As our own species is in the process of proving, one cannot have superior science and inferior morals. The combination is unstable and self-destroying.
Arthur C Clarke
Propagation is the nature of all living organisms. Starting from the microscopic unicellular organisms, to us humans, none are beyond the urge to propagate. Whatever ways we humans want to see ourselves in a different light, we are nothing but like any other living being, governed by the primordial urge to propagate ourselves through reproduction.
But we have walked a long way from nature while becoming civilized. Yet, the basic urge to propagate has not diminished a little bit. It has been masked, though, with the social norms that civilization demands.
We have become civilized. At least, that is what we consider ourselves to be. So we are no longer satisfied just with propagation. For us, bequeathing our worldly possession to our biological offspring is as important as propagation. We covet biological offspring so that we can leave behind our properties and possessions, amassed over a lifetime, to them.
Ownership of the womb
It all started with the concept of private ownership of property. If a man owns some property, he must ensure that his property goes to his heirs, preferably his biological heirs. Hence, it became imperative to ascertain the father of the child for inheritance.
Hence, the institution of marriage - one of the earliest social institutions to survive the ravages of time. The concept of marriage gives the ownership of the woman’s womb to the man and thus subjugates the woman with social bondage. This ensures that the offspring that the woman gives birth to is only her husband’s and no one else’s. And in turn, the husband bequeaths all his properties to that biological offspring.
During pre-history, when the institution of marriage was not that entrenched in society, young, healthy girls of breed-able age visited young, strong, and powerful males to have offspring by them. It was the girl’s prerogative to decide who would help her to give birth to her offspring. She was the owner of her womb, not the man who became the father of her offspring.
The concept of offspring beyond marriage bed was, even, a part of Vedic culture. The children born out of wedlock were recognized and assimilated into society without much ado. Even in our popular epic Mahabharat, we find all the five Pandav brothers were not the biological offspring of their father, Pandu. In those days, if the husband of the woman was unable to beget offspring by his wife, it was perfectly acceptable for the wife to have children by other men. And the husband had no qualms to recognize that child as his son and bestow his property to that child.
Begetting offspring outside the marriage was not frowned upon in European societies as well. In Europe, we find children out of wedlock were not uncommon and accepted in society. Kings had sons out of marriage bed. Even quite a few Popes had sons without much social outrage. And society had no issues with those sons, born outside marriage, inheriting kingdoms, Popehood and of course property.
Similarly, adopting a child, though not a common phenomenon across ages and societies, was also a practice to bestow property rights to a legal heir. The practice of adaptation is as old as the civilization for childless parents.
As norms of society became rigid and the dictum of inheritance became narrow, men wanted to have their genetic imprint on their next generation to whom they could pass on their inheritance. Adopting a child, which was a norm for a long time, though not very popular, became passé. At the same time, having children outside the marriage was severely ostracized.
Science to the rescue
Developing science since the late twentieth century has given a vastly different opportunity. Although adoption could be a natural process for families to bequeath inheritance, ever-developing science offered something more to satisfy man’s convoluted egos.
The other day I met a lady who is a veterinary professional. But more than being a veterinary surgeon, her expertise is in an interesting field. Her expertise is in horse breeding. She breeds horses through artificial insemination. But artificial insemination is not the end of the story. She happens to be an expert in horse breeding through surrogacy.
It is a very complex and highly technical process that requires a high level of expertise and skill. A mare is impregnated with the sperm of a horse by artificial insemination. After the mare conceives, the newly formed embryo is removed from the mare and implanted into the uterus of another healthy mare of breed-able age. The embryo develops into a foetus, and finally, the surrogate mare gives birth to the foal.
This process is, though, highly technical yet medically safe. The horse breeders and sometimes cattle breeders use this technique predominantly for two reasons.
