THE objectification of women’s bodies and commodification of childbirth came together yesterday in a single antiseptic phrase contained in the announcement of a second child for actress Nicole Kidman and her musician husband Keith Urban.
The baby’s birth three weeks ago took even dedicated “Our Nic” watchers by surprise, including Woman’s Day which had the couple adopting a Haitian child.
“Our family is truly blessed . . . to have been given the gift of baby Faith Margaret. No words can adequately convey the incredible gratitude that we feel for everyone who was so supportive throughout this process, in particular our gestational carrier.”
In those last two words, the woman whose body nurtured this child for nine months is stripped of humanity. The phrase is reminiscent of other terms popular in the global baby-production industry, such as suitcase, baby capsule, oven and incubator.
The detached language views women as disposable uteruses. This dismantling of motherhood denies the psychological and physiological bonds at the heart of pregnancy.
The euphemisms soothe: don’t worry, there is no mother whose voice the baby hears, no mother whose blood carries nutrients to the developing child, whose heart the child hears. No mother feeling first kicks, whose breasts swell, whose entire body and mind prepare for her arrival.
US ethicist Wesley Smith said he was reminded of “Dune’s ‘axlotl tanks’, which are women who are lobotomised and then their bodies used as gestational carriers for clones.”
But doctors prefer it.
On Australia Talks Back, November 9, 2009, Canberra IVF specialist Martyn Stafford-Bell said “gestational carrier pregnancy” was the preferred term.
Surrogacy was a good solution for women “unable to house a pregnancy” and a woman carrying a child with no genetic connection understood “she is, in fact, an incubator”. Some surrogate mothers use these terms to distance, because surrogacy erodes the inherent maternal-fetal relationship.
“I am strictly a hotel,” one said.
Donna Hill, who experienced a toxemic pregnancy followed by a traumatic induced labour which she hoped to forget, said, “I told myself I was just an incubator. I was just going into an operation and not giving birth.”
Sydney surrogate mother Shona Ryan told a Canberra conference: “I had to forget I was
pregnant. There was not the same joy and wonderment. In some ways I felt sorry for this baby that it didn’t receive the same attention [as my others]. I had to deny the pleasures of pregnancy.”
After the birth: “My subconscious, my body, my emotions, knew I’d given birth and were screaming out for that baby. I kept having the urge to tell people, ‘I’ve had a baby!’
“The personal cost to me and my family [was too high]. I came to the conclusion I couldn’t recommend surrogacy to anyone.”
Of course the birth of any baby is worthy of celebration. But that doesn’t mean we should avoid hard questions about the fragmentation of motherhood, about a child who may wonder about their birth mother and why she is not raising them.
We can’t keep our Eyes Wide Shut about the exploitation of women in countries such as India where a booming surrogacy industry, described as womb slavery, attracts rich foreigners. And questions need to be asked more broadly about the global trade in the use of gametes in a range of reproductive procedures.
The Daily Mail recently ran “The brutal fertility factories trading in British mothers’ dreams” to describe vulnerable women trading in the only valuable thing they possessed: their fertility.
In the US commodification of a child knows few limits. Journalist Bill Wyndham, pretending to be a single, HIV-positive gay man, was told by a surrogacy company he’d make a perfect dad.
He was, however, not allowed to adopt a puppy from the dog pound.
We don’t know the background of the surrogate mother. Was she a student trying to pay off college loans? Had she given birth for other couples? Did she have the option of changing her mind? Will there be any future contact between the mother and child? Does she have other children who are asking where the new baby went?
Some women have been unable to relinquish. Mary Beth Whitehead, US surrogate mother in the famous Baby M case, said: “Something took over. I think it was just being a mother.”
Jane Smith from Sydney said of the son she carried: “I couldn’t let him go.”
Another surrogate mother has said: “In the beginning it is easy to see things in an unrealistic way. When there is no real baby, it is easy to be idealistic.”
In 1997 a baby called “Evelyn” became Australia’s first litigated surrogacy case when her surrogate mother couldn’t give her up.
The raft of celebrities hiring out surrogates to have babies for them has became almost a modern day form of wet nursing.
