Surrogacy-or Prostitution

Susil

16 hours ago

‹ chat status

Profile

Name:: Susil
Location:: Carthage, MS
Birthday:: 01/05/1953
Status:: Single
Job / Career:: Other

Stats

Posts:: 174
Post Reads:: 3,696
Photos:: 4
Last Online:: 16 hours ago
Technorati:: blog reactions

Users Chatting

View All 174 »

My Friends

3 hours ago

5 hours ago

7 hours ago

8 hours ago

8 hours ago

11 hours ago

13 hours ago

16 hours ago

Feeds: RSS | XML

Parenting & Family > Surrogacy-or Prostitution

Surrogacy-or Prostitution

Yesterday Oprah had a woman on her show who couldn't get pregnant, so she and her husband flew to a clinic in India. This clinic hires poor Indian women to serve as surrogates to bear children for rich Americans. The donor sperm and egg are implanted in an Indian woman, and she receives $5,000 for her service. (The clinic gets most of the money charged to the Americans.)

The surrogate shown was a very small woman--I believe 4ft. 8in was given as her height. She was so tiny she could stand under the outstretched arm of the sperm donor. "I see a C-section coming," Oprah joked. I assume the clinic checks the surrogates for communicable diseases like TB and AIDS and hepatitis, and monitors them about taking vitamins and getting a nutritious diet while pregnant.

The surrogate didn't look well nourished herself--yet the Americans are leaving their fetus to be nurtured in this "rent a womb" by one of the poorest of the poor in a third world country. I don't get it. Why don't these people adopt? So so many kids need a home, why go this route? Vanity?

Mmmm. I'm thinking all this sounds kinda familiar--let's see--a stranger uses a woman's body and pays her for her services. Oh yeah. The word prostitution comes to mind.

Susil

posted on July 11, 2008 9:31 AM ()

Comments:

Good post and insight.

comment by shesaidwhat on July 14, 2008 2:20 PM ()

Thanks she.

reply by susil on July 16, 2008 9:22 AM ()

Unable to bear children, years ago we considered all the options including adoption and surrogacy. It all sounds good in theory, but has gotten so complicated what with the birth parents changing their minds about giving up their babies and taking them away from the adoptive parents sometimes years later, and all the things you hear about babies not being able to bond with their adoptive parents and so on. Surrogates in India seems to me the same thinking that drove Americans to foreign adoption - fewer hoops to jump through and more control over the situation, but this way they get their white baby that looks like them with no chance of the mother wanting to keep it or holding them up for more money. Not that I agree with it, and I'm sure something will come up in a few years to make people give up doing it and move on to some new exploitation.

comment by troutbend on July 13, 2008 2:04 PM ()

Laura, trust me--being a mother ain't all it's cracked up
to be (as I've told my childless sister many times, and if she
wanted to get her feet wet, try a foster care child--they are
in great need of homes for displaced children.)
You had many valid points in your comment and tx for stopping
by.

reply by susil on July 16, 2008 9:21 AM ()

I saw the show, too, and found it very troubling. Not the issue of surrogacy in general, but the business of renting out the wombs of poor Indian women to American couples seems or could be abusive. There are very good surrogacy programs in the United States. But I wish infertile couples would consider adoption more seriously, when there are so many children in need of a loving home.

comment by marta on July 12, 2008 10:40 AM ()

Hi marta; I'm wondering if the couples who go
to India were turned down for a surrogacy try
in the U.S.for some reason. But of course, adoption
would benefit so many kids and childless couples--
Heck, if they wouldn't turn me down for age, I'd love
to adopt.

reply by susil on July 13, 2008 1:31 PM ()

The more I hear about Oprah, the more I realize her causes are
sketchy and poorly researched. I think she has become somewhat
of a megalomaniac.

comment by tealstar on July 12, 2008 6:54 AM ()

Hi teal; I reckon if you're a billionaire like Oprah,
you can be a megalomaniac (or anything else you wanna
be, Haha!) She definitely does have some subjects presented
on her show that aren't well researched.

reply by susil on July 13, 2008 1:24 PM ()

interesting perspective. I do think people should be more concerned with adopting than having their own child.

comment by panthurdreams on July 11, 2008 1:20 PM ()

Hi Hawaii; I'm wondering what will happen if the baby is born with
some defect, like Down's syndrome or a missing limb--something
really severe--if the biological "parents" would be forced to take
the infant anyway even if they didn't want to, or if the surrogate
would be legally responsible. I wish Oprah would've asked that.

reply by susil on July 12, 2008 5:39 AM ()

Risky business indeed. For some, only your own
biological child will do and if they have enough money
they can do it. But why India? There are poor women
in this country who would do it.

comment by tealstar on July 11, 2008 11:25 AM ()

Hi teal; They said they went to India because American surrogates
would have been too expensive. So basically they were bargain hunting.
(But the flights to and from India weren't cheap I'm sure.)
Plus I have a sneaky suspicion the laws are more lax on this matter
in India. Oprah asked no hard questions on the subject and the audience
was applauding as if this couple were doing something just peachy.
Good grief.

reply by susil on July 12, 2008 5:31 AM ()

Comment on this article

174 articles found [ Previous Article ] [ Next Article ] [ First ] [ Last ]

Susil

Profile

Stats

Users Chatting

Recent Posts

My Friends

Subscribe

Surrogacy-or Prostitution