Surrogacy and IVF has objectified procreation. Now, it can be about not just having a baby to unconditionally love, but about ordering a baby that meets specifications.
Case in point: The notorious Australian biological colonialists who paid a Thai agency to hire a surrogate to carry their child, but then abandoned their son when it was discovered he has Down syndrome.
Now, the couple is saying they didn’t really abandon the child. But also, that they wanted their money back. From the CTV News story:
The couple was angry that the surrogacy agency had not conducted tests earlier that could have detected the condition, because by the time they found out, it was too late in the pregnancy to abort the fetus. Had they known earlier, they probably would have terminated the pregnancy, David Farnell said…
“I don’t think any parent wants a son with a disability,” he said. “Parents want their children to be healthy and happy.”
So, can surrogates–dehumanized as “gestational carriers” in industry parlance–be forced to abort? So much for “choice.”
And they wanted a refund:
They expected the surrogacy agency to give them a refund and find a solution. That’s when the still-pregnant Pattaramon offered to keep Gammy, Farnell said. “So we were thinking, oh, maybe — maybe — this might be OK,” he said.
When the babies were born, however, the Farnells said they realized they wanted to keep both. But Pattaramon then insisted she be allowed to keep Gammy, and threatened to keep Pipah as well, David Farnell said. The couple believes Pattaramon wanted to keep Gammy because male children are prized in Asian cultures.
From what I have seen, it is because she really loves him and is far from convinced the baby orderers would.
Tellingly, the couple has made zero attempts to be in contact with their son. But they say that as soon as their daughter’s legal status is settled, they’ll go back to Thailand to get custody.
Right. And O.J. will find the real killer.