Womb for Rent: Surrogate Mothers in India (Outsourcing to the Extreme)

Customer service, tech support...these days we outsource everything to India. So why not pregnancy? Here is a report on the growing number of Indian women willing to carry an American child.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/78cb96702bc1.jpg[/atsimg]

The midday sun is ferociously hot outside the Akanksha Infertility Clinic, a scuffed concrete building in the small Indian city of Anand. Crammed into a single patch of shade by the gate, a stray cow and a family of beggars — caked so uniformly in dung-colored dust they resemble clay models — wait out the noontime heat.

Inside, the lobby is jammed with barefoot female patients in circus-bright saris. Nurses in white Indian tunics scuttle among them, hollering out names and brandishing medical files. The air smells faintly of sweat and damp cement. On the walls, blurry photos of babies and newspaper clippings celebrate the clinic's raison d'être: "The Cradle of the World" declares one headline.

In this case, the metaphor is also literal. The Akanksha clinic is at the forefront of India's booming trade in so-called reproductive tourism — foreigners coming to the country for infertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization. The clinic's main draw, however, is its success using local women to have foreigners' babies. Surrogacy costs about $12,000 in India, including all medical expenses and the surrogate's fee. In the U.S., the same procedure can cost up to $70,000.

This is out-sourcing to the extreme. It seems some people will go to the ends of the Earth to have a child, literally. Yeah, it's $58,000 cheaper, but at what risk? I think the biggest concern would be health issues. Such a Strange World we live in.

[edit on 5/17/2010 by UberL33t]

I bet the surrogates only get a tenth of that fee.

Giving up a baby she has given birth to breaks a woman's heart.
How much is a woman's heart worth?

reply to post by Kailassa

How much is a woman's heart worth?

Not sure, I'd be curious to know myself what the actual surrogate walks away with monetarily. The health cost are factored in, and I am sure are deducted.

Very controversial subject IMHO!

I do hope they sign a nine month lease .And what happes when the americans skip out on rent? how do you evict the kids ?
O and realy a nine month less taht cost 12 k think they could alest put in a jecuezy.
you know this gives me an idea anyone need to rent a man

Surrogacy is the Rumplestiltskin story all over again.

I wonder what happens when one of these surrogates can't bear to part with the baby.

I wonder what happens when a surrogate gets ill, and the hospital has to choose between her life and the child's. The hospital now has a vested interest in the baby.


I don't know if there are studies to prove this can happen, but I doubt I'm unusual.
My first child did not cry at birth. I first heard her crying later that night, many rooms away from mine, with a full nursery in between. And I knew that was my baby and had to go and find her. I had her back in my room before the matron came to inform me my baby had been born dead.

It was 1974, things were different then. I shared a ward with 12 other single mothers, and all the others agreed to adopt out their babies. As I hadn't, the hospital invoked "special procedures" to make sure I never took my baby home.

They never got away with it, and I felt terrible for the other girls when I had my baby to feed and the rest would be trying bravely to hide their tears.

They did it to give their children better lives, but giving the babies up was frightfully cruel, and something a woman never forgets.

Surrogates in the U.S. make from around $18,000 - $28,000 depending on whether they have done multiple surrogacies. All medical costs are paid by the intended parents in most cases.

I suspect the surrogates in India make a fraction of that. There are surrogates available here in Moldova. Women who are single and have already had a child who are suffering economically. Average monthly wage here is about $150. By being a surrogate they can make about $12,000, take better care of the child they already have and help a childless couple. Everyone wins. I don't see a problem with it... IF there is a reason like that and the surrogate is being adequately compensated.

This is a study in epigenetics.

The biological parents only contribute chromosomes. The surrogate contributes the environment and all the components.

Do you know that family violence effects the way a fetus develops? How prevalent is domestic violence in India?

Did you know that RNA is contributed in this case by the surrogate? That RNA turns "on" or "off" chromosomes. It can be influenced by trauma, and environment and many other unknown factors currently.

This is a mass experiment, the end product of which is utterly unknown.

How would you feel to find out that some trauma that influenced the mother of your surrogate had caused her RNA changes that the surrogate then based onto your child?

Fascinatingly stupid.

reply to post by Kailassa

I had her back in my room before the matron came to inform me my baby had been born dead.

