The two readings from this week discussed the issue of surrogacy from a feminist and Protestant point of view. The first article, “Reproductive Technologies and Surrogacy: A Feminist Perspective”, outlines the disadvantage females face when dealing with surrogacy, emphasizing a branch of gender inequality (Rothman 1599). The second article, “New Reproductive Technologies: Protestant Modes of Thought”, focuses on a Protestant perspective, which consists of adhering to biblical tests rather than accepted religious notions of a church (Meilander 1637).
In “Reproductive Technologies and Surrogacy: A Feminist Perspective”, Rothman forms arguments against surrogacy which are quite different from accepted religious views. She begins by mentioning the misinterpreted definition of “patriarchy”; instead of meaning overall “sexism or men’s rule”, Rothman defines it as “…a system in which men rule all over the world” (1599-1600). In general, the word of a female is not taken into consideration while the bond between a father and son is the dominating familial relationship. Rothman continues to state that females are not even referred to by name, but rather as “daughters of men who bear them children” (1600). This disregard for female importance brings up the issue of control. Man always feels a need to have control over a situation, but once impregnating a female, this sense of control becomes lost for nine months. As a result, males attempt to control females, which is one of the many reasons why females’ voices are not taken seriously in Rothman’s eyes (Rothman 1600-1601).
In addition to the problem with “patriarchy”, Rothman describes the issue of incest. She begins by stating that incest is socially constructed and varies by culture. For example, some societies believe children are siblings if they were breast-fed from the same female. Other societies believe children are siblings if they came from the same uterus. Numerous other cultures have beliefs different from the preceding two, pointing to the fact that what might be incest at one place may be completely normal in another location. This leads to the following controversial topic: Should marriage be accepted between a male and female if they were both born to the same mother who underwent two separate surrogate pregnancies? Modern United States society would see the marriage as acceptable because there is no genetic relationship, but other societies would see this as incest (Rothman 1600-1601). The question of what constitutes incest is still a sensitive topic and most likely will continue to be debated in the coming years.
A third topic Rothman sheds light on is the issue of unfair custody over a child. Due to the male dominance explained above, men in the 1980s won custody over children at much higher rates than women. At this time period, children were seen as a status item and because men had higher incomes and more assets, they were able to win the legal battle (Rothman 1603). Overall, Rothman described the situation as “When men want custody, they get custody” (1603).
In “New Reproductive Technologies: Protestant Modes of Thought”, Meilander focuses on biblical texts, as opposed to the views of the church, to form his arguments. Even though the Bible places mass importance on procreation, it stresses that our first priority should be towards God, not family. James McDowell refers to Jesus’s statement in which he tells us not to love our mother and father more than him. This does not serve to undermine the familial relationship, but emphasizes the need to put God first (Meilander 1638).
In addition to prioritizing God over family, Meilander refers to David Smith’s view on surrogacy. Smith states that if a married couple is unable to have a child and turn to “a reproductive technology that involves the person or gametes of a third party, then the fertile partner is purchasing authentic parenthood for himself or herself…” (Meilander 1640). As a result, this may cause all three parties to be of unequal status, complicating the topic of who the real parents are. Due to the probable predicament, Smith urges for the discontinuation of artificial insemination by donor (Meilander 1640).
The two articles described above both outline the issues of surrogacy, but from two different perspectives. Rothman’s feminist approach outlines the gender inequality women face, stressing the need for women to have more voice and status in society (1599). In contrast, Meilander’s biblical approach focuses on scriptures of the Old and New Testament, allowing him to form his view in a different manner (1637). Overall, both readings related to the topic of kinship, which was discussed in week two of the course. It allowed questions to be raised about whether consanguineous or fictive kinship should be the dominating force in determining how related two individuals are. Personally, I align more strongly towards the view of consanguineous kinship because fictive kinship seems to imply that people would like to be related, even though society might not accept them as relatives. The issue of kinship discussed in week two and its references in this week’s readings continue to play a significant role in modern society and only more debate and questions will allow our understanding of the situation to evolve.
Questions to Consider:
When the word “patriarchy” comes to mind, what is your first thought on its definition?
Do you feel Rothman’s argument was persuasive? If not, where do you feel she could have improved?
Two weeks ago, we discussed how translation through time could cause some information to be lost or misreported. Do you think Meilander could have fallen subject to this? Do you think he should have used more sources outside the Bible?
How do you connect the two above readings to the concept of kinship discussed in week two of class?
Hi Petar,
Great job on the blog post!
I too found Rothman’s article on the Feminist perspective on surrogacy to be very interesting, especially in terms of the argument itself and the evidence provided to backup the claims asserted. Specifically, I found it very interesting how Rothman spent a very large portion of the article discussing the Feminist perspective on kinship relations in our society.
I really liked how you brought in previous material that we have covered in class related to kinship. I agree with you that I align more strongly with consanguineous kinship over fictive kinship, but I suspect this is a result of how our society views the relationship between blood relatives and a fictive relationship.
In Meilaender’s article discussed here, Meilaender approaches this perspective by analyzing the Bible, which does not deal directly with surrogacy, and tries to draw meaning from behind the text. This struck me as very similar to Swasti Bhattacharyya’s approach that we analyzed a few weeks ago with the Mahabharata. To me, the primary difference between Bhattacharyya and Meilaender’s work is that the Mahabharata is not considered a primary text while the Bible is considered liturgy. Do you think this difference in “quality” (for lack of a better word) of source affects the strength of Bhattacharyya’s and Meilaender’s arguments?
Hi Jonah. As i said to Petar, I am not sure what you mean by saying that you align with consanguineal rather than fictive kinship. Can you please explain?
Jonah,
Thanks for your response. It was very well-written and thought out. To answer your question about the “quality of source”, I feel that both Meilander and Bhattacharyya did well in the sense of analyzing historic literature. Both had to rely on their own (and experts) interpretations of the sources. As with all historic works, there rises a possibility of translation fallacies, which might have occurred in our readings. Of course, I am not aware of any but am just saying that the possibility is there.
Well done but I was not sure how you were using consanguineous and fictive kinship here. what do you mean by saying that you prefer consanguineous kinship? Do you mean that you give more credence to kinship grounded in blood or genetic relationship? We should clarify this in class.
Dear Dr. Seeman,
I was attempting to make the point that I view consanguineous kinship as the true meaning of kinship. I do not give credence to fictive kinship because I feel its not able to last through time. By this I mean that social circumstances can attempt to draw two people farther away from one another, even if they once saw each other has relatives. So the question that keeps recurring to me involving fictive kinship is the following: “Is it possible to be related to someone at one point in time and not at another point?”. I know this view may seem odd, but I would definitely like to discuss the topic more some other time.
Hi Petar,
I found your blog post for this week very well-written and encompassing of the main ideas from both Rothman and Meilaender’s articles from the 25th volume of the Creighton Law Review.
One idea that intrigued me in Rothman’s “Reproductive Technologies and Surrogacy: A Feminist Perspective” is the social construct behind “incest.” I found this discussion very interesting because, in society, the topic of incest is rarely debated. She brought up how different cultures may view a marriage as acceptable amongst genetically related persons, and I found this very interesting. She brings up on page 1601, that in some cultures, “as long as [children] have different mothers, they are not really siblings.” While I personally believe that any form of romantic/sexual relationship between people who share genes is considered incest, I found this matrilineal perspective intriguing. I am from South India, and traditionally there, it is common for first cousins to marry, as long as their mothers are not related. For example, one could marry their mother’s brother’s child or their father’s sister’s child, because in both cases, the mothers of the children are not related genetically. This seems to coincide with Rothman’s discussion that the definition of “incest” is really understood through the meaning of relationships. I find this to really tie into the concept of kinship that we focused on earlier in this semester’s readings.
Like you and Jonah mentioned, I too see the similarity between Bhattacharyya’s analysis of the Mahabharata and Meilaender’s analysis of the Bible. However, I disagree with Jonah’s statement that the potential “quality” of the Mahabharata may reduce the strength of Bhattacharyya’s argument. While the Mahabharata is not necessarily the “primary text” of Hinduism as the Bible is for Christianity, it is one of the two most significant texts of the Hindu tradition, along with the Ramayana. I can see how the referral to religious texts by both Bhattacharyya and Meilaender can be undermined due to different potential interpretations; however, I don’t see the legitimacy of the text being a source of contention to further this argument.
Sai,
I completely agree with you when you mention that “incest” is not a topic discussed enough in society. I feel that US society has come to accept “incest” as meaning “love between genetically related people”. As the readings pointed out, other cultures might view this as acceptable and it is important for us to approach each scenario with an open mind. Thanks again for your thoughtful insight.