The main factor which makes commercial surrogacy a social evil is the issue of “commodification” of the woman and the child. The question of commodification of women or children in cases of commercial surrogacy arises due to the monetary benefit to the surrogate mother involved in the whole transaction. The ethicists argue that the amount paid to the surrogate mother has to be universally uniform since it is the procreative power of women which is in question and not social labor that varies in value and creates commodities. However, I would not agree with the ethicists because a commissioning couple would pay as much as they could afford as per their status. The payment in most cases would be out of the feeling of gratitude rather than as a price for the child. Thus, if the surrogate mother is poor and doing it for money, in most cases the commissioning couple would want to help her financially in return for the child she has given them. Thus, just because one of the aspects involved is money it need not necessarily be commodification. However, even if it is labeled as commodification then it is not necessarily bad.
Further, even if surrogacy is taken as commodification of women it will ensure that the consumers (commissioning couple) would ensure that they get the best they can. For instance, they would look for a woman who is medically fit. Looking at it from this perspective, it will ensure that no woman is exploited. Thus, a sentiment which undoubtedly may originally stem from selfishness would actually work toward ameliorating the position of these women due to market forces.
The notion of commercial surrogacy as social evil should be done away with by bringing necessary legislation.
Delving deeper into the issue, the fear that arises is that legitimizing commercial surrogacy will promote market pricing of children’s attributes. Yes, it can be seen this way when the surrogacy in question is partial. (A partial surrogate contributes the egg that becomes the child and so is genetically as well as gestationally the parent of the child). However, due to the improvement in medical technology, full surrogacy (A full surrogate is not the genetic mother of the child she is paid to bear.) is more common today since it makes the child genetically closer to the commissioning couple rather than just one of the parent. In this case, the pricing of gestational services provided by the surrogate would not implicitly involve pricing of children’s attributes. Hence, though full surrogacy leaves intact the threat of commodification of women’s childbearing labor, it lessens the threat of commodification of children. This is because in cases of full surrogacy the surrogate mother is giving to the commissioning couple the child which actually belongs to them not only contractually but genetically as well.
Finally, I would like to conclude by countering the common social norm that altruistic surrogacy is more acceptable and less exploitative than commercial surrogacy. The term “altruistic surrogacy” usually refers to surrogacy arrangements in which surrogate is not paid for her services and is motivated mainly by a desire to help an infertile couple to have a child of their own. Surrogacy in such cases of altruistic arrangement is more as a matter of emotion than any other factor.
Altruistic surrogacy is preferred over commercial surrogacy due to the dominating fact that it does not involve any monetary element and it is based on woman’s right to choose, thus making it non-exploitative. However, I believe that altruistic surrogacy holds as much risk. One of the objections raised is that it includes as much potential for coercion. The coercion in such cases is by the women’s (surrogate mother) family, potential for damage to family relations, and the fact that the health risks which are borne by the woman for the benefit of another. Further, altruistic surrogacy will disadvantage the woman as much as commercial surrogacy by reinforcing the cultural and patriarchal stereotype of them as nurturing, caring and self-sacrificial, which has historically been responsible for women’s inequality.
Hence, I believe that at least commercial surrogacy gives woman a chance to formulate the terms and conditions, which suit her interests, thus making altruistic surrogacy more exploitative, the baseline being that exchange of money is not exploitative by nature. On ethical lines also, commercial surrogacy is preferred to altruistic surrogacy because the couple usually prefers a surrogate who is and will remain a stranger to them for the reason that they do not want a second mother to interfere with the upbringing of the child. This can be best ensured by a commercial surrogacy contract.
Thus, I believe that the notion of commercial surrogacy as social evil should be done away with by bringing necessary legislation to regulate this market. Developing countries such as Nepal are usually the suppliers in such markets, hence regulating the same will ensure non-exploitation of women.
Related story
Case filed at SC over lack of regulation in IVF and surrogacy c...
-1778925320.webp)