It was 1974, things were different then. I shared a ward with 12 other single mothers, and all the others agreed to adopt out their babies. As I hadn't, the hospital invoked "special procedures" to make sure I never took my baby home.

If it doesn't well up too much emotion, can you elaborate on what type of ward this was? More so, what stipulations were the 12 other Mothers you were on this ward with given and why? I have my speculations but I would prefer to hear it from the source.

If it is something you'd rather not discuss in an open forum I can understand and respect your wishes. If that's the case you can U2U me as I really am curious about the ordeal you went through.

If you don't feel comfortable doing either I understand as well and thank you for the contribution that you have made in your previous posts all the same.

Regards,


[edit on 5/17/2010 by UberL33t]

On one hand, surrogacy is expensive, so people are finding cheaper sources.
But on the other, the quality of life is not good in India, with a lot of filth and environmental contaminants. Why risk your fetus to that?
That, and you can't watch the mother. They are half a world a way. Who knows what they are doing.

reply to post by nixie_nox


I would have concerns over not being able to monitor the mother, also. Otherwise, I don't have a problem with this.

Many couples would consider this such a blessing, as they are unable to have children. In many ways it does fill a need.

But, indeed. What a strange world we live in.

reply to post by UberL33t
I've answered in PM, so as not to take this thread any further off track.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

I would have concerns over not being able to monitor the mother, also. Otherwise, I don't have a problem with this.

Many couples would consider this such a blessing, as they are unable to have children. In many ways it does fill a need.

But, indeed. What a strange world we live in.

Ladyinwaiting, have you given birth yourself?

If so, how would you have felt about giving that baby away to strangers, to live on the other side of the world?

reply to post by Kailassa


I would not even momentarily entertain this idea for myself, Kailassa. Not for a minute.

But I'm not everybody......

India is an extremely impoverished country. Who knows what a woman might do to get enough money to care for other children....? And who are we to pass judgment on her decisions because we wouldn't do it ourselves?

As long as it isn't forced, I truly don't see a problem with it. Some women do it multiple times. I guess if it causes them too much emotional distress, they won't repeat it, or perhaps try to get out of the contract.

reply to post by Kailassa


Thank you for you reply. I appreciate it immensely.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting

I guess if it causes them too much emotional distress, they won't repeat it

That's what money does. I am sure I don't have to mention what people have done for money, repeatedly no less, despite the emotional turmoil that it may present. Another way to look at this, they are pimping their own womb out.

[edit on 5/17/2010 by UberL33t]

reply to post by UberL33t


I do understand what you're saying, but it's just too judgmental for my liking. We don't know these women, what motivates them, for what reasons have they chosen this extreme way to make money?

It's possible they might have five or six children at home, they can't feed. They see this as something they can do to improve their circumstances. I don't see condemning a woman for the choices she feels she must make.

People are different. I've heard a woman who has been a surrogate multiple times say she loved to be pregnant. Thought it was the best feeling in the world, but she personally didn't want children, and she found a way she could help others. This was an American woman.

I think we have a tendency to impose our own values on other people, and I don't think we should. We shouldn't judge these women.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting

I don't see condemning a woman for the choices she feels she must make.

I am not condemning them, It's their body to do with as they please. You're right I don't know the mental or financial state of any of these women. Although, I am a Father of three, I didn't carry them obviously, their Mother (my-ex) did. But, I had an emotional attachment from the moment I knew she was pregnant. I can't even begin to imagine the emotional bond that is created when a Mother carries a child in her womb for 9 months.

I was mirroring the notion that money and all it encompasses pushes people to do what they most often would not even consider otherwise. Chances are, the majority of these woman in India act as surrogates because of the money, and not because they like it. Yes that is pure speculation on my part, however the article was written on the foundation of the money that it generates to a financially strapped region such as India.

I still believe they are pimping out their womb no matter how you slice it as is any surrogate mother. The only difference is the ones that don't get paid for it but do it because they can provide the means of a child to someone that wouldn't naturally be able to themselves. THAT is commendable.

That said though, I still don't condemn them, everyone has a price, there are things that you, myself, and everyone would do that you wouldn't normally, if the price was right, that could be considered taboo and thus condemned by society. None the less, some will consider what they're doing wretched others will see them as allowing for a miracle to take place.
Either way they're lining up to offer the service and get paid for it.

