Criticism of Elizabeth Andersons Claim - Essay Example

Criticism of Elizabeth Anderson’s claim that the Autonomy of Women will be promoted by Banning Commercial Surrogacy Contracts Introduction Surrogacy refers to a relationship where a woman on behalf of another person or a couple bears and gives birth to a child. The woman acts as a replacement or surrogate mother for another woman who cannot carry the pregnancy until birth or is unable to produce fertile eggs. Surrogate mothering would be classified into two. The first one involves the implantation of the husband’s sperm in the surrogate mother through a process referred to as Artificial Insemination. If the intended mother has the ability to produce eggs that are fertile but is unable to carry the pregnancy then gestational surrogacy can be used. In this process, the egg of the intended mother would be removed and combined with that of the husband or a sperm from another man and finally implanted in the replacement mother. Surrogacy arrangements can be either altruistic or commercial. In altruistic surrogacy, the surrogate mother would be compensated for expenses incurred or sometimes not paid at all. On the other hand, the surrogate would be paid all expenses incurred during the entire period of the pregnancy plus a fee in commercial surrogacy. In this surrogacy, the surrogate mother and the adoptive parents come up with a commercial surrogacy contract that regulates their relationship for the entire period of the pregnancy. Criticism I disagree with Elizabeth Anderson’s claim that the autonomy of women would be promoted by banning commercial surrogacy contracts. As a matter of fact, commercial surrogacy has enabled many infertile couples in the entire world to have children. There exist few children for adoption and even the requirements for one to qualify as an adoptive parent are hard to meet. Therefore, commercial surrogacy remains the only hope for some individuals to get children and make up families. It is the only humane answer to the infertility problem. Infertility is extremely common in the world; it affects approximately one out of seven couples. This problem is likely to increase since more women are entering a time consuming workforce, and thus delay the process of giving birth to a later age when fertility challenges are exceedingly rampant (Richards 78). Consequently, adoption does not sufficiently meet the desires of infertile couples wishing to have a baby. There exist no biological link between the couple and the adopted baby; they would be forced to wait between three and seven years to adopt an infant. This has contributed to a call for another reproductive option. Moreover, abortion and the use of contraceptives have led to a serious shortage in the number of adoptable babies. If we follow Elizabeth Anderson’s argument, then we leave many infertile couples without children. Commercial surrogacy is not a practice of baby selling as Anderson argues. It is a contract to bear a child but not to sell the child. The payment to a surrogate is just a fee for the services just similar to the fees paid to doctors and lawyers for their services. The banning of commercial surrogacy will be infringing on ones constitutional right to engage into a contract freely. The society is always at peace when the liberty of its members becomes maximized. Women and the entire society benefit from the freedom of choice that would be offered through surrogacy. Since people would not be forced into the contract, they engage willingly; no one should attempt to stop them. In a rights based culture, commercial surrogacy contracts would be supported since every woman has the right to procreate. She also has the right to demand compensation for expenses incurred during the gestation period. All parties benefit in a surrogacy arrangement that is successful. The intended parents go home with a cherished child while the surrogate mother gets monetary reward for her work (Richards 71). The money the surrogate mother receives helps her improve the living standards of her family and children. Major discrepancy concerning commercial surrogacy is the idea of economic compulsion, which forces most women into surrogacy. It is not always her free will to become a surrogate mother but her family expenses which forces her to look for money through such means. Women who engage into this activity should be secluded to pledge that they would not be exploited by the adoptive parents at the end of the contract (Richards 87). They should be paid well since it is not an easy task. In countries where there is no legislation to control surrogacy contracts like India, the parties involved can be covered in the informal system. This is because they would not be covered under the system that is formal which is able to provide formality and defense of law. The parties involved in the informal system draft their own norms to control their relations for that period. This relationship would be run based on trust and confidence. The adoptive parents and the surrogate mother have to be familiar with the privileges and rights of each other and develop respect to ensure that everyone would be contented at the end of the contract. There is a need for regular negotiations between the parties to ensure that not only their needs would be met but also those of the child. The surrogate mother should receive medical expenses, which is the duty of the adoptive parents. On the other hand, the