Just rent a woman for a few months
David Kaufman in the NY Times a couple of weeks ago:
Still in its infancy, this movement envisions a future when the ability to create a family is no longer determined by one’s wealth, sexuality, gender or biology.
By “create a family” he doesn’t mean adoption or step-parenthood, he means gestation. But of course the ability to gestate is determined by biology and by sex (not gender). It’s not something men can do. One can “envision a future” in which that’s not the case all one likes, but as of now that’s how it is. People burble about “uterus transplants” but it’s not that simple, to put it mildly.
“This is about society extending equality to its final and logical conclusion,” said Ron Poole-Dayan, the founder and executive director of Men Having Babies, a New York nonprofit that helps gay men become fathers through surrogacy. “True equality doesn’t stop at marriage. It recognizes the barriers L.G.B.T.s face in forming families and proposes solutions to overcome these obstacles.”
Like for instance renting women.
Mr. Poole-Dayan and others believe infertility should not be defined as a physical condition but a social one. They argue that people — gay, straight, single, married, male, female — are not infertile because their bodies refuse to cooperate with baby making.
Rather, their specific life circumstances, like being a man with a same-sex partner, have rendered them unable to conceive or carry a child to term without medical intervention. A category of “social infertility” would provide those biologically unable to form families with the legal and medical mechanisms to do so.
Er, no. Men are unable to conceive or carry a child to term no matter what. It’s not only if they have a same-sex partner, it’s no matter what partner they have – men don’t do the conceiving and carrying part. They can’t. This valuable talent and arduous labor is something only women can do, which is, ironically, probably the foundational reason for male dominance. “I need her to do this thing for me so I gotta control her or else.”
Fertility equality activists are asking, at a minimum, for insurance companies to cover reproductive procedures like sperm retrieval, egg donation and embryo creation for all prospective parents, including gay couples who use surrogates. Ideally, activists would also like to see insurance cover embryo transfers and surrogacy fees. This would include gay men who would transfer benefits directly to their surrogate.
Their rented woman’s body.
“But what about gay men?” Captain Aguilera said. “Why aren’t we on equal footing? The whole process made me feel like giving up my dream of becoming a parent.”
Gay men aren’t on equal footing because they are men – men don’t have the bodies that gestate babies.
Women are not machines to rent for baby-making purposes.
They want axolotl tanks. Jesus Christ.
Sexual dimorphism, which male dominance requires and on which is based, is a characteristic of many mammalian species. Contests between individual males over mating priority will select in the strong and assertive, and select out the timid and weak.
Interestingly, sexual dimorphism is virtually non-existent in chimpanzees, which as I recall live in ‘troops’ in which all females are sexually receptive to all males. But such does not apply to the other apes: particularly not to orangs and gorillas. Can’t say about gibbons.
For the sake of the kids, there ought to be a law stopping male humans gestating any offspring, using transplanted uteruses or other arrangements. But females offering surrogacy services is another matter, and well established.
Being well established does not mean it is right or good. Pregnancy is risky to the woman, and often surrogates are poor women who are desperate, and often poor women in other countries who are desperate. And they often are not treated well by the “parents” who will receive the little darling after birth. I have heard tales of women who were literally held against their will by the “parents” so they could control her behavior during pregnancy.
The thing is, there are a lot of children out there needing loving homes; adoption should be principal for people who want children, but people (1) want infants, and many of the children have passed infancy; (2) want babies that look at least somewhat like them, and the children may not; and/or (3) believe they need to pass their genes to the next generation – in other words, don’t want to bring up someone else’s kid.
People who rent surrogates are, in my experience, often wallowing in narcissistic pity and have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement. I saw a play a couple of years ago about a gay couple approaching the final moments of the surrogate pregnancy; these men were really shitty to the surrogate mother, and trash talked her. The play literally referred to women as breeders, and compared the birth of a human child to that of pet hamsters. This play was written by a gay man, and it just dripped with misogyny.
I would like to see less ability to use surrogates, myself. I have no problem with same sex couples being parents, but if they are not able to carry a child themselves, then they should examine adoption rather than assuming some woman should be willing to carry a child for them.
Women “offering surrogacy services” is not all that well established, and anyway my point is that it’s an evil custom, established or not. Male domination is well established too – a lot more established than surrogacy – and it still sucks.
And so is the division between the haves and the have-nots, and the ability of those with enormous wealth to commandeer the labor of those without any wealth, while paying them next to nothing for their work.