But the lack of objective evidence about the long-term impact of surrogacy on the surrogate mothers, the children and the families of the commissioning parents is concerning.
The process of pregnancy, labour and delivery followed by summoning extraordinary reserves of strength to surrender that baby, cannot be reduced to the science fiction that the woman who does all this is merely a “gestational carrier”.
Melinda Tankard Reist is a Canberra author, commentator, and blogger (www.melindatankardreist.com).
Article online here.
32 Responses
Brilliant post.
The term “gestational carrier” gives me chills. Why Ms. Kidman wishes to strip the surrogate mother of her humanity is a mystery, but Kidman’s obsession with keeping her weight down during her last pregnancy is a sinister clue.
Words matter, as we learned from George Orwell. Anyone who uses the term “gestational carrier” should be firmly corrected.
Dear Melinda, While I couldn’t agree more with the sentiments expressed by you in the blog I am reminded of the prophetic words of Pope Paul VI in 1969 in this matter. The very widespread objectification and commodification of which we now see in the process of surrogacy had their genesis in that original separation of sex from childbearing from the invention of the pill. Perhaps for whatever his many other failings, he can be remembered for serious thinking on the social consequences of such technology’s development.
Although I love Melinda’s work, this is so utterly onesided! Perhaps reasons for Nicoles use of “getational carrier” is because that IS what she is, a carrier. She was not forced to carry this baby, Nicole didn’t push her down and make her give up this baby and declare to the rest of the world, “Yes, this baby is mine, I carried her for 9 months, completely and soley by myself.” The perspective presented in this piece is so narrow. I believe before you condemn someone for her choice of words, maybe you should present both sides of the story. Also, just beacuse you had direct quotes from ONE surrgate mother, doesn’t mean she is representative of ALL surrogate mothers. You have got to know when to pick your fights, and this particular issue, not surrogacy, but Nicole’s story, is not one of them.
p.s I’m sure some people, maybe not Nicole, would love the opportunity to have a child of their own, to go through all the natural processes, the pain and pleasure, but they simply can’t. You cannot deny someone of something that is legal and something that which makes them happy. My post script could totally be misconstrued, but lets just leave it as what it really means, some people would love to have a child, but they can’t, so why not let them have one, when the surrogate mother is totally willing.
I can’t believe that they’d use such a non-human term for someone who gave birth to your child! It’s almost as if they’re trying to make her sound like a machine just to reduce her attachment to the baby. Maybe someone else’s head is housing their brains as well.
Sorry but I think your article is all too negative. You have picked situations where surrogacy hasn’t worked for those involved and not shown the other side. While I don’t think these ‘baby factories’ in India are responsible, I have no problem with a willing participant helping a couple fulfil their wish to be parents. On that matter – who says a HIV-positive, single gay man couldn’t be a great parent? And while Nicole and Keith’s term does sound rather sterile, it is quite possible that they had a good relationship with the woman who carried the child and respect her for her gift.
I agree with Chase, I’m sure this wasn’t Nicholes first choice, she’s getting older and I did hear somewhere she had many failed attempts at another child. I think that the term gestation carrier is fine. I’m sure the carrier mother was delighted to be helping them to have another child.
What an utterly prejudiced piece of writing. And extremely judgmental. How does Melinda know that the carrier has not requested Nicole to use this term? Does Melinda know that Nicole wanted to use the term birth mother, but was asked not to by the woman that carried her child?
No, because Melinda has no personal relationship with these women, but presumes to judge them for the way they want to bring a child into the world.
The use of the term birth mother is just so value laden. There are clear implications that the act of birth is the key thing, not the carrying of the baby. What about women that carry other’s babies, but lose them through miscarriage – nothing people? And why is it that giving birth makes you a mother? Doesn’t mothering actually make you a mother? If giving birth makes you a mother, then what does not giving birth but being a parent for 20 years make me? Nat a real mother?? Some kind of quasi mother??
I agree with the other comments that this article is too harsh and one sided. As the baby is biologically Nicole & Keith’s (according to the media) then I think calling the surrogate a “birth mother” puts too much emotion into what was a medical arrangement where a woman chose to carry another couples baby – in no way was that baby hers, except I guess that the placenta that feed it was created by her body.
