Melbourne ~ Australia
|
|
"Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children; and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing; I pray thee, go unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her." (Genesis 16:1-2) This biblical passage has been oft quoted by advocates of surrogate motherhood, suggesting that surrogacy is an ancient, God-endorsed practice and therefore also morally justified. Unfortunately, the rest of the story never seems to surface... Abram certainly went unto Hagar and 'knew' her in the biblical sense and Hagar thus became pregnant. However, as soon as news of Hagar's conception reached Sarai, she realised that she had made a serious mistake. "And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom... the Lord judge between me and thee." (Genesis 16:5) As is the case with many couples who believe they are infertile, go through invasive I.V.F. procedures and then abandon all hope of ever having children, Sarai/Sarah did eventually conceive a baby of her own at the age of ninety.While 'surrogacy' may, in the past, have been regarded as the result of a man who had extra-marital sexual relations with another woman in order to produce offspring, the main distinction which needs to be established here is that 'surrogate' motherhood, or 'contract motherhood' as Overall (1993) describes it, in its current definition involves medical intervention. For this reason, Rowland (1991) aptly names it, 'technologically assisted surrogacy'. Surrogacy can be defined as, "An arrangement (often by commercial contract) whereby a woman becomes pregnant and carries a child for another person or couple. She may be artificially inseminated or she may receive superovulation drugs (irrespective of the fact that she has no diagnosed fertility problems) or undergo invitro fertilisation. She may also receive another woman's IVF embryo, or flushed embryo. Women who bear children under these conditions have been referred to as 'surrogate mothers'." (Klein, 1989, p.308) Additionally, surrogacy arrangements are most often devised through three principal methods: commercial surrogate agencies; within families or between close friends; and in independent arrangements often contractual with money exchanging hands, made outside established institutions. (Rowland, 1991) Because of the means by which surrogacy is achieved - being inextricably entwined with artificial insemination by donor, invitro fertilisation, sex selection and amniocentesis - discussions necessarily take place within the realm of new reproductive technologies. Due to impact of these technologies on women's bodies and lives, the issue of surrogacy is, "...perhaps the most sensitive area of human life..." (Charlesworth, 1991, p.55)Before I debate the issues of surrogacy, it is important to understand the underpinning ideology which I have utilised in these arguments. While at first glance it may seem irrelevant to the discussion of surrogacy, it should soon become evident that the basis for any feminist theoretical analysis is founded on the structural subordination of women.
Clare Burton (1991), while not discussing the issue of surrogate motherhood, documented a reason as to why she believed Equal Employment Opportunity programs for women had not delivered their expected outcomes. Burton stated that, clearly, the "...underlying source of inequality... [is due to the fact that] women are not accorded the same value as men in our society..." (Burton, 1991, p.xi) This is a profound statement which can equally be applied to surrogacy. O'Donnell and Hall (1988) equate women's disadvantage in the labour market with discriminatory legislation and employment practices. Furthermore, these practices are a reflection of society's stereotypical assumptions of women as being solely responsible for child bearing, child rearing and domestic work. Burton (1991) explains that the solution to ending the subordination of women will involve a significant restructuring of societal attitudes and perceptions. "While women's place is culturally defined as centrally within the family... progress has a fragile base." (Burton, 1991, pp. xi-xii) Finally, Brennan and O'Donnell (1986) succinctly summarise the issue of women as mothers, "...the care of young children has traditionally been regarded as a 'family' responsibility. Of course, when we look more closely, 'family' turns out to mean 'female', and what is really being preserved is women's responsibility for the [bearing and] care of children." (Brennan & O'Donnell, 1986, p. xvi)The family is a social institution which reinforces and maintains the structural subordination of women under a patriarchal system. Patriarchy, literally defined, means 'rule of the father'. It is a "...system of social organisation [explicitly established in the institutional practices of both the church and the state] in which descent is traced through the male line and all children bear the name of the father or belong to his clan. The system is often associated with inheritance in the male line of material goods and social prerogatives..." (Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia, Vol 20, p.192) One such 'social prerogative' was a husband's right to his wife's sexual and reproductive services... Rowland (1992) argues that marriage is not only a social and political contract but also a reproductive contract: "Marriage is established not only to allow men sexual access but also reproductive control." (Rowland, 1992, p.8) Prior to 19th Century law reform, women were regarded as the property of their fathers until they were transferred into the custody of a husband upon marriage. This served the purpose of ensuring that the material goods would pass from father to son. Women were viewed as nothing more than the passive incubators of men's seed.Patriarchy has always been used as an ideological means of exploiting and sustaining an unequal power imbalance between the sexes. This is ultimately achieved through methods of domination and control. For centuries, men, as a social group, have seized the authority to make the rules by which society is expected to live and therefore have managed to, "...convince women that they are 'naturally' worth less, are 'naturally' mothers, and so must 'naturally' be responsible for domestic labour." (Rowland, 1992, p.7) Furthermore, "Under patriarchy... The control of women and children becomes essential to the definition of manhood - indeed, the powerful need the powerless, to substantiate their power and their 'right' to it." Rowland, 1992, p.6) Above all, patriarchy enforces the belief that "...[in order] to be a 'good' woman, a woman really ought to be a mother." (Rowland, 1992, p.7) This point is of major importance to the discussion of surrogacy as I believe it not only forces childless women into positions where they feel compelled to submit to depersonalising reproductive technologies, but it also forces 'surrogate' mothers into positions of vulnerability and exploitation by carrying a child for another woman. As I see it, surrogacy does not inherently benefit women in any sense whatsoever, it only serves to further exploit our already subordinate and inferior position in society.
