1. Her main claim is that renting some underprivileged woman's womb is crossing ethical boundaries and turning surrogate pregnancy into a marketplace. Goodman's reasons are that women who usually would work in extremely poor conditions for very small sums of money could now possibly make over three or four times their yearly salary in a time period of 9 months. People are also willing to pay more for Ivy League eggs or eggs with highly valued qualities.
2. She presents pregnancy as a business concept and talks about how wealthy couples exploit poor women who have to sign a contract with a fingerprint because they are illiterate. These make the argument seem valid however she barely touches on the other side of the argument relating to the couples who are infertile and need surrogates.
3. I believe that her intended audience is more towards conservative people who tend to have traditional family values.
4. The most problematic part of this argument is that it does not touch on the other side's views. Couples who are in need of surrogates or IVF to have children aren't even discussed in a personal way.
Yes, i thought it was strangle how she went over and over how the wealthy were exploiting the poorer women from third world countries which i defiantly think that is a horrible thing. But she never mentioned that surrogacy can be used for women that are infertile and can not have children of their own.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that having poor woman carry wealthy women's children is not all good, but the fact that some people desperately rely on these people to have their children and to make a family is just as important.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the author has a somewhat biased stance on the subject. She left out many important details and situations in which surrogacy may be considered okay. She seems to simply bash the whole procedure in her essay without really explaining the other side of the issue.
ReplyDelete