Could you elaborate on the potential for exploitation? I don't see it in this case. Presumably a woman made it known that she was willing to be a surrogate mother, a fee was negotiated, and implantation and gestation proceeded. I understand its a cottage industry in countries like India, but don't understand the harm in it. A couple desperate for a kid gets one, a poor woman gets income she otherwise wouldn't.

Am I missing something? Are women being forced into this? While its certainly an invasive and onerous job, is it otherwise different than other work?

I can kind of see where you're coming from on this; how women who live in poverty or are marginalized might see this as an alternative method of providing income for themselves or their families. However, I hesitate to question the agency of the women who choose to do this as work. Just as a sex worker made a decision to find alternative sources of income, I think surrogate mother's are doing something very similar and we should be able to respect that decision.

Full disclosure, though: I may have a little bias, as I've already made plans to be a surrogate for my best friend and his partner in the near future. I'm glad I could be able to do that for them. Surrogacy has the potential to be a wonderful tool and I hate to see that good ignored because people always find a way to take advantage of systems that are set up.

I struggle with what I think on this. I go back and forth. First, I can see a parallel with men in economically depressed areas go into coal mines and put their lives at risk because they see it as the only option. Then I think that those men should have other options, too. But there is also the fact that because this is such a major thing to do, surrogates in India are paid more than they could ever get any other way. Are they allowed to make the decision that they want to take the risk for the payoff? And again, I think they should have other options, so then I am back to the other side of it.

From what I've scene, the media (admittedly, mostly seen on Lifetime) is already developing stereotypes for surrogacy. There have been TV movies like "A Child Too Many" and the subject was featured twice on the socially-conscious medical drama "Strong Medicine." In all three cases, the surrogate was a low-income woman with a heart of gold who just wants to help a childless couple, while the genetic parents were rich and ultimately selfish bastards. In the movie, the surrogate turns out to be carrying twins and the father decides that he wants only one of the babies. In the TV show in both stories, the genetic parents abandon the surrogate and fetus completely when they find out that it will be born with serious genetic defects (through no fault of the surrogate). The only solution for dealing with these abandoned children is to put them up for adoption (highly unlikely to be successful in the case of disabled babies) or for the doctor or lawyer to plead for the surrogate to adopt, which she can't afford anyway. Amazing how set these perceptions are for something so new.

Congratulations to him.

Apparently, military wives are becoming surrogate mothers, too.

The article about Ricky Martin should have mentioned the birth mother.

As you said, you didn't hear anything about the surrogate mother. Maybe they, like many celebrities, prefered to keep this private? Maybe his wife wasn't able to carry the baby and doesn't want this all over the media? Maybe a family friend carried the baby? Maybe you should have voiced your opinions about the (and I agree with you) "industry" of surrogacy that exploits poor women in a separate article without assuming that this family did the same.

I am sorry I cannot celebrate this news. I believe surrogacy to be a business of exploitation. This business of renting a womb reduces womens bodies. It is an entirely different situation when a woman volunteers to help and infertile couple but those that are doing it for pay often come dire economic straits. We are more than baby incubabtors and in stress economic times women will do what they must to survive. Recently there has been an upsurge in the number of women selling their eggs this of course is connected to the economy. If a choice is made because of constrained circumstances it is not a choice that is freely made.

I agree totally and I think what she's saying is that women being perceived only as the gateway between a family and not, is an unfortunate way to be treated, thought of and used, really.
I understand that people feel the value in doing this for their friends and that they get great satisfaction at the unity it creates for their loved ones (particularly gay couples and those unable to conceive).
But for the option to be paraded by the media as a fabulous alternative without noting the health of the mother, or any mention of all the work, energy and emotion she put into the pregnancy not only diminishes her involvement but re-establishes the perceived idea that the woman is unnecessary to complete this family. She fulfilled her role, to conceive and give birth.
And I'm not sure that this kind thinking about women is limited to just cases of surrogates.
So great argument, I think people need to take a closer look at this issue

My sister is currently trying to become a surrogate mother for my cousin because she can't have children. According to the doctors, my cousin seems to be fertile but her uterus can't support the fetus. She tried several times to have her eggs removed, fertilized by her husband's sperm and then implanted into her uterus (this procedure costs over $10,000 each time), but they never took. My sister, a mother of two already, offered to be a surrogate mother for them. It's a very long, difficult process but they all discussed it and agreed that they wanted to go through with it. My sister doesn't feel that her body is being exploited, as she was the one who suggested it. My cousin and her husband will be amazing parents and they deserve that right just like anyone else. I, personally, could not be a surrogate mother but I don't think there is anything wrong with others doing it. I think it's an honorable, selfless, act to volunteer your body in order to help someone else. It's their choice and isn't that what we're all fighting for? The choice to do what we want with our own bodies?

