than the contribution donor. It is also argued that it is inconsistent with human dignity that a woman should use financial profit and treat it as an incubator for someone else's child. The objection is not diminished, indeed it 1s surenginenca, where the woman entered an agreement to conceive a child with the sole purpose of handing the child over to the commissioning couple after birth.' 'Public opinion' - is concerned with the threat to the sanctity of the family.
Actually surrogacy is not new. It is extremely unlikely that Baby Cotton is Britain's first surrogate baby. What 1s new ol course legitimate role of agency, made possible and more acceptable by modern techniques of artificial insemnation.
What is raised is not the morality of women's actions but the question of exploitation. Alan Research Fellow of the Centre for Human Bioethics in Monash University, Australia, puts the problem succintly from the point of view of capitalist morality: More commonly ethicists obiect to surrogacy on the grounds that the coerced IDIO through poverty or unemployment. From one perspective the surrogate can conceivably (sic!) be regarded as the victim of an unfair social order. Without denying this counterproductive to deny her this oI a semen option. Given prefer the latter.' • in a nutsnel Tests open and profit-making Parenting sidiary of NCSP its 'pioneer' known in Kassaby, name, Manning -rogate parenting industry.
She has surrogate herself that role the Susan it is rather Surrogate La choice between poverty and exploitation many people There is no doubt about the explollative nalure or le allangement entered into by a commercial agency. The National Centre for Surrogate Surrey-based subInc ol Bethesda, Maryland, in the United States. When Harriet Blankfield by maiden - was interviewed a few years ago by the Washington Post she said: 'I want to see this company become the Coca Cola of the surplans for agencies throughout Europe and the Middle East. In addition to the agency's fee sperm-donating father, NCSP sold the story of Baby Cotton Daily Star for £7,500.
Ince's article 'Inside the Industry' in Test Tube Women describes the first-hand experience of an American feminist, and raises the broader issues involved The main qualification required kids a try wrestord as the agenty "a track record' as the agency staff put it. It was explained that a battery of medical, psychological and intelligence tests would be required to check her suitability, and that the extensive contract protected her rights and her needs.
Check In fact this was far from the case. Susan, single Wolla with children, was readily accepted. first appointment with a shrink involved questions like: name, address, phone, colour of hair and eyes, any boyfriends, expecting to marry and settle down? It wasn't till she asked some awkward questions of the company lawyer that they sent her back for a 'more thorough' check on her motivation.
Susan's description of the contract she signed bears resemblance the NCSP described recently by the Times. in more than a bit disturbing. Wealth Susan in advance to an abortion if any normalities' showed up the birth.
Her although circumstances The responsible for maintenance.
contract, the other minimal COSE LUSU Sunday agencies.
Apart from the 'rate of pay' Kim Cotton's case a miserable the spread £6,500 — some of the legal clauses are diseases was suoject lo an amniocentesis test and required to agree 'abIf that had happened, or if she had miscarried no ed. money would be due to her. In fact no isolation money was forthcoming until after There was no guarantee of course that the receiving parents would accept the child if, for example, it was born mentally or physically disabled inere was • a clause ol dubious legality saying that in such outrage would be Perhaps most disturbing of all was the fact that if either party broke their thrash - and not the had to sue. Not even the legal financial another safeguards are provided by surrogate of medical technology to improve th lives of women and make child-birt easier and safer. But this is not what at issue in today's debate.
According to the Nation Association of the Childless, mol than 10 per cent of couples in Brita want and can't have children. And i fertility is increasing, associated wit OI sexually-transmitte At any given mome 100,000 couples are looking to ado but only 1200 babies are available.
Since legal abortion easier under the 1968 Act, adoptio have fallen from 24,000 to less thi 9,000 each year. And that is exact how it should be. If surrogacy is means of fulfilling a real desire have children, it is only to be welcor But it cannot be considered the whole issue women's control of their bodies.
When pundits show the same co cern for the rights of women to leg safe abortion, for more adequa child-birth and child-care facilities in short, for women's basic right control their own fertility - LACI L moral indignati generated over surrogate motherho won't seem half so hollow. Perha then it will be possible to begin out rational means facilitating the process whereby woman undertakes to grow a child f • without either being su ject to the vagaries of the capital market place.
Socialist Action 25 January 1985 THE LABOUR PARTY