I think Nicole should have used the term “surrogate” but perhaps she was trying to emphasies that the child was biologically hers.
When I heard the phrase ‘gestational carrier’ on the news, I was startled and images of some weird sci-fi character came to my mind also!
Some of the comments here have been written as if this post was anti-surrogacy – this is not the issue MTR was adressing, thus I think the debate around the ethics of various fertility treatments should be kept out of this commentary. It takes away from the point MTR was making – that the incredible woman who carried Kidman/Urban’s child for 9 months, has been reduced to a womb. A body part. Her humanity stripped.
The focus needs to be on the phrase Kidman/Urban PR team are using – gestational carrier. Granted, we don’t know the wishes of the birth mother, but in using the term ‘gestational carrier’ Kidman/Urban are insulting ALL women.
They are trivialising all the other women who have given the ultimate gift and carried a child through a pregnancy for another couple.
They are trivialising the role ALL pregnant women have played in the development of their child – as if having a baby growing in your womb is a mere nesessary transaction, devoid of emotion and any connection beyond the DNA.
I also think we need to remember any crticism should be directed at both Kidman AND Urban. They both need to take responsibility for the ‘gestational carrier’ phrase used. I just hope they are in a blur of newborn nappies/puke/sleeplessness (?!) and recognise that the term they used was inappropriate.
Bravo MTR to such an excellent post. Regardless of any woman’s ability/desire to carry a pregnacy, we are ALL more than a body part or a vessel.
hmmm while I’d never heard the term ‘gestational carrier’ before and I was a little taken aback when I read it, the first thing that popped into my head was that Kidman/Urban were trying to continue to keep the secrecy surrounding the surrogacy. They managed to keep this from the entire world for a long time (which is no small feat in this media crazy day and age) and I think this was just another way of creating some distance between the rest of the world and what was going on for them. Perhaps this is how the surrogate wants it?
I can’t imagine them ever wanting to dehumanise somebody who had just given them such a wonderful gift. Kidman does too much work as a goodwill ambassador for the UN helping women in Haiti, trying to rub out violence against women and to support initiatives to help them prosper, for her to ever do that. In addition, Kidman already has two adopted children, so I would imagine she is well aware of the process women go through when giving up their children and what that means for all involved.
It’s been long documented that Kidman has had problems carrying children, but none of us know the situation and can only guess as to what their reasons were for going this route to add to their family. Comments suggesting it was to keep her weight down are unfair and uncalled for.
In any case, congratulations to Kidman and Urban on their new bundle of joy.
As a sufferer of multiple pregnancy loss, I find it hard not to smile when I hear that a couple have managed to add another, obviously much-wanted, baby to their family. But the phrase ‘gestational carrier’ is just a bit too Brave New World for me. I have read a few stories of surrogacy where it has been a wonderful, mutually satisfying arrangement, or a gift of love; a sister carrying for an infertile sister or a friend for a friend. In none of these cases has the adoptive mother ever referred to their surrogate in such cold and distancing terms.
If you think about it though, it’s pretty understandable why Nicole and Keith have used this kind of language. A phrase like ‘birth mother’ acknowledges the role their surrogate has played in their baby’s life; it allows for the possibility of relationship or claim. It’s the same impulse that drives so many to use the term ‘foetus’ rather than ‘baby’ when contemplating the termination of an unwanted pregnancy – we must sanitise, medicalise, do anything to make it easier not to think of the personhood of the other, in order to be able to achieve our heart’s own desire at their expense.
So why does it matter anyway? Well, when we talk about another person as if they’re not human, it makes them easier to exploit. Nobody is saying that Nicole and Keith exploited their surrogate; but as Melinda has pointed out there are so many women who are treated as nothing less that a uterus for hire, that we must be wary of any kind of linguistic shift which may make it easier for us to think of surrogacy in a generally dehumanised manner. At the end of the day, every woman faced with the opportunity to be a mother, surrogate or otherwise, deserves to be treated with dignity and respect as a person – not just a ‘gestational carrier’.
