Replying to Susannah McDonald’s article about commercial surrogacy, Rowena Doris jumps into the fray in the name of preventing further the exploitation of women’s bodies.
After reading Susannah McDonald’s piece in support of commercial surrogacy in Australia I had to stop myself holy rolling off my moral high chair.
First up, McDonald questions whether Australia’s laws to make commercial surrogacy a criminal offence can be partially blamed for the recent baby Gammy “atrocity”. In a word: no. It’s not the government’s fault, but it’s the same hollow argument I’ve heard some people fly in support of same-sex marriage. The assumption being that if same-sex marriage was legal, then less gay people would commit suicide. So, we blame others when someone jumps off a cliff?
The next point McDonald raises is that those wanting a child who don’t have friends or family willing to volunteer their womb must instead resort to going overseas and pay someone to be a surrogate. In other words, exploiting women in low socio-economic circumstances who are desperate and “willing” to be exploited by spoilt, rich folk who rationalise that they’re helping poorer women to have a better life. N.I.M.B.Y. Case in point: what happened with baby Gammy is why we should proceed no further.
“If it is legal for a man or woman to go into a brothel and pay for the use of someone’s body for an allocated time, then isn’t a barren couple entitled the right to pay someone to carry and birth their child?” McDonald asks. “To have the same right as any man or woman – in a brothel – wanting to have a little fun,” she writes. Fun?! Have you ever worked in a brothel or as a sex worker, Ms McDonald? Neither have I, and I don’t think it would be much chop once the novelty wears off. I have never thought being pregnant or giving birth was much fun either… and imagine how fun it would be to go through that process for nine months @ 24 hours a day, 7 days a week – only to hand the newborn baby over to paying strangers.
It gets murkier. McDonald questions our willingness to segregate a group of people based on the fact that a woman’s uterus cannot carry a child and then throws drug addicts and sex offenders into the equation. She argues that according to Australia’s surrogacy laws, any woman with a functioning uterus, whether a criminal or of no fit state to bring up a child, is deemed more suitable to become a mother than a couple unable to produce a child.
Since when is it the government’s (or anybody else’s) fault whether or not a woman’s uterus can produce a child? Who exactly is segregating women based on their ability to bear a child… other than the woman’s own body? Men are also segregated in this equation. As for drug addicts or sex offenders being “deemed” more suitable to become a parent, that is more a case of biological determination than anyone else willing that to happen. We don’t legislate against consenting adults having sexual relations with each other and this includes scenarios where a woman falls pregnant in the process.
“Is Australia not stable enough to provide a safe and secure environment for its citizens to fulfill their dreams of becoming parents?” McDonald asks. Well, before surrogacy became the latest lifestyle option, people who dreamed of having a child (or children), but could not, simply lived with that fact. The same way people dream of meeting a life partner, but never do and die with a lonely heart. The same way people wish they lived on a farm, had fifty million dollars, owned an apartment in every far-flung place on earth or simply had something tastier to eat than another boring bowl of rice for the week.
We all dream, we do, but that does not mean we are entitled to exploit others whose lives are economically more miserable than our own to make our dreams come true. Please, let’s not legislate to exploit women’s bodies any further. I applaud Thailand for cracking down on commercial surrogacy and ending it.