Having Megan visit class today allowed me to better
understand the perspective of the surrogate.
After hearing from her, it seems plausible that being a surrogate is
just like any other job where someone uses his or her body for labor. People should be free to use their labor and body as they choose. Because
pregnancy doesn’t seem like something enjoyable, I originally thought it was a
job people would not want to do. But
this is not the case because many women enjoy being pregnant. Like many other occupations, being a surrogate/
gestational carrier can be empowering and useful rather than degrading or
coercive as some of the objectors suggest.
I initially thought that surrogacy could potentially exploit
the poor and would lead to greater class divisions. It is argued that women of
a lower economic status would be more vulnerable to choose surrogacy because of the monetary compensation. However,
surrogates have to go through extensive screenings and pass certain tests that
many women of low economic standing could not pass. That means that the economy for gestational
carriers is one for the middle and upper classes. Since hiring a surrogate
costs $20,000-$30,000, only people who are well off could afford it. This creates an opportunity gap between the
wealthy and poor people who cannot have children on their own.
Because gestational carriers and surrogacy are a relatively
recent developments, most of the philosophers that we have read have not
addressed the issue. Nozick would say
that we are free to use our bodies as we choose. He would suggest a free market
for gestational carriers and would prohibit laws that prevented people from making
their own free and rational choices.
How would Marx view surrogacy? Would he approve of it because it is “from each
according to his abilities" (surrogate) "to each according to his needs" (person who cannot have a child naturally)”?
For the utilitarian, it would seem most utile for parents to
adopt a child rather than go through the expenses of surrogacy. Could it be argued that surrogacy is
extremely excessive? There are so many
children that need to be adopted and there are many parents who are struggling
with infertility. But does surrogacy create the greatest amount of happiness
for the greatest amount of people if all parties involved are happy?
Would
Kant think that surrogacy would be using someone (the surrogate) as a means
rather than an end in itself or would he say that a woman is a rational,
autonomous being who could choose this?
Just because surrogate children cost a lot of money does not make it unjust, which I know is not the point you're making. The unjust pricing argument for surrogacy could be made for any necessary commodity as well, similar to the price gouging scenario. But I'm not so sure if having a child can be deemed a right, thus it only makes sense that this must be a purchased service. I do not necessarily think that the opportunity gap is unfair, thus I think it is better to only have rich surrogates than no surrogates at all.
ReplyDeleteI think Marx would allow it, but in his society the market would be much cheaper because there wouldn't be a financial hierarchy present that drives the surrogacy market up. So surrogacy could work, but I don't think there would be these big agencies regulating it. Since Kant is a sexist, he'd say women are not rational and autonomous, just kidding. He'd probably make the argument that they are responsible for how they choose to handle their bodies, no one else. I think pure Utilitarians would say that surrogacy creates a great happiness for people that cannot give birth, and pleasure for the fetal host. They would still probably think that kids still need to be adopted though.
Hillary,
ReplyDeleteI too agree that having Megan in class on Friday altered my opinion about surrogacy. Originally, I was unsure how I felt about it. In some ways, I viewed surrogacy as a commoditization of the uterus. However, after hearing Megan speak, I think if women want to be gestational carriers they should be aloud to be gestational carriers. In theory, we all go to college to get degrees to do something we love, so if a woman loves being pregnant, I don’t see anything wrong with that woman using her uterus to give a family the child they have been longing to have for years. I also don’t view surrogacy as “buying a baby” because the money gestational carriers receive is more for the “pain and suffering” they go through for carrying a child. I thought Megan really opened my eyes to a different side of surrogacy.
Furthermore, to address your questions about what the philosophers we have studied would say about surrogacy, first for Marx, I think he would say it is okay to be a gestational carrier. As it is stated above, in Marx’s society anyone who wanted a child through a gestational carrier would be able to have one, because there wouldn’t be a hierarchy of wealth. I think utilitarian’s would also allow for surrogacy because they could argue it is bringing the most utility to the gestational carrier, because in theory, they love being pregnant and it makes them happy, and for the parents receiving the child, because they finally get a family. Finally, in all honesty, I am not sure what Kant would say. I think he could make rational arguments for both, however it would be important that we make a decision without looking at the consequences, which I think might be difficult in this case. In conclusion, after Megan’s talk I think I am pro surrogacy or gestational carriers, however, I think this issue is going to become more and more prevalent in our everyday lives as surrogacy becomes more and more popular.
You mentioned how hiring a surrogate cost $20,000~$30,000 and that only women who have been screened can be one. But Isnt doing so worse than allowing it. In this case now not only are you preventing the opportunity for women to pay for the service, but you are excluding them based on their economic class. If we are going to accept the argument that being a carrier is a valid form of labor then we cannot validate excluding people from labor on the premise that they need money. If we were to take this same approach to organ selling then only the upper class could buy and sell organs. This would leave the already disadvantaged at a huge disadvantage.
ReplyDeleteI think Nozick would indeed be fine with surrogacy since it's a labor that can be provided and bought, and I think the same goes for prostitution as long as the morality of the situation isn't necessary to factor in(assuming we place a moral value on prostitution). However, you ask what Marx might think of surrogacy, which I find somewhat more difficult to analyze. The first argument that jumps out at me is that since some people cannot have children, and children are necessary for society to propagate itself and may be psychologically helpful to the parents, surrogacy can be seen as providing a "need." However, the counter arguments to this are that children are not truly needed in this situation, that they distribution in this situation would be unfair(though this might more likely be an argument of Rawls than of Marx), and that children cannot be viewed as goods and cannot be treated in the same way.Surrogacy might be an issue for which Marx would say that it is up to the society to decide whether or not to allow it.
ReplyDelete