The abomination of surrogacy is that many children (embryos) are either killed or experimented on in order that one may be sucessfully implanted and eventually born. That is on top of the other problems mentioned in the article. Naturally the article IS telling the other side of the story and not the sinisterly sweet side presented in the press. People who complain the article is one-sided are therefore missing the point that the article seeks to balance the scales here. The bottom line is that children and parents are not commodities to be bargained for. Willingness of the adults involved does not make something moral or free from evil consequences.
There are so few words to express how uninformed you are about surrogacy,. if you wish to be a women’s and children’s advocate, and speak in public about surrogacy, please do some research, speak to the actual people involved in this amazing process, the surrogates and the parents who have their children through surrogacy. Please back up the horrible statements you make in public. You have my email, if you wish to learn and expand your mind, I am willing to assist you. For now, I am seriously disgusted.
As a result of advancements through IVF there are now TWO types of surrogacy, and gestational surrogacy is when the surrogate mother has no biological link to the child she is carrying. It may not be a term that’s well liked, but it’s currently what’s used widely in medical circles and in the United States – with traditional surrogacy being the name used when the surrogate is also the biological mother.
All of the cases discussed in this article where the surrogate has had grave concerns after the birth of the child, and the resulting legal cases in some, were traditional surrogacies. This doesn’t mean that gestational surrogates don’t have the same feelings, but they enter the agreement with a much different mindset – they know the child they are carrying is not theirs and their joy comes from helping to create a family for who they personally believe are a highly deserving couple (have a look at http://bumpfairy.wordpress.com/ for a frank, first hand account of a gestational surrogate from the US who has now helped to create three families). This would make an interesting PhD topic, but one I’m sure that wouldn’t turn up anything surprising as these women go into these arrangements knowing what the outcome will be – and the psychological assessments they go through prior to commencing in many countries confirms this.
[Danielle – in the vast majority of gestational surrogacies no embroys are killed or experimented on and they are simply created in the lab and transferred straight into the surrogate mother (in fact this is illegal in most countries), which is exactly the same as with standard IVF. Your concern is not, and should not, be applied solely to surrogacy.]
Surrogacy involves difficult issues. However, in my view the solution is not difficult.
People should be allowed to make any contract they like (given usual exceptions of course for harming others etc), surrogacy included. However, in the case of surrogacy, simply make the contract legally unenforceable (and any moneys non refundable). That way, a woman may enter into a contract to bear somene else’s baby but if she is unable to give it up at birth then that should be her choice.
The person or couple wanting the child should have no redress. They must bear the risk. If they are willing to do so then they may have the child they wish. But they also have to understand that bearing a child is not a simple matter. It involves the whole of another woman’s body, health and being. If the surrogate mother finds the contract too hard to go through with, then that is a calculated risk the purchasers must take. They can then try again with someone else.
Life is unfair – it can be harsh, unforgiving, unexpected and painful and you can’t always have what you want, including a baby, no matter how beautiful, rich and famous you may be. As Shakespeare said (who better): “Golden lads and girls all must, as chimney sweepers, come to dust.”
I agree with Megan Sainsbury.
While you have some good points to make on many issues, your attitudes are often offensively judgmental, so much so that it’s often difficult to get past your self righteousness, and to the point of what you are saying.
You come across as a serious bully whose mission is to make the world exactly the place you think it should been, regardless of what others might think and feel.
I find your comments on the Kidman/Urban baby despicable. The use of the term has been explained to you in Lisa’s post. Is it too much to expect you to do research before you publish your stuff?
What a miserable and shriveled hearted attitude you have, and without any personal knowledge whatsoever of the human beings involved in that arrangement.
Women who agree to be surrogates and gestational surrogates sound to me like extremely generous human beings. They are also adults and don’t need your “protection.”
Why is this any of your business anyway? And if you’re going to do a judgmental blog about
it, why don’t you interview the people involved and find out the deeper story?
I think I’m done with your nasty little website
As someone told they would always be infertile, I applaud this article.
Keith and Nicole have made a mockery of parenthood. Have they thought of the emotions of their ‘gestational carrier’/ rented womb (among other things)?
