A Market Of Commodification & Exploitation
A market is a medium of exchange of goods and commodities between two or more parties at a given price. A growing consumer centric market for surrogacy represents a woman’s body as a baby making factory (Anderson 1990). Besides commodifying a woman’s reproductive labour, the practice of commercial surrogacy also reduces the baby’s worth to an object to be produced within these human factories. Outsourcing pregnancy not only subverts a woman’s body, self-worth and autonomy, but also undermines the sacred bond shared in a parent - child relationship (Tong, Donchin and Dodds 2004). It is interesting to note, that although markets in capitalist economies largely fail to recognise women’s work as labourers, but, using procreation capacities as an economic resource allows women to be valued (Raymond 1994). It is to note that reproduction capabilities only to satisfy customer demands (not domestic needs) are recognised and valued (Narayan, 1995).
This commercializes women’s reproductive labour power within a baby making market. An economic bargain, not only of bodily services, but also of the surrogate’s intelligence level, personality and other traits plays a great deal in valuing women (Radin 1987). Therefore, surrogacy as a consumer driven industry, by commodifying procreation labour violates and demeans the inherent dignity and worth of a human life. By using bodies as a means to an end, a market of commercial surrogacy commodifies both the child and the surrogate. According to Pande (2014), the commercial nature of surrogacy equates a woman to a labourer, a uterus to a baby producing machine and the baby to a commodity to be bargained in the market. (Child as commodity) Therefore, apart from exploiting the woman, surrogacy also degrades a child’s intrinsic value. As women lend their reproductive services only to gain financial assistance, therefore, this reduces a baby’s identity to mere ‘means for profit motive’ (Anderson 1990). Monetary contract breaks the bonds of love between a surrogate and the baby.
A child’s identity is objectified not only prior to birth, but also after birth. For instance, Section 34(19) of the India’s ART Bill, states that the local guardian shall be legally obliged to take the delivery of the child, and further hand the child over to an adoption agency in cases where the foreign commissioning couple fail to take the delivery. This provision treats the child as an object to be exchanged between multiple parties. Though the language of the Convention on Rights of the Child (1989) recognises a child as a separate entity, but within capitalist economies, children are considered ‘consumer goods’ (Friedman, 1962). A conflicting set of arguments emerge with regard to commodification. Whereas, some argue that the payment received by a surrogate is not for the child, rather it is a compensation for hiring her gestational services (Anderson 1990). Others, such as C.Overall (2014), suggest that a surrogate is not compensated for her capability of reproductive functioning but rather the price bargain is merely ‘for the delivery of a healthy child’.
In treating women’s labour as commodity, surrogacy market abuses and distorts the mother- child relationship (Satz, 2010). Not only do women lack the capacity to choose to enter the market, but they are often treated as properties within the market. Moreover, in an unregulated surrogacy contract, parental rights can be claimed by multiple parties. This strengthens the claims, of a child being treated as a property among parties to a contract and also distorts a child’s identity while growing up. Making wombs available to be hired for money implies that a market of bodily services treats a woman’s body as properties (Phillips, 2013).
Nozick in his work Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974), stated that though all individuals have ‘self-ownership’ but to understand each individual as an autonomous property can result in a failure to achieve a common ground for social functioning. However, to make life meaningful for all, individual rights to self and property must be maintained as they mark individual’s private spaces. This individual right to self, is however, not at free disposal of Indian surrogates who subvert their bodies for monetary gains. An androcentric Indian society largely subordinates and exploits vulnerable women. Therefore, money from surrogacy is often considered by women as an option to lift a family out from the state of acute economic deprivation. But there lies an uncertainty of achieving this desired outcome. “I know maybe one time was enough and I shouldn’t be greedy but what do I do? I really want to educate my daughter.”-An in-house surrogate mother, Pande (2014:116) As Anderson (1999) argues, basic human entitlements are necessary for people to evade poverty and repressive social institutions.
However, even by choosing surrogacy as a survival strategy, not many are able to break free from the cycle of poverty (Pande 2014). This means that the fulfilment of all their dreams, those of educating their children, saving for their marriage, paying off family debts and building a home are unpredictable, resulting in involuntary consent to more than one surrogacy contract. This market of bodily services gives rise to the problem of exploitation.Within the capitalist structures, disposability is central to the work of women from the third world (Chang 2000). A dominant patriarchal framework coupled with exploitation and alienation, as products of capitalism operate well within the surrogacy market in India (Pande 2009). By requiring a surrogate to distance herself (both physically and emotionally) from the end results of her pregnancy, surrogacy turns a women’s labour into alienated labour (Anderson 1990). According to Shalev (1989), although women are considered as labourers, but the bond between a worker and his/her produce is not similar to the relationship formed between a surrogate and a baby during the term of pregnancy.
Capitalist exploitation of reproductive capacitates is central to women from the third world. Monetary compensation, considered to economically empower a surrogate, demands that all provisions of the contract be in favour of the commissioning couple, thereby exploiting the surrogate. This was apparent in the Baby Gammy case in Thailand (2013) when an Australian commissioning couple demanded the surrogate to abort the baby in the seventh month of pregnancy, following a medical examination that detected one of the twins with Downs syndrome (Callaghan and Newson 2014). The surrogate refused to abort, as this was against her religious beliefs. The couple went back to Australia with the other twin, leaving behind baby Gammy with the SM. In such a case, clearly the rights and autonomy of the intending parents was more valued.Assigning economic value to bodies in surrogacy industry corrupts the inherent worth of human beings (Saravanan 2015) as enshrined within the United Nations Charter (1945). According to Saravanan (2015), the duty of the State then is to protect citizen’s rights and provide the means for them to be able to make use of their socio-economic freedoms.
Feminists argue that social contracts are inadequate in realising women’s rights within patriarchal societies and hence surrogacy extends the patriarchal control over a woman’s body (Pateman 1988). Outsourcing a womb is often a compulsion, a forced choice that results from an economic desperation. Their decisions, prior to delivery are often under informed and decisions post-delivery, are governed by monetary factors and the existing contract. Whereas, concerns over exploitation of surrogates having limited choice continue to grow, women consider surrogacy as a means of ‘survival in an unequal world’ (Pande 2014). It is a choice that they make to fulfil their familial duties, mainly those towards their children. Such women tend to lack the decision making capacity (Kabeer 1999). According to Kabeer (1999) a choice entails the ‘possibility of alternatives’ to choose from. Surrogacy therefore will continue to be regarded exploitative until women gain the capacity to bargain their right to make reproductive decisions, independent from external forces and economic coercions (Panitch 2013).
Advocates of surrogacy claim that it enables individual autonomy and the right to self-determination of the surrogate (Almeling, 2009). But, it is often argued that surrogacy continues to reinforce women’s subsidiary status. For instance, Section 34(16) of ART Bill states that married women need their husband’s consent to become a surrogate, thus reinforcing patriarchy as opposed to autonomy. This adds to women’s exploitation for economic purposes as against claims of empowerment and autonomy. Problems arising out of exploitation and commodification of human lives within the surrogacy market are multifaceted. In order to protect human rights of the vulnerable parties exposed to a surrogate contract, it is essential to place commercial surrogacy within a legal framework. However, in the absence of inclusive national and international regulations, nations practice divergent laws to address issues arising from surrogacy.