If potential parents can afford a surrogate, I don't really see any reason for them not to get one if that's what they decide upon. Pregnancy isn't always the romanticized process we see on TV, sometimes it can be unpleasant and difficult, and if someone else is willing to take up that burden, knowing full well the risks and hurdles, and receiving the proper monetary compensation, why is that a bad thing?

I don't feel that bringing this to light is saying that there aren't some women who do this on their own with no real outside influences but the fact remains that when we are in tough times (or anytime really) people are willing to accept money for things they would not do if they weren't in need of said money. All Miriam is saying is that the surrogate woman should not be an aside as though women everywhere are just waiting to be baby incubators.

I'm sorry, what?!!

When i first heard this news, i couldn't wait for feministing to congratulate him!

Why have they not mentioned the birth mother? Mybe b/c he has not released that info to the press and has stated it is a personal matter, one which the birth mother might not wish to receive paparazzi attention for!! Are we to drag her into the spotlight? Don't you think she would come forward if she wanted to? Why assume this woman is a victim?

I think for a man to decide to be a single parent and raise his children on his own is an amazing and beautiful act to be celebrated by men and women alike. When raising a child is something that a man can decide to do as an independent act it means women do not just = womb = baby but that child rearing is an act either sex can do alone or together in any combination.

When we detach the act of being able to give birth from

also, i don't find anything that wrong with seeing a surrogates role as "to conceive(??) and give birth" Not to deny the amazing work that carrying a baby is, or the emotional struggle and difficulties it can contain, but i also think that feminists should not be so quick to link childbirth or conception with parenthood. umm adoption? gay parents? (ummm ie my family, whos validity is being challenged by the religious right as we speak?) make sure your qualms are with the exploitation of REAL WOMEN, not perceived victimhood of women or children whose experiences may be different from yours.

lol PPS: I don't see anybody up in arms about sperm donations, many of which are paid as well, and tend to attract men doing so as a desperate measure. obviously its a way bigger thing, involves dif societal consequences, much steeper ones for women. But it also can be an exploitative process, leading to real life children he will always be connected to and worry about for the rest of his life. Both can involve exploitation, but who do people fuss about? women, b/c women = mother, who are incapable/cannot choose to see birth as a simple biological act that does not define them as a human being.

Miriam is correct to raise the issue of the possibility of the exploitation on economic grounds of women who participate in surrogacy. In my country, women cannot be paid for donating eggs, and nor can they be paid for being surrogates, except for medical expenses. This changes the whole scenario. Not only are there very few women who offer to be surrogates, but if they do, their reasons are usually altruistic as no monetary gain is involved. This would indicate that in countries where the surrogate can gain financially, like the US, there is a very definite possibility of economically disadvantaged women offering themselves as surrogates to the economically advantaged who can afford to pay them for their services. The effects on paid surrogates (psychological, social, physical) seem to be glossed over by the perception that they have made a "choice", and that they are receiving monetary compensation which will be to their economic benefit.

Then why is it that in countries where surrogacy carries no economic benefit to the surrogate, very few women make the "choice" to be one? Maybe we need to give them credit in that they realize that there could be significant personal consequences for them, and when these are not over-ridden by the need for money, it is not seen as such a positive thing to do. The needs and rights of the surrogate, as a whole human being, must be taken into account when considering surrogacy as a means to solving the problems of couples/individuals who cannot bear their own biological children for whatever reason.

theelephantschild's assertion that feminists should not be so quick to link childbirth or conception with parenthood is potentially dangerous for women in that it reduces pregnancy to mere incubation, and the woman as merely providing the womb in which it takes place. Pregnancy and childbirth are not mere physical processes. There are enormous psychological implications for the woman as well, bonding with the child being a major one.

In saying this, I am in no way stating that parenthood is better performed by a biological parent, adoptive parent, parent of either sex or any combination of the above. I just feel that to put pregnancy and childbirth into a separate box which is divorced from the woman as a whole person is setting her up for exploitation by those who would use her as a means to gain a child, but then disregard any effects it might have on her during the pregnancy and birth, and after relinquishing the child.

Obviously people are going to have very differing views on this topic, but it is healthy that such practices as surrogacy are debated in the public arena so that the rights of ALL parties involved, (including the resultant child for that matter), are considered.

None of the articles I read about Ricky Martin even mentioned the surrogate mother, her situation, how she was compensated. It's almost as if she doesn't exist.

Isn't it likely because she didn't want to be mentioned? Or that Ricky Martin has been trying to avoid the media spotlight entirely? He's a gay man living in a gay-unfriendly culture: there have already been Catholic bishops who have come out and spoken against his choice to become a parent via surrogacy. I don't know if he even has a partner, he apparently keeps his private life under close wraps. There's nothing wrong with trying to maintain privacy, and it likely has nothing to do with the children's birth mother being a surrogate. I wish Ricky Martin all the best as a new parent.

