India's 'Rent-a-Womb' Industry Draws Criticism

[Chowder Head]

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/india- ... 34998.html

http://content.time.com/time/world/arti ... 65,00.html

http://news.yahoo.com/india-seeks-regul ... 42912.html

http://news.discovery.com/human/health/ ... 130225.htm

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/india-see ... 8C11294470

http://www.sinlung.com/2012/08/indias-w ... vices.html

[rward]

On the one hand, I think women should be free to sell their bodies in any way they want.

On the other hand, this results in rich, white women using the bodies of poor brown women which feels very squicky to me.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

I saw a documentary on this. It seemed ok, one family was literally able to go from a slum to buying their own tiny house, but then as the money runs out the husbands start telling the wives to do it again, and the women feel pressured to do it. I don't recall all the details but the pregnant women were treated well and kept healthy, but I don't think they got to see their own children often :(

[lilwriter85]

For several months I've been following the blog of a gay American couple who used Indian surrogacy to start their family. They and other gay couples go the Indian route because the costs are lower. The couple that I'm following seem like great guys and one of them admitted that a relative of his was opposed to them going the Indian surrogate route.

[Ariel]

I think women should be able to do what they want, but most women wouldn't truly want to do this unless they were in desperate need of money. Or if you're a J'chelle type who gets off on being pregnant.

(I'm ignoring those who do it out of general good will)

Personally, I'm too much of a control freak to have a surrogate. Sure there are legal contracts, but unless you're monitoring the person 24/7 you can never really know.

[lilwriter85]

:o

I think women should be able to do what they want, but most women wouldn't truly want to do this unless they were in desperate need of money. Or if you're a J'chelle type who gets off on being pregnant.

(I'm ignoring those who do it out of general good will)

Personally, I'm too much of a control freak to have a surrogate. Sure there are legal contracts, but unless you're monitoring the person 24/7 you can never really know.

I agree with this. I read an article years ago about surrogacy and there were often conflicts because couples disagreed with some of the things surrogates did. With the gay couple I mentioned in my previous post they stated that they in constant contact with the doctors and their surrogate in India. I still would have had worries about that.

[Mama Mia]

The Orchard family sound like truly vile human beings.

What I found awful was that the surrogates don't seem to be able to spend time with their ownn families, and that very little of the money actually goes to them.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I have mixed feelings.

On one hand, there is the squicky feeling, and the question of whether these women are being exploited.

On the other hand, I know people who have had families through surrogacy. It's nothing something that anyone does lightly - generally speaking, it's a decision that comes after years of struggle and the realization that carrying a child to term yourself just isn't going to happen.

I want women to have agencies over their own bodies. That means that any sort of coercion to get pregnant is wrong, but it also means that women shouldn't be subject to rules about what they can and can't do with their bodies out of paternalism. I'd need to know more in order to judge if this is something that these women themselves really want to do.

Women living in countries with poverty often find themselves facing hard choices that can be hard to imagine. I know many Filippina women, for example, who leave their own children in order to work as nannies or caregivers abroad. There are consequences to these long separations and often risks for the women, but they do it because the money they earn can be the difference between having food on the table, proper medical care and good education, or going without these basics.

ETA: Read more. Some of the proposed legal changes sound like they are needed, like reducing the number of embryo transfers done each cycle and ensuring that the parents' country will accept the infants. Patel's control over the women also seems a bit over-the-top. I have to wonder if "help negotiate to buy a house or land" means "make sure we get a cut of the action". Why would an adult woman not be able to manage her money and make these decisions on their own?

[rward]

I have mixed feelings.

On one hand, there is the squicky feeling, and the question of whether these women are being exploited.

On the other hand, I know people who have had families through surrogacy. It's nothing something that anyone does lightly - generally speaking, it's a decision that comes after years of struggle and the realization that carrying a child to term yourself just isn't going to happen.

