No one can argue that India is the outsourcing capital of the world. Unfortunately, the newest “service” to be outsourced raises some pretty prickly moral and ethical issues. The first time I heard about Indian women renting out their wombs as surrogate mothers to wealthy Western couples I thought it was some sort of sick joke…but a quick google search brought me more hits then I could count. India has figured out a way to turn surrogate mothering into an assembly line commodity.
Proponents of India’s womb for hire business argue that no harm is being done because all the surrogate mothers are willing and voluntary human incubators, they receive the finest care whilst carrying the surrogate baby, and they are paid anywhere from $6000 - $10,000 for their role. Many of the women also receive education and financial advise. In a country as ravished with poverty as India, $6000 is more than many rural people can make in a lifetime.
So, if it’s voluntary and the women are treated well, what’s the problem you might ask? Judith Warner suscintly lays out the moral dilemma of the newly popular “Rent-A-Womb” service in this New York Times article.
Because what’s going on in India – where surrogacy is estimated now to be a $445-million-a-year business — feels like a step toward the kind of insane dehumanization that filled the dystopic fantasies of Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” and Margaret Atwood’s “Handmaid’s Tale.” (One “medical tourism” website, PlanetHospital.com, refers to the Indian surrogate mother as a mere “host.”) Images of pregnant women lying in rows, or sitting lined up, belly after belly, for medical exams look like industrial outsourcing pushed to a nightmarish extreme.
There is a reason commercial surrogacy is banned in countries like France and Italy and in many US states (although not all). How different is this service compared to prostitution? Ultimately, in both surrogacy and prostitution the female body is reduced down to nothing more than a gendered shell to provide an entirely physical service. The arguments made by advocates can only be made because of the abject poverty in which most of the surrogate mothers come from. It’s funny how poverty can skew people’s perspective on what is and is not ethical.
So, what do you think? Is this just another example of globalization and industrialization or is this an example of dehumanization at its best?
Other posts you might be interested in:
Blog RSS Blog Comments RSS
rudy rupak wrote:
I am Rudy Rupak, President of PlanetHospital. I thank you for your comments but I would like to challenge your point of view.
First of all, what is wrong with the word HOST? What would you rather I called these women? How exactly is it that they are considered exploited whereas surrogate women in the US or Canada are NOT considered exploited?
As per the exploitation argument, I would like to speak to the over 13 couples we have helped last year have a baby. these are couples, single women, and gay partners who just wanted a child. Well, they got their wish and in doing so, they helped 13 women in India fulfill their dreams of home ownership, sending their children to better schools, and more. They are no different than surrogate women in America getting their needs taken care of financially. Yes the women we use come from poverty, but once they are confirmed pregnant, they have a ticket to financial freedom. Also, we are the ONLY company that asks the parents to put up a fund in case of illness or death. I just want you to know that a candle loses nothing by lighting another candle. This is what we are doing. So whether we are calling them a host or other name, we certainly do not see their contribution pejoratively and neither do the people who use our services.
Posted on 22-Jan-08 at 7:26 pm | Permalink
Xxxtine wrote:
Hmm … it’s a tough line to tread actually.
Take for instance the film JUNO - in where Emily Page’s character gets unwittingly knocked up and decides to give her baby up for adoption to Jennifer Garner’s character who unfortunately can’t get pregnant and so desperately wants to.
Perhaps morality and supposed ethics in this case are very regional and cultural specific. There have been numerous times where I’ve heard relatives literally giving their kids away to other relatives to raise because they had none.
One could say that because these women come from poverty and are therefore uneducated they are unable to see the exploitive factor and the moral and ethical dilemma of the bigger picture. I say, when you’re poor, you have very little choices already - who’s to say it’s one a one-sided exploitation.
And perhaps this is one step closer to dehumanization of the entire race we refer to as homo sapiens. We all know the world is going to hell in a hand woven basket anyways. Besides, it’s not like they’re creating death … they’re creating new life.
Posted on 23-Jan-08 at 12:50 pm | Permalink
Taylor Miles wrote:
xxxtine,
Very good points. I think morality and ethics do have slight differences between cultures and regions, but there are some basic fundamentals that transend cultural and regional boundaries.
This topic of Hosts and Midwives has been around for a while, but not really discussed in mainstream media. The whole medical tourism concept has lead to a dramatic increase in these types of services.
I have a question for you. For exploitation to take place, does not one party need to be taken advantage of? If both parties are willing participants and both parties end up in a better situation than they started, how is it exploitation?
