The hidden agenda of “ethical” surrogacy



 

Taking an official stand, Marie-Anne Frison-Roche forcibly denounced the fallacious arguments that promote so-called “ethical” surrogacy.

She referred to the economical analysis of Yves Boivert[1], who explained that “‘ethical surrogacy’ is an ‘imaginary solution’” and wonders why there are no “frank” statements confirming that “ethical surrogacy” is tantamount to marketing and “is directed towards the sale of women and children”.

 

Marie-Anne Frison-Roche points out that such waffle makes something which, in reality, is unacceptable, acceptable in the eyes of the general public. She refers to Yves Boivert’s analysis, which highlights “the contradictory nature of such conclusions that allow the mechanism of surrogate mothers as well as the voluntary requirement placed on women” to act in the name of “feminine ethics”, with an altruistic approach promoting “solidarity amongst women”. This position is seen as culminating in “physical subjection”: “carrying a child for someone else is a sacred task”. Boivert believes that “this will inevitably lead to a semi-legal situation”, “hypocritically, we will be made to believe that contracts are free”.

 

What happens to the child? Nicole Notat, former manager of a major trade union in France believes that “pregnancy demands total commitment from women – it is not a job”and she goes on to say that “having a child for the sole purpose of handing the baby over is tantamount to viewing that child as a commodity”. She believes that “companies intending to carve out a market to fuel that desire should be stopped.  Various processes are in the pipeline to transform this desire to have a child into subjective rights”. Furthermore, companies are prepared to transform the image of surrogacy to reach their goal: “ …with less money. This reduction would make the operation … ethical”.

 

Finally, to circumvent the natural aversion of public opinion, “companies, assisted by their advisors, doctors and lawyers, transform the buyers into innocent parties, unhappy infertile couples whose tragic situation will finally come to an end” and … “make them part with their money”. “However, money is everywhere but advisors prefer not to see it” (see Europe: the conflict of interest surrounding surrogacy issues is not upheld against Petra De Sutter). As for women, they are victims of “total scorn”: they “are naturally created to make sacrifices and ‘give themselves’”.

 

How can no questions be asked when the Council of Europe appoints “a rapporteur who recommends a clinic practising commercial surrogacy” and invites discussions on “‘ethical’ surrogacy, generating lively discussion in companies with whom it has convergent interests”, driving it to “disregard the rights of women”?

According to Marie-Anne Frison Roche, “A clear response is needed now”.

 

[1] An analysis put forward by Yves Boivert based on a recent Council report on the status of women in Quebec.

 


Sources: 

Blog Marie-Anne Frison Roche (20/02/2016)