There have been a number of well-publicised cases... where both surrogate mothers and the children born of surrogacy arrangements appear [my emphasis] to have been exploited. As a consequence, the very idea of surrogate motherhood stirs up powerful emotions in most people." (Charlesworth, 1991, p.55) What stirs the emotions are the pressures which we, as women, continue to experience as a result of societal expectations of mothering and motherhood.The terminology of what it means to be a mother or a father, form the fundamental component surrounding the issue of surrogate motherhood. Repeatedly we hear the idioms of 'genetic mother', 'gestational mother' and, 'social mother'. These phrases translate themselves into the depersonalisation of women from wholistic beings to the medical encouragement of the dismemberment of our body parts, highlighting the explicit 'privilege' of egg donation. The process of considering the concept of genetic egg donorship, as a viable reason for surrogacy, was initially originated because of old fashioned definitions of fatherhood. Conventionally, fatherhood has been defined as the production, delivery and implantation of sperm as the sole contribution towards the impregnation of a woman. 'Illegitimacy' was based on the premise of a man's refusal to acknowledge that the subsequent child born of the union was, in fact, the result of fertilisation of the woman's egg by his sperm. "Since paternal rights are not generally contested in surrogacy arrangements... Most would recognise the natural father [sperm donator] as the legal father in surrogacy. The issue of the child's paternity in surrogacy is rarely debated; it is the definition of motherhood that is in question." (Rae, 1994, p.80) In this sense, men can only be regarded as genetic donors or social fathers. They are unable to be considered 'birth fathers' because it is a biological and physical impossibility for males to experience pregnancy. This point highlights a distinct contrast between the experiences of motherhood and fatherhood.On that basis, Rowland (1991) believes that 'genetic motherhood' does not exist, she replaces the term with 'genetic lineage'. 'Genetic lineage' is an appropriate expression to apply to the experience of motherhood because it is established within a relational context and not a status position. Traditionally, all mothers have been women, and most women have been mothers - the intrinsic nature of which is always based on her relationship to the child. Rowland (1991) says, "Mothering as a relationship can begin for a woman when she is pregnant and carrying the child through to birth. A woman who does this is a birth mother. Mothering can also take place if a woman takes a child to rear whether it is genetically related to her or not, and this would indeed be social mothering. The important experience that both the birth mother and a rearing mother would have in common is that they have formed a relationship with the child. [my emphasis]" (Rowland, 1991, p.73)
In attempts to reject the birth mother's undeniable experience of relationship with her developing baby, several alienating phrases are applied to the role which she performs. The term 'surrogate mother' reduces women's status to that of a disembodied uterus in which man's seed can then reproduce. She is an inanimate object, an incubator, a receptacle, rented property, plumbing, 'a kind of hatchery' or 'alternative reproduction vehicle' who performs nothing more than 'a basically gestational role' by providing an 'endocrinological environment' in which to 'gestate an embryo'. (Corea, 1985) Language which describes the birth mother in these derogatory terms reduces and denigrates the miracle of life which she carries within her body. Pregnancy cannot be reduced to the explicitness of egg fertilisation by a sperm! A developing foetus is intimately connected with the gestating mother and all her major bodily functions. She is the one who literally gives life to the fertilised embryo through her blood, the air she breathes, the food she eats, the exercise she does. Being a birth mother has a profound influence on the relationship between herself and the child she carries, it is "...not merely one which turns her into a capsule carrying around a developing seed." (Rowland, 1991, p.73) More importantly, "Male obstetricians often talk about the first time a woman touches her child as being after the birth. Yet women know quite well that they have already been touching that child for nine months [!]" (Rowland, 1991, p.73). As Rowland emphasises, "The purpose... is to set the way for privileging the donation of genetic material as in sperm or eggs, and devaluing the labouring of motherhood and motherhood as relationship." (Rowland, 1991, p.73)Neither do social mothers escape severe criticism. "We live in a world which predicates women's very humanness upon the products of her womb." (Scutt, 1988, p.196) Infertility is not simply a physical or medical condition, it is also an emotional and social issue. Many women enter adulthood with the assumption that they are fertile. It can cause a significant upheaval in the lives of many women when they develop the realisation and impact of the fact that they may have difficulty conceiving or will not be able to have children at all. "For many women who are infertile, that infertility is part of their identity as women; unable to produce offspring biologically, their perception, influenced by the dominant [patriarchal] ethos, may be that they simply are 'not women'." (Scutt, 1998, p.196)Society still reinforces high expectations of women as mothers and care-givers which, it has often been argued, are 'natural' traits of the feminine persona. Because of these societal pressures placed on women to be mothers, those who find that they are unable to have children often believe that they are inferior or deficient in some way. "For some women, infertility problems may affect their whole identity and their self-esteem. There can be feelings of pain, loss, guilt, anger and 'barrenness'. They may feel socially isolated by their families, and friends who have children. Infertility is often seen as the 'woman's problem', even though her partner may be the one who is infertile." (Ewing, 1993, p.4) In order to 'correct' this 'deficiency', technologically assisted reproductive methods are an attractive proposition. This may be particularly relevant to women who are married and involuntarily childless. Unfortunately, reproductive technologies have a narrow, medicalised, view of infertility as an 'illness' which can be 'cured' through technological intervention. It also reinforces a belief that women must pursue every possible avenue available to them in order to have a child because the only 'proper' form of parenting is biological. The most poignant aspect of infertile women who valiantly attempt to become pregnant through the use reproductive technologies and fail, is the fact that, "Invitro fertilisation itself is a basically failed technology. General agreement still has the live healthy unproblematic birth rate at around 5%. In best estimates the technology has a 90% failure rate. It is also very expensive, costing an estimated $17,000,000 a year alone in Medicare Benefits... These estimates do not include hospital expertise, hospital space and staff. It does not include the extensive neo-natal care facilities which are required because of the high rate of multiple birth." (Rowland, 1991, p.69)The 'infertile' wife is therefore placed in an unenviable arrangement whereby her infertility is neither remedied nor eradicated through the use 'conventional' reproductive technologies. She is then forced into a position where the only possible way she can have a child is through the exploitation of another woman's body. In effect, the pain she suffers as an infertile woman is transferred to the birth mother. It is obvious that under these circumstances, both women become victims of reproductive exploitation... Firstly, it is ludicrous to assume that all 'infertile' wives are as eager as the husband to acquire a child through a surrogacy arrangement. Some women may not actually be 'infertile', be infertile by choice or already have children from a previous relationship. The wife's role as 'social mother' is, once again, a result of female sex role stereotyping.
