In Re: Surrogacy

Surrogacy, as far as it concerns the bearing of children, ought to be a charity only. However, it has existed for long most probably as a commercial activity. Traditional surrogacy involves physical relationship between the husband and the surrogate, and the bearing of the child thereof. With development in science, there is no further need of a physical relationship. Of course, all single men and gays would have to necessarily opt for traditional surrogacy only — single females only require a Vicky Donor in most of the cases. Gestational surrogacy neither requires a physical relationship nor eggs of the donor; it only requires her womb. So, all in all, it comes to lending of womb by a surrogate in most of the cases. Well…if womb is lent for money, it will always be a poor mother’s womb, which is wrong. I will substantiate myself with a small anecdote. In an ethics class in my management course, a question was raised whether it was fine to allow people from the third world countries to lend/sell their blood to the people from the first world (the second world doesn’t exist anymore, but neither the first world nor the third world have ceased to exist) countries for money. The general opinion was in favor of lending/selling blood for money. The topper summarized it succinctly in a single statement that it is a matter of demand and supply. And that caught the logical instincts of another brilliant student, who, on purely economic premise, proved that there is neither scarcity of blood in the first world countries nor is there the oversupply in the third world. In fact, it was, is, and will always be just the opposite. So, whether ethics or economics, commercialization of certain activities is poor logic. We need to have surrogate womb banks as we do have blood banks. Then, let us see how many rich women would be willing to lend their wombs. 

Of course, I am not supporting this government’s bill, who are restricting surrogacy to known relations, not allowing single parents, live-in partners, and gays to have children through surrogacy, etc. That’s not poor but pervert logic to propagate the institution of marriage over all other institutions and arrangements, including the institution of humanity (if any such institution exists). 

About the Author

Ankur Mutreja
Ankur Mutreja is an advocate-cum-writer, and his blogs are amongst his modes of expression. He has also authored number of books, which can be downloaded from the links on the top menu.

Be the first to comment on "In Re: Surrogacy"

Trolls Welcomed :-)

%d bloggers like this: