Giving birth becomes the latest job outsourced to India as commercial surrogacy takes off

[OhioChick]

Source: Economic Times India

30 Dec, 2007, 0606 hrs IST

ANAND: Every night in this quiet western Indian city, 15 pregnant women prepare for sleep in the spacious house they share, ascending the stairs in a procession of ballooned bellies, to bedrooms that become a landscape of soft hills.

A team of maids, cooks and doctors looks after the women, whose pregnancies would be unusual anywhere else but are common here. The young mothers of Anand, a place famous for its milk, are pregnant with the children of infertile couples from around the world.

The small clinic at Kaival Hospital matches infertile couples with local women, cares for the women during pregnancy and delivery, and counsels them afterward. Anand's surrogate mothers, pioneers in the growing field of outsourced pregnancies, have given birth to roughly 40 babies.

More than 50 women in this city are now pregnant with the children of couples from the United States, Taiwan, Britain and beyond. The women earn more than many would make in 15 years. But the program raises a host of uncomfortable questions that touch on morals and modern science, exploitation and globalization, and that most natural of desires: to have a family.

Dr. Nayna Patel, the woman behind Anand's baby boom, defends her work as meaningful for everyone involved.


Read more: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/News_By_Industry/Healthcare__Biotech/Giving_birth_becomes_the_latest_job_outsourced_to_India_as_commercial_surrogacy_takes_off/articleshow/2661740.cms

---

Isn't Globalization a Wonderful Thing? :sarcasm:

[Fridays Child]

1. I thought for sure that this would be from either The Onion or satiricalpolitical.com

:wow:

[SoCalDem]

2. Farmers have been doing this for decades..

Brood mares & cheap cows often are impregnated with "valuable" embryos, so they don't "stress" the expensive female livestock :)

But seriously, if you were an infertile couple, and you could not find a surrogate here, it would be very tempting to find a poor woman half a world away who would be happy to carry a child for you in exchange for money that would set her "already" family on the road to solvency..

The money paid to her is probably a pittance in our society, but in theirs, it's a fortune..and bearing a child for a rich couple is probably easier "work" than some of the things women do in poor countries..

Also, there is little likelihood that the "birth mother" would show up later, "interfering" in your life..

[Hoof Hearted]

7. Those are all very good points. I don't frankly see much difference between

paying a local woman through a local agency a small fortune to carry your child and paying a slightly smaller fortune to a woman in India to do the same thing.

Either surrogacy is a mutually beneficial and legitimate means to create a family, or it's not. Why are we shocked? Because they are brown? Because they may be economically disadvantaged? Do we not believe that brown, disadvantaged women chose surrogacy here too?

[theHandpuppet]

9. I see a difference

And it's not because the women are "brown" or "economically disadvantaged". The difference is, if I wanted a child this way I'd want to know the surrogate mother and be involved for the nine months before the baby is born. Otherwise the baby sounds like too much of a commodity, which frankly creeps me out.

[Hoof Hearted]

11. How do you know they are not? You assume way too much.

In fact, I'd wager the vast majority are quite involved with the women through the pregnancies. There's all kinds of ways to be in touch and involved, like video conferencing, visits, phone calls, letters, photographs, medical and health reports, etc.

Most couples do not personally know their surrogate before the arrangement is made. Most surrogates only engage in occasional, scheduled contact with the parents of the baby. You usually can't just drop by and bug your surrogate any time you feel like it. She's not your slave, and she has her own life too, so again, I don't see how this is any different.

[Hoof Hearted]

12. A quote from becomeasurrogatemom.com:

"Most couples want to be a part of the surrogate mother's pregnancy and will visit at least one time during the course of the pregnancy."

So there you go.

[LiberalFighter]

24. Wowwww getting involved one time

They get to experience the bloating, the eating crazies, the stares, the oh your pregnant can I touch, and of course the labor pain.

[theHandpuppet]

25. Gee -- most will visit ONCE during the pregnancy?

I wouldn't exactly call that being involved.

[Hoof Hearted]

29. I guess I wasn't making my point clear enough. My point is that surrogacy there is not

substantially different from surrogacy here, so if one is objected to it there then they should have the same objections to the domestic variety as well. That's all.

[silverojo]

14. Geez, not the race card again!

People aren't complaining because of their RACE, but because we're tired of jobs being outsourced to India.

What's next...will complaints about lead-coated Chinese toys cause us to be called racist against Asians?!?

[OhioChick]

16. Thank You. n/t

[theHandpuppet]

26. Actually, I do see an element of racism at work here

I think it's racist to use poor brown women as bargain incubators. That sort of objectification of any human being is the root of racism and misogyny. And treating a baby as just another commodity to be "outsourced" is creepy beyond words.

[TahitiNut]

20. When the impoverishment of many is a 'convenience' to some ...

... and those 'some' are affluent ... I call it exploitation. When self-interest sees advantage in such conditions, those conditions will be exacerbated. This is yet another instance of the objectification of human beings and, in a commodity-oriented world, is at the root of the evils we're seeing.

IMHO, of course.

[Hoof Hearted]

35. The same kind of arrangements are made here. Some women chose to fill a financial need by carrying

babies for infertile or disabled couples. The women who chose to become surrogates are (excluding family/friend surrogates) healthy, but not wealthy. Women become surrogates for a huge variety of financial and personal reasons.

The number of people trying to have children who find themselves at a place where they must resort to surrogacy is actually quite minute. The myth of the wealthy white woman looking to have children by surrogacy so she doesn't have to worry about keeping her perfect size 4 dress size is just that - a myth. Almost all parents who chose surrogacy knew to begin with that carrying a child was not possible due to a lack of a uterus or a medical condition prohibiting pregnancy. The remainder have dealt with years of emotionally, financially and physically draining fertility treatments.

Like I said before, it seems to me that surrogacy is either wrong, and a form of exploitation everywhere that it occurs or it is not - but to point at these women from India and say that their choice to become surrogates is somehow less legitimate or tainted because they are from India? I think that is wrong.

[Katherine Brengle]

67. So... you think it's okay to treat human women the same way farmers treat animals?

I really hope you're kidding.

These are HUMANS not farm animals.

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

3. I'm speechless !

[truthisfreedom]

4. Inevitable. If everyone's happy, I don't see anything wrong with it.

[BlueIris]

5. Holy "Handmaid's Tale," Batman!

I'm not insensitive to the plight of infertile couples, (I would know more about the pain of infertility than most people might suspect) but how anyone can look at this situation without being very uncomfortable is beyond me.

[Hoof Hearted]

8. Why? What exactly is wrong with it that isn't wrong with surrogacy here?

Most surrogates here are looking to fill an economic need while doing something they see as valuable and worthwhile. So what does it matter if they are in New York or New Delhi?

Edited because I spelled it Deli. :silly:

[Lars39]

42. A poor woman don't have the resources to pursue legal cases long distance

if she wants to change her mind and keep her baby.

[LisaL]

46. It's not her baby. Do you understand what surrogacy actually

means? The surrogate is carrying someone else's baby. The baby is not biologically related to the surrogate.

[gollygee]

51. It isn't *genetically* related, but pregnancy is biological

so it is biologically related through pregnancy.

[Katherine Brengle]

68. Exactly - this sense of entitlement to biological offspring in the wealthy is pretty

fucked up.

[LeftyMom]

6. Usually they just come to California.

Used to be this was the place to go for rent-a-uterus service, since the laws are favorable and there's no shortage of first-rate hospitals. Must be cheaper in India. Probably not so good with the medical care, but if anything goes wrong they'll likely just blame the surrogate anyhow.

[jpgray]

10. The Boys from Bangalore

In seriousness, I think leasing desperate people's bodies to avoid the rigors of pregnancy is a bit ethically complex. I don't have a strong opinion against surrogacy in general, but to exploit via economic power those in poorer nations, making them do difficult, life-consuming work for a pittance is something I've long been uncomfortable with, in terms of -any- kind of labor. ;-)

[Hoof Hearted]

13. Almost all surrogate parenting arrangements are made because of infertility

as a last resort, not to "avoid the rigors of pregnancy". Sometimes a medical condition like severe type I diabetes might come into play but I don't think one could fairly dismiss that kind of circumstance as frivolous.