At Another Random Commenter #1:
This was my thought exactly when I read the post.
I mean, by all means if they want to come up with some robot incubator or something that can work, that’s fine, but there’s no reason to assume that’d ever happen. So slavery it is!
I think what I find so disgraceful about is this is what seems to be the assumption that women are mere machines that can be tinkered about with and used in the interests of ‘freedom’ – for someone else’s convenience and supposed benefit. I have no idea of course of what it feels like to be pregnant and to give birth, but willy-nilly very strong feelings are clearly involved both during pregnancy and after birth, and the whole experience is an overpowering one. I have seen it in my sisters, and in my mother (my younger brother is 13 years younger than me), as well as in friends who have had babies. It is not sentimental to speak of love. But, no, it seems that women are mere useful receptacles, particularly if they are poor, and that it is perfectly all right for babies to be torn away from their true mothers in exchange for a bit of dosh – I wonder what this does to the baby as well as the mother.
Tim #7 – that’s it exactly. That play I mentioned? That was the exact treatment. The “breeder” was not anything but a handy tool, and the two young men were entitled to be parents. Entitled, I tell you. It was their right, and they should be able to parent a newborn because heterosexual couples can.
But…what about the woman? That never seems to matter.
@1, exactly. Nice reference.
If I was biologically equipped – which no amount of identification will ever do – I can assure you that money would definitely be a barrier to my gestation services. I suspect if you asked men to put serious thought to how much they would want to be paid to gestate a baby the number would be seriously large. Discuss the risks and consequences with them of doing it as a career/job choice – the number would get bigger.
The whole attitude reeks of believing that women, their health, their time, their lives have essentially no value. That they are passive, mindless creatures for whom reproducing is a cross between a hobby and a willing duty they can fit around their otherwise trivial lives.
As ARC said, axolotl tanks.
@3 & @8. iknklast, that play you speak of sounds appalling, but I must say that it doesn’t surprise me. Certain gay (male) acquaintances of mine are astonishingly misogynistic. Not all, but some.
And yet the writers of such plays & people like Ron Poole-Dayan seem to get away with it, as they would not if they were not gay and male.
Rob, I would start my negotiations into 7 figures, which seems cheap compared to what we pay professional athletes (male of course).
Tim, the worst thing is, that was only one of about 10 misogynistic plays I saw during that festival., in a group of people that viewed these plays as progressive. The only decent, non-muddleheaded, strong, independent, and interesting female in the entire festival was…you guessed…a lesbian. Because if a woman is heterosexual, her role is to smile, to look pretty, to have babies, and to please men.
And this is from one of the most liberal of all the professions. They can’t even see the misogyny. It looks progressive to them because, well, gay.
Mike @11, bare minimum. let’s say a woman starts at 18 and has a pregnancy every two years until 30. That allows for the contract negotiation, checks, fertilisation, gestation and recovery to minimise risk to the next customer. No pregnancy beyond 30 because risks to baby (product) and customer go up due to increasing genetic and woman’s health risks. That’s around six pregnancies.
She’s giving up her prime years for career development and earning. Her ability to attract a life partner ill be severely hampered unless she is an exceptionally good earner. She has to give up eating, drinking and traveling as she would otherwise wish. She certainly can’t be going around having sex with random partners. So, in the space of 6-7 pregnancies she must earn enough money to equate to a lifetime of satisfactory reward just for lost opportunities and earnings. Add onto that danger and distress money to reward for the very real risks and degradation/damage that occurs to her body.
Anything under full expenses and health cover plus US$1M is preying on a woman’s financial distress or is essentially a gift. I wouldn’t do it for that money, but then, I’ve grown up expecting to have other options and autonomy over my body.
Anyway, reducing this to numbers is creeping me the hell out even as a point or discussion!
iknklast @#3:
Of course. Agreed. But in this world people in all sorts of situations choose to do stuff which in other circumstances they would choose against doing.
We know the consequences which follow when there is a legal ban on something for which there is popular demand on whatever scale: inflated prices, police corruption, dodgy operators… I could go on.
If a woman chooses in the light of her own circumstances to offer surrogacy services to a childless woman or couple, then IMHO that is between the two women and them only.
The only stipulations I would suggest are these: 1. There should be a proper legal agreement between the parties to the effect that, provided there is to be a full refund of payments, should the surrogate mother change her mind within a stipulated period after the birth, and decide to keep the baby or babies once born; and 2. by the same principle, after a specified period the birth mother relinquishes all right of access to the child, except when specified otherwise, and 3. The child or children retain the right to have made known to him/her/them at whatever stage the identity of their birth mother.
