A Surrogate’s purpose
The marketing of “surrogacy”…
No, the “essence” of “a surrogate” is not providing a family or helping have a baby. The essence of surrogacy is using a woman’s body to gestate a baby for other people, as if women are factories for the manufacture of babies.
The company doing this advertising is in the “surrogacy” – business; it does indeed broker the rental of women for gestation purposes.
I was fine with the “essence of a surrogate is X” line. That seems not appreciably different from talking about the “essence” of a doctor, lawyer, candlestick maker, etc.
The line about destroying a “surrogate’s purpose”, though? That’s unacceptable. It reduces a human, a fully autonomous person, to the status of a tool. In ancient Greek philosophy, it was not uncommon to refer to the telos of an object. Each object’s telos served as the measure for whether that object was good or bad. A hammer was good if it fulfilled its telos of driving nails; a blanket, if it kept you warm; a roof, if it kept out the rain. Aristotle extended this to man (i.e., humans) in Ethica Nicomachea, in which he essentially argued that the telos of man is to lead a virtuous, fulfilled life. To say that a surrogate’s purpose is X is to treat her as a mere tool, for a tool’s purpose is simple, but a person’s telos is rich and multifaceted.
But “surrogate” isn’t comparable to doctor, lawyer, candlestick maker, etc. That’s a big part of the point. Being a “surrogate” isn’t a profession or a job, it’s being a body for rent. That’s a qualitative difference.
It’s not a profession or a job on the one hand because it requires no training or apprenticeship, and on the other hand because it’s a gross violation of a woman’s autonomy.
I’m not even sure where to begin on how creepy it is that someone decided that the image shown above was appropriate to create and then post to a worldwide forum.
Is it wrong of me to wish that these womb renters would get dangled like a juicy morsel in front of the TRA lobby for their “transphobic” ad which implies that only women can be surrogates?
Also, most people become doctors or lawyers because it is a field they are interested in pursuing. Some other fields, of course, not so much. I do know people who lived their life for the sole purpose of being a farmer, and others who loved being a custodian, but many jobs are just to make money.
Surrogacy is women being driven by desperation into undertaking an arduous, painful, and invasive job that is dehumanizing in most instances. It is poor women who are doing it. If it was the equivalent of the “telos” you describe, women would seek it out as a career, but women do not do that. Pregnancy is unpleasant, life threatening, and interferes with your job.
A lawyer can close his briefcase. A doctor can take off his stethoscope. A custodian can put down his mop. A teacher can leave the books at school. A surrogate does not have the ability to leave her “job” behind to take a short break. She (literally) carries it with her at all times. It alters what she can eat, what she can drink, what she can wear, what activities she can do…and this does not compare to people who put on a particular type of clothes relevant for their job, because when they go home they can take off the tie, the high heels, the restrictive clothing, and kick back to enjoy the evening. This is an all day, every day thing for a surrogate.
It isn’t a job. It isn’t a career. It is exploitation of a vulnerable class of people by an entitled, empowered class of people.
Ophelia & iknklast: Ah, but here we’re not talking about the phrase “essence of a surrogate” but about “surrogate” per se. If one takes the concept of surrogate itself to be ethically deficient, then yes, of course there is a substantive difference between talking about the essences of doctors and surrogates. By this analysis, “essence of surrogate” is ethically troubling because of how and to what degree surrogacy impinges on personal autonomy and dignity. Fair enough.
However, my comment was confined to the wording rather than the content of the terms. The objection to the phrase “destroy a surrogate’s purpose” holds just as well for doctor, lawyer, and candlestick maker. My point being that even if one accepts arguendo that surrogacy presents no ethical issue, the phrase’s underlying attitude is ethically reprehensible.
I have no objection to surrogacy, but even I find this ad strange.
Who is it meant to convince? Is it to argue against surrogates who change their minds? Or to reassure people using surrogates (or considering it) that it’s morally ok?
There’s something very “Restaurant at the End of the Universe” about this. It’s ok, this cow WANTED to be turned into steaks!
Looking at this picture, it seems like that baby, an innocent human being, is a product that has been produced on demand and is now being handed over to the buyers. Guess that is because it seems to be a healthy baby. What about the cases when the buyer does not want the product because they see the product as “defective” ???
Southwest88 – gross, isn’t it? It looks like some kind of system of acquiring human beings by handing over cash… now what would you call that.
I thought the newborn was wearing a hospital wristband until I looked closer. Is it normal for newborns to be adorned with chunky, potentially dangerous jewellery in this way? The beads are bad enough – they’re unhygienic for a start, and easily swallowed if the bracelet breaks – but the metal parts are a serious no.
With images such as this, alongside the current rise in demand for surrogate mothers, it looks to me that the babies are seen less as humans and more like the latest must-have fashion accessories. Bad news for breeders of toy dogs, I suppose; blinged-up Chihuahuas are soooo last year.