adoptive parents have the right to demand a healthy child from the surrogate mother. Having this in mind it is the sole responsibility of the surrogate mother not to involve into activities such as consuming drugs, drinking, and smoking that can affect the child’s heath. If we clearly look at the motivational factor that makes women engage into commercial surrogacy then we can not think of abolishing it. In a study carried out in the U.S, 28 surrogate mothers would be interviewed from six diverse programs. What came out clearly was that remuneration was not the main motivational factor for the activity. They argued that they would be paid $10,000 to $15,000, an amount that would be considered extremely low as compared to the task of carrying the pregnancy for a period of nine months. The surrogates stipulated that the money would be spent on their children and improvement of their homes. It would be viewed as a part time job that provides them the opportunity to care their children while at home. Children can not be valued. Therefore, the process of commercial surrogacy can not be categorized as selling children. The child produced would be considered as a gift, and this reinforces the suggestion that bearing a child for somebody else goes beyond monetary reward. If it is work then the process should be compensated using money, but since it is reproduction, it is an event that should be completed out of love. A woman who hands over a healthy child to the adoptive parents remains with happiness in her heart. The woman who raises the child is the true mother. Great emphasis would be placed on nurturing since this is the fundamental feature of motherhood. After the surrogate mother gives birth, the social or adoptive mother takes up the role of parenthood from the biological mother. Surrogacy is not fundamentally wrong; it should be regulated rather than prohibiting as Elizabeth Anderson puts it. There are cases where children born by surrogate mothers may not be surrendered to the adoptive parents. Rules and regulations should be structured to ensure commercial surrogacy contracts would be followed to the later. Respect for the freedom of individuals requires us to allow people to make decisions which they may regret later. All human beings make mistakes in life and perhaps learn lessons from them. To give up the free will to make decisions, both beneficial and faulty, is to give up an individual’s autonomy. Consequently, the other side of the argument would be true. Elizabeth Anderson’s claim remains factual. The question revolving around the legitimacy of surrogacy entails the command of state responsibility and models of Rights Jurisprudence. It would be right if the state intervenes to render commercial surrogacy contracts as illegal and unenforceable. It is pertinent to analyze the validity of surrogacy from the autonomy perspective in regard to the surrogate mother. Women’s autonomy would be reinforced through banning commercial surrogacy contracts. The commercial surrogacy arrangements require the surrogate mother to relinquish certain legitimate, moral practices in relation to the child and her pregnancy. Thus, a general conceptualization exists that the surrogate mother participates in the contract for economic inducements. Such commercial arrangements should be considered exploitative in nature since they contribute to the diminishing of a woman’s reproductive capacities’ dignity and the intrinsic value of a child by commodifying it (Roach 69). Another underlying issue involves the mutual obligation. Commercial surrogacy contracts presuppose that the surrogate mother has no inherent moral responsibility for the baby she conceives. In other words, she has no rights to affiliation with it. Merrick argues that these arrangements prevail upon free choice on human relation towards enhancing a virtual denial of fundamental physical and material aspects of parenthood relations, and of ethical obligations in general. Folks cannot decide under all circumstances whether they possess certain moral obligation. The communal obligations of genetics prevail. Siblings, parents and children biological relationship is a paradigmatic form of obligations that one can deny it would exist (Merrick 37). It is a spirit of autonomy that exists among women that they should take the responsibility of their children’s emotional and physical wellbeing. Commercial surrogacy would be premised on the willingness and capacity of women to abrogate the responsibility without regret or moral compunction. This makes the commitment that accompanies motherhood negotiable and alienable. Consequently, disregard of commercial surrogacy contracts remains justified. Conclusion Elizabeth Anderson’s claim to outlaw commercial surrogacy contracts in order to promote women’s autonomy remains theoretical. The claim resides upon debates in which opinions established can not be overthrown as long as justifications would be provided. This paper has analyzed Elizabeth’s claim by looking at both sides of the criticism. Work Cited: Richards, Norvin. The Ethics of Parenthood. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.Print. Merrick, Janna. “Selling Reproductive Rights: Policy Issues in Surrogate Motherhood Politics and the Life Sciences.” Association for Politics and Life Sciences 8.2 (1990): 34-43. Print. Roach, Sharyn. “Reinforcing Gender Norms: Commercial and Altruistic Surrogacy.” Acta Sociologica. 33.1 (2001): 69-70. Print. Read More