If the women in the story are being compensated on a comparable scale to those in the U.S., or better, do you object?

[jpgray]

21. Yes. The economic disparity makes it exploitative, and adoption is a far more friendly alternative

It's a basic example of how economic disparity corrupts. Imagine being able to make 15 -years- worth of your salary by surrogate motherhood. That reward is so compelling that it begins to erode any moral objections people naturally have towards such an invasive, potentially dangerous commitment. The more economically desperate your situation, the less you have the capacity to refuse. On those terms it becomes like the citizenship for military service system we have, or the "go to jail or enlist" choice offered to some petty offenders--it exploits social desperation to undermine basic freedom of choice.

[theHandpuppet]

27. Excellent post, jpgray

You've stated the argument much better than I could hope to do.

[Hoof Hearted]

43. Adoption is so difficult that almost nobody can actually do it. I've seen that up close.

My sister and her husband tried for years. They spent tens of thousands of dollars and went through unbelievable heartbreak.

You make very valid points about social exploitation, but where does one stop with that line of reasoning? What about coal miners, timber-cutters, fishers and roofers? Those are all very dangerous and sometimes fatal pursuits which mostly involve more labor than skill and are generously compensated because they are dangerous. Most of the persons filling those occupations would otherwise have less economic opportunity and accept the risks in order to make a better life and provide for their families.

All monetary systems exploit. What do we do? Get rid of money? I'm all on board for that myself, but I don't know how we do it.

[bettyellen]

63. for white infants this is true.... not so much for older, darker babies.

[gollygee]

64. My friend has been trying to adopt any child under 3

of any race and it hasn't been going well. It is really difficult and expensive. She's tried different countries and everything. There's a belief about adoption that doesn't appear to be true from what I've seen through her experience. She's still trying and hopefully will be successful at some point, but now she's trying IVF too.

She isn't Christian, which seems to be almost required. She and her boyfriend eventually got married in hopes that would increase their odds, because not being married counted against them, but that was three years ago and they still haven't been successful. He is much older than she is and that counts against them. If you meet everything on some list or another, I guess it's easier, but to suggest anyone can just walk into an adoption agency and walk out with a child is just not true.

[Hoof Hearted]

65. That's the myth. Doesn't hold up though. Why do you think there are so many foreign adoptions?

From all over the world?

[bettyellen]

66. maybe it's easier in NY where we don;t discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation

but i know 4 people in my office who adopted. fast and easy? no, but impossible? obviously not.
but at least three of four took in older kids and or those w/ special needs. most people who shop abroad are interested in "avoiding" those kinds of problems. that is part of the marketing push for foreign adoptions. older kids, darker kids, those with needs- all faster and cheaper to adopt. and fostering is another route to go.
but i know people want their guarantees, right?

[uppityperson]

70. Good post except for 1 point. Question about the "potentially dangerous" bit

"That reward is so compelling that it begins to erode any moral objections people naturally have towards such an invasive, potentially dangerous commitment."

Adoption results from pregnancy and all the dangers that go with it also. Or do you mean that the egg/sperm/implantation/hormone thing is the invasive, potentially dangerous commitment?

Other than that, you posted what I see as a big issue here. I don't think that people who adopt from foreign countries also cause the problems you stated since the birth mother does not get paid as much.

[bettyellen]

72. the point being, you are paying someone to do something dangerous, incredibly physically

stressful..... that they they wouldn't dream of doing for free. because they are under such incrediblt fucked up economic pressure cause by sexist policies in their homeland. should we be propping up this system? or trying to get equal opportunities for women?

[uppityperson]

73. Not just the 2 choices and of course.

Of course should be helping get equal opportunities and there are not just those 2 choices (equal op or surrogate). As I said, I agree with you, but also need to state that pregnancies that end in adoption are potentially dangerous. Just they don't get paid for it.

[bettyellen]

74. i dont; see why that distinction is important...

an adoption takes a baby that was going to be born regardless and gives it a home. no one is causing these people to give birth for their own benefit.
the alternative here is to cause this pregnancy for your own enrichment... to have someone do this "work" for you.
it's a particularly scary thing to call a " job".
morally, it's up there with selling your kidney, i would think. pure physical exploitation on a level not comperable to any ordinary labour.