A woman who is herself infertile may wish her husband or partner to be the biological father, and that should also be catered for. That can be achieved through IVF if the normal method is not desired.
But Omar (@14), that view misses quite a few considerations I’d argue. Firstly, one you at least allude to “If a woman chooses in the light of her own circumstances …” What circumstances might those be? Sure, you might find a woman who just loves being pregnant so much she doesn’t care whether she keeps the baby or not and just wants to keep pumping them out. She might be independently wealthy or so well supported that loss of lifetime income is irrelevant. She may have no emotional or legal ties to anyone else whose life is disadvantaged by her being pregnant. She might not care about the changes and risks to her body and health from pregnancy. You might find someone like that.
I bet a more common scenario would be to find a financially strained or even desperate woman, maybe single, maybe with 1-4 children already under her belt and a partner whose income struggles to provide for them. They see the thought of paid healthcare and a few tens of thousands of dollars as a major step up and the risk and chaos in their lives as a small price to pay for what might equal a tears pay. Attractive if you’re desperate.
Should we allow an industry that trades on desperation in exchange for your body? These are arguments that stray into very similar territory to prostitution legalisation arguments.
The contractual arrangement to give up or retain rights to the child are not that different to adoption laws in many jurisdictions, but let’s think about the child(ren) for a moment.
Not every two parent family is perfect. We know from multiple studies that a significant number of adopted children struggle with understanding who and what they are and that those struggles can cause significant pain and disruption throughout their lives. This can manifest as unhappiness, depression, anger, dysfunctional relationships, anxiety and suicide. being adopted is a good solution for children who are abandoned by their parents, or whose parents cannot look after them well enough. It’s still not statistically as safe as not being in that position in the first place. Why create a pool of children to satisfy what amounts to a selfish urge, vanity and a commercial arrangement when we know that many will be adversely affected?
I think the technology has run way ahead of our laws, which themselves are way ahead of our culture.
Omar, that’s not quite true. Male chimps are heavier and stronger than females, and alphas do their best to monopolize the females.
Females and non-alphas do sneak off together to get it on, but if the alpha catches them he’ll bully them.
Rob:
That is a value judgement, not my choice to make in any situation I am ever likely to be involved in; and I would guess not yours either; though I may be wrong there. It is also an argument for banning surrogacy which in turn becomes an argument for leaving it to organised crime. I am sure they will be only too happy to be of service.
Incidentally, “…the most children born to any woman in recorded history is 69, according to Guinness World Records. The mother was a peasant from Shuya, Russia, identified only as the wife of Feodor Vassilyev. Mrs. Vassilyev lived during the 18th century, and had 27 pregnancies, including 16 pairs of twins, seven sets of triplets and four sets of quadruplets…”
Now I assume that Mrs. Vassilyev was not forced to become the human analogue of a breeding sow. You may agree with what she chose to do, or otherwise. But I doubt if many of her descendants living today would wish that you had been there to advise her against her choice at the time; or me either for that matter.
The choice begins and ends with the woman. That is a categorical imperative, it cuts both ways, and I can’t see any worthy way round it; not for anyone.
https://www.livescience.com/50778-most-extreme-mothers.html#:~:text=The%20most%20children%20born%20to,Mrs.
But Rob’s argument was that ‘choice’ is a dicey word when the woman in question feels she has no alternative and his likening it to consent from prostitutes is apt. This is why we should be wary of seeing surrogacy as purely a business transaction: can we really expect the mother’s choice in either case to be truly free?
Another concern is the degree to which some procurers of women for surrogacy feel entitled to control those women’s lives while they are pregnant. Arguably, this could be addressed in part by legal protections, but it’s the attitude that frightens me; seeing women as things in the first place does not seem likely to lead to an equitable transaction, especially when the power differential is likely to be great.
Well, latsot, that opens a very old can of philosophical worms: the free will vs determinism debate probably goes back at least 2,500 years.
Economic circumstance induce people the world over to do what, given a totally free and unconstrained choice, they would almost certainly not do. (I am not aware of any film stars or leading models who have offered anyone surrogacy services.) And I am sure no surrogate mother provides her services any more cheerfully than does the run-of-the-mill wage slave anywhere.
BUT should you start or join any campaign to have surrogacy made illegal, I am also sure that every Mafia boss from sunny Palermo to the frozen poles will agree with you, and will support you all the way. Possibly offer you a loan to cover expenses, with the usual repayment conditions.
