In the article “Reproductive Technologies and Surrogacy: A Feminist Perspective,” Barbara Katz Rothman describes her experience through the lens of her involvement in media. While her background is in sociology, writing, and feminism, she explains that a majority of her “title” is centered around feminism. The media coverage at the time was centered on the “Baby M” case. She emphasizes that from her personal stance she is against surrogacy yet simultaneously recognizes a different perspective from a religious point of view. She also expands on the importance of understanding the true definition of patriarchy, which she explains as “a system to which men rule as fathers.” She makes a strong point about control, with which I personally disagree; she believes that the only way to maintain control of the seed planted into a woman is to also maintain control of the woman. While creating a baby happens in the woman’s body, I do not think that it necessarily means the woman’s body is being controlled by the man. Of course, there are circumstances where this type of control could potentially occur and could lead to negative implications, I do not believe It can be generally applied.
I find it very interesting the way she describes and defines surrogacy. She relates surrogacy to incest in a fascinating way, through varying cultural perspectives. For example, she says that some societies would find it acceptable for two children with the same father to get married while for us that would be “distasteful.” She makes the argument that there is potential for incest when it comes to surrogacy because we all define it differently. In my opinion, the problems and obstacles that cultures face defining “right” from “wrong” within themselves is very challenging. Furthermore, when bringing together varying and often opposing cultural norms, defining “right” from “wrong” is nearly impossible. I agree with how she describes the potential of seeing surrogacy as incest, yet this is based on one culture. It makes me think more critically about the process of distinguishing right from wrong as well as the foundation upon which societies base it.
The Baby M case is described as a family with privilege who essentially took advantage of a 17-year-old catholic girl by seducing her and then claiming patriarchy through the dad in a custody battle. At the time of this case, it was a misconception that women got rights to their children; they would sometimes get half of the rights. Women faced a lot of adversity when it came to bearing and keeping children and were seen as “simply dirt” for the seed to grow. She also talks about inheritance, exclusivity of marriage, and changes in human reproduction. The author describes how many religions reject reproductive technologies on a broad scope and not just when it comes to the use of surrogates. I find it particularly complicated for women to know how to interact with their religions, especially if they are expected to have the role to reproduce. On one hand, religious leaders can ban reproductive technologies, while on the other hand they expect women to have the role of mother. This dichotomy puts women in vulnerable circumstances. I think that in this instance the patriarchy plays a detrimental role as it is one of the foundations that leads to women having challenges such as these. It makes me question and wonder if religion and patriarchy share the responsibility of placing women in this tough circumstance or if one plays a more substantial role. I connect strongly with her conclusion that every instance is, different, and every family should be able to choose how they approach their disabilities, in this case infertility.
In the article “New Reproductive Technologies: Protestant Modes of Thought” Gilbert Meilaender emphasizes the “creative chaos” of Protestantism. He clarifies that he will be focusing on the reasoning behind modern Protestant thought more than the conclusions themselves. I specifically appreciate his openness and admittance to the fact that there are many other valuable perspectives and opinions out there on this topic specifically. I believe this creates a more open space for productive interpretation and understandings of his text. One aspect of his argument that I have a hard time understanding is when he says: “lacking an accepted teaching magisterium within the church.” He emphasizes that a typical protestant approach has been to reject the way the church interprets biblical text. An author named Janet Dickey McDowell looks at the Bible to better understand parenthood as the Bible does not explicitly focus on surrogacy. He brings up the interesting juxtaposition in how the Bible can be interpreted and that we are two-sides as human beings, “both finite and free.” The idea that we are brought into this planet by God’s own spirit is not only what protestants think but it is central to their beliefs. However, if we are free as humans, the issue of artificial reproduction becomes hard to oppose. The idea Smith brings up when it comes to partnership is interesting. He argues that with adoption parents remain equal partners while with the case of a surrogate the focus is only one partner, the mother. I don’t entirely agree with this idea as I think it is hard to take a stance when each partners dynamic is different. Perhaps, a mother who cannot have children prefers a surrogate over adoption. I see the idea as freedom and power to be very personal and varies based on the individual, which makes it challenging to interpret through a religious stance. In addition to looking at human duality, he emphasizes that we should also look at Jesus to understand what is truly human. This challenges the idea of reproductive technology as it makes the birth of those children seen as “the creature of the doctors who assisted her conception…not as begotten but as made.” In conclusion, Protestantism often looks at the general themes of the Bible rather than specific themes and has a strong focus on the “duality of finitude and freedom.” This theme plays a large role in understanding and creating societies relationships with various reproductive technologies.
Shauna,
First, I want to mention that I appreciate you writing the blog this week. Second, I thought that your blog could have flowed a bit better. I found myself having to reread certain sections becuase I needed to go back and remember what you were discussing in that section of your post.
In addition, I think you gave a good summary of the readings. You mentioned key points to help the reader understand the methodology and approach that the authors took when writing their pieces. I also agreed with your thoughts on how Rothman describes surrogacy. The analogy to incest probably does not sit well with those who have used this form of fertility, and had success with it. When comparing other cultures and their norms, we need to approach it not from an ethnomedical view, but see these cultures relatively. What is seen as “normal” in the United States is not the case in other cultures throughout the world. This ethnomedical lens makes it difficult to understand how other cultures can justify behavior that is frowned upon from what we know to be practiced in our own society.
I found this weeks readings to be some of the most interesting and thought-provoking thus far. I found Rothman’s description of patriarchy and its effects on pregnancy to be extremely eye opening. I appreciated the way she defined patriarchy for what it truly means, “a system where men rule as fathers”. I think that in many of todays feminist and political movements, this definition is lost, altered, and confused to “the controlling, male dominated nature of our society”. Her examples of how patriarchy has shaped the way we view pregnancy were very effective, although sometimes extreme.
As for Meilaender’s piece, I found the dichotomy of humans being “finite and free” very intriguing. Based on my understanding, humans are “finite” is the sense that they have been placed on Earth to follow a set life path, designed by a higher power (whoever/whatever that may be). Being “free”‘ is the opposite. People are free to make their own life choices and can decide whether or not to live for/in accordance with a higher power. Though they seem to be contrasting, these two ideas actually work hand in hand in a balancing act. Meilaender argues this idea is central to the Protestant faith, but I actually believe this concept is applicable to other religions as well as humans in modern society.
Shauna,
I enjoyed reading your blog post, as it was well written but not over complicated with fancy language or long sentences. Your analysis was crisp and concise and I appreciated that because it makes it much easier to provide a response on my part when I can fully understand what you are saying.
In regards to your analysis on Rothman, I think you highlighted the point that stuck out to me the most, which was how religion and feminism interact with each other on the topic of surrogacy. I thought it was interesting how Rothman explained that religion and feminism are both in opposition to surrogacy; however, feminism and religion are also in opposition with each other. I just find it ironic that these two groups can have the same take on surrogacy, while they can be completely against each other when it comes to the role of the woman in society. I agree with your point about religion forming a patriarchal society, which leads to the oppression of women’s rights over their children.
The one thing I do not agree with in your post is your point about religions expecting women to reproduce. You mention that it is a “complicated” relationship that women have with religion, however I did not necessarily come to the same conclusion as you did. Yes, there are some religions that expect to reproduce A LOT, but those religions (in my opinion) seem to be more open to the idea of ART. Judaism comes to mind for me with this idea, as they usually are more flexible with the idea of ART because they want their women to have the opportunity to reproduce. In contrast, Protestantism states that “children are a gift,” and the women that are infertile are infertile because God has another plan for those women. Essentially, while reproduction is favored, it is not pushed in the way that women in other religions are pushed.
Overall, I thought this weeks readings were extremely interesting and I thought you did a solid job at summarizing and analyzing both papers!
-NB
Hi Shauna,
Thanks so much for your blog post. It was an enjoyable read. Just one thing, I felt that you could have strengthened your post and intertwined the two readings utilizing the biblical story of Abraham and Hagar. The story of Abraham and Hagar is, what I would argue, the first time that the bible addresses surrogacy–where Sarah tells Abraham to sleep with Hagar in order to bear the couple a child. I found it odd that Meilaender brought up Isaac, Abraham’s son with Sarah, but not Ishmael, Abraham’s son with Hagar. I understand that within the Meilaender context, the Isaac example is meant to show one’s loyalty to God first and then family. But felt that a discussion on Ishmael, who was born under a surrogacy context, would have strengthened the argument as Abraham’s banishing of Hagar and Ishmael was a commandment by God.