I want women to have agencies over their own bodies. That means that any sort of coercion to get pregnant is wrong, but it also means that women shouldn't be subject to rules about what they can and can't do with their bodies out of paternalism. I'd need to know more in order to judge if this is something that these women themselves really want to do.

Women living in countries with poverty often find themselves facing hard choices that can be hard to imagine. I know many Filippina women, for example, who leave their own children in order to work as nannies or caregivers abroad. There are consequences to these long separations and often risks for the women, but they do it because the money they earn can be the difference between having food on the table, proper medical care and good education, or going without these basics.

ETA: Read more. Some of the proposed legal changes sound like they are needed, like reducing the number of embryo transfers done each cycle and ensuring that the parents' country will accept the infants. Patel's control over the women also seems a bit over-the-top. I have to wonder if "help negotiate to buy a house or land" means "make sure we get a cut of the action". Why would an adult woman not be able to manage her money and make these decisions on their own?

India is about 30-40 years behind the US in terms of women's lib. My mother told me about when married women were finally able to have their own credit cards, get birth control, etc. When she was young, a woman buying a house or car on her own was legal, but very uncommon and people made it very difficult for them. India's probably at that point right now.

[infooverload]

This was discussed in the book The Red Market which is a great read and really informative.

[2xx1xy1JD]

India is about 30-40 years behind the US in terms of women's lib. My mother told me about when married women were finally able to have their own credit cards, get birth control, etc. When she was young, a woman buying a house or car on her own was legal, but very uncommon and people made it very difficult for them. India's probably at that point right now.

Could be, but Patel is also a woman. It sounded like a pretty paternalistic attitude toward the poorer women, "we need to be in control because they won't know how to take care of themselves while pregnant or how to spend their own money at the end". Telling them how to spend their money makes me suspicious of corruption.

[Stephanie66]

I don't know how I feel about it. I saw a documentary years ago, and it bothered me. Surrogacy, even in the US, is a "rich people hiring poor people" to take medical risks for them, either because they can't or won't.

ETA: I think if we are going to allow this, then we should also allow payment for organs. If people can *truly* do whatever they want with their bodies, then they should be able to sell, to the highest bidder, a liver lobe, lung or kidney. Or bone marrow. Blood is already a commodity, but the donor doesn't get paid. (They do for plasma, which is interesting.)

[2xx1xy1JD]

Potential parents don't turn to surrogacy because they simply don't feel like dealing with a pregnancy themselves. What's with that "can't or won't" comment?

[Mama Mia]

Potential parents don't turn to surrogacy because they simply don't feel like dealing with a pregnancy themselves. What's with that "can't or won't" comment?

I'm sure it's very rare, but it does happen. Sofia Vergara, star of the comedy Modern Family, and famous for having a ridiculously hot body, has public ally stated she is hiring a surrogate because of her current popularity and her need to keep her figure while she's at the height of her career. One of the women on Real Housewives of Beverly Hills stated something similar. It was the use of a surrogate for purely non medical reasons.

[albanuadh_1]

In extreme cases, I can see the possibility of these women being pushed into producing for the money. Puppy mills anyone?

[Dysfundamental]

I don't know how I feel about it. I saw a documentary years ago, and it bothered me. Surrogacy, even in the US, is a "rich people hiring poor people" to take medical risks for them, either because they can't or won't.

The surrogate who carried my genetic children for their fathers did it primarily because she wanted to help gay couples (and I would have done the same for them). A lot of surrogates are family members or friends as well.

[Diana]

Personally i have moral problems with surrogation when money is involved, sure the woman are the owners of her own body, but the same aplies to the organs and i will find inmoral that somebody will have to sell an organ for money, other thing is to be a donor for fee, and in the case of surrogation i think i even would do it for a sister or a daughter with fertility problems just like i will donate a kidney to them if they were ill. But offering alot of money to people that really need that money its not giving this people the freedom to choose, it doesn't seems right to me. Also there are a lot of orphans in the world needing parents so why not adopt instead of doing this?