How fast do you think the line would dissipate if they announced "Ohhh sorry, we're all out of money and you'll have to provide your own health care, but if you'd still like to offer your womb to help out infertile women please stick around"?

reply to post by UberL33t


Your comment:

That said though, I still don't condemn them, everyone has a price, there are things that you, myself, and everyone would do that you wouldn't normally, if the price was right, that could be considered taboo and thus condemned by society. None the less, some will consider what they're doing wretched others will see them as allowing for a miracle to take place.
Either way they're lining up to offer the service and get paid for it.

____________________
Exactly.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by Kailassa

 

And who are we to pass judgment on her decisions because we wouldn't do it ourselves?

Please don't feel that I'm passing judgement on these women just because I express concern for them. I see it as similar to kidney selling or prostitution in that it's an honest, but pretty sad, way to trade your body for money. But then I don't believe prostitution is immoral, just bad for the girl.

I see this situation in a historical context. Few realise what a thriving country India was, with a great culture and ancient heritage, until the English took over and stopped the processing of cotton in India.

British Governor General Lord McCauley's said, in a speech to the British Parliament on Feb 2, 1835: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation."

India was a peaceful nation, and could not defend itself against the English. At first they didn't even think to, they were extending their hands in friendship, eager to share their wealth with their new friends.

As soon as the British gained ownership of the state of Bengal in 1757, they set about the task of dismantling the Indian economic structure. Textiles in Bengal were the first to be dealt the deathblow. Other commercial segments came one after the other. Wherever they defeated a king, economic hardship was instituted. A complete breakdown of the local economic structure was precipitated. From 1857 onwards, the British crown ruled over India. Each viceroy's main task was to transfer wealth to England. Since all state treasuries had already been looted, other means had to be developed to transfer the money to England.

Around the time of the 1757 Battle of Plassey, the Industrial Revolution had begun in England. Manufacturing on a large scale had replaced cottage industries and farming. Factories had to be kept humming and products sold at a profit. The best place the British could find to export their manufactured goods was India. Hence, India's commercial, manufacturing and agricultural sectors, which had existed for thousands of years, were to be completely dismantled. The British went about doing this with great finesse. First they removed artisans from the manufacturing base, then they denied critical raw materials and finally they taxed any product which still managed to come to the market. Life was made miserable all around.

. . . .

Decline began soon after the success of the Industrial Revolution in England. This impact started to be felt, as British factories were kept busy at the expense of Indian cottage industries. All Indian-produced goods were heavily taxed. This was done to promote European goods. European voyages of the trading ships multiplied several fold. They carried Indian raw materials and brought back finished goods. All the forgoing was good for England and bad for India. The trade balance began to shift heavily in England's favor.

. . . . .

The British completed their conquest in 1857; by that time India was set up as a basket case. It received finished goods from England at a high price. In return, it sold raw materials at throwaway prices. The whole society was moving into poverty. The next 100 years were a classic case of systematic looting of the nation.

www.upiasia.com...

My ancestors were part of this, colonising India, reducing a great country to poverty, and capitalising on the misery they induced.

Now their descendants can outsource businesses to India for the cheap labour, force farmers to buy seeds for crops which do not produce seed, buy cheap Indian kidneys, and rent the wombs of Indian women for a pittance.

reply to post by Kailassa


I agree it's sad it's come to this, and great post, by the way. I read a year or so ago that Indian women have been getting jobs as people who answer the phone for American Internet companies. For example, when you have an Internet connection problem, or need instructions on how to do something with a new IP, the calls are forwarded to them. I've called them from time to time when trying to set up new email, or something like that. (It does seem I usually get someone I can barely understand.)

It's been a great new job for them, however, because the time zone differs so greatly from the US, they work during their regular sleeping hours, consequently away from home, leaving children in the house alone.
This seems to have generated incidences of child neglect, (or what we would consider child neglect), and occurrences which happen when young children are left alone.

I doubt leaving small children alone is their first choice, but a decision is made to do what one must, when one has mouths to feed. It's poor circumstances all the way around.

I do agree that they probably only receive a small amount of what is paid for this. However we must bear in mind that even 5,000 might keep a family in India going for several years.

[edit on 5/18/2010 by ladyinwaiting]