Posted on 23-Jan-08 at 2:17 pm | Permalink
Bo wrote:
Taylor you ask a good question regarding exploitation but here’s my perspective. Your conclusion “if both parties end up in a better situation than they started it is not explotation” assumes that both parties are approaching the exchange as equals. I believe the whole surrogate mother factory scenario in India (or in any other third world nation) can’t be viewed through the lense of equal exchange of services and goods because one party is a significantly different socio-economic condition. When a person is living in a constant state of duress (which poverty does) they may make choices that they would not otherwise do. As a person from a economically advantaged country, we can either chose to take advantage of the impoverished person’s choices (made under duress) or not.
My biggest issue with this entire industry isn’t how much or how little the women are being paid but the “commodity” that is being exchanged. The entire surrogate mother industry is ultimately nothing more than an industry of flesh and the “renting out” of the body. When we begin to see the human body as an exchangable product, it begins to devalue the definition of life. Ultimately, the western couples utilizing these services do not care about the women themselves, they care about the baby she is carrying. I’m sure if science could create a fool proof incubator that perfectly replicated the female womb, I’m pretty sure that almost all couples would opt to use the incubator over a surrogate mother in India. And that is the reason why I’m so disturbed by this entire industry. To the western couples, the women are not humans they are incubators, hosts, carriers of their precious cargo, a physical body that can provide a service with minimal hassel.
Posted on 24-Jan-08 at 9:50 am | Permalink
Xxxtine wrote:
I really don’t know about that Bo.
The dehumanizing aspect seems to only be in the language and sales pitch - in where have you ever heard a salesperson? They come with some really inventive, often cheesy lines to sell their product or service.
I find it really hard to think that a person, who wants a baby, would not care about the person that is bringing forth said baby. They may not invest emotionally, like become friends with said host, but certainly, the expenses they would already incur for themselves they would shoulder. I mean, why would anyone ‘rent a womb’ to bring forth a child into this insane world that they themselves would have to raise for the next 18 years unless they weren’t already emotionally involved and prepared for the journey. I would imagine that for most people utilizing said service, it’s a last resort.
Posted on 24-Jan-08 at 12:24 pm | Permalink
Shelise wrote:
Bo, I agree, the path this “industry” is leading to is alarming. Monetary compensation is not adequate acknowledgment of humanity. I think an open adoption is a more fitting acknowledgment of a birth mother’s humanity, in that she is a real live person who can have human relationships, not just an incubator.
What troubles me most is who is concerned about the ramifications of this process for the children being produced/adopted? No matter how loving your adoptive family is, how wealthy they are, how many opportunities you have access to, it does not take away the pain of losing your first family and your birth culture. Add this to coming from such a sterile, transactional type of beginning and you have created some major baggage.
Posted on 24-Jan-08 at 1:58 pm | Permalink
THE_BANANA_REPUBLIC wrote:
I concur with Bo. I wouldn’t say this is an example of dehumanization at it’s best, but it does lean in that direction. I have the belief that one should not measure the worth of human life through monetary means.
Google ads tell me I can make up to $30k as a surrogate mother.
Posted on 24-Jan-08 at 4:52 pm | Permalink
Bo wrote:
Banana Republic, you bring up another interesting point. Women in the US or Europe can get paid $30K or more to be surrogate mothers while the Indian women only get $6K - $10K. Basically, this means that someone has decided that 9 months of a western women’s life is 3 -5 times more valuable than a woman in India.
Posted on 24-Jan-08 at 9:27 pm | Permalink
Bo, that might be true, but you could counter that argument that the cost of living in India is much less than the cost of living in the United States or in Europe. (It was definitely my experience when I was in India for business a couple of years ago.)
Posted on 24-Jan-08 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
Vanie wrote:
So, what do you think? Is this just another example of globalization and industrialization or is this an example of dehumanization at its best?
What do you mean, Bo? Do you “rea..lly” care for them? ( I mean about poor ladies in India and unfortunate couples who are unable to have their own babies or was it just a talk?)
Posted on 08-Aug-08 at 2:36 pm | Permalink
Obi wrote:
Just read of a Japanese couple who had a “rent a womb”.
They have now broken up and the biological mother does not want the child. The father does and he currently has his mother taking care of the baby, In India.
The problem is that by Indian Law, he cannot adopt the child by himself.
He should have enough money to sort out the problem, but these contracts should be ironclad. If the couple were to split up; who gets the baby?
Posted on 11-Aug-08 at 5:47 am | Permalink