Pregnancy truly a business??

I read an article today about the "Rent-A-Womb" business...I'm still not sure how I feel about this. The article I read can be found here. It's actually very disturbing to me, although I am a strong proponent of babies and life in general. So essentially infertile couples, gay couples, and singles (gay or heterosexual) can use surrogacy to get a baby. "No duh!" You say, "that's been around for years!" but now it seems finding a surrogate mother is taking couples out of the U.S. Apparently the costs associated with finding a surrogate mother and getting surgery in the U.S. are so high that couples and individuals who cannot afford the high costs, are heading to the country where most other services are outsourced...yup, India!

I decided to do a quick check on these costs and sure enough, surrogacy surgery including compensatory costs to a surrogate mother in the U.S. can cost between $75,000 and $100,000!!(See Surrogacy) WHOAH! That's just BEGGING for business competition. So India hops on board. I checked a few sites and using a surrogate mother in India can cost a couple anywhere from $25,000 to $40,000 (max) including compensation to the surrogate mother. (See PlanetHospital). Now there are BUSINESSES dedicated to facilitating these "rentals" to infertile couples/individuals. Surrogacy Abroad seems to be one of the most successful businesses in this "industry"...if you can call it that without cringing at the crassness. Surrogacy Abroad states their business goal in the following:

"Your positive experience is our main concern; Imagine landing in Hyderabad, being picked up by a personal chauffer, driven to your hotel, around the city, to do your shopping, sightseeing etc. all for a third of the usual cost for basic surrogacy programs in the U.S. Surrogacy costs are one thing that we have managed to keep as low as possible.. And yet we still manage to offer the utmost in personal service. We at Surrogacy Abroad, Inc. strive to give our Intended Parents an extraordinary alternative to the standard process of surrogacy in the U.S., and we hope that we will be able to do the same for you."

That's called marketing strategy...

But doesnt this seem perfect from a free-market as well as humane point of view?? U.S. surrogacy costs too much, India offers much cheaper options, impoverished women in India are given the opportunity to make up to $7,000 carrying another couple's child (or it could technically be her own child biologically with a man's sperm- as most surrogate mothers work this way), and infertile couples/others can afford to be happy and be able to become parents. Perfect, right? And I admit, a part of me is persuaded by this....but another part of be winces at the crass way we are being taught to view pregnancy and birth...

Pregnancy and birth are special things, not something we should be outsourcing to others let alone other countries. I dont want this post to turn into a rant against surrogacy since that's not entirely the focus of the article I posted. I want to focus more along the lines of alternatives as far as India's role in this. What if, instead of paying a total of around $35,000 for surgery and for a surrogate mother in India to birth a child, a couple adopted an Indian child for around $30,000 (maximum)?? HoltInternational

I know there are a lot of good arguments for surrogacy instead of adoption, especially from the perspective of a couple who wants a child with their genes, but honestly? Which would be more effective? Adopting an orphaned child from India and being able to give him/her an education in the U.S. as well as food, shelter, and clothing? Or giving an Indian woman who has at least 2 children $7,000 for the right to use her womb for 9 months? Let's look at long-term results here. Face it, while $7,000 is a lot of money in India, the Indian woman has children who are going to need fed and clothed for the next 15 plus years. $7,000 is not going to cover all that as well as a decent education. Obviously I'm not saying we should take peoples' kids away from them if they dont have the finances for it, I'm simply saying maybe we should look at the opportunity costs of each option and determine which option is going to have a greater impact in the long-run.

I'm all about adoption, but I also realize that there is a desire to parent a child that is biologically linked to oneself. I hesitate to cry "selfish" since I know I have that desire myself for some day. However, given time to think about it, I am fairly certain I would choose adoption rather than surrogacy (if it came down to that) since my own peace of mind and joy at providing something for a child who might otherwise would be doomed to a life of poverty would far outweigh my personal desire to raise a child who might take after me personality-wise (God forbid!).