Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Surrogate-born children - for some

By Philip Lillingston - posted Monday, 6 May 2019


To paraphrase this paternalistic position, 'you are being wrongfully exploited in that endeavour, and if you disagree it only means you are too stupid to understand, for I know better and thus will deny you your will'. This is hardly a valued component of a free and enlightened, liberal society.

To quote John Stuart Mill's harm principle,

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.

Advertisement

The best interests of the child

When describing how children may be affected, the report quotes a donor-conceived person named Lauren:

Personally, I felt dehumanised to discover that I was conceived as a result of a small commercial transaction … I feel like the product of this industry of baby making. The debate about commercial surrogacy illustrates a trend towards the commodification of children that fits into an overall philosophy of a market society in which everything can be bought and sold.

Lauren's statement seems to reflect more her political anti-market ideology rather than a rationally thought-out approach to the situation. Might she be reminded that a high price tag on a certain service means that the outcome of that service is highly valued. While some single teenage girls have been known to intentionally have babies so as to be able to leave home, go on single parent benefits and live an independent life, Lauren's parents took the opposite tack, forfeiting wealth to have a child. To them the love was for the child, despite the cost, rather than for any money a child might bring.

Also, has she ever considered the recurring anguish that some other children, but never she, may suffer: a third child who eventually finds out he was an accident where his parents only budgeted for two, and thus has been a perpetual drain on the family bank balance; the child of the prenuptial birth who forced one of his parents to marry someone they did not particularly wish to marry; the sole child in a family who in time discovers that her father really wanted a son; a child living with her natural parents who, hypothetically, could never qualify as adoptive parents due to criminal records, drug or alcohol dependency issues, domestic violence, or absences due to incarceration?

However the report's author, in siding with the sentiments of the aggrieved product of the 'baby trade', effectively has declared that because some of those children may later suffer anxiety about the situation of their birth, it is better that they all were denied life in the first place, and their would-be parents spend the rest of their lives as empty nesters. Arranging counselling for the child's anxiety might be a simpler solution.

On reflection, it's hard to imagine any person against commercial surrogacy who is also close to a couple, friends or relatives who have had their lives diminished because they were never lucky enough to attract the sympathy of an altruistic donor. At family or social occasions, there they are, year after year, seemingly unable to take their eyes off the youngsters in the room, while one attempts to engage in conversation with them without mentioning sensitive subjects such as children.

Advertisement

In fact, that the majority of submissions to the inquiry were against commercial surrogacy was not necessarily an indicator of the public's feeling, even if it was that of political activists. A 2016 studypublished in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology found almost 60 per cent of the people who had a view thought the current ban unjustified. Of those, some thought the price should be determined through negotiation, while others thought $15,000 a reasonable figure. And with regards to governments, the Australian blanket prohibition is not replicated everywhere. Not only the Ukraine and Russia, but also the US states of California, Texas, Florida, Arkansas, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Vermont tolerate mercenary surrogate births. Fortunately for the people of those jurisdictions, their governments pay more heed to the concerns of barren couples desiring children, and women in straitened financial circumstances, than to questionable abstract philosophical principles.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

Article edited by Margaret-Ann Williams.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

7 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Philip Lillingston, has previously taught political science and now maintains the website Why Not Proportional Representation?

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Philip Lillingston

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 7 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy