Last month I blogged about a NY Times Sunday magazine story written by a woman who hired a surrogate mother to bear her child, in connection with the stream of posts I've made about repugnant transactions, i.e. transactions that some people think other people shouldn't do. Today, the Magazine section has letters commenting on that article, some supportive of the author mom, some not. Some of those latter are full of a sense of repugnance: these two caught my eye.
"If prostitution is unethical, immoral and illegal, why is it O.K. for one woman to pay for the use of another woman’s body? If it’s unethical, immoral and illegal to buy and sell body parts for transplantation, why is it O.K. to rent a uterus? Our morality seems so malleable in the hands of those who feel entitled."
"I am filled with revulsion by Alex Kuczynski’s cover story. I find it unconscionable that in an era with so many children who cannot find homes there are rich, white, educated couples who can pay $25,000 so that another woman, living in far less well-off circumstances, can go through the physical ordeal and emotional pain of having and giving up her baby. ..."
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Maybe the NYT was being ironic? I hear that's "in" these days.
You know, I find it is real easy to cast stones when you are not personally in a situation. The author came across as elitist, has not done any research outside her own experiences in surrogacy and has set the surrogacy community back a decade.
But, those who say she needs to adopt just have no idea how that works. None. And those degrading the gift that I have given twice by relating it to prostitution....I'm sorry, but a beautiful child and an orgasm are two different things.
well, we should see this surrogate from different side. the surrogate mother usually used by gay couple who want a children and family which cannot pregnant or having a uterus problem.
Post a Comment