt I ought to give this argument the benefit of the doubt. These days I don’t have to pay any attention to it, which I appreciate.
I don’t see anything wrong with paying a woman to have a baby for you, if she’s not being taken advantage of. Whether the surrogate mothers in India are being taken advantage of goes beyond ‘fair price’, perhaps - because are wealthy couples taking advantage of the unequal distribution of wealth in the world when they pay women from poor countries to have babies for them? I think that’s an issue. But conceptually, I don’t have a problem with people voluntarily entering into a transaction which results in them both getting something they want very much.
I think it must be hard for a woman to have a baby and give that baby up, but if she wants to, who am I to object? In general I find myself disagreeing with conservative Christian morality when it dictates that something is ’sinful’ even though everyone involved wants to go ahead with it and I can see no obvious risk or downside (except that it upsets conservative Christians to see their moral standards ignored, which to me is not a reason not to go ahead with something).
Comment by: Rachel
1 01/14/08 8:38 AM | Comment Link |I don’t feel revulsion about the concept of surrogacy at all. I think it is beautiful. I actually told my cousin years ago that I would be willing to be a surrogate for her and her husband (only to carry a baby, not contribute genetic material). It was not a serious discussion since they do not have the financial resources to actually do this. But what I said meant a lot to my cousin. She and her husband will be wonderful parents. And I could not imagine any act of service more fulfilling than to lay their baby in their arms. (BTW, my cousin and her husband are now in the process of adopting a baby girl from China. And I would not make that offer today because of health issues.)
Comment by: joe (another one)
2 01/14/08 9:08 AM | Comment Link |My ‘only’ problem concerns the commodification of children. A far more important question than whether a woman should bare a surrogate child is the kind of world we live in where there is such demand for children to make adults’ lives complete and where mothers feel the only thing they have to sell is their childbearing ability.
That is pretty sick in my opinion.
Comment by: benjamin ady
3 01/14/08 9:59 AM | Comment Link |Helen,
the freedom you describe, to ignore a silly argument, *is* delightful, isn’t it. Chuck’s assumption that everyone shares his revulsion is a bit of a leap, isn’t it? And very modern.
I’m curious about the mechanics of it. One assumes that an egg is extracted, sperm is donated, a zygote is created, and then said zygote is flown in a supersonic aircraft to India, where it is implanted in a surrogate mother. I wonder if part of the revulsion is actually related to the conservative Christian revulsion for discussing or thinking about all things related to sexuality?
It *does* create a bit of an … unusual image in my imagination, to picture lots of jets with little zygotes flying above me, on their way to their temporary mom.
Wasn’t Mary the mother of Jesus a surrogate mother, in a sense? Does Chuck find that revolting?
Comment by: benjamin ady
4 01/14/08 10:13 AM | Comment Link |Ok–maybe not. I suppose maybe the biological parents fly to India. That would make more sense. The New York Times column Chuck refers to is here. And the photos that column refers to are here. I don’t find the photos at all offputting like Judith does.
It is indeed very freeing to be able to choose to take people at their word when they both say they are pleased with the situation they are entering into. *So* glad am I not to have to try to filter their words through the complicated lenses I used to wear. *So* glad am I that I’ve managed at some level to move toward believing that others know and understand their own stories better than I do.
Comment by: Helen
5 01/14/08 10:36 AM | Comment Link |Rachel, wow, I had no idea you’d offered that to your cousin. I think going through pregnancies for a baby I will keep is hard enough so I admire anyone willing to do that for someone else!
Joe, if it’s ok for people who can have children to have them, what’s wrong with those who can’t paying someone else to have a baby for them? If anything at least we know these children are wanted. You seem to assume they’re wanted for the ‘wrong’ reasons but I don’t see how we can know that.
I do agree with you that women should be valued for more than their ability to bear children.
Benjamin wrote:
LOL :) - probably not
Exactly!
Comment by: joe
6 01/14/08 11:40 AM | Comment Link |The commodifying effect. I’m not implying anything about individuals who chose to do this, but society has got to the stage where children are a must-have lifestyle choice. This is just an extension of that.
