In the article “Is Women’s Labor a Commodity,” E. S. Anderson discusses the subject of female labor and child-bearing in terms of the surrogate mothership industry and capitalism. The position is covered to make the audience question their understanding of childbirth-related labor as more than a physical act and more of a socio-cultural one. A surrogate mother is constrained by the terms of a condition imposed by the surrogate industry, which frames the process similar to most product creation. Thus, significant problems arise from a materialistic approach to women’s labor. When performed on an organizational level, the surrogate mothership has a specific relationship with women’s emotional and psychological well-being.
There are three main directions the article considers exploitation and mistreatment of surrogate mothers. These ideas relate to the need to suppress parental love, limit the mother’s view of her pregnancy, and use the woman’s non-commercialized influence on the child. All of these factors combined to alienate the mother from her surrogate child, present the process of childbirth as a commodity, and take advantage of the woman’s influence on the fetus. Furthermore, this perception and treatment of surrogate motherhood seek to frame the practice around the capitalist market framework, where the complex psycho-social practice of motherhood is presented as a tool to create a product. Overall, the mistreatment of women in this context is based on several negative factors that have a considerable negative effect. Moreover, this kind of attitude significantly dehumanizes the role of the mother. In this perspective, the child is primarily viewed as a commodity which may be perceived negatively by the biological mother.
Another considerable direction the author explores is the women’s aims and attitudes during the surrogate mothership process. A substantial part of surrogate mothers do not engage with the practice because of their financial needs, instead seeking fulfillment and a sense of accomplishment during the process. Many women want to feel a sense of making good to their community and other people or find an outlet for their nurture instincts. For the industry itself, the emotional state of surrogate mothers is ultimately irrelevant, and a sum of money dryly compensates for the pain surrounding giving a child away. The receiving parents, similarly, view the process as being transactional. A surrogate mother may often desire to connect with the parents and establish a social and emotional bond, which is partially denied by their expectation of being completely unrelated to her.
At its core, the article contains a well-founded critique of the surrogacy industry. In my opinion, the commercialization of women’s bodily functions leads to the degradation and exploitation of these women. Creating a commodity from the child-rearing practice has detrimental consequences for the women involved. This process may cause significant harm to a woman’s psychological health since it essentially contradicts human behavior and instincts. Arguments about the negative impact of surrogacy on women are entirely reasonable in this aspect. However, I do not find the conclusion about the necessity of changing the law regarding surrogacy or terminating surrogate contracts wholly rational. This approach does not adequately explore how to improve women’s mental, emotional, and physical well-being in surrogacy. The solution does not sufficiently cover the need for mental health support and therapy because it still does not give surrogates access to paid treatment or other solutions. While this would stop the imposition of restrictive norms on surrogate mothers, it would not make the process of potentially parting with a child any less painful.
People’s ability to properly prepare for accepting a child into their lives is diminished if they can learn that the child does not belong to them. In such a case, various financial and moral issues may arise, harming the family. Creating appropriate housing conditions and buying clothes, necessities, and toys in advance is frequently the stage of preparation for the appearance of a new family member. These items will be needless if the surrogate mother takes the baby herself. Thus, excessive financial losses are probable for one of the parties. In addition, psychological barriers may arise due to the new parents’ uncertainty about further interaction with the child. Therefore, the solution should focus less on giving authority over the child to the surrogate mother and more on providing her adequate mental and emotional support in the process. Hence, it is necessary to change the industry to create the best conditions for separating the surrogate mother and child. In this case, it will be possible to minimize surrogacy’s negative aspects and provide a mutually acceptable model for its realization.
References
Anderson, E. S. (1990). Is women’s labor a commodity? Philosophy & Public Affairs, 19(1), 80–87.