[LeftyMom]

28. But increasingly it's only "infertility" because the couple is too old to concieve.

And I would argue that waiting that long is definitely frivolous (and further that if having a family is such a low priority for a couple, that it's a good sign that they shouldn't.)

[gollygee]

40. That's not really fair

I'm 38, which isn't ancient, but I'm having a bit of trouble getting pregnant this time. I wouldn't do this, because I don't think it's right to find someone who is poor enough that they're willing to take a relatively small amount of money to go through something so difficult, invasive, and potentially dangerous. But waiting isn't necessarily frivolous - there are dozens of reasons someone might wait - and it isn't necessarily a sign that having a baby is a low priority. Maybe someone has been trying to get pregnant for a really long time? Or maybe someone wasn't with a partner they trusted to get pregnant with? Or maybe someone didn't feel financially stable enough where they were comfortable having a baby till later? Or maybe they married late?

[LeftyMom]

44. If it's important to somebody, they work around those things.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's dreadfully unfair that the media and the infertility industry have convinced people that they have to get everything in their lives picture perfect and all of their financial ducks in a row before they have their perfectly healthy 2.5 kids at the last possible minute, but it's still a very bad decision and poor women shouldn't suffer (and risk their own health and future fertility) for it.

[bettyellen]

60. funny people think poor women should suffer because they themselves want to struggle less when

they have a baby. god forbid- they feel cash strapped. LOL. they might do something desperate, like rent out their uterii.
and the irony is lost on all of them.

[Occulus]

75. It IS ethically complex

but at the same time, I can't come up with a reasoned argument against it, other than that the surrogates' bodies might get worn out if they're pregnant too often over the course of their fertile years. But then again, that's still their decision, and they're being paid, literally, for 'labor'.

Pun intended.

I'm not getting the impression that anyone's being forced into anything here. If they were being treated as slaves, that would be very different, but that just doesn't come across as being the case.

[Sultana]

15. I find this sickening

It's exploitation.

What's wrong w/ adopting? I understand there are people who want a biological child but come on.

What is next? :puke:

[OhioChick]

17. You're Right...

It is exploitation, just as the editor brings up.

[Xenotime]

18. It also hurts the environment

[gollygee]

41. Adoption isn't easy

it's very very difficult. I have a family member who gave up on adoption and now is trying IVF. This is not intended to be a defense of using poor people desperate enough that they're willing to go through something difficult, invasive, and potentially dangerous for a relatively small amount of money. But "why don't they just adopt" really isn't the answer either.

[zalinda]

19. While we here in the states can be above it all

we need to understand that not all people have the same opportunities that we do. It is very likely that many or most of these women would not be able to get a job to support themselves. It could be that they are from villages where the poverty rate is quite high. They may not be educated. Their husbands may have died and they are left with small children to raise. They could be considered an outcast, and deemed to be untouchable in their village. There are many reasons why this could be the only "job" that they could get, and most of it is because of a "tribal" village mentality. This is something that they can do, and it will lift them out of poverty. I don't see what is wrong with this. Their children will have a better life, because they bore a child for an infertile couple. It is a win-win situation for all concerned.

The only way I would have a problem with it, is if they were being forced to become pregnant. This is a much better situation for them than to become a sex worker or a beggar, which many women have to become to survive.

zalinda

[jpgray]

22. Yes! Let's use our economic might to compel poor folk to take on dangerous work we won't do!

Works for the military, works for the sex trade, works for everything! There's no downside!

UN Official Calls Maternal Mortality Rate in India 'Shocking'

India accounts for 20 percent of the world's maternal deaths, with a woman dying every five minutes.

The U.N.'s Paul Hunt says the rate of maternal deaths is "shocking" for a middle income country, and many times higher than in other countries.

"Why is the Indian rate six times worse than China's, eight times worse than Cuba's, whose people have been living under an embargo for some decades? And why is it 14 times worse than Chile's?" he said.

...

The U.N. official says one of the reasons for the high maternal mortality is what he calls the "massive crippling crisis in India's health workforce."