Comment by: Helen
7 01/14/08 11:51 AM | Comment Link |Joe, if people want children and this is a legitimate way to have them I don’t see the problem with that.
It seems like a very normal, natural human desire to me, to want children. If people don’t I don’t have an issue with that but it seems normal to want them. It seems unfair to me to say “if you can have children ‘naturally’ you can have them, but the rest of you can’t even though in theory there are people willing to bear a child for you”
Comment by: Jessica
8 01/14/08 12:18 PM | Comment Link |While I have no problem with surrogacy itself and think it can be an amazing gift, I do think surrogacy raises some really important questions. For one, why is it so important to have a biological child by a surrogate when there are so many children all over the world waiting and wanting to be adopted? I know adoption isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but for environmentalists and probably Christians it should definitely be considered as better stewardship of the earth’s population and the money they’re willing to spend on surrogacy.
And two, what if the child in the womb is discovered to be handicapped? Is the surrogate forced to have an abortion, given that parents paying to have a child are probably not going to want a handicapped one?
I think the question is not so much is surrogacy ok, but in what circumstances?
Thanks for the interesting post, Helen!
Comment by: Helen
9 01/14/08 12:37 PM | Comment Link |Jessica I agree, those are important questions. I wonder if some of those were in Joe’s mind also.
I still think it discriminates against those who can’t have children to expect them to adopt unwanted children (which is quite challenging from what I hear) whereas other people don’t have to do that because they can have their own baby - without the emotional baggage and health problems unwanted children often have. It’s not the fault of the children of course but it does mean raising them is harder.
Comment by: Stephan
10 01/14/08 12:50 PM | Comment Link |My wife and I have some friends who could not conceive, and were told by several other couples that life is not complete without children. We bluntly told them that if they were incomplete without children, they would still be incomplete with children. It was only after this, and spending a weekend with us and our three children, that they decided to adopt. We had offered that my wife could be a surrogate for them if they decided to go that route, so I have no problem with that. They declined the offer and have gone on to adopt three wonderful children from Asia.
I think there are serious ethical questions when you start to rent out wombs, however. It’s very different from a friend or a family member making the offer, and borders on prostitution in some ways.
Comment by: Sharon
11 01/14/08 3:01 PM | Comment Link |I have to admit I find both the idea of international surrogacy and Chuck Colsen’s comments problematic- in different ways.
I haven’t heard Colsen’s commentary (I probably wouldn’t have listened to it even if I could have!) but based on the quote here I agree with Benjamin. I don’t like the assumed “we” and I feel very uncomfortable with the comment about families. He seems to be saying that if your family doesn’t fit the pattern of God-given intentional design then it’s all bad. That kind of black and white thinking doen’t sit well with me anymore.
However while I do not share Colsens revulsion of surrogacy itself, but do share a lot of concerns with the columnist regarding this particular scenario. While I have never been in the position of a childless couple or surrogate mother and can’t pretend to fully understand thier struggles, I think the idea of paying women in poor countries to have babies for women in rich ones brings up some very serious ethical and justice issues. I actually think this whole story actually speaks more about north/south power and economic relationships than it does about individual decisions and families. It seems a good deal for the both sides but do you really think the potential surrogate mother in India really has much choice? If they were able to earn money for themselves and thier families by other less invasive means do you think they would choose to be a surrogate mother? I like the final paragraph of the column-
Comment by: Helen
12 01/14/08 5:26 PM | Comment Link |Stephan, like I said to Rachel, I’m impressed you and your wife would offer to do this for your friends. I agree that people who want children to ‘complete’ them are unlikely to find that happens. So, Joe, I do agree with you if that was one point you were making.
Sharon, I agree with you about the ethical and justice issues.
Comment by: Eliza
13 01/14/08 6:27 PM | Comment Link |I see a difference between, on the one hand, hiring a stranger to carry a child & give it up and, on the other hand, an agreement made out of love & support between family members & friends. I’m not sure I can fully justify seeing those situations as so different, but I do.
