I must be candid. I am grateful that my two sons, who please me immensely, cannot be called products of an “industry.”
That is, my wife and I never faced the pressure that some must feel, for a variety of reasons, to become ensnared in that tangled-web-we-have-woven called gestational surrogacy.
A writer named Michelle Goldberg has written a thoughtful article for the online magazine Slate describing the mess that one surrogacy case has become. A woman chose to become a commercial surrogate to augment her income. She has four kids of her own—including triplets—and had carried one prior surrogate pregnancy. She agreed to carry a pregnancy for a deaf, single postal worker “who lives with his parents.” There was a separate egg donor. They signed a contract. Three embryos were transferred, and all implanted. Gender selection was done at the man’s request. (Ms. Goldberg says the doctor who did the implantation has marketed embryo selection for desired characteristics—hair and eye color, and the like.) Because of complications, there is pressure on the woman to abort (at least?) one. There are disputes about who—or whose insurance—pays for the woman’s care. The intended “father” (forgive me, I feel compelled to use the quotation marks) is running out of money, wants to limit her prenatal care, and worries he can’t afford three babies. Jennifer Lahl, of the Center for Bioethics and Culture, has gotten involved. (Follow this link to a page for her video Breeders: A Subclass of Women?) The story has been reported in the New York Post.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.