The Handmaid's Tale, India style.

685 Views 28 Replies 18 Participants Last post by USAmma, May 1, 2006

gethane

Discussion Starter · Apr 13, 2006

Well, its really truly begun.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12289078/site/newsweek/

Most disturbing quote:

Quote:

Besides such health risks for surrogates, they also suffer from social stigma. "Nikki Two," as Nikki calls her surrogate, has told the Bainses that her family is not happy with her decision to carry someone else's child.

Notice, she doesn't even grace the surrogate with the respect of using her NAME. Just calls her "her name" 2.

This is not a hit and run post. I will be back, however, kids all home on spring break and sometimes I get totally overwhelmed and uninternetted for awhile.

I try very hard to have empathy for people in situations different from my own. But, women and babies are not commodities to be traded on the open international market.

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

Kleine Hexe

· #2 · Apr 13, 2006

This is really nothing new at all. It's a tricky situation all around and can have many complications.

No, women and children are not commodities but then who am I to tell a woman that she can't choose to become a surrogate and how it is to be done. The women (as far as the article reads) are not being forced into it. I wouldn't compare this to Handmaid's Tale.

InfoisPower

· #3 · Apr 13, 2006

Creepy and sad.

PrettyBird

· #4 · Apr 13, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kleine Hexe
This is really nothing new at all. It's a tricky situation all around and can have many complications.

No, women and children are not commodities but then who am I to tell a woman that she can't choose to become a surrogate and how it is to be done. The women (as far as the article reads) are not being forced into it. I wouldn't compare this to Handmaid's Tale.

I agree. I believe in reproductive freedom.

rootzdawta

· #5 · Apr 13, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kleine Hexe
This is really nothing new at all. It's a tricky situation all around and can have many complications.

No, women and children are not commodities but then who am I to tell a woman that she can't choose to become a surrogate and how it is to be done. The women (as far as the article reads) are not being forced into it. I wouldn't compare this to Handmaid's Tale.

I'm for reproductive freedom too but I'm not sure sure about the women "not being forced into it." I mean, sure nobody's holding a gun to their heads but economic pressures (poverty, debt, etc.) do indeed force women all around the world to do things they wouldn't ordinarily do. "Nikki two" already acknowledges that her family disapproves but making the money seems to outweigh that disapproval. Who knows if she really wants to be a surrogate or if she feels this is an "easy" way to make good money.

Because the laws are so relaxed and because you don't really have anyone checking to make sure everything is on the up and up in all regards, it seems to me that there's plenty of room for exploitation. I feel for those couples who are struggling to have children but I'm also worried for the surrogates. I hope everything is and/or stays morally upright.

See less See more

sistermama

· #6 · Apr 13, 2006

What a horribly sad story. Doesn't surprise me, but still... so sad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrettyBird
I agree. I believe in reproductive freedom.

Is this any better than selling off your organs just for the money? What freedom would that be called?

Many women in India (even well off women) have VERY little choice over what happens to them. If this is happening in large numbers I don't think it is much of a stretch that there are indeed women who are being forced.

See less See more

pumpkinsmama

· #7 · Apr 13, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by sistermama
What a horribly sad story. Doesn't surprise me, but still... so sad.

Is this any better than selling off your organs just for the money? What freedom would that be called?

Many women in India (even well off women) have VERY little choice over what happens to them. If this is happening in large numbers I don't think it is much of a stretch that there are indeed women who are being forced.

I think it is very different from selling organs. I had often thought that being a surrogate mother is a wonderful thing. They give life into the world, happiness to a couple who otherwise would not have had a family. Some women love being pregnant, it isn't necessarily something you have to force. Why not make some money for your family, while producing the miracle of life. There is a surrogate on the pregnancy boards right now, I wonder how she would respond to the "Is this any better than selling off your organs just for money" statement.

If someone were forced, it would be wrong. That isn't what the article stated, I'm not saying it doesn't exist but I haven't seen real mention other than speculation.

See less See more

eightyferrettoes

· #8 · Apr 13, 2006

I think the relative poverty of the mamas in India and the wealth of the Westerners gives the story a whole other spin that it wouldn't necessarily have otherwise.

I mean, if these women were having sex for money with American and British tourists, would we be all "Yay for freedom of choice!"?

I'm not sure this is a whole lot different. I'm cool with the concept of surrogacy (and, ftr, prostitution, too)... but the way it's playing out here is pretty troubling, IMO.

One of the downsides of "free market" capitalism is that it gives the illusion of "choice" where none exists. What does "being forced" really mean?

cielle

· #9 · Apr 13, 2006

A surrogate mother is meant to be a partner in building your family. Someone you respect and care for and trust a lot. She's not an employee or someone you control (the bit about them getting calls every time she visits the doctor is totally bizarre). Honestly, the parallel to this to me would seem to be going to India and buying babies, not prostitution.

PrettyBird

· #10 · Apr 13, 2006

I wanted to clarify, I am definitely concerned that some women may be nearly forced into this arrangement by economic pressure. I do think there should be regulations so that women are not exploited. But the article didn't say one way or another if this was the case.