There’s no way I’d opt for surrogacy out of concerned care for my child especially and their sense of belonging, among other ethical questions …. even if there is an 8 year adoption waiting list due to all the abortions in Australia.
so many things I want to say here but just too furious at the moment …
Megan Sainsbury and Catherine McNally – nobody is condemning the Urbans, surrogacy, nor judging people who have benefited from it. What is happening here is an important questioning of the terms we use to speak about it, and the way we think about the people involved in it, in order to maintain and protect the human rights and value of all concerned. The wonderful examples of surrogacy done well do not negate the myriad instances in which women around the world are exploited and abused for the reproductive functions their bodies offer – exploitation in part allowed by the semantic dismantling of their humanity allowed by the proliferation of terms like ‘gestational carrier’.
There is nothing in this article that makes the slightest reference to successful surrogacy. it is about as one eyed as anything I’ve seen.
If there had been any positive aspects introduced, the article would have been a whole lot more credible.
As it is, it reads like opportunistic propaganda.
MTR wrote almost exactly the same article five years ago in the SMH when Stephen Conroy and his partner had their surrogate child.
All these observations are only opinions from a person who apparently can’t find anything good to say about surrogacy, otherwise why doesn’t she say it and introduce a bit of balance?
I think Catherine McNally’s comments are naive to the point of being disingenuous. There is nothing nasty or judgmental about critiquing the practice of surrogacy in a world where there currently exists a very robust commercial trade in children via surrogacy, adoption, and many other trafficking schemes. Men globally are making serious money out of these schemes. It is naive to think this issue is really about altruistic, empowered women who just want to do other women a favour. Andrea Dworkin called surrogacy ‘reproductive prostitution’ in 1978, and feminists have been criticising it (both its commercial and ‘voluntary’ forms) ever since. It is disingenuous to suggest that commenting on this issue is a matter of hurting the feelings of ‘generous human beings’. Melinda’s thinking on this subject is vital to the interests of women, because we need to expose the globally organised slavery schemes that are sold to us, in this case, in the packaging of female ‘generosity’ and ‘altruism’.
There is something terribly wrong in omitting to mention that for many women surrogacy works.
I have no objection to the cons of a situation being thoroughly revealed.
I have a huge objection to the pros being omitted.
The pros are omitted in this article. That is my complaint.
In omitting the pros, you are silencing the many women, surrogates and parents, who have had successful experiences with this technique.
I thought feminism was about all women.
But it’s only about those you approve of?
Melinda’s thinking on this issue is skewed.
As is anybody’s thinking when they can only see one side of a complex issue.
The possibility for exploitation resides in almost every single human situation. So does the possibility for decency .
Pity you people can never acknowledge the latter, but are entirely committed to airing the former.
You insult women who make surrogacy choices. I note that is not a difficulty MTR has had to deal with. Walk a mile in somebody else’s shoes. Then judge their actions.
Thank god you people are a minority in the world.
This article is so desperately one sided, negative and ill-researched!!!!
The term “gestational carrier” is the medical term used by doctors and scientists alike for the surrogate – because that is EXACTLY what she is – a carrier of the intended couple’s biological child. The use of the term ‘birth mother’ IS just so value laden. Being a ‘mother’ is so, so very much more than giving birth! A mother develops through skill, dedication, learning, experiences, love and way more – not just the fact of having fertile ovaries, a healthy uterus and active sperm!
It is just so ignorant to “assume” (to make an ass out of you and me!) that Nicole meant any harm or disrespect by the use of these two world-wide medically known words. Going as far as saying it’s ‘objectifying women’s bodies’ is biased in itself! Have we forgotten why this process even took place in the first instance? And come on people, is our society so closed minded and critical that we can’t see that the whole point of this surrogacy arrangement is for a win-win for all parties involved – All involved WILLING and of sound, able mind to participate in the greatest miracle of all – a precious new life – to a couple, through whatever hurdles, challenges and heartbreaks could not of otherwise had!!! (a privilege that any other couple has!).
