News
Harvard Quietly Resolves Anti-Palestinian Discrimination Complaint With Ed. Department
News
Following Dining Hall Crowds, Harvard College Won’t Say Whether It Tracked Wintersession Move-Ins
News
Harvard Outsources Program to Identify Descendants of Those Enslaved by University Affiliates, Lays Off Internal Staff
News
Harvard Medical School Cancels Class Session With Gazan Patients, Calling It One-Sided
News
Garber Privately Tells Faculty That Harvard Must Rethink Messaging After GOP Victory
To the Editors of The Crimson:
In his opinion piece entitled "Mommie Dearest," Steven Lichtman followed almost all his fellow journalists and ignored one of the most basic questions raised by the issue of surrogate motherhood: Do Americans wants to be pioneers in a modern-day baby business? Slavery, I've always thought, was abolished over 100 years ago. Yet today, our society is contemplating--allowing, for the time being--the legalization of baby-buying.
There is a moral issue at stake here which easily supercedes all the politics "Feminists" and "the Church" can come up with. Supporters of surrogacy insists that a surrogate contract is no different from any other. You give me $10,000, I'll give you a baby. Think about that. You give me $10,000, I'll give you a baby. Most contracts make allowances, even, for the abortion of the fetus if it is medically imperfect; no one, after all, wants to buy defective merchandise. The surrogate mother promises "not to form or attempt to form a parent-child relationship." The baby, remember, is not her. The surrogate, say supporters, is selling not the baby, really, but the "use of her womb." She is nothing more than a producer, the prospective "parents" her consumer.
But can we really ignore the product? Can we--will we--allow ourselves to take capitalism to its extreme? Will we all become straight-line economists, caring only for supply and demand and giving not a thought to what the supply and demand is for? Is the surrogate mother's child really comparable (let alone analogous) to a work of art? A work of art may be a part of the artist who creates it, but it surely is not human. No matter how beautiful, it will not grow into adulthood, complete with a psyche of its own. If he insists on using the analogy, will Mr. Lichtman also argue that, like a human child, a work of art is in itself affected by its "owner"? Probably not, because after all, a work of art is a thing, while a human baby most definitely isn't. We are allowed to buy things. Do we want to be allowed to buy human beings?
Americans must learn that--contrary, perhaps, to popular belief--we cannot always have everything we want; some things are simply not for sale. Please, let's put human beings on the top of the list. Melanie Berger '89
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.