Via Kerry Howley, I see that the WSJ and Thomas Frank, who I'm pretty sure wrote some book about how crazy it is to let moral and cultural predispositions take precedence over rational decisions about economic well-being, are arguing that it is fundamentally important that we do not let rational decisions about economic well-being take precedence over moral and cultural predispositions. But of course, the subject is wymyn, and we all know how emotional they can be.
Surrogate motherhood has been the subject of much philosophical and political dispute over the years. To summarize briefly, it is a class-and-gender minefield. When money is exchanged for pregnancy, some believe, surrogacy comes close to organ-selling, or even baby-selling. It threatens to commodify not only babies, but women as well, putting their biological functions up for sale like so many Jimmy Choos. If surrogacy ever becomes a widely practiced market transaction, it will probably make pregnancy into just another dirty task for the working class, with wages driven down and wealthy couples hiring the work out because it's such a hassle to be pregnant.Oh no, baby-selling!
Now. International adoption costs from $20-40,000. Domestic adoptions less, between $15-25,000. Adoption is already transactional. Would it not be more equitable, more just, and more utilitarian to cut out the middle-men and allow people who desire babies to buy them directly from people who do not, especially when those in the latter category are impoverished and socially immobile?
Insofar as Frank has anything other than a prudish, aesthetic, essentialist objection to surrogacy (a practice, by the way, as old as civilization), it seems to be that the rich will employ the poor for the task. Yes. As opposed to . . . quoi? Remarkably, it's possible to regret, even to seek to ameliorate, the extreme division of wealth in society while nonetheless understanding that in any society with a division of labor there will be some stratification of economic privilege, and that those with less money will be employed by those with more. Ironically, since he's supposed to be some kind of social democrat, Frank's argument against surrogacy, egg- and baby-selling is strikingly Reaganesque; it harkens back directly to the hoary welfare-queen anecdotes, ghetto women pumping out more babies just to cash in on the government check. It's false moralizing of the lowest order. Riddle me this: why is it morally acceptable to terminate a pregnancy but not to profit from it?
31 comments:
And if it's morally acceptable to force someone to give up their baby according to a contract, why isn't it morally acceptable to force them to give birth?
Where'd you get Thomas Frank? I clicked through and didn't see his byline or anything.
But I did catch this awesome comment on the linked article:
"The Nazi's did the same thing - utilimately it becomes selective breeding - the pure race according the standards set by those in power - this is the first step down that slipperly slope - abortion , mercy killing etc . greed based racism.... only in America"
The dude's avatar is Duke Nukem with a scantily-clad babe hanging on his arm. Words fail.
Hey cb - Links updated. The Thomas Frank article wasn't linked directly by Howley but was in the Journal the following day I believe.
"...why is it morally acceptable to terminate a pregnancy but not to profit from it?"
Incredible, isn't it? You can terminate a fetus but you can't sell a baby. Insane!
While suffering from an initial horror at the idea, it may be better than "the poor" having the children, feeding and educating them poorly, then shipping them off to the dens of iniquity for prostitution and worse.
Don't think about Mushroom's question too long, your head will explode. He's managed to fit a day's worth of confusion into one sentence.
Is it too late to retroactively abort AlanSmithee?
Come on la Rana, they were threatening castration!
Posner likes to sell babies too
Thanks for the update. Frank's piece is truly execrable. This one almost made me do a spit-take:
"Of the story's nearly 8,000 words, there are only three quotations from the surrogate mother. Ms. Kuczynski does not describe this remarkable woman's clothes..."
Describe this remarkable woman's clothes. Is he fucking serious? Thomas Frank's reaction to this story is to bitch that he doesn't get to know what the surrogate is wearing? Could we get a columnist that DOESN'T come off as the heavy-breather on the other end of the phone line? Christ.
I would ask a different riddle-me-this, though: Why has sperm donation been considered completely OK for many many years, but egg donation is a moral travesty?
$25,000 for healthy white baby?? What else ya got?
"...why is it morally acceptable to terminate a pregnancy but not to profit from it?"
Well, many people also consider it morally acceptable to interrupt coitus but not to profit from it. Go figure.
cb, are you really that fucking stupid? Were you just skimming the article to find something to bitch about? How is it not clear to you what Frank was saying there? Jesus, IOZ has some dumb fucking myrmidons in here.
Jesus, IOZ has some dumb fucking myrmidons in here.
Oh, fuck, a vocabulary word!
Does Frank have a point at all? He says "If surrogacy ever becomes a widely practiced market transaction" as if it hasn't, but might.
My question is, what the hell is stopping it? I don't know much about it, but I can't imagine that you need a college degree to become a surrogate mother. The way Frank describes it, surrogacy is a way for poor people to earn a fairly large amount of money, without much investment in training.
Why aren't prices already dropping?
Wasn't the so-called Virgin Mary pretty much a surrogate mother?
How much was she paid? We should be told.
Oh, fuck, a vocabulary word!
Dang ol'! Everybody knows if you don't hear it in a gas station or convenience store, 'taint really a word.
Easy answer Christopher: surrogacy contracts are against "public policy." In other words, you can make an agreement, but the state won't enforce it.
That concept is also a sharp dagger in IOZ's anarchism, but I'll get into that another day.
Do these folks object to nannies? How about babysitters? Come on--everything's commoditized, if you can afford it.
Jesus, IOZ has some dumb fucking myrmidons in here.
Thanks for the flame! Yes, Frank was trying to make a point about how insensitive Kuczynski is to the woman who is bearing her child. Thanks for sharing your basic reading comprehension skills with the rest of us! You must be proud to be finally reading at the 10th grade level! "But why does he focus on the clothing?" --one might ask. I am sure you would go on to say that undoubtedly Frank was using clothing as a proxy for socio-economic stauts blah blah cultural signifiers blah blah blah fuller portrait of this "remarkable" woman blah blah. But given the baggage that usually comes along with this debate (i.e. why is sperm ok, but eggs are OMG-where-are-the-morals) I decided to take an uncharitable reading. Which was totally unfair! After all, it's not like there's a large block of political actors and movements devoted to obsessing crazily over the sexual/reproductive choices of women! And it's not like there are other criticisms to be made of Frank's article along these lines!
"Myrmidon" was pretty choice, though. I'll give you that.
Six exclamation points in the response!
Anon 7:00 > CB.
You both lose!!!!!!!
!!!!!!NO!!!O!!!O!!!!!OOO!!!!!!!!OO!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://taboo-breaker.org/religion/sperm.htm
Frank was making an apparently ill fated sorty pointing out the insensitivity and arrogance of the rich. His usual schtick.
On the other hand, the comments here appear to be on a journey to another dimension.
Let us in on what you find there.
"How much was she paid?"
Eternal life as statuary. Hard to top.
"An apparently ill fated sorty?" You myrmidon.
"You myrmidon."
Hoist by my own retard!
cb - "I would ask a different riddle-me-this, though: Why has sperm donation been considered completely OK for many many years, but egg donation is a moral travesty?"
Egg donation involves a great many risks to the doner. Drugs are administered to speed up the production of eggs for harvesting, and the egg removal process can greatly damage the doner's reproductive system. Check into the process for egg donation. It's pretty scary.
On the other hand, sperm donation involves essentially a pull, a grunt, and a squirt. Much less chance for damage to the reproductive system.
Peace
It's all been done before...
Apparently Frank has never heard of Margaret Atwood. Or Kelly McGillis.
"but not to profit from it?" Profit already! There's a great market in stunt babies, Just ask Sarah Palin.
Post a Comment