[2xx1xy1JD]

Personally i have moral problems with surrogation when money is involved, sure the woman are the owners of her own body, but the same aplies to the organs and i will find inmoral that somebody will have to sell an organ for money, other thing is to be a donor for fee, and in the case of surrogation i think i even would do it for a sister or a daughter with fertility problems just like i will donate a kidney to them if they were ill. But offering alot of money to people that really need that money its not giving this people the freedom to choose, it doesn't seems right to me. Also there are a lot of orphans in the world needing parents so why not adopt instead of doing this?

Because international adoption is not an easy, problem-free cure for infertility.

I just saw that CNN is covering the decline in international adoption numbers.

CNN has been doing a series on this:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/world/int ... le_sidebar

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/world/int ... le_sidebar

I know of families that adopted internationally, and the outcome was wonderful, so I'm not saying that it's all doom and gloom. It has become far harder to do, though, and there are real concerns about both corruption (children being trafficked for adoption instead of legitimately orphaned with no family available) and families looking to "save" children who have no real ability to cope with the demands of those children or sensitivity to the needs of the children.

[snuggles911]

I don't know how I feel about it. I saw a documentary years ago, and it bothered me. Surrogacy, even in the US, is a "rich people hiring poor people" to take medical risks for them, either because they can't or won't.

ETA: I think if we are going to allow this, then we should also allow payment for organs. If people can *truly* do whatever they want with their bodies, then they should be able to sell, to the highest bidder, a liver lobe, lung or kidney. Or bone marrow. Blood is already a commodity, but the donor doesn't get paid. (They do for plasma, which is interesting.)

Yes. If money weren't the driver behind this, more women would be stepping forward to do this free of charge.

I agree that if it's OK for a woman to sell her womb, it should be OK for me to sell a kidney or bone marrow for that matter. There would be no shortage of bone marrow donations if you got paid for it. And, organ shortages would go way down, too.

[Stephanie66]

I believe the Romneys used surrogates out of convenience as well. The wives had already had four or five kids, but they wanted more. Maybe the wives were advised not to have more...I have no idea...but several of the sons did use surrogates without it being an infertility issue.

I wonder how many celebrities and wealthy people really *can't* have a pregnancy versus *won't* have a pregnancy. Sophia Vergara was being honest about it, but I am sure there are more.

I wouldn't consider surrogacy for strangers without being paid (I am too old, so it is hypothetical anyway) Why would I take on that risk for free? Women DO die from pregnancy and delivery, and a complicated pregnancy could result in loss of income.

[ohnomoe]

I saw a documentary on this. It seemed ok, one family was literally able to go from a slum to buying their own tiny house, but then as the money runs out the husbands start telling the wives to do it again, and the women feel pressured to do it. I don't recall all the details but the pregnant women were treated well and kept healthy, but I don't think they got to see their own children often :(

I watched a documentary on this too and had mixed feelings. There did seem to be a lot of pressure from husbands for their wives to do it and while the mothers had reasonable health care, giving birth in India is often a lot riskier for both mother and child. I don't know how I'd cope if giving birth to my child caused the death of another person.

The documentary I watched focused a lot on a company that was run by a woman and she seemed to go to great lengths to ensure that the woman had complete legal control over any money she was paid or property that was purchased with that money and that even if she were too pass away the money would not go to the husband. It made me quite sad thinking about what a lot of those marriages must be like.

[Diana]

Because international adoption is not an easy, problem-free cure for infertility.

I just saw that CNN is covering the decline in international adoption numbers.

CNN has been doing a series on this:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/world/int ... le_sidebar

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/world/int ... le_sidebar

I know of families that adopted internationally, and the outcome was wonderful, so I'm not saying that it's all doom and gloom. It has become far harder to do, though, and there are real concerns about both corruption (children being trafficked for adoption instead of legitimately orphaned with no family available) and families looking to "save" children who have no real ability to cope with the demands of those children or sensitivity to the needs of the children.

so what? adoption its just like having a biological kid, you decide that you want a child but you cant choose how is going to be, in the end this kid can have problems and can be a difficult journey, but that comes with the decision of being a parent. And if there are traffick of childrens thats not reason to not adopt any more childs because there are alot of childs in need of a family in the world still, what it should be done its to enforce the laws about adoption, and you even can adopt in yor own country, international adoption is just an option.