The arguments against surrogacy are very similar to the arguments against prostitution, and some of the same organizations pushing to help people leave prostitution are doing similarly for surrogacy. Nordic Model Now (an organization that advocates the so-called Nordic Model, in which the selling of sex is legal but the buying is not) has a lot of helpful articles on their web site on both topics, including this one on surrogacy:
https://nordicmodelnow.org/2020/02/28/surrogacy-how-much-is-a-woman-worth/
Re “Now I assume that Mrs. Vassilyev was not forced to become the human analogue of a breeding sow”: I would not assume that at all. I saw a discussion today about a woman who died after a fourth abortion, and the reason she had four abortions was because her husband demanded she abort any pregnancy of a girl. Women are coerced in myriad ways to bear children, bear the “right” children, and conduct their lives in certain ways while pregnant. There are millions of stories of women who bore children simply because had no means to do otherwise, through ignorance or access or circumstance, to avoid sex or avoid pregnancy or abort a pregnancy.
Like with prostitution, surrogacy can likely be reduced or eliminated by ensuring women have the means and support and authority to do otherwise, and by promoting attitudes that do not see surrogacy as a “service” and having biological children as a “right”. There’s a lot that can be done besides a simplistic decision to make the practice illegal.
Don’t be silly, Omar, I’m not talking about free will.
As for choice, listen to Sackbut. Don’t assume that everyone – especially women – has the same range of choices available to them the world over and don’t assume that the consequences of choices are comparable or even equally predictable.
I’m going to take the Mrs Vassilyev story with a grain of salt, as many researchers do, because it is unverified and attempts to verify it have been resisted. Colour me some sceptical that a peasant woman in Russia in the mid 1700’s actually had much of a choice about anything in any case.
What an extraordinarily libertarian view of law making. Lets make murder legal so as to suppress the hitman industry. FFS.
I support the concept and practice of woman having choice. I support abortion on demand for that reason, even though the thought of late term abortion makes me squeamish (also almost never happens and is done with good reason when it is). I’m not categorically against surrogacy either. I am far more concerned about turning surrogacy into a business that actually or nominally employs women, than I am about ‘gifting’ of the service as a genuine act of koha.
Omar also pretty much waves away concerns about the effects on children. Having had an adopted cousin who succumbed to depression and committed suicide in a particularly desperate and final manner, I’m a little less dismissive. Also, not having children, and having considered both adoption and surrogacy options, I’ve come to accept that when my life ends my genetic line disappears like a bubble of foam on the beach. Unnoticed and irrelevant to humanity. So what. Not all arguments people make here come from pure thought experiments.
Sackbut @#20:
Sounds like pure bullshit to me. In any commercial exchange, there has to be a buyer, and there has to be a seller. Take one of them away, and the whole exchange automatically becomes impossible. (The two are in a classic Hegelian dialectical relationship.)
OF COURSE, women are coerced in many ways to do things they would rather not do; as are we all for at least a large part of our normal working lives: even the workaholic is. Some women are given worse choices than others.
Rob @#22:
I’m afraid you have me wrong there. Like you, I am in favour of a perfect world.
Omar, the Nordic Model has been implemented in eight countries with excellent results. The goal is to improve the lives of women in prostitution, including providing support for them to exit prostitution if and when they are ready to do so. Criminal penalties are maintained for pimps and buyers. You can read details here: https://nordicmodelnow.org/what-is-the-nordic-model/
The overarching goal of the Nordic Model is to substantially reduce or even eliminate prostitution by providing women with other options and exit routes, and reducing demand. It isn’t aimed at providing a safer capitalist framework under which prostitution can flourish.
If you are interested in learning about it, try the link above and other articles on the web site. There are certainly critics of the model, and you may end up one of them. I don’t claim to be an expert, I just find what I’ve read convincing, and I agree with their goals.
Omar, I remain a little less dismissive.
Sackbut:
I went to that website, and agree with the goals.
Supply can be reduced by guaranteed minimum income and other enhancing measures for women. I have long believed that nobody should be forced through economic circumstances to do things they would not otherwise do. But it remains largely a wish list; what has been done to change things on the demand side is still an open question, particularly with relevance to police corruption. You can warn, cajole, encourage cops not to be corrupt all you like, but till the real consequences of police corruption change, nothing much else does. And that corruption historically has gone in some jurisdictions right to the very top.
Some cops need to finish up in jail, to encourage the rest.