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-12-03-voa39.cfm

[bettyellen]

30. exactly. it amazes me that some here project that these women find it "fulfilling" to spend 9 mos

pregnant for someone they have met once, if briefly.
so altruistic of these single females w/ no other emplyment opportunities!
next they're going to take on all the snowflake babies for free!

[zalinda]

36. Not one person has said that these women find

it "fulfilling". You apparently know nothing about India. Single women in villages have huge barriers to overcome. Their only opportunity is to get married. They don't get educated, they need to have a dowry, and even if they do get married, they could lose everything if their husband dies. This is a way for them to get out from under the elders thumb. They give 9 months of their lives for 10 years of freedom, and for a chance that their daughter would never have to be in the same position. If I knew that I could get out of poverty for 10 years by carrying another person's child, I would do it in a heartbeat. Apparently you haven't been poor enough to do anything to get your next meal.

I don't see where there is anything wrong with it. If the woman was forced into it, then yes. If she was paid very little, then yes. But to deny a woman the chance to get out of poverty because you don't agree with it, that's not fair.

zalinda

[bettyellen]

57. "valuable and worthwhile" would have whizzed over your head, huh? that means fulfilling

and i have seen this argued before- usually by the delusional purchasers of said babies. yep, daddy the whole world want to give you a baby- no economic pressure- no bribery involved. the women do it out of love. LOL.

and i know how things are in India, thanks for the report from the frontlines. been there, done that manys a time, which is part of why i think this is ass backward.
I'm sorry you needed to do whatever to feed yourself, kid... but that doen;t make it any less exploitive.... and I'm just saying we ought to be doing better by the women in India than this.


"
Hoof Hearted (644 posts) Sat Dec-29-07 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Why? What exactly is wrong with it that isn't wrong with surrogacy here?

Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 11:30 PM by Hoof Hearted
Most surrogates here are looking to fill an economic need while doing something they see as valuable and worthwhile. So what does it matter if they are in New York or New Delhi?" :rofl:

[zalinda]

31. So, your suggestion is to let them

and their children starve. Some solution. They do not go back onto the streets while they are pregnant. They are well cared for at a hospice with medical attention readily available. This one pregnancy can support them and their children for over 10 years. Enough time for the children to go to school instead of working in a factory or something worse. This could get their family out of poverty for the rest of their lives.

EVERY culture has done some "dangerous" work to get ahead. You do the best you can with what lot in life you've been given, and you hope you make it better for your children. These women are doing the best they can. If you take this away from them, then what will they have? Before you condemn people for surviving any way they can, you should offer solutions to their problems.

zalinda

[bettyellen]

33. taken? it's a new form of trade- so we wonder why haven't more progressive opportunities opened up

for women? why in all this outsourcing mania can;t women be goven better ways than this? in this day and age americans are finding new ways to exploit women's very bodies- puting their lives in danger... instead of giving them opportunities good enough so they can support their own kids. i find nothing to be proud of in this. americans have just found a new - more desperate pool of women to exploit. i can't get behind that.

[jpgray]

45. So they should be grateful for exploitation, -because- they are desperate?

And how beneficial is that to the society? Rank exploitation of economic disparity doesn't always lift up an impoverished society. How far has the sex industry improved Thailand's economy? Is the diamond trade providing stable economic opportunities for Africa? How much does this surrogacy improve the lives of poor Indians who will not have the opportunity to reap this one-off, capricious, entirely individual windfall? It does not build on a society, it exploits a society. If the most profitable resource a woman has to offer is the basest function of her reproductive organs, how can our exploitation of that be called progress in any language?

[LisaL]

48. Want it or not, if those adult women, they can do whatever it

is they want with their bodies. Including carrying someone else's child for money.

[jpgray]

50. Yet there are some things that should not be up for sale. And I'll wager I can prove it to you

"They can do whatever it is they want with their bodies."

Let's start with the idea of freedom of choice. Is it black and white? Does an impoverished Indian women with zero comparably lucrative career options have as much freedom to choose surrogacy as a middle class woman in a wealthy nation with -many- other equally favorable choices? No. Economic disparity, when exploited, erodes the freedom of the individual to choose, as there is a disproportionate economic motivator provided and few other competitive options. Does a young Thai woman with zero favorable opportunities have the same freedom to choose the sex trade as a woman in this country? No. The choice is not as free as you contend--if there are few opportunities out there, and you hold significant economic advantage, you can compel people to do dangerous or otherwise undesirable jobs they would avoid given the true freedom of opportunity.