"A... frequently posited characteristic of the social mother is her altruism: She wants her husband to be able to reproduce his own genetic material, even if she is not involved in the procreative process. [my emphasis]" (Whiteford as quoted in Overall, 1993, p.128) 'Genetic narcissism' is the reason which Overall (1993) cites as the primary motivation for why men want children produced from their seed. In an article in a local Sydney newspaper, the husband of a 'childless' couple was quoted as saying that, "[He] Peter felt good about being able to produce a biological child of his own; in fact, so much so that he said... he was willing to divorce his wife to marry a fertile lady if his wife Ann didn't agree to a surrogate providing him with a child." (McFadden, 1988, p.72) Furthermore, "[Ann]... was willing for her husband to go ahead with the programme as she didn't want him to leave her." (McFadden, 1988, p.72) Ann had already had a child from a previous relationship. In an effort to circumvent the possibility of legal obstacles (in respect to payment for adoption), the surrogacy contract is generally an arrangement between the commissioning man and the birth mother whom he 'hires'. His wife, the presumably infertile party within this insidious triangle, is a shadowy figure with no legal standing in the arrangement.After the birth of a child conceived through surrogacy, the social mother is obligated to nurturing a child which she knows has no biological connection to herself and has also been forcibly coerced from the arms of another woman, the birth mother. Where the 'infertile' woman is responsible for contributing the egg, she strives to persuade herself that she is the 'mother' of that child despite the fact that she has not carried it, laboured, or given birth. Feelings of anxiousness, apprehension and concern may surface should the child to whom she bestows her love and tenderness be seized by the legal system and re-assigned to the birth mother. Divorce proceedings may also place her in an emotionally susceptible predicament since she cannot legally claim either biological or genetic connection to the child if the fertilised egg did not originate from her.At this point, there is an important distinction which needs to be made between 'commercial surrogacy' and 'altruistic' or 'family surrogacy'. Surrogacy, at the most basic level, involves the physical exploitation of women's bodies and reproductive organs. This applies equally to commercial and altruistic surrogacy, however, in contractual surrogacy arrangements the birth mother is being paid a fee for her 'services' and can therefore be legally forced to adhere to the exact terms of the contract. Some of these clauses may direct that the birth mother abstains from smoking, drinking, engaging in sexual relations with her husband, submitting to various reproductive technological tests (such as amniocentesis on demand to ensure that the foetus is genetically healthy), and may also be obliged to terminate the pregnancy if some genetic defect was discovered. In essence, the birth mother relinquishes all personal autonomy to the authority of the contracting man, the 'commissioning' couple who are manipulating her body, or to those in the medical program. The birth mother's body is regarded as though it were nothing more than a fully functional programmed machine which can be operated in a similar fashion to a non-organic object. The detriment to the woman as a result of the pregnancy, as well as the extremely life-threatening hazards involved in childbirth, are never contemplated, considered or included as part of the contract. For those women capable of enduring the repugnant and reprehensible procedures of I.V.F., the dangers associated with the use of superovulatory drugs and the medical assault of the technique itself, may put her health in jeopardy and considerably compromise her own fertility. The primary purpose of instigating a contract for surrogacy is to diminish the chances of the birth mother's refusal to relinquish the baby upon delivery.
While both forms of surrogacy involve the physical and emotional exploitation of women, commercial surrogacy also involves financial exploitation. Many who 'volunteer' their 'reproductive services' enter into surrogacy arrangements in order to alleviate their financial circumstances. Some may even find themselves in greater financial difficulty because of their involvement, resulting in accusations of welfare fraud or difficulty with the Taxation Department. (Kane 1990) In addition, 'Baby Brokers' have seriously considered the 'employment' of poor women into the industry due to the fact that they have little or no resources available on which to base a refusal for relinquishing their child. (Corea, 1985). With regard to paying for a 'service' such as surrogate mothering, the major cause for concern is centred on the commercial commodification of both birth mothers and the resultant child. "Professor Margaret Radin, for example, argues that paying surrogates could make both women and children 'completely monetizable and fungible objects of exchange,' alienating them from their personhood in a way that brings about 'an inferior conception of human flourishing.' In the view of many... such concerns about commodification are good grounds for legal prohibition of paid surrogacy." (Robertson, 1990, p.32) Furthermore, commercial surrogacy should be outlawed because, "...the commodification of children... is one of the blocked exchanges, blocked because of society's desire to protect certain areas of social life from the realm of the market. Baby selling is blocked because babies are market inalienable, that is, because human beings cannot be bought and sold without doing violence to an essential aspect of personhood. [my emphases]" (Rae, 1994, p.66)Another crucial aspect to surrogate motherhood is the emotional exploitation of women. This is most obvious in discussions of so-called 'altruistic' or 'compassionate family' surrogacy. 