miss maggie (
bossymarmalade) wrote2008-02-04 12:56 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Entry tags:
i slipped fertility drugs into your breakfast squishee
[ 14 Valentines - Day Three: Reproductive Rights ]
I am completely uninterested in bearing children. I always have been, despite constant assurances (from any and every person who feels it's their business to correct me about what I want for my own body and life) that "this will change" and "what about your future husband's opinion" and "oh, every woman eventually wants a baby". Yep, that's the way to convince me, all right -- heteronormative, sexist cliche!
At any rate, at least I can still buy birth control if I want, and I am educated and priviliged enough to make my own reproductive choices, because I live in the West.
If I were impoverished in India, I might be carrying rich people's children for money.
Every article you read on this subject is chock-full of weeping and grateful parents talking about the miracle of their new babies and Indian surrogates and their husbands talking about how grateful they are for the money and the chance to give happiness. Most of them are just reprints of the same AP article about a quiet town known for producing milk.
Apart from the truthout article (which, let's be honest, takes a disappointing turn for the wimpy at the end there), I found exactly two articles that were unwaveringly critical of the practice: one from The Christian Post noting that it's not the wonderful gift of life motivating surrogates, but their crushing poverty; and one from Qatar's English paper The Gulf Times detailing the emotional and social hardship inflicted on the surrogate mothers.
I am amazed that people can read these news reports with quotes like this from surrogate proponent Dr. Nayana Patel:
This is our privilege at work. This is us *renting* poor, dark-skinned women to carry our babies, because heaven forbid we be denied biological children by either deity or nature should we desire them. This is us ignoring the fact that these women are doing it for the money, are forced to wear masks and live in secrecy, and are from a culture that still suffers the economic and emotional scars of colonialism and constantly faces pressures to be more Westernized.
Our reproductive rights are important, yes. But they are not so sacrosanct that we visit this sort of abuse on other women who don't have the choices, the money, or the power that we do.
I am completely uninterested in bearing children. I always have been, despite constant assurances (from any and every person who feels it's their business to correct me about what I want for my own body and life) that "this will change" and "what about your future husband's opinion" and "oh, every woman eventually wants a baby". Yep, that's the way to convince me, all right -- heteronormative, sexist cliche!
At any rate, at least I can still buy birth control if I want, and I am educated and priviliged enough to make my own reproductive choices, because I live in the West.
If I were impoverished in India, I might be carrying rich people's children for money.
Every article you read on this subject is chock-full of weeping and grateful parents talking about the miracle of their new babies and Indian surrogates and their husbands talking about how grateful they are for the money and the chance to give happiness. Most of them are just reprints of the same AP article about a quiet town known for producing milk.
Apart from the truthout article (which, let's be honest, takes a disappointing turn for the wimpy at the end there), I found exactly two articles that were unwaveringly critical of the practice: one from The Christian Post noting that it's not the wonderful gift of life motivating surrogates, but their crushing poverty; and one from Qatar's English paper The Gulf Times detailing the emotional and social hardship inflicted on the surrogate mothers.
I am amazed that people can read these news reports with quotes like this from surrogate proponent Dr. Nayana Patel:
"Patel says she will not allow women to use their own eggs, in case they became too emotionally attached to the babies."-- and think there's nothing wrong here.
This is our privilege at work. This is us *renting* poor, dark-skinned women to carry our babies, because heaven forbid we be denied biological children by either deity or nature should we desire them. This is us ignoring the fact that these women are doing it for the money, are forced to wear masks and live in secrecy, and are from a culture that still suffers the economic and emotional scars of colonialism and constantly faces pressures to be more Westernized.
Our reproductive rights are important, yes. But they are not so sacrosanct that we visit this sort of abuse on other women who don't have the choices, the money, or the power that we do.
no subject
The drive to reproduce is strong (I gather), sure but when it leads to this gigantic disconnect that allows you to think it's okay to treat human beings like this... Jesus.
no subject
What I really mean to say is what if something goes wrong like the kid inherits something from the birth mother that the parents didn't want? Is it the surrogates fault? She's a poor woman doing this out of desperation for money to support her family. She's obviously not worth anything than being a fucking INCUBATOR. What's to say that people who are pissed off at the results won't seek revenge?
I'm just. Ugh. Enraged is too light of a word.
no subject
I hate the entitlement. I hate the twisting and trying to justify who can have children and who *should*--there's an awful economic thing here because I guess now it's somehow deemed acceptable for poor women to be pregnant as long as it is for someone else (and I guess, as long as you can't see them).
Thank you for sharing--it's important.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I thought the Truthout article flagged toward the end, too, and I'm glad you were able to keep everything ratched nice and tight. Great post!
no subject
no subject
no subject
Also, on the note of international views of reproductive rights, something I'd like to look into more is Women on Waves. I don't know if you're familiar with them, but I thought I'd throw up the link.
no subject
DOT DOT DOT
*hits the reset button on the world*
no subject
I'm beyond horrified to realize this practice is carried on in humans. It's sickening. The human race has so much further to go...
no subject
(I have been known to say that I could see having a kid, if I didn't have to grow the critter myself, but what I meant by that was I could entertain the possibility of adopting, some fuzzy someday. This treatment of women as replicator units horrifies me. What the hell is wrong with some people?)
no subject
Lost in the transaction are the human dignity of the surrogate parents, and of the baby itself. It's the new form of human trafficing. Poor surrogates are being used like cattle, and offspring become a commodity rather than a person. Also, in the blind quest for offspring that share their own DNA, they're ignoring the needs of children who need foster or adoptive parents. It's awfully self-centered. There's not really a winner that comes out of this.
no subject
won't let them sell they're eggs if they get too emotionally attached...I get the image from BSG in my head, when starbuck finds all the women hooked up to baby machines...I remember being horrified, and at least they had the excuse of being cylons. Here, we're doing it to ourselves!
no subject
no subject