Then there is the universal nature of your comment. "Whatever it is they want with their bodies?" It's far more arbitrary than that. Selling oneself into slavery, for example. It is my body, no? I can choose to do what I want with it? The answer in certain cases needs to be "no." At some point the libertarian truism that everything has a price, and that all willing sellers are equally "free" to choose, must have a curb placed on it. Exploiting the disparity between rich and poor in such a way that the rich lease the very lives of the poor for an isolated luxury is wrong. Particularly when that luxury provides no benefit to the poor as a whole, but rather only to the lucky few who fill the demand for the luxury--as a result no lasting benefit is provided to the impoverished society, no necessary goods or services are produced. It's morally empty, superficially beneficial only to a few, and does nothing to improve the lives of the class it exploits.

Moreover there is an inherent compulsion to keep the exploited impoverished population poor, as lifting them up would remove the supply of willing desperate people to do the dirty job that nets the luxury for the rich.

[LisaL]

52. Being pregnant is legal anywhere in the world, I presume.

:eyes:

[jpgray]

53. As that has nothing to do with your earlier argument, is it safe to say you've abandoned it?

Because you should. It's inhuman, myopic, and deeply naive.

[LisaL]

54. Oh please.

Those are adult women who can decide if they want to carry someone's child for money. Being pregnant is legal.
It's not for you to decide it's not good for them.

[jpgray]

55. Are all equally free to decide? Are there no limits to what they can choose to sell?

Do you see how these questions make your platitudes rather useless for examining this situation?

[Annces]

23. John Sayles made a movie sort of about this subject

except it was American women adopting Mexican babies.



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0303830/

[Book Lover]

32. Or...

one could adopt a child already alive.

[zalinda]

34. Believe it or not, for some people that is not possible

Just ask a gay couple how easy it is to adopt. Or it may be a job that the agency doesn't agree with, or they don't make enough money, or just about anything. What if a couple thinks they couldn't love an adopted child, while it doesn't make them great people, at least they are honest and won't put a child through a bad childhood. And, some people just don't want to take on the problems of a child that has been scarred emotionally. There are many reasons to want your own flesh and blood child, and while I wish every child could be adopted, I think putting a child in the hands of people who question their ability to love the child is wrong.

zalinda

[Book Lover]

37. I am sorry

You are absolutely right, and I apologize.

I'm signing out of here for a while.

[gollygee]

38. Adoption isn't easy either

A family member has been trying to adopt for AGES. And she's trying IVF now too because adoption seems to be more difficult and expensive than that.

Edited to add that I have serious questions about the ethics of this particularly situation but "just adopt" isn't necessarily a complete answer. It is one answer but not a perfect answer in all cases.

[Hoof Hearted]

39. Adoption is so difficult that almost nobody can actually do it. n/t

[bettyellen]

59. wow, i can count four in my office. two are gay, another is single....

all were well off enough to pay a breeder.
but instead, but they adopted. go figure.

[Katherine Brengle]

69. Indeed. A lot of the reason adoption is "difficult" is because

people want perfect little white babies (or perfect little other race babies) who will blend perfectly into their families. People don't want to adopt older babies and children.

[Book Lover]

71. see post #37

[Canuckistanian]

47. The movie "Coma" is looking more and more plausible each day

How long before we totally turn over natural bodily processes for cold hard cash?

And conversely, how long is it going to be before it's an economic necessity for those participating?

Brave New World, indeed.

[Elspeth]

49. Brave New World.....

it's here.

[DS1]

56. Whoa, 15 pregnant women in the same room. Reminded me of Battlestar Galactica

I wish they'd hurry up

[WinkyDink]

58. Funny how wealth, vacations, health care, yachts, etc. are never "out-sourced".

[Swamp Rat]

61. This reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode.

:crazy:

[Kip Humphrey]

62. UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE!!! Now we're outsourcing our babies!