'Altruistic' or 'Family surrogacy' is frequently regarded as less controversial when compared to 'contract' surrogacy. This is primarily due to the fact that altruistic surrogacy is performed without a monetary fee. In some respects, altruistic surrogacy can be even more insidious than contracted surrogacy. Rowland (1991) cites three incorrect presumptions in the arguments of those who advocate for altruistic surrogacy. Firstly, that genetics determine the most important relationships; secondly, that a woman is less connected to a child which is not from her own egg; and thirdly, power dynamics do not operate within families. (p.70) The first two points have been previously discussed in other areas of this paper, the remaining issue of power dynamics will now be examined. It will soon become obvious that all three of these propositions have no authentic basis for sustaining arguments pro-surrogacy when examined from a realistic perspective.Power imbalances operate within families on a regular basis, the most obvious example is in cases of domestic violence. This violence does not only include physical and sexual abuse but also encompasses the use of coercion and threats, intimidation, emotional blackmail, manipulation and guilt. These forms of abuse typically reflect, "Women's identity [as being] stereotypically constructed to be selfless, self-sacrificing and self-denying... having low self-esteem and emotionally needy to the point where some women find it difficult to have a sense of themselves as worthy people in this world... and are therefore easier to coerce with promises of love or approval." (Rowland, 1991, p.69) From this point of view, it is easy to understand why a woman could be physically, psychologically or emotionally coerced to assist an infertile sister, relative or close friend. "Women may bear children for others in order to be attended to and to feel important, to be noticed in a world which makes women both politically and emotionally invisible." (Rowland, 1991, p.69)Many altruistic surrogates have been indoctrinated by family members to the extent where they trust that those for whom they bear a child will love them even more for their act of charity. Having consented to bear a child on altruistic grounds, the dynamics of the family creates an environment which can quickly become hostile towards the birth mother should she desire to keep the child rather than relinquish. "What woman would want to lose the love and affection of all the members of her family by refusing to give the child away?" (Rowland, 1991, p.70)
In conclusion, surrogacy can be viewed as the vehicle for which the fulfilment of a personal desire is achieved - the desire for a biologically related child. What needs to be understood is that desire is not a biological need, it is a want. There is also a difference between 'rights' and 'wants'. Moral 'Rights' are grounded within a framework of inalienable conditions which are basic to the well-being of all humans, such as the freedom of choice, therefore, reciprocal accountabilities are binding for all. Furthermore, the concept of rights includes accountability and responsibility by the greater social group. While women do have the 'rights' and capabilities of making choices, phrases such as 'wants', 'needs' and 'rights' are often perverted into a diabolical and perplexing paradox through the language of the new reproductive technologies. We all live our lives within a socially environmental context, complete with unequal power dynamics and hierarchies. Power structures which, forged by the politics of economics, social ideology, personal psychology, have a profound influence on our actions. "Choices are [therefore] hedged around... structured constraints depending on a woman's race, class, age, marital status, sexuality, religion, culture and able-bodiedness." (Rowland, 1991, p.76)"Susan Sherwin writes: As I understand feminism, it is committed to developing a spirit of cooperation, fostering healthy human interaction, and ensuring a sense of mutual responsibility among persons. The autonomy feminism embraces is a freedom from dominance, a liberation of aggression and not mere isolation and separation." (as quoted in Rowland, 1991, p.75) Feminism is an optimistic philosophy which embraces the integrity of humanness. It also endeavours to create an alternative society in which people can achieve fulfilment in unification with an exchange of accountability to the social group. "Most importantly it concentrates on relationships between people. If we forget that in these discussions, people, primarily women and children, are involved, we call into question our human obligations. And that is profoundly unethical." (Rowland, 1991, p.76)While I have endeavoured to include as much material as possible in this brief discussion, it is but a mere abstract which I hope has outlined some of the funadamentalities on the issue of surrogacy. I have based my background arguments on the structural subordination of women, patriarchy, the family, and how these concepts relate to social sex role stereotyping of women as mothers. Commercial contract surrogacy, altruistic surrogacy, and the effects which surrogacy has on the birth mother and social mother are, necessarily, entwined within this social and theoretical framework. However, this should not be considered a comprehensive discussion of all aspects within the surrogacy debate - there are many more areas yet to be explored. I would like to end this paper with a poignant quote from Elizabeth Kane, the first surrogate mother in the world. In the epilogue to her book, she summarises the issue of surrogacy quite succinctly. Elizabeth says, "I now believe that surrogate motherhood is nothing more than the transference of pain from one woman to another. One woman is in anguish because she cannot become a mother, and another woman may suffer for the rest of her life because she cannot know the child she bore for someone else." (Kane, 1988, p.275) Surrogacy must end!