It is the concept of surrogacy that I am not against at all. That is where reproductive freedom comes in. I've known several surrogates (here in the US) and it has been a very positive experience for them. It is nothing like selling your organs for money.

Kleine Hexe

· #11 · Apr 13, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes
I mean, if these women were having sex for money with American and British tourists, would we be all "Yay for freedom of choice!"?

Yes, I would. I am not against prostitution. I believe that if it has safety standards and women are protected (as in certain places in Europe where prostitution is legal) then yes it's a woman's choice to enter that profession. Yes, I understand the whole economic oppression, no other options, and so forth. Not every woman who is a prostitute thinks it's horrible and they actually *did* choose that job. I'm not talking about white slavery or the model of prostitution here in the U.S.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes
One of the downsides of "free market" capitalism is that it gives the illusion of "choice" where none exists. What does "being forced" really mean?

"being forced" can mean many things to different people. I think we can agree that the story of The Handmaid's Tale is a bit different than what this article is describing. Those women were prisoners and at any time could be carried away for torture and murder.

See less See more

DebraBaker

· #12 · Apr 13, 2006

I think this story is disturbing on many levels.

No, these women aren't literally being forced into surrogacy, but their poverty is enough to drive them to despairation.

It's as though we're dividing people into categories, some are more equal than others.

I have this vision (hot pokers, please,) of people like the Duggars as social insects breeding because they're somehow good stock and others, *handmaidens?* attending them like the drones.

What's next, the "handmaidens" actually bearing the children conceived by the queen?

Hot pokers, please!!!

DB

See less See more

gethane

Discussion Starter · #13 · Apr 13, 2006

Just for the record, I am not against surrogacy. I am not against surrogates getting paid.

However, the situation described in that article is err.. guess i can't say that here. Screwed up. How much freedom do the women in India have? I don't honestly know. But I'm not a fan of companies here farming out their work to India (or China, or wherever) so that they don't have to pay workers here a living wage. I'm certainly not a fan of getting a surrogate in India because its cheaper. Or because those women have fewer options, no real choice.

But what really chilled me to the bone was the way the couple in the article (and if you really want some horror, go to their website, linked in the article) talked about their surrogate. Like she was a breed cow. Something other than a real human being.

That's what disturbed me. Not the act of surrogacy. The ATTITUDE of the couple.

Nikki 2?

Did you folks read the article? Were you commenting on the article? Or just the concept of surrogacy? Cause I have no problem with surrogacy. But that article was sick. And I don't know how to explain why to those of you who don't see that.

See less See more

Kleine Hexe

· #14 · Apr 13, 2006

Perhaps "Nikki 2" because the surrogate would like to remain private and not have her real name in the news.

Super Pickle

· #15 · Apr 13, 2006

(Edited b/c of my mistake--I went back and looked at the web site, and they _do_ want an egg donor)

One creepy thing was the whole bit about going to India so you could get 6 embryos instead of the 2 allowed in Britain. Is "getting it on the first try" really worth the risk of an unhealthy multiple pregnancy?

Pynki

· #16 · Apr 13, 2006

That's a big beef of mine too SP. Well she CHOSE to be a surrogate, and the couple CHOSE to go to a country that will do multple implantation. Multiple pregnancies are hard on mothers. The more embryo's the harder it is on the mother's system exponentially. They seem to be disregarding this woman and her health by going for optimalization of embryos. It also puts the fetuses at risk. The more babies in there the less likely the are to stay as long as they need to.

gethane

Discussion Starter · #17 · Apr 13, 2006

Oh, Pynki, see that isn't a worry, because according to their website (linked in the original article)

Quote:

If you had the option of implanting 6,9 or more embryos at once wouldn't you jump at the chance? Sure you would risk having multiple births but they can be selectively reduced.
.

Note: I'm not against selective reduction, but going forward with the PLAN to do it does bother me. It's like getting pregnant on purpose, with the PLAN to have an abortion

Snowy Owl

· #18 · Apr 13, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by DebraBaker

It's as though we're dividing people into categories, some are more equal than others.

I have this vision (hot pokers, please,) of people like the Duggars as social insects breeding because they're somehow good stock and others, *handmaidens?* attending them like the drones.

I agree with the "more equal" statement, and your insect analogy is interesting.

Just like Mrs. Duggar stopped BFing so she could conceive ASAP, which circumvents natural spacings, she could have surrogates bearing her embryos at the same time. Like a Queen Termite.
I guess that's not very flattering, but it is kinda funny.

See less See more

Arduinna

· #19 · Apr 13, 2006

IMO, this story reeks of wealthy westerners taking advantage of people in poorer countries. I'm not against surrogacy. But this is similar to sweat factories.

Pynki

· #20 · Apr 13, 2006

Only it's a blood sweat and tears factory. Aren't all of those present in labor and delivery?

1 - 20 of 29 Posts