First, this system ensures that the original mare is not affected by the complications of pregnancy. The childbearing process of mammals is fraught with pitfalls for the mother. The process always changes the physical prowess of the mother considerably. And a mare is no exception. Childbearing affects the winning chances of the mare during the race. With the process of artificial insemination and surrogacy, the owner of the prize-winning mare ensures that her winning chances in the racecourse are the least affected.
Second, by this method, the horse breeder can produce offspring that carry the genetic imprint of the parents, in this case, the ability to win races. Foals of award-winning parents are assets that fetch a high price in the racing fields.
This system ensures that the mare is least involved in the childbearing process, thus keeping it free to run races and win prizes.
Human surrogacy - a moral dilemma
Human surrogacy follows the same technique. The process that is used to get offspring for animals is used on humans as well. Scientifically it is possible, and a safe method as well.
Human surrogacy is becoming popular among the rich and the mighty. But despite being scientifically possible, is it morally, correct?
The other day I happened to see a Hindi movie named Mimi1. It is a typical Hindi slapstick comedy, with all the common cliché, to tickle one to lough.
A nubile and ambitious girl, Mimi, needs a lot of money to go to Mumbai to pursue her dreams to become a movie star. She landed up becoming a surrogate mother to earn the money required to fulfill her dreams. Before the delivery of the baby, the biological parents backtrack.
Mimi decides to carry on with the full term and gives birth to the baby. The baby grows up to be a lovable kid. In the meantime, the biological parents realize their mistake and want the baby back. But now, Mimi and her family have grown attached to the child, and do not want to give him away. And, the movie revolves around the legal issue of human surrogacy.
The film, Mimi, failed to address the issues of human surrogacy in totality. The film missed the opportunity to initiate a very important debate. Is human surrogacy morally, correct? By shifting the focus from moral to legal, we are rendering human surrogacy as acceptable.
The way horse breeders, with the help of science, produce offspring ensuring a particular trait, we will now use surrogacy to get a particular trait in our offspring.
Why do humans require surrogacy as an option to become parents? Why is there so much emphasis on biological parenthood? Is it the male ego that compels one to hire the womb of the woman to produce offspring for him without any social commitment towards her? Why at all go for a complicated process when so many unwanted, unloved, and abandoned babies are crying for a loving family? Just because science empowers us to do something, shall we do it without thinking of the consequences?
We get to hear that a few of our hallowed Bollywood stars have produced offspring through the surrogacy process. Why do they take the route of surrogacy instead of adopting a needy child and giving it a home?
As per a UNICEF study, there are 153 million orphans worldwide, and out of those 15.1 million children have lost both parents. Why does a man, willing to be a father, want to take the option of surrogacy and not an adaption?
A woman’s predicament
You will be surprised to know that India is one of the few countries in the world that still allows commercial surrogacy. And more shocking is, it is allowed in India without any legal basis.2 The fallout? There is a regular stream of foreigners who come to India as surrogacy tourists.
Usually, the women take the brunt of the situation when it comes to surrogacy. Women’s wombs are being traded to satisfy the ego of the wealthy. The women decide to become surrogate mothers mostly for financial reasons. As surrogacy is not allowed in most of the developed countries in the global north, childless men come to India to have babies through surrogacy.
But holding the women responsible for becoming surrogate mothers will be unfair to the women. It is the men who should bear the moral burden in this case. When a simple adoption can solve the problem of childlessness in most households, what convoluted ego forces men to buy a woman’s womb?
When would men realize that fatherhood springs from the heart and not from the seed?
As Arthur C Clarke, the famous science fiction author suggested above, the advancement of science gives us a plethora of possibilities. We need to show prudence while choosing our options and go beyond our whims to decide what is suitable for us in the long run. High scientific achievements must be matched with a higher moral standard. Otherwise, this will be like giving an AK-47 in the hands of a wild monkey.
Mimi is a remake of the Marathi movie, Mala Aai Vhaychay (I want to be a mother). Samruddhi Porey made the Maratha movie, for which she got seven state and two national awards. Laxman Utekar directed the film, Mimi.
Why human surrogacy is more a moral issue than a legal issue