Paying for a Child

There’s a not so very recent story from Alternet that I’ve been meaning to comment on for some time.  I’ve been waiting until my thoughts were properly collected, but I’m beginning to think that will take too long, so I figured I’d just start thinking out loud, as it were. 

The story is really worth a read.   It starts me down two different trains of thought.  One is really about surrogacy and that whole set of questions.  I’ve said quite a lot about all that before (just look at the tags–altrusitic surrogacy, gestational surrogacy, plain surrogacy, and so on.)  I should revisit all that to see if I’d still say the same thing, but I won’t do that just now. 

Instead, this story set me thinking about a different and broader topic:   what can/should/do people pay to have a child.   There’s at least two different ways in which one could expand this question.  

I take it as a given that children are not to be bought/sold, but you could quibble with this assumption if you chose to.  Given that point, you could think about all the different things that might count for some as buying a child.  So for example, in the US (but not Canada) sperm and eggs are readily bought and sold.   For some, perhaps for most, this is fine.  But for some this is the moral equivalent of buying a child.  

If not buying sperm and egg does not amount to buying a child, what about a buying a pre-embryo (which some might call an embryo and some a blastocyst)–the fertilized egg in the 8-call stage?   This is not readily bought/sold in the US.   Is it across the line into buying a child?  

Binding surrogacy?  Is that the moral equivalent of buying a child?   I have suggested that it is, because to me the woman who is pregnant and gives birth (and we cannot separate those two tasks) must be a parent.  

So one avenue of discussion/conversation/analysis would examine those practices and try to articulate a principled place to draw a line. 

The second avenue is less clearly visible to me and it seems that it, too, may branch.   When we talk about buying a child, we usually think in terms of money changing hands.   I give you $10,000, you give me a baby.   But not everything you pay is measured in money.   One could consider more broadly what people give up in order to get/have a child.   So I might give up my chance at a particular job because I choose to be pregnant and have a child.   This is not buying a child, but it is about what people will forgo to have a child.  

Many people–primarily women–undergo intrusive, expensive and even dangerous medical treatment in order to have a child.    Is it right to put this in the category of what will people pay to have a child?   It seems to me in a way it is.  

I don’t mean to suggest it is wrong to do this, by the way.  But the headline of that article is “How much would you pay” and it seems to me that payment may come in many different forms. It’s wrong to think only of monetary payment.  

Of course, not everyone can pay as much–no matter how we interpret “pay.”   What to make of that?  

Money is the easiest cost to quantify.  It is readily measured in dollars and cents.   But it is not the only way in which we pay.   I think it might be worth thinking a bit more about how and why payment of money might be different.   Is it the easy of seeing payor and payee?   If I give up my job to have a child, I might be constructed as a buyer, but who is the seller?   

Murky, you see?  But I’m convinced there is something to think about there.

Advertisements

4 responses to “Paying for a Child

  1. In order to address both avenues, consider a structural approach where you first answer MUST you, then CAN you, then SHOULD you. Sitting here thinking how I’m going to get my children to support me . . . Should I have more and increase the chances?

    • I’m not sure I’m following you. Must you pay to have a child? I think you must. Here’s a link to a new estimate on the cost of raising a child. http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE57367220090804
      While you need not pay this much, you surely must pay something if you are to avoid charges of child neglect, etc.

      Am I going down the right road here? Is the next question “can you pay” and the final one “should you pay?”

      If I were to return to my original post, I would ask if there is a difference between a person or people who cannot concieve without medical assistance and who cannot pay for it–they cannot afford to have a child–and a person or people who do not have the money to support a child and so, even though able to concieve, do not do so because they cannot afford a child.

  2. It’s more “paying to HAVE a child” rather than “paying FOR a child”

    People tend to be against things that don’t affect them. It’s so easy for someone who CAN or HAS kids to say surrogacy is bad. That is downright selfish in my opinion. Their views on surrogacy would instantly FLIP if they found out that they’ve become infertile or god forbid their daughter is unable to have grandchildren for them.

  3. As I’ve said on my blog, at least surrogacy is most of the time planned out over a long period a time unlike traditional pregnancy which is decided in a matter of minutes due to some quick, irresponsible love-making. At least children born through surrogacy are intended rather than mistaken and “dealt” with.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s