For this article to have any kind of credibility, it definitely needs both sides of the argument, with true facts collected from thorough research or interviewing and quotes from surrogates on all spectrums of the scale to be fair!!!
You cannot deny or dictate to anybody how they can or cannot have the most amazing experience in life – A FAMILY!!! This is an embrace of happiness for Nicole and Keith on their newest little addition!
It is so frustrating that we still live in a world, in this day and age, where narrow minded, old fashioned traditionalists have to turn a positive, exciting miracle down into a negative, shameful whip-lash! Seriously, how is it any of our business anyway?????
Megan Sainsbury lives in Perth and her real last name is Megan Sainsbury Banach. She works for a clinic in India that provides surrogacy to foreigners and which is under investigtaion for exploitation of the surrogates. If you want to read more about her, check out her websites:
http://www.amaniandbobsurrogacy.blogspot.com
http://www.internationalsurrogacyadvocatescrap.blogspot.com
What about the use of a womb to produce Elton John, who is in a socially infertile relationship a baby boy who they don’t even know who the father is? And Sen Stephen Conroy, federal Communications Minister who used a donor egg, donor womb and his sperm?
Babies have become the new must have accessory for the rich and famous at no matter what it costs or what it takes.
Women need to be taught that fertility is a gift. Don’t muck around with it, don’t put chemicals into the system that tinkers with it, don’t delay using it because it has a useby date. If you don’t use it, you will loose it, if you don’t take care of it it may disappear for an unknown or detectable reason.
And according to the above mentiont blog of Megan Sainsbury, it is illegal to compensate a women for being a surrogate Overseas.
“On top of that, Australians in Queensland, the ACT and soon NSW (and Tasmania if its bill is passed) risk a criminal penalty of $110,000, two years in prison or both, if they admit to creating a family by compensating a woman for surrogacy overseas.” So will Nicole Kidman who holds many properties in NSW be fined if she brings baby Faith to Australia because I am sure the surrogate mother did not do this for free. How else would they achieved this?
Melinda I have a few questions for you.
Melinda, have you ever been to a infertility clinic in Australia or overseas?
Melinda, have you ever taken the time to ‘interview’ women and couples who have gone down this road?
Melinda, have you ever been to an Indian infertility clinic that you slanderously claim as “woman slavery”?
Melinda, have you ever interviewed or even met these so-called vulnerable woman you speak off who offer their wombs for surrogacy?
Melinda, have you ever had your right to carry a child as a woman taken from you?
Melinda, have you ever experienced a harrowing childbirth which left you unable to carry any more children because of a botched caesarian section which left your uterus ruptured and in turn removed to save your life?
Melinda, have you ever had cervical cancer in your early 20’s from which you recovered but had to pay the price of not being able to carry your own child so as to have your own life spared?
No I didn’t think so.
Well until then, I suggest you step down off you HIGH HORSE.
Your article is biased and quotes cases as long as 14 years ago which I suspect you ‘Googled’ and never had any contact with.
You don’t have the right to comment on such a process you have a vague knowledge about.
Until you can walk in the shoes of the people who opt for this LEGAL process, YES LEGAL Melinda, I suggest you stick to what you do know and advocate for.
These people are not doing anything ILLEGAL. Just because you don’t agree with it, doesn’t make it WRONG.
From your own testimonials on this site-
“Melinda brings hard, evidence-based research to the topics on which she speaks, which gives her presentations a strong air of authority and credibility.”
I beg to differ.
Meh, not your best-written piece, Melinda. But seriously what’s with rushing to launch such personalised attacks on Ms Tankard-Reist? She still raised really valid issues and it’s not her job to do all the discoursing – surely that’s what blogging is about…starting conversations, creating space for different sides to be heard?
Leaving aside the celebrities who stupidly reproduced it, what gets me is that there is any kind of perceived need in this area of medical discourse for dehumanising language. Surely there is room in the concept of ‘mother’ to embrace many experiences, including fleeting ones? What is frightening about the term?
What is enabled and constrained by that kind of language? And how different would it be if birth mothers were allowed/expected to be conflicted and/or not and/or delighted and/or not and/or neutral etc etc etc…like many mothers do (um, daily, anyone?!) irrespective of the names chosen/ascribed?
