Recently, I've read quite a bit of Andy-Ho-whacking on other blogs, which I will not go into, so I decided to read his article today in detail.
Today's offering is 'Time to legalise womb renting'. Aha! Sounds like something I would have something to say about, and indeed I do!
The Senior Writer is pro-surrogacy, as you can see from the title. I have no problems with that. I'm not pro-surrogacy but he's entitled to his views and if he were a woman, I'd say he can go and rent his womb if he likes. Okay, stop being facetious. But I do have problems with some parts of his argument. Here goes (quoted parts are in green):
AH says:
1. Provided that certain safeguards are in place, the objections against it can be more than adequately answered.
If this is the premise of the argument, then the argument is faulty at the outset. If there are objections against anything, you address the objections directly. You don't supply 'safeguards'. For example, some people object to the increase in ERP rates on the CTE. You don't answer those objections by putting 'safeguards' in place. You have to try and convince them about the efficacy of increasing the ERP rates. If you can't convince them by reasoning, no 'safeguards' will be able to.
AH says:
2. ... opponents insist, a surrogacy contract robs the birth mother of control over her own body and person. Surely, the "renting" couple would insist that she stop smoking, drinking or partying wildly. Yet if reasonable restrictions for the child's sake insult the birth mother's personhood, requiring the carpenter who remodels my house to use plywood instead of chipboard would also cause him to lose control over his hands and mind. That is patently absurd.
That is a patently absurd analogy. Why isn't AH comparing like with like? Because there is nothing like having a child. And it certainly isn't like remodelling your house.
AH says:
3. Still, one could argue that a surrogacy contract uniquely requires the woman to renounce her motherhood even before she begins carrying the child...
But though this argument sounds morally unassailable, there is a gender bias in operation here. Consider how most sperm donors determine before conception itself that they will have no ties with the child... Why is the sauce for the gander not sauce for the goose?
Because, my dear Mr AH, the gander is not the goose and the womb is not the sperm. And of course there is gender bias. What do you expect? Only women have wombs and only men have sperm. Duh! (In any case, not everyone accepts sperm donation either)
AH says:
4. ... there remains a fear that... the surrogate mother may... come to regret having to give the child away. At contracting, she may not foresee how strong the maternal bond might be or how pregnancy's hormonal tidal waves might change her mind.
What this argument does is to broadbrush women as wishy-washy decision-makers who need to be protected "from their own foolishness"... The truth is that free adults can make informed decisions and live with the consquences...
No, I don't think that it is the idea that women are 'wishy-washy decision-makers' that lies behind this argument. It is much deeper than that and stems from understanding pregnancy and motherhood. The womb is not like a washing machine that you can just put a child into and later take out. As AH says, having a baby in the womb releases hormones and therefore it is imperative that the psyche and emotional state of the surrogate mother be considered a serious matter. True too, 'free adults can make informed decisions' but your 'informed-ness' doesn't always mean you understand a particular situation completely before it actually happens.
AH's conclusion:
5. How do we get through this thicket? One way is to permit surrogacy but disallow payments for it (this para follows his mention of the argument that 'it might be very traumatic for the child to learn that she carried him only for money')...
Sorry, but I find this suggestion, and I really can't think of a better word, insane. (even if that's the practice in the UK)
6. A better way for Singapore might be to legalise paid surrogacy but put the final option in the birth mother's hands.
The argument is stuck in the thicket.
I appreciate that it is very painful for people to find out that they cannot have children naturally and I do not pretend to have answers for them. However, I'm not comfortable with this kind of 'by any means' attitude. I also find it ironical that advocates for these things tend to present very clinical arguments in support of their ideas. These issues (pregnancy, babies, motherhood, etc) are LIFE issues. And life issues must necessarily also be seen from emotional and social viewpoints. Like the stem cell thing, anything considered on purely medical or scientific grounds seems okay but the reality is that nothing is purely medical or scientific.
If you are interested, more info on surrogacy and the arguments for and against can be found here and here, and from many other sources, which I'm sure you will be able to find.
Please note that I've only highlighted parts of this article so do read the whole thing if you suspect I may have unfairly mis-represented his argument.
As an aside, some years ago I once told a group of people that the TV sometimes acted as a surrogate mother for my son. They laughed and said, 'Wah, your TV so clever one. Know how to change diapers also, ah?' Ya, ya, I know, so corny. But it's one of those things you never really understand until you have to take care of a child. Hands up any parents who never used TV as a surrogate.
