Goodman's point in the article is that surrogacy is a growing international economy that should not be taken lightly- in fact, it should be thought about in great context. She thinks surrogacy is probably unethical in most situations- depending on the situation, of course. She uses different point to illustrate her opinions, such as the fact that women in third-world countries are using surrogacy as a way to pay for their own lives, as well as the lives of their children,and that it's hardly ever 'a gift from one woman to another' anymore. She says that surrogacy is the closest we can get to selling ourselves into slavery in this day and age, which is primarily true.
The author uses pathos to convince the reader that surrogacy should be considered precious both to the future mother and to the woman carrying the baby. She appeals to the feelings of the reader by talking about motherhood, mentioning Army wives, and asking 'What obligation does a family that simply contracted for a child have to its birth mother?' This question definitely hits the reader hard, because it refers to the bond between families. The appeals to family and feelings enhance her argument because anyone with a moral background can agree that having a baby should be a special thing, a bond between mother and child and family in general.
Something that really struck me as the reader in this argument was when the author asked 'what control should contractors have over their employees while incubating 'their' children?' And I agree with the point she's trying to make. It is, in fact, strange to hire someone to carry your baby. The lines are blurred. Yes, the baby may have your genes, but it quite literally is someone else's baby. This question just made me wonder where to draw the line- does a contractor get full say authority over the employee and baby? Does the employee ever get too attached? The author has a lot of good points here that are worth discussing and that definitely made me think.
No comments:
Post a Comment