Maybe what is needed in the medical fraternity (maternity?) is more humanity, not less? What kind of subject would THAT make possible…
The term “gestational carrier” is very clinical, isn’t it? It seems to deny the very intimate relationship a developing baby and their mother usually enjoy, as the baby shares the mother’s every mood and physical experience.
The whole concept of surrogacy is very awkward anyway. Whose sperm, whose egg, whose womb, are pulled together to create a new life, and in which country?. And whose life is it anyway? Do adults really have a RIGHT to be parents? Is it really ok to go to any length or extreme to to excercise this “right”?
Adoption legislation is supposed to safeguard the rights of the child, not the adults involved. Have we really got the right to create a child, through whatever means possible, and then expect the child to cope with the story of their birth with equanimity? I suspect that in the furture the voices of some of these created children will need to be heard, as well as those who have been very hurt and damaged through the surogacy process.
First thing, the woman who carried Nicole’s child wasn’t FORCED…meaning no abuse has been done against her. Who knows the truth? Maybe she even offered to help the couple. What a heartless article this is!!! And Melinda, have you ever experienced countless miscarriages? I bet NOT! YOU are heartless!!!
Seriously – this woman has got to get a life – agree with most of the other’s – a heartless article. Shame on you
Yes, I have to agree with Chase on this one. I don’t believe in your opinion Melinda, and find it disheartening to learn you’re a Women and Children’s rights advocate in the Australian public. For shame, you’ve turned this into a School Yard bullying, to what purpose? Any publicity is good publicity?
As an adoptee I take exception to Kidman & Urban’s surrogate being labelled a ‘birthmother’.
She is not a birth mother. A birthmother historically is someone who is forced to surrender their biological child because they have no other options. Under that set of circumstances, the pregnancy and birth of your biological child is a significant and usually traumatic event. This is not the same experience as a surrogate who is not ‘forced’ to give away their biological child, and in this case (and most others) is not carrying their biological child. (I use ‘forced’ here with respect to class disadvantage that may inform why some women become surrogates, but that’s a different argument.)
I can only wonder why anyone would try to collapse a *simulation* of motherhood (where motherhood is not biological NOR cultural as it is usually understood, but literally reduced to the bodily functions of gestation and giving birth) with the experiences of birth mothers via the adoption process, and as such trivialize the experiences of the latter.
I can also only wonder why someone would be prepared to be critical of possible exploitation of women through surrogacy, but have nothing to say about the exploitation of birth mothers through the process of adoption, international and otherwise.
My only conclusion is that someone who is against the use of reproductive technologies which surrogacy is reliant on (possibly for religious reasons), would wish to criticize the process for those reasons but instead employ a much more mainstream-acceptable subterfuge of speaking out on behalf of exploited women and commodified children. Hypocritical when adoption also reeks of exploited women and children, but consistent with a context of adoption being reified by certain groups. In this regard, Cath’s post is the exemplar:
“There’s no way I’d opt for surrogacy out of concerned care for my child especially and their sense of belonging, among other ethical questions …. even if there is an 8 year adoption waiting list due to all the abortions in Australia.”
Concerns about a sense of belonging and ethics in the case of a surrogate carrying another woman’s biological child, but none with adoption? Yet Cath treats abortion as an impediment to adoption, and as such she reduces birth mothers in the adoption process to de facto surrogate mothers for middle class infertility.
If you’re going to criticize a system for exploiting women and children, best be consistent about it.
I find your article (like many other readers) ill-informed, poorly researched and biased. Perhaps you just want to push your own personal views or make ‘controversial’ comments rather than be an ‘advocate!’ I wonder if you have ever experienced the personal pain of many attempts to fall pregnant, or to finally fall pregnant and then lose much wanted babies. Many women can not achieve pregnancy, let alone go through assisted reproduction – successfully. Why on earth do you think they might turn to a surrogate situation.
If you are meant to be an advocate for women – get your facts straight before making comments on something you don’t know anything about.Or at least be honest about your motives. Your ‘interpretation’ of surrogacy is a good warning – beware of social commentators!