Why do we care whether surrogates are in it for the money?

main

Jess, I don’t quite agree that the New York Times article you mention makes surrogacy out to be all sunshine and rainbows. What I’m reading is an articulation of the narrow conditions under which the modal New York Times reader will find surrogacy culturally acceptable. We’re reassured that “virtually every” woman who opts for surrogacy can’t have her own children, just as we’re reassured, multiple times, that surrogates don’t need or want the money they’re receiving. “People don’t become gestational carriers as a way of making money,” a lawyer explains. “Rather, their motives are altruistic.”

I’ve no doubt that this is what people want to hear, but what an oddly binary way of considering the motivation to express and nurture another person’s genetic information—money or altruism, transaction or gift. Human beings are more complex than this. Ask a man why he sells his genetic legacy to the local sperm bank, and he’s likely to give you more than one reason—a bit of money, the chance to help someone, the idea that his code might live on. But whether selling eggs or womb space, women seem to be faced with this stark division of motivational labor: Are you doing it for the cash (in which case you’re being exploited) or out of pure, unadulterated kindness (in which case you’re eccentric)?

An article that questioned rather than pandered to these social anxieties would be a great read. Why is it that we must be assured that a woman seeking a surrogate is infertile rather than merely disinclined to undergo the pain of childbirth? (And why is it then OK to search for a surrogate rather, than, say, adopt?) And who are we to demand that any woman who chooses to help be motivated by compassion alone?

Photograph of a pregnant woman by Digital Vision/Getty Images.

Tags: surrogacy

VIEW THIS CONVERSATION

Kerry Howley is a contributing editor at Reason Magazine and an Arts Fellow at the University of Iowa's literary nonfiction program.

Comments

Regarding the binary assumptions:

By: mtnhighmama | Wed, 07/22/2009 - 14:58

Kerry, I agree with you entirely. And I think this speaks to a larger issue within the surrogacy community as well.

It is very difficult to put a strictly financial compensation figure to surrogacy. The return that surrogates get is so much bigger than either just the financial compensation or the emotional/altruistic compensation, in most cases. For me personally, I (most likely) wouldn't carry without the combination of the two.

Surrogates are frequently offended by the idea that surrogacy is a job, because it sets them up as the 'employee' in a hierachical model, with the Intended Parents being the power base and the surrogate being the one to follow orders and produce.

I challenge that this view is a product of people having unsuccessful and unfilling work lives. I absolutely view surrogacy as a job, as I view parenting as a job, foster-parenting as a job, midwifery as a job and even the more conventional job that I hold as a legal assistant in the family formation field. But these are all jobs that I love, that I find fulfillment in, that I am treated with respect and value and my contribution is acknowledged and appreciated. With surrogacy, it is the same. My relationships within the job are collaborative, respectful and fulfilling, and my role in the job is different than that of the intended parents, the physicians, etc, but of no less or more power.

So, perhaps this is a bigger issue, and a potentially feminist issue to explore. Perhaps once we recognize that how we earn our money and how we designate the value of the job we are doing, is dependent on how we feel about what we are doing, we will be able to drop the need to classify these unconventionally compensated 'jobs' as either 'money or altruism' but a satisfying combination of both.

re: nafg and medical need

By: mtnhighmama | Wed, 07/22/2009 - 14:43

The truth is that there are plenty of doctors out there that will happily assist with creating families through surrogacy without a medical need. There are many doctors that will do incredibly unscrupulous things*. I think the recent Octomom example is a perfect example that not all doctors operate under ethical, safe or appropriate guidelines. And I think it is probably a bigger number than people assume.

*I am not suggesting that it is unscrupulous to help create a family without significant physical need--there are situations where I feel it is very appropriate.

to the plasma donor

By: robynanne | Wed, 07/22/2009 - 13:20

Perhaps it would do you some good to realize that just because you are not motivated to do something for a certain reason, it is highly likely, given the pure number of people in this world, that some others actually are.

I'm not saying that all surrogates are 100% altruistic and don't do this in some part for the funds. There are plenty that would not, in fact, do surrogacy if it were not for the funds paid to them. All the same, there ARE plenty that do this for strangers for no financial compensation.

It is a lot to do for a stranger. I personally think that most people that do this for no compensation (actually, most people that do it with compensation) have had a taste of infertility themselves and are thus motivated to help. For me, it was the death of my daughter during her delivery with a ruptured velamentous cord that inspired my gift. Having gone through that loss, and knowing the pain, if briefly, of infertility not to mention watching close friends go through that, I guess my empathy for those going through the same thing is strong. I have a desire to help someone out of infertility but as I looked around, I couldn't find any family or friends that could actually be helped by surrogacy. (Not all infertility can be solved via surrogacy.) So I went about finding someone that did need my help. In honor of my daughter. Without even knowing that surrogacy involved compensation. There are people out there that do.
BTW - college degree in Computer Science. Not uneducated.

