The Globalization of Babymaking

Ellen Goodman points out in the International Herald Tribune, that there is a trend that has been growing (or at least becoming more noticeable) recently: outsourcing pregnancies, often to other countries. Just like the tech support jobs that are being moved to India.

Surrogate mothers exist in almost every country. In the USA, surrogate contracts are usually illegal. You won’t get arrested for signing one, but the courts will not uphold them. Nonetheless, desperate women who cannot carry a child of their own have been entering into such deals with  people who they trust and hoping for the best.

It turns out, however, that for a fee (of course), there are plenty of women in places like India who are willing to carry your child for nine months. In many of these countries, these contracts are enforceable as well. 

The cogent part of the article states:

As one woman put it, “We give them a baby and they give us much-needed money. It’s good for them and for us.” A surrogate in Anand used the money to buy a heart operation for her son. Another raised a dowry for her daughter.

In other words, the contract-surrogate mothers are often better-off after nine months. They give birth to a child who will be raised in a loving home with parents who can provide him or her with a great childhood. They are also compensated for their time and discomfort, money which allows them to improve their own lives and the lives of their families. What could possibly be wrong with this?

Nevertheless, there is - and there should be - something uncomfortable about a free-market approach to baby-making. It’s easier to accept surrogacy when it’s a gift from one woman to another. But we rarely see a rich woman become a surrogate for a poor family. Indeed, in Third World countries, some women sign these contracts with a fingerprint because they are illiterate.

Apparently Ms. Goodman is disgusted that market forces might apply to babies. First, she argues that surrogate mothers shouldn’t be compensated for their discomfort or for their time. A preposterous notion — sure, some women might just love being pregnant, but for others, it’s a hassle, but one they are willing to deal with. Why shouldn’t they be compensated? Freedom of Contract is what disgusts the author:

It’s the commercialism that is troubling. Some things we cannot sell no matter how good “the deal.” We cannot, for example, sell ourselves into slavery. We cannot sell our children.

Just because we “cannot” do something, doesn’t mean that there is a good reason for it. In a later post, I plan to discuss the selling of children (not into slavery, just to adoptive parents) in another post, so I won’t get into that, but the benefit is the same as that gained through surrogacy, and the detriment is also the same: there isn’t really one. The child is not harmed. The mother is not harmed. The parents are not harmed. 

Second, she argues that because rich women don’t lease their uterus in this fashion, it must be wrong. By this logic, any job that rich people don’t do, ought to be illegal. Obviously working at McDonalds is wrong because Paris Hilton doesn’t do that. Give me a break. For the women who choose to be surrogate mothers the arrangement both (1) makes economic sense, and (2) is a desirable way to make money. End of story. Poor families tend to not hire surrogates because they cannot afford the arrangement — they likely cannot provide for the child as well as the rich family can either. If it worked the other way, the children might be worse off for the arrangement.

Thirdly, she argues that these arrangements are wrong because some of the mothers who participate in them are illiterate. They’re illiterate, therefore, they are stupid. Right? Or perhaps the fact that they are illiterate is the reason why they cannot have the cushy tech support job. Either way, they can make the money this way, or maybe they can work in a sweatshop. Literate or not, I think they have the rational capability to make this decision and understand what they are agreeing to. But don’t trust me, listen to the source:

The gynecologist who has been tending to numerous “clients” at her hospital in Anand told the Press Trust of India, “women preferring to become surrogate mothers are briefed right from the start that they will have to hand over the child to the childless couple soon after the delivery and are repeatedly told this whenever examined during pregnancy.”

Goodman also notes:

For that matter, we have not yet had stories about the contract workers for whom pregnancy was a dangerous occupation, but we will. What obligation does a family that simply contracted for a child have to its birth mother? 

Forget obligations. I’m paying someone to have my kid right? Would you want your child carried by a woman who smoked and drank? No. Would you want your child carried by a woman who never saw a doctor? No. The fact is, that people who would go to this extent for a child are not going to get cheap when it comes to medical care. This isn’t like buying a t-shirt. If you hire a surrogate, just like any other employer/employee relationship, you are going to want to make sure that things are being done correctly. Since I like to substantiate my claims:

Dodia’s own three children were delivered at home and she said she never visited a doctor during those pregnancies.

“It’s very different with medicine,” Dodia said, resting her hands on her hugely pregnant belly. “I’m being more careful now than I was with my own pregnancy.” . . .

The surrogate mothers and the parents sign a contract that promises the couple will cover all medical expenses in addition to the woman’s payment, and the surrogate mother will hand over the baby after birth.

I am sure Ms. Goodman’s intentions are noble, but until she knows what it is like to be a poor woman in  India, she should think twice before she takes 15 years salary away from them.