That said, I do find the exploitation of economically disadvantaged women as surrogates, as walking wombs, to be extremely frightening and something that needs to be regulated. That said, I cannot blame the new parents, who want nothing more than a healthy baby.

theelephantschild--

"but who do people fuss about? women, b/c women = mother, who are incapable/cannot choose to see birth as a simple biological act that does not define them as a human being."

On your profile you describe yourself as being straight but having grown up in gay family - thus "gay ethnic". This is obviously important to you in defining who you are as a human being, as you have felt the need to publicly state such. Fantastic. Nobody on here is about defining what constitutes a family, or claiming that certain people are better or worse parents due to their sex, sexual orientation or relationship status.

What is being discussed is the possibility of the exploitation of women who are used as surrogates, particularly in circumstances as exist in the US, where they can be paid for doing so.

Your assertion is that there is no reason to "fuss" about the possibility of exploitation, because you lay the blame at the feet of women themselves for not being capable of, or choosing not to see, birth as a simple biological act that does not define them as a human being.

No, as a woman who has given birth twice, and miscarried twice, I cannot see birth as a simple biological act. Yes, pregnancy and birth are biological processes, but we humans are complex beings, and our biological processes are very much intertwined with psychological, cultural and social aspects. Giving birth to two children does not define me as a human being, but being a mother is very much a part of who I am, and an extremely important part at that. I have never had such overwhelming emotions as the first time I held each of my children moments after their birth.

I cannot speak for all women who have given birth as having the same experiences as me, nor would I presume to do so, but I will take exception to the claims of a person who insinuates that such feelings are the result of my incapability or choice not to see the birth of my children as simple biological acts.

If the act of giving birth is seen as merely a biological act, the danger is that women can safely be seen as "wombs for rent", with total disregard for the psychological and social effects of surrogacy. As a result, there would be no moral obligation on the part of the person/s using the surrogate, or society as a whole, to regard her as a whole human being with rights and feelings beyond her capability to produce a child.

In situations of economic disparity, where those in need of a surrogate to produce a child can do so because of their economic privilege, and a woman may choose to be a surrogate because she sees it as a means of economic survival, it becomes even more imperative that the rights of the surrogate are considered, as she enters the arrangement already from a position of disadvantage.

AliCat-

Please note that my comments above did mention the obvious complex consequences of being a surrogate - ones many women can experience in vastly different ways. My problem with this post was the assumption that an unamed woman was being exploited, and the line "Just another one to file away under celebrity alternatives to traditional childbearing" in particular was offensive to me.

My main point was 'make sure your qualms are with the exploitation of REAL WOMEN, not perceived victimhood of women or children whose experiences may be different from yours.'

Also, reread my comment. I never said there was no reason to fuss. I was making a point about WHO people care about when it comes to creating children. ie women are the victim here ignoring the fact that yes, sperm donation can have incredibe emotional consequences as well.

As a side note, I do think people have to make sure women are not being exploited. Economic disparity is just one piece of potential disadvantage. I dont think its safe to always assume either that women who do it for friends or family do not feel pressured or exploited by the process as well. I know I felt uncomfortable when my aunt asked if i would consider egg donation or surrogacy for her - I was 18 and said i was in no way able to deal with the process and accept such a responsibility at that point in my life (a decision i unfairly still feel guilty about). But that doesnt mean that adult women cant accept and undertake the role all the time knowing the risks and yes, w/o the process defining them as women.

i saw, on a magazine cover in quebec (in french) "ricky martin has babies all by himself!", or something like this. and i thought, what, he made them in his oven? what about the surrogate mother?

i don't mean put her on a pedestal, but recognize the part she played in this.

The reason why the effects of sperm donation on men was not included in the original posting was not intentional, it simply was not the topic.

I fully acknowledge that men could suffer psychologically and socially from donating their sperm. I do not see this posting as trying to create an argument as to which sex has the potential to suffer the most from engaging in assisted reproduction. In fact, in pointing out that sperm donation "can have incredible emotional consequences", you support my assertion that the whole process of conception, pregnancy and birth is not a mere biological act, but a complex process which involves psychological, social, cultural and legal aspects FOR BOTH SEXES.

However, in a post which is about surrogacy, the focus is naturally going to be on women. It is not a conspiracy to exclude men. In fact, in considering the roles of all parties, (and that includes men), involved in the various forms of assisted reproduction available to infertile persons/couples, only then can the rights of all involved be properly examined.

You are correct in stating that the removal of economic payment for surrogacy does not take away the potential for a woman to be pressured into such an arrangement. It may remove the potential for economic exploitation, but women can still be influenced by the needs of family and others close to them, which may over-ride what they feel is right for them. This only strengthens the need for ensuring that as medical technology progresses, along with the mainstream acceptance of alternative family structures, the rights of women in relation to surrogacy are not overlooked, and that the whole range of pressures on them to participate in such an arrangement are taken into account. If an informed woman chooses to go ahead with being a surrogate that is her right, but it must be the result of her making a real choice.