Yes. If money weren't the driver behind this, more women would be stepping forward to do this free of charge.

I agree that if it's OK for a woman to sell her womb, it should be OK for me to sell a kidney or bone marrow for that matter. There would be no shortage of bone marrow donations if you got paid for it. And, organ shortages would go way down, too.

so you think that the way to increase the donation of organs is to sell them?????? :pink-shock: so im from spain the country that for 21 years is the first in the world in organ donation, and you know what? selling organs is totally forbidden.

Think about that if you allow the sale of organs, the ones that will buy it will be the rich, not the ones that need more the organs, will you find it fair?

a poor child will die because dont have the money to buy an organ while a rich old man buys a new kidney because he just likes to drink and he haves the money to buy a new one every year if he wants! actually the ones selling their organs will be the poor people that will need the money to pay the medical bills or the education of their children... i dont know you but i will hate to live in a world like that

And just because you can sell something doesn't mean that its right to do it, there are things that are just against the human dignity

[2xx1xy1JD]

I don't think you understood my post at all.

It's not about the fact that an adopted child may not be perfect. It's about your mistaken assumption that there are not only orphans around the world, but that these orphans can easily be adopted by North American parents, and that adoption is the preferred method of dealing with both these children and with infertility. I get frustrated when I see birth parents being told "just place the child for adoption - there are so many families!" while infertile couples are told "just adopt - there are so many orphans!". Both situations are tragedies. Sometimes, adoption is a way to deal with both issues, but it doesn't change the fact that a whole lot of hurt can happen along the way, and that there is a degree of loss involved. It makes no sense to increase these losses just to get something that people think is a fairy-tale ending.

Yes, there are success stories in international adoption. At the same time, it is becoming increasingly difficult for American families to do, as countries close their doors to international adoption. In some countries, these "orphans" were not orphans at all. It takes a tremendous amount of time, money and effort to go through a legal and ethical international adoption today. Adoption is not the only way to help children abroad. The money spent on a single adoption can sponsor an entire orphanage, or help a struggling family to keep its children.

Domestically, children are put up for adoption at rates that are far lower than they were in the 1960s or 1970s. For the most part, that's a good thing. It means that there are better methods today to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and that young mothers are not facing the same pressure to give up their babies. There are children in the foster care system, but many of them are still seeing their families and are not available for adoption. There is a need for more high-quality foster homes, and adopting through fostering is an option is less expensive. At the same time, though, the parents have to be truly committed to fostering, and accept that they bond with a child only to have that child return to his or her parents.

Harder to place children, such as those who are older or have special needs, are more likely to be available for adoption. Again, this can be a wonderful thing if it works out - but only if the parents are really and truly prepared to accept their child's needs and be fully equipped to handle them. If the parent becomes overwhelmed, there is a real risk that the adoption placement will break down, resulting in further rejection for the child, or that the family will experience serious turmoil and possibly abuse. We've had a number of threads discussing this, esp. when fundie parents think that they are "saving" foreign orphans but end up mistreating them. Parents need to be prepared to cope with Reactive Attachment Disorder. If they aren't, and if they try to simply apply punishment methods that they may have used with their biological children, the results can be tragic.

[Sarietty]

The idea of women in developing countries serving as surrogates for parents in first world nations makes me really uncomfortable. However, compensating a surrogate isn't the same thing as buying an organ. In most cases, there are not lifelong physical ramifications associated with carrying a pregnancy. Unless there are serious medical complications, a woman can deliver a child and return to her prior level of functioning.