To SmartOneKym

By: nafg | Wed, 07/22/2009 - 12:42

Just because some people entertain the notion of outsourcing their pregnancies, does not meant they can actually go through with it. Doctors require a valid medical reason.

nafg: Over the years, I've

By: SmartOneKym | Tue, 07/21/2009 - 21:58

nafg:

Over the years, I've received a couple of emails from people looking for surrogates to carry their children because their careers kept them so busy that they didn't "have time" to be pregnant. I believe that these people are few and far in between, but they're out there.

Nobody uses a surrogate for "convenience"

By: nafg | Tue, 07/21/2009 - 21:40

Surrogacy is a last resort for people who have endured years of infertility treatment or illness that has caused infertility. Reputable doctors require a medical reason to perform the procedures involved. All parties invloved in surrogacies, including the surrogate's husband, are psychologically screened before they start.

The idea that rich, idle, lazy women outsource their pregnancies to poor ones is a myth, and a misogynist one at that (it's so much more convenient to hate priveleged women than to really understand the disease of infertility).

Having said that, most women would not serve as gestational carriers or egg donors if it were not for the compensation (in countries where no compensation for surrogates or egg donors is lawful, very few surrogacies or egg donations occur). The fact that they can help other women makes them feel better about what they do, so it's a morale booster.

Azalea, perhaps I should

By: SmartOneKym | Tue, 07/21/2009 - 19:03

Azalea,

perhaps I should clarify my stance on choosing a surrogate/intended parent. Given the results of a recent poll in an online surrogacy community, *most* surrogates prefer to carry for couples who have a clear medical need for a surrogate (and this includes the situational inability of gay couples to bear children). Vast majority of surrogates said that they wouldn't carry for someone who was able, but just unwilling to be pregnant. That much is just a plain, objective fact.

That said -- just because *I* won't personally carry for someone who falls into that category, that doesn't mean that there aren't other surrogates out there who will. There are, even if they are in the minority. To each his own. The key to having a successful surrogacy journey is finding someone who agrees on as many pregnancy/surrogacy related topics as possible.

What is the problem

By: Azalea | Tue, 07/21/2009 - 18:54

With someone getting a surrogate mother for medical reasons as opposed to adopting and why frown upon women who get surrogates for convenience? Its available and as long as the surrogate and the other person supplying the gametes consent or waive their rights to being able to consent to surrogacy, there should be no problem!

If I knew a woman I trusted wholeheartedly with my unborn child I'd pay close to if not figures for her to gestate my baby for me and pay for her prenatal and postnatal care too. SHe would be treated with the utmost respect.

But I do have a question, why in the world is a gestational surrogate ever given parental rights? The baby isn't her child.

Speaking as a gestational

By: SmartOneKym | Tue, 07/21/2009 - 16:35

Speaking as a gestational surrogate, I can agree with the sentiments stated here. The media tends to focus on surrogates being motivated by one of two polar extremes: either for the money completely and wholly altruistic (for absolutely NO fees involved). The reality is that vast majority of surrogates fall into an even space in between. It should be noted that even within the surrogacy community, it is frowned upon when women enter into surrogacy ONLY for the money. Money is not and should be the motivation to be a surrogate. It is also true that there are women who choose to work with a surrogate not out for infertility, but for convenience. This also is frowned upon, and while there *are* some surrogates out there who would agree to carry for such a woman, they are few and far in between. MOST people who pursue family-building via surrogacy have a viable, medical need for it and MOST women who agree to be their surrogates are NOT mostly motivated by money. There are many subtle levels and reasons which play into a surrogate's total rationale to being one.

As a former plasma "donor"

By: Meredith Simons | Tue, 07/21/2009 - 14:59

I find it extremely difficult to imagine that anyone would volunteer to become a surrogate for a non-family member for purely altruistic reasons.

Sure, when I spent Saturday mornings during my college years hooked up to a machine that was centrifuging my blood, I liked the idea that I was helping burn victims and so forth. But there is no way that I would have spent an hour in the waiting room and 45 minutes or so with a needle up my arm if there hadn't been some cash involved. And a couple hours at the plasma bank can't even compare to nine months of pregnancy, with all of its pain, inconveniences, and emotional implications. I agree with you, Kerry, that most surrogacy coverage is promoting an impossible fiction.

Having said that, I've never been pregnant, with my child or anyone else's, so I'm not exactly in a position to know. Does anyone know anywho who has volunteered to be a surrogate for a stranger out of purely altruistic motives?

How to Be the New York Times' Favorite Surrogate Mother