Posted on 02/26/2021 8:12:20 AM PST by Kaslin
By defining parenthood by intention instead of biology, legalized surrogacy becomes a vicious process that is destructive of human life.
One of the last states to do so, New York recently legalized commercial surrogacy. This means New Yorkers can now pay women to carry a baby to term. Under New York’s law, which state Sen. Brad Hoylman touts as “a model for other states,” surrogate mothers are also guaranteed legal representation and an abortion if they so choose.
Naturally, Gov. Andrew Cuomo touts this as a triumph of “love over fear” and a much-needed update to the law. In contrast to the state’s horrific abortion law enacted two years ago — allowing abortion up to the point of birth — legalizing commercial surrogacy appears to promote the creation of life and families.
As such, many people, including those who might support life, celebrate the policy. Doubtless, they probably imagine a loving married couple who suffer from infertility but desire children. Or, influenced by pop culture, they probably recall Lisa Kudlow’s character Phoebe in “Friends” being a surrogate mother, or may imagine a celebrity couple like Kim Kardashian and Kanye West using a surrogate.
These images are profoundly misleading, however. At its heart, surrogacy is not about accommodating life but accommodating lifestyles. No longer is parenthood determined by the rules of nature or traditional monogamy; it is, as proponents say, determined by intention.
If an adult wants a baby and has $150,000 to spare, he or she (or both) can have a baby. This person might be in a same-sex relationship, or a polygamous commune, or completely solitary, but this will no longer pose a barrier. Furthermore, surrogacy ensures that the intended parent does not have to deal with the messy complications that might come from adoption.
By defining parenthood by intention instead of biology, legalized surrogacy becomes a vicious process that is destructive of human life. Far from being a safe and automatic procedure, in vitro fertilization (IVF) and impregnating a surrogate are inexact sciences that frequently lead to loss of life. Moreover, the thinking behind purchasing a baby (to use cruder but more honest language) necessarily objectifies both the child and the surrogate mother and immediately leads to exploitation of the poor by the rich.
To begin, misunderstandings about surrogacy usually originate with in vitro fertilization process itself. As those who have undergone fertility treatments can attest, IVF is a grueling emotional roller coaster. The rate of success (that is, getting a fertilized egg to develop into a healthy baby) is less than 50 percent, requiring multiple fertilization cycles with multiple eggs. It often happens that a cycle might yield multiple embryos (to be clear: conceived human beings), leaving the mother to decide whether she wants to possibly implant these extra embryos in her womb, freeze them for later, or discard them.
The grave evil of keeping newly conceived babies in a freezer or throwing them in the trash is precisely why the Catholic Church condemns in vitro fertilization. When commercial surrogacy is added to the mix, the horrors abound. As Katy Faust explains:
We already have disaster surrogacy cases of men mass-producing surrogate babies, ‘pedophile intended parents’ who created surrogate children, and babies handed over to unstable adults over the objections of the surrogate. In some cases, it’s difficult to distinguish surrogate pregnancies from child trafficking.
Somehow, it seems unlikely that making surrogacy legal will reduce, rather than increase, such outcomes. Additionally, women who become surrogate mothers must endure the severe stresses of pregnancy. They must undergo hormone treatments, regulate their diets, and often endure complications like gestational diabetes, fetal growth restriction, pre-eclampsia, and premature birth. Along with this is the intense emotional turmoil that results from bonding with a child for so many months only to give that child to the “intended” parents.
Setting aside the physical consequences of surrogacy, huge moral problems arise. When parenthood is redefined, so too are many other fundamental concepts of life and family. What does it mean to be a son or daughter? What does it mean to be a parent? What happens when the quintessentially natural process of childbirth is hijacked by technology?
If one accepts mere intentionality as the essential feature of family bonds, then what separates the desire for a son or daughter from the desire for a bigger house or nicer car? And what happens when one doesn’t desire the child anymore or the original desire wanes? Is one not a parent now?
These questions weigh on a son who is not a life in himself but more an accessory to the life of his intended parents. This is probably why children of sperm donors seem to struggle more with emotional problems than children who grow up with their biological parents.
There’s something to be said for the investment that comes with natural pregnancy and childbirth. A mother gives up so much of herself for her baby, and, ideally, the father helps support the mother in this effort. Both make sacrifices, and this forges a connection with their child. In this process, they cultivate an enduring, unconditional love for their child, something altogether different from parents who have no such investment.
Even generously assuming that a healthy baby is produced for a stable, loving couple without any negative physical or emotional repercussions for the child, there is still the problem of the surrogate mother who is being exploited. Even if a government legalizes surrogacy, it would be grossly inaccurate to equate this with any other economic exchange: one adult is paying to use another adult’s body, a key part of her very self.
Quite understandably, a woman who consents to rent out her body for pregnancy and birth would not do so if she were wealthy; her consent is predicated on need, not empowerment. This is why countries like India banned surrogacy three years ago, and so have many other countries.
Wealthy westerners preyed on poor, vulnerable women in other countries who faced extreme destitution or carrying a baby for a former boy band singer. In legalizing commercial surrogacy, New York is effectively signaling its support for this kind of extreme privilege over extreme poverty.
So, considering the problems that arise, it’s baffling New York and corporate media would choose to champion and celebrate this law. Once a person can make it through the euphemisms and emotional testimonies, so much of this is based on vanity and selfishness.
Already, people have stripped the unborn of any protections, so it logically follows that they would have no qualms about trading unborn children as commodities. This logic can be seen in the language of the law. Writing for the Catholic News Agency, Jonah McKeown reports:
The legislation explicitly denies any and all rights to babies in utero, stating that they may not be viewed as a ‘child’ under the laws of New York, with the presumption that they must instead be viewed as manufactured products or disposable goods.
In short, surrogacy is about adults having children on their own terms. Even if comes at the cost of ruining the surrogate mother and their intended child, they insist on living a life that is naturally incompatible with childrearing. This home starts broken. As the home goes, so does the greater community.
Those who oppose the culture of death that has created a demographic winter for the developed world should see commercial surrogacy as yet another expression of this culture. Parenthood, childhood, and natural procreation are things to be conserved and cherished. Not only is it critical for the flourishing of civilization, it lies at the heart of humanity’s very existence.
Better than abortion. Couples willing to pay means they WANT that baby
or babies. I have no issue with this if a baby’s life is saved. Am I missing
something.
Womb for rent..........................
It sure is. Now on the other hand if both of them are males or females?
> Better than abortion. <
You beat me to it. I suppose this new policy will be abused in many ways. Some “buyers” might reject an imperfect child. Some mothers might get pregnant solely for financial reasons. Etc.
But yes, this new policy will save unborn lives.
Can’t argue too much there... except...
There is a difference between wanting a baby because you love somebody so much you want to see more of them in the world and wanting a baby...
...to imitate being a ‘normal couple’;
...as a party favor for your pedo buddies;
...because there i$ and lucrative market for kid$, or
...some type of status symbol.
Dopey me, I thought the WHOLE POINT of being “gay” was to f-— as many folks of your same sex you could without having this monogamy and family b——t to get in the way of the orgasm....
As for wanted or not wanted... Plenty of kids grew up in homes where they would have been aborted if ma had gotten knocked up after 10/73. You’re reading a post from one. Once I figured out what the overhang of depression and sadness over my life was, instead of trying to self-medicate it away, things got a lot better.
All in all, the apathy I got at home was better than becoming a sex slave for some homo, so it could have been much worse.
Don’t be too sure. This is NY after all. People may be buying babies to be aborted after birth for their parts.
When former Mayor Pete Buttigieg said he and his gay male “wife” want to have a baby in the White House if he got the nomination, did they mean adoption or this stuff?
If someone considering abortion decides to sell the baby to someone who wants to be a parent, then at least the baby’s life has been saved.
I agree that this law will probably be abused. But maybe, just maybe, it will make abortion less tempting.
Womb for rent...
Is that a bad thing?
Our son and wife, a few miscarriages, and a full-term stillborn. Much pain.
Now deep in adoption land...
Healthy adoptees of any type under age10 or so???
He said not to ask because it breaks your heart.
That’s how I see it.
Like puppy mills, eh.
The sale of humans is slavery.
I don’t see how this has anything to do with saving a baby’s life. The baby wouldn’t exist in the first place if someone wasn’t paying for it.
Couples pay for adoptions. What’s the difference?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.