Womb for Rent?

This article on MSN is pretty interesting. It describes a clinic in India, where women from the US can go to have someone else carry their baby via surrogacy (they choose the Indian clinic as opposed to US clinics due to the country's less restrictive laws surrounding surrogacy). As I was reading it, I had a million different thoughts bouncing throughout my mind, so I thought it would be beneficial to write them down.

My first worry was exploitation. Are these poor women in India volunteering for surrogacy because they want to, or because they feel forced to? Luckily, that fear was soon put to rest; many of the women interviewed said they eagerly volunteered to be a surrogate because the money they would receive ($5500) was equivalent to 10 years salary for them. Many women wanted to use their earnings to buy a brick house, provide for their daughters' dowries, or provide education for their children. For women who often make $25 dollars a month, as one woman did, or $1.20 to $1.45/day, as another woman did, I can understand that the money they receive from surrogacy will allow them more opportunities than they'd ever dreamed.

My second thought, however, was, "How is this any different than purchasing a woman for prostitution? Or how is it any different than objectifying a woman via pornography?" Yes, the intent in this case is not sexual, but you're still purchasing a woman's body. I'm not saying I'm entirely against it (I can understand where these women are coming from), but at the same time, it makes me a little uneasy that women are being reduced to mere breeders. Yes, giving life to another human being is one of the greatest joys a woman can experience, but I tend to look at it differently when it's a mother pregnant with her child, rather than just a stranger acting as an incubator. The first instance is noble, the second.... well, I'm still undecided on that.

Thirdly, the doctor involved in this clinic refuses to provide services for gay and lesbian couples. This really struck me the wrong way; yes, she's entitled to determine whom she will assist, but it seems so discriminatory; much too discriminatory for my tastes. Trust me, with all I've seen in the news recently (Baby Grace, anyone?) heterosexual couples most definitely do not have the market cornered on being excellent parents.

Finally, I just have to ask, what on earth is wrong with adoption? Yes, I understand the desire to carry a biological baby to term is very strong (ask my husband; it's one of the things I talk about the most). Yes, I can't wait to be pregnant, and yes, I would be devastated if I couldn't carry a baby biologically. But if I couldn't, I know for a fact that I would not be doing surrogacy, IVF, or any other such procedures. Why? Well, I'm a firm believer that you don't have to give birth to a child for it to be yours. As long as their are children languishing in orphanages in China, Guatemala, Korea, Russia, and countless other locales, I am going to procure my family that way (and, for the record, we plan on adopting a child regardless of if we can have biological kids or not; our ideal plan is to have two biological kids and adopt one). Our reasoning for this is simple: why not help a child who is already on this earth? Why not give them the life that every child deserves? Why does it HAVE to be a biological child? That's what I don't understand.

Of course, it goes without saying that I am pro-choice in all areas, so if women want to become mothers via the surrogacy route, I wish them all the luck in the world. But I wish that women (and men) would realize that a child doesn't need to possess the parents' DNA in order for it to be their child, and there are plenty of children out there who need loving homes.