A surrogate participating for payment suggests the woman’s value as a baby-incubator exceeds her value in most other occupations available to her at that time…but only because she would be bearing the child of someone, or some couple, which can afford to pay in order to bring their dream of a biological child of their own to fruition. When the surrogate participates for pay, there is almost certainly a large difference in resources/wealth available to the surrogate & to the couple, & that difference should raise serious concern about the “fairness” of such an arrangement. (When the surrogate participates out of love, the relationship in status/wealth is probably much closer, besides which it’s not the basis for the decision.)
Picture a woman in India being paid $5K (I didn’t check what the going rate is in India) to carry a child as a surrogate for a New York couple, while her sister living in poverty across town is pregnant with her own 5th child, having lost 2 in infancy to diarrheal illnesses. Which of these babies is worth more? Is it just that one of these pregnant women is being paid (and probably being provided with prenatal care, and resources to eat well during the pregnancy) but the other isn’t? What does that say about us all? (As Joe said, the commodification of babies - but only of a select tiny percentage of babies. Mostly white ones.) [Edited for clarity]
Another problem is that pregnancy is not without risk, & can have lifelong consequences for the surrogate. Also, infertility treatments not infrequently result in multiple pregnancy; I tried to look up some information on what percentage of surrogate gestational pregnancies (in which the egg is from the woman arranging the surrogacy, not from the surrogate) are twins, triplets, & so on, but I couldn’t find that information, though I did find a medical study reporting a higher miscarriage rate among gestational surrogates (yet another factor which may influence how some people think about surrogacy).
I think in any surrogacy arrangement, but especially an arrangement between strangers & people of unequal wealth, there should be a frank discussion and also a contract spelling out what will happen in the event of a long list of potential events, including medical complications affecting the surrogate (whether during pregnancy or lifelong), what will happen if the fetus is “defective” (as Jessica pointed out), whether & in what situations the surrogate might terminate the pregnancy or the biological parents might renounce any claim to the child (ethically, the couple can’t force the surrogate to have an abortion, IMSHO = in my strongly held opinion), and what happens if the surrogate decides not to hand over the baby after it’s born (IMO, she can’t be, shouldn’t be, forced to give up the child which she carried for the duration of a pregnancy, & bore). (Womb-motherhood trumps genetic motherhood in my mind. Is that horribly old-fashioned??)
Stephan said surrogacy can border on prostitution in some ways when the arrangement is made between strangers. I have a far easier time accepting prostitution (defined here as sexual acts performed/given explicitly in trade for something of value, usually money) over surrogacy-for-money, though still have some of the same concern about the very limited options for earning equivalent income for the women who go into prostitution, & of course all of the crime & drug use surrounding prostitution (which is a by-product of it being illegal). Part of the reason prostitution bothers me less is that it’s an arrangement between adults, with no children involved (or, not intentionally; I guess prostitutes do inadvertently conceive at times). It’s a short term arrangement. In the absence of violence, & with the use of condoms, noone is going to die from prostitution (whereas death for the surrogate in a pregnancy can occur as she tries to carry out her end of the bargain).
Comment by: benjamin ady
14 01/14/08 7:01 PM | Comment Link |Eliza,
As always you bring large amounts of sense into the discussion. Thank you.
Comment by: Eliza
15 01/14/08 8:41 PM | Comment Link |Or, at least, large amounts of words!
;-)
(Thanks, Benj!)
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
16 01/15/08 3:30 PM | Comment Link |Many in the conservative theological camp are against “artificial” means of any sort to have children. They don’t even believe in technology to increase the probability of ovulation, or technology that helps when a woman is allergic to a man’s sperm. They think we should all just live with whatever their definition is of “what God intended.”
Comment by: Karen
17 01/15/08 4:04 PM | Comment Link |Something tells me that most of these “just live with it” people are a) men and/or b) already parents.
It seems pretty heartless to me to say “too bad god doesn’t want you to make babies” to a young woman desperate to give birth, and contemplating the fact that technology now opens up amazing possibilities for her that didn’t exist in her mother’s and grandmother’s day.
Having struggled for three years with infertility myself, I can tell you that it’s a pretty emotional issue and “just live with it” comes off as a cruel response (not that you’re saying that, Doreen, I understand that you’re explaining here, not advocating).