A Feminist Discourse on Surrogacy: Reproductive Rights and Justice Approach

Chapter

Abstract

Feminists have upheld the inclusion of reproductive rights such as using medical technologies for abortion, contraception and safe childbirth and these efforts need to be celebrated (ICPD Programme of Action in Cairo Egypt: international conference on population and development. United Nations Population Funds, 1994; UNFPA in Investing in people: national progress in implementing the ICPD programme of action 1994–2004. United Nation Population Fund New York, 2004). However, in the last two decades, developments in reproductive technologies and its use for practices such as sex selective abortions and pregnancy contracts has challenged some of the very ideologies that feminism fundamentally represents; equality (Structural inequalities and commodification in the surrogacy markets has been discussed in detail in Chaps.  4 and  5.) (socio-economic, health, legal), liberty (freedom of choice, autonomy) and justice (social and reproductive). Liberals supporting ARTs base their arguments around pro-choice, self-determination over one’s body, liberty of using these technologies as women’s empowerment, and contractual liberty (Inhorn and van Balen in Infertility around the globe: new thinking on childlessness, gender, and reproductive technologies. University of California Press, Berkeley, 2002; Zilberberg in Bioethics 21:517–519, 2007; Becker in The elusive embryo: how women and men approach new reproductive technologies. University of California Press, Berkeley, 2000; Roberts in Race and the new reproduction, 1996; Petchesky in Reprod Health Matters 3(6):152–161, 1995; Kishwar in Reprod Health Matters 1(2):113–115, 1993; Mies in Reprod Genet Eng 1(3):225–237, 1988). Feminists opposing reproductive technologies such as surrogacy are concerned that people, especially women, are becoming mere body parts in the flourishing global markets and that women may feel pressurized to become a part of it (Pfeffer in Reprod Biomed Online 23(5):634–641, 2011; Truong in ISS Working Paper Series/General Series 339:1–30, 2001; Gupta in New reproductive technologies, women’s health and autonomy: freedom or dependency. Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, 2000; Shanley in Signs 18(3):618–639, 1993; Wichterich in The globalized woman: reports from a future of inequality. Spinifex Press, Melbourne, 2000; Roberts in Cyborg babies: from techno-sex to techno-tots. Routledge, New York, 1998; Rothman in Creighton Law Rev 25:1599–1616, 1992; Corea in The mother machine: reproductive technologies from artificial insemination. Harper and Row, New York, 1985), causing commodification, exploitation, alienated labour, and denial of subjectivity (Hassan in WSQ: Women’s Stud Q 38(3):209–228, 2010; Dickenson in Property in the body: feminist perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007; Scheper-Hughes in Curr Anthropol 41(2):191–224, 2000; Sharp in Ann Rev Anthropol 1:287–328, 2000; Kimbrell in The human body shop the engineering and marketing of life, 1993; Swazey in Spare parts: organ replacement in American Society. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992; Raymond in Hastings Cent Rep 20(6):7–11, 1990). Scholars, activists, and some lawyers have questioned the individual reproductive rights approach in that it overlooks inequalities from a feminist social justice perspective (Donchin in Bioethics 24(7):323–332, 2010; Callahan and Roberts in A feminist social justice approach to reproduction-assisting technologies: a case study on the limits of liberal theory, 1996). This chapter reviews and critiques the liberal feminist