Organs are different, since they are finite, irreplaceable, and cannot be removed without long-term (even lifelong) medical consequences.

Surrogacy is basically contract work. If someone seeks a foreign surrogate, they are not engaging in the act of love and sacrifice that occurs when a close friend or goodhearted volunteer agrees to act as a surrogate. They are engaging in a business transaction that demands fair compensation for the surrogate, insurance to cover long-term medical expenses related to the surrogacy, and just working conditions. Individual parents may be extremely grateful to individual surrogates, and good feelings may be involved. But, on a macro level, the situation has to be understood and treated as one divorced from emotion and good feelings. It has to be treated as a labor issue.

[thoughtful]

I don't think you understood my post at all.

It's not about the fact that an adopted child may not be perfect. It's about your mistaken assumption that there are not only orphans around the world, but that these orphans can easily be adopted by North American parents, and that adoption is the preferred method of dealing with both these children and with infertility. I get frustrated when I see birth parents being told "just place the child for adoption - there are so many families!" while infertile couples are told "just adopt - there are so many orphans!". Both situations are tragedies. Sometimes, adoption is a way to deal with both issues, but it doesn't change the fact that a whole lot of hurt can happen along the way, and that there is a degree of loss involved. It makes no sense to increase these losses just to get something that people think is a fairy-tale ending.

Yes, there are success stories in international adoption. At the same time, it is becoming increasingly difficult for American families to do, as countries close their doors to international adoption. In some countries, these "orphans" were not orphans at all. It takes a tremendous amount of time, money and effort to go through a legal and ethical international adoption today. Adoption is not the only way to help children abroad. The money spent on a single adoption can sponsor an entire orphanage, or help a struggling family to keep its children.

Domestically, children are put up for adoption at rates that are far lower than they were in the 1960s or 1970s. For the most part, that's a good thing. It means that there are better methods today to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and that young mothers are not facing the same pressure to give up their babies. There are children in the foster care system, but many of them are still seeing their families and are not available for adoption. There is a need for more high-quality foster homes, and adopting through fostering is an option is less expensive. At the same time, though, the parents have to be truly committed to fostering, and accept that they bond with a child only to have that child return to his or her parents.

Harder to place children, such as those who are older or have special needs, are more likely to be available for adoption. Again, this can be a wonderful thing if it works out - but only if the parents are really and truly prepared to accept their child's needs and be fully equipped to handle them. If the parent becomes overwhelmed, there is a real risk that the adoption placement will break down, resulting in further rejection for the child, or that the family will experience serious turmoil and possibly abuse. We've had a number of threads discussing this, esp. when fundie parents think that they are "saving" foreign orphans but end up mistreating them. Parents need to be prepared to cope with Reactive Attachment Disorder. If they aren't, and if they try to simply apply punishment methods that they may have used with their biological children, the results can be tragic.

Yep.

Diana, you might want to check these out, if you haven't already.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19189

http://freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=17422

http://freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic. ... d+catchers

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=18554

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=15 (ignore the unusual formatting on this one -- it was brought over manually from the old board at Yuku, so each of the early posts contain a series of quoted posts).

And you might want to read Kathryn Joyce's The Child Catchers and Ann Fessler's The Girls Who Went Away.

The sentence I bolded from 2xx1xy1JD's post caught my eye -- many adopted children were not actually up for adoption (their parents thought they were just sending them to school or care temporarily), or came from parents who were forced to give them up.

I'm not sure what you picture when you say that many children are in need of adoption -- many people are unaware that the number is probably lower -- perhaps much, much lower -- than they think it is.

It's not that adoption is a bad thing, it's just that it has a complicated, not always positive, history, and there are issues currently, as well.

I'm not picking on you -- I was very naive about this stuff until quite recently. Perhaps you were only picturing ethical adults on both ends of the adoption process, and in the middle -- sadly, that is often not the case. :(

And I'm not saying surrogacy is issue-free, either.

It's all very complicated.