Today's offering is 'Time to legalise womb renting'. Aha! Sounds like something I would have something to say about, and indeed I do!
The Senior Writer is pro-surrogacy, as you can see from the title. I have no problems with that. I'm not pro-surrogacy but he's entitled to his views and if he were a woman, I'd say he can go and rent his womb if he likes. Okay, stop being facetious. But I do have problems with some parts of his argument. Here goes (quoted parts are in green):
AH says:
1. Provided that certain safeguards are in place, the objections against it can be more than adequately answered.
If this is the premise of the argument, then the argument is faulty at the outset. If there are objections against anything, you address the objections directly. You don't supply 'safeguards'. For example, some people object to the increase in ERP rates on the CTE. You don't answer those objections by putting 'safeguards' in place. You have to try and convince them about the efficacy of increasing the ERP rates. If you can't convince them by reasoning, no 'safeguards' will be able to.
AH says:
2. ... opponents insist, a surrogacy contract robs the birth mother of control over her own body and person. Surely, the "renting" couple would insist that she stop smoking, drinking or partying wildly. Yet if reasonable restrictions for the child's sake insult the birth mother's personhood, requiring the carpenter who remodels my house to use plywood instead of chipboard would also cause him to lose control over his hands and mind. That is patently absurd.
That is a patently absurd analogy. Why isn't AH comparing like with like? Because there is nothing like having a child. And it certainly isn't like remodelling your house.
AH says:
3. Still, one could argue that a surrogacy contract uniquely requires the woman to renounce her motherhood even before she begins carrying the child...
But though this argument sounds morally unassailable, there is a gender bias in operation here. Consider how most sperm donors determine before conception itself that they will have no ties with the child... Why is the sauce for the gander not sauce for the goose?
Because, my dear Mr AH, the gander is not the goose and the womb is not the sperm. And of course there is gender bias. What do you expect? Only women have wombs and only men have sperm. Duh! (In any case, not everyone accepts sperm donation either)
AH says:
4. ... there remains a fear that... the surrogate mother may... come to regret having to give the child away. At contracting, she may not foresee how strong the maternal bond might be or how pregnancy's hormonal tidal waves might change her mind.
What this argument does is to broadbrush women as wishy-washy decision-makers who need to be protected "from their own foolishness"... The truth is that free adults can make informed decisions and live with the consquences...
No, I don't think that it is the idea that women are 'wishy-washy decision-makers' that lies behind this argument. It is much deeper than that and stems from understanding pregnancy and motherhood. The womb is not like a washing machine that you can just put a child into and later take out. As AH says, having a baby in the womb releases hormones and therefore it is imperative that the psyche and emotional state of the surrogate mother be considered a serious matter. True too, 'free adults can make informed decisions' but your 'informed-ness' doesn't always mean you understand a particular situation completely before it actually happens.
AH's conclusion:
5. How do we get through this thicket? One way is to permit surrogacy but disallow payments for it (this para follows his mention of the argument that 'it might be very traumatic for the child to learn that she carried him only for money')...
Sorry, but I find this suggestion, and I really can't think of a better word, insane. (even if that's the practice in the UK)
6. A better way for Singapore might be to legalise paid surrogacy but put the final option in the birth mother's hands.
The argument is stuck in the thicket.
I appreciate that it is very painful for people to find out that they cannot have children naturally and I do not pretend to have answers for them. However, I'm not comfortable with this kind of 'by any means' attitude. I also find it ironical that advocates for these things tend to present very clinical arguments in support of their ideas. These issues (pregnancy, babies, motherhood, etc) are LIFE issues. And life issues must necessarily also be seen from emotional and social viewpoints. Like the stem cell thing, anything considered on purely medical or scientific grounds seems okay but the reality is that nothing is purely medical or scientific.
If you are interested, more info on surrogacy and the arguments for and against can be found here and here, and from many other sources, which I'm sure you will be able to find.
Please note that I've only highlighted parts of this article so do read the whole thing if you suspect I may have unfairly mis-represented his argument.
As an aside, some years ago I once told a group of people that the TV sometimes acted as a surrogate mother for my son. They laughed and said, 'Wah, your TV so clever one. Know how to change diapers also, ah?' Ya, ya, I know, so corny. But it's one of those things you never really understand until you have to take care of a child. Hands up any parents who never used TV as a surrogate.
Comments
That's the thing. Comparisons only work between 'like' and 'like'.