Saturday, October 16, 2010

Mother gives up children

An unnamed woman acting as a reproductive prostitute has handed over her children to be raised without her.

Hollywood, naturally, is celebrating this act of maternal abandonment. Because children don't need mothers, according to the twenty-first century's cultural depravity script.


Anonymous said...

This might have been celebrated as the humanitarian option for a woman made pregnant in rape or after conception came to the conclusion that she couldn't kill her offspring in an abortion.


In any case, let us pray the little ones grow up healthy and well-loved.

Red Cardigan said...

Well, sure, giving them up for adoption to a stable mother and father would be a loving thing to do.

But choosing for them never to have a mother? I can't find that loving at all.

L. said...

It's one thing to oppose same-sex marriage on deeply-held religiously-based principles.

It's another to call a total stranger a "reproductive prostitute," and accuse her of "maternal abandonment" without knowing what her story is (since all birth mothers whose children are adopted by anyone can be said to "abandon" them).

I am guessing you want to make that point that a child placed in a family without a mother is less than ideal, and I know many who hold this opinion. But the way you have worded it, you seem to blame the surrogate just as much as the gay parents, and we don't know the extent to which she was complicit in choosing the family of the baby she carried.

L. said...

The word "prostitute," too, implies someone using his/her body for paid sexual acts, and I would be willing to bet that no sex was involved in her pregnancy.

I suppose that to put the words "reproductive prostitute" together means a woman who allows her body to be used for a reproductive act, but without the sex involved.

In exactly this way, when I have given blood, I was a "hemoglobin prostitute," because I allowed my body to be used in an unnatural way, just to get some free cookies and a nifty package of Red Cross bandaids. Oh, and a balloon.

priest's wife said...

Surrogates usually make around $20,000 or more for their services

Question to other commenters- Should there be no limits on medical technology? Where do we draw the line- if at all? Human cloning is either already here or almost here- Is that ok? If not- what makes it not ok?

Red Cardigan said...

L., I consider surrogate mothers "reproductive prostitutes." I've used the term before; it also includes women who sell their eggs and men who sell sperm.

I think we'd better start using that term--surrogates are being exploited just like regular prostitutes. Do a Google search for surrogate mothers in India, for example. Impoverished women are essentially selling their bodies and their children to wealthy first-world couples, many of them gay men. The potential for abuse is horrifying.

L. said...

Okay, fair enough, Red Cardigan -- it's your blog, and you can call them whatever you like. I don't need to "do a Google search" -- I know some surrogate moms, and I also know someone who went to India to find a surrogate.

I still say the word "prostitute," like the word "rape," is too easily tossed around metaphorically, diluting its original powerful -- and sexual -- meaining.

And I agree with you on the exploitation part. The surrogates I know in America aren't in it for the money (one, a Catholic, is having a baby for free, for her infertile cousin, using her own eggs and the cousin's husband's sperm).

Anonymous said...


The "catholic" you know who is having a baby for "free" for her infertile cousin, is not really a Catholic, nor is her surrogacy going to be free.

Catholics do not do such things. She must go to confession immediately and cannot receive the Eucharist until absolved. Further, she must not have the intention of being a surrogate again or she cannot receive absolution.

Secondly, while you or anyone else may think that giving up a baby is easy, God has hardwired us to care for and be emotionally attached to our own children.

I'm willing to bet that this "free" and supposedly magnanimous situation turns into a disaster for all involved.

How sad.

MightyMighty said...

I for one LOVE the phrase you coined. Reproductive Prostitute forces one to step outside of the brain wash, and think about what is really going on. I had gotten rather complacent about the inevitability of this trend continuing, and a little bit complacent about my place in opposing it.

But this term, which I now use, has helped me to remember the truly exploitive nature of surrogacy. We are not wired to abandon our children. When a child loses his biological parents, it is a tragedy, like you so eloquently pointed out. A child being adopted by a mother and a father is both a tragedy, and a triumph. Sad that he lost his natural parents, and they him, but how wonderful that the adults in his world, the biological and adoptive parents, placed his good above their own. The biological parents could have aborted, or chosen to raise him in a less-than-ideal situation. The adoptive parents could have chosen to not adopt but choose a reproductive prostitute instead.

People doing evil things, or supporting evil deeds will accuse you of intolerance or of being too harsh. This term is neither.

When something is evil, the truthful name for it *should* identify that.

L. said...

"I'm willing to bet that this 'free' and supposedly magnanimous situation turns into a disaster for all involved."

I'm betting on a happy ending for all, and hope to be sending them a baptismal gift soon.