Hello Shauna,
The reading of Barbara Katz Rothman’s article was hard for me to grasp certain arguments. She uses examples I think are extreme. For example, she uses the topic of incest to show that Americans terminology are subjective and not “definitive”. She explains how relationships are dependent heavily on how you define them. She uses the argument of incest to support her point. She states, “ Just because two children have the same father, the children are nor really related. As long as they have different mothers, they are not really siblings.” I did not fully understand this argument. From my personal experience, siblings that had one parent the same were termed half sister or half brother. I believe there are definitions of certain relationships are more concrete than the author is giving credit for. In addition, I think women do get more credit than the author is stating. I think Rothman’s analogies are very extreme. In Gilbert Milanender, shows the protestant view on reproductive technology. Protestants came about in rebellion from traditional Christianity. I feel as if there is still a lot of similarities in the interpretation of the biblical text pertaining to surrogacy. Also, I think the Milanender should have showed other perspectives to further his argument
Shuana,
Your blog this week raised some very good questions about the readings. One comment I would make is that the organization of your blog was a bit confusing at times. There were sections of writing that focused on two completely different topics- I would suggest re-reading your work both aloud and in full before you finish. That is something I always do and I find it extremely helpful.
One thing I wish you would have spoke more on is how the concepts of right/wrong relate to Rothman’s descriptions of surrogacy as, potentially, incest. You did a really great job conveying how Rothman feels about surrogacy but I wish you would have talked more about how she relates the two because to me this seemed like a very odd and radical comparison. I do agree that religion can play a huge role on women and the ART’s they have access to but I don’t think women’s choices concerning these technologies are always related to religion. Personally, I don’t know if I would be willing to use a surrogate- not because of my religious affiliations, but because I don’t know if I would want someone else carrying my baby. I think this is an issue many women considering surrogacy deliberate about. Her description of the woman’s body as just the dirt for the seed to grow in shows a lack of respect for the many emotional decisions women face when considering assisted reproductive technologies that have nothing to do with religion, but actually have to do with their bodies and their emotional connectedness to their bodies.
All in all I thought this weeks readings were interesting and your blog post was one that really highlighted exactly what was at the heart of the readings.
Hi Shauna,
You did a great job summarizing the contents of the two articles and providing your opinion regarding them. As you mentioned, in Rothman’s article, a feminist approach to surrogacy is taken and contrasts itself to the religions, mainly Judaism and Christianity interpretation. It would be interesting if you have made a brief comparison between the two views in the articles. To me, what Rothman has argued is not manifested in Meilaender’s writings at all as I do not see patriarchal elements on either side of the protestant views. I was also wondering what you meant by “specific themes” in contrast to “general themes” of the bible in your conclusion. Overall, I think your blog is very informative and has a great flow.
Hi Shauna,
I thought you had a very in depth blog post and it helped me understand both texts better. I especially liked the argument you presented about women interacting with their religions on the topic of reproduction. It is true that women are put in a difficult place if infertile, since their religions expect procreation but ban assisted reproductive technologies in the event of infertility. I feel as though religions should consider this argument, since infertility is not a rare phenomenon and difficulties with pregnancy increase as women wait to have children, something we see in 2018. I agree with you that Meilaender’s text showed vast differences in Protestant thought on the subject of reproductive technologies. This text reminded me of “Reproducing Jews” by Susan Martha Kahn, with different Rabbis having different opinions about assisted reproductive technologies. In religions where there is not one clear-cut answer I feel as though they are more cognizant of the benefits to reproductive technologies and supportive in this method to parent.
Hey, Victoria and Shauna
Thank you for your posts. They are very helpful in terms of summarizing the artices of this week. My favorite part is that both of you mention that Barbara Katz Rothman’s article “Reproductive Technologies and Surrogacy: A Feminist Perspective,” religion plays an important role to control women’s reproductive responsibility. It only wants the “natural” way of reproduction. So they ban the use of reproductive technologies. In the article “New Reproductive Technologies: Protestant Modes of Thought” Gilbert Meilaender emphasizes the “creative chaos” of Protestantism. This article narrows down the general religious view to only protestant beliefs. I like that the author mentions “One can also, however, use biblical themes in quite different ways and to quite different argumentative ends.” (Meilaender, 1638). The biblical themes are up to our own interpretations. If we use it to explain that new reproductive technologies are helping infertile women to get the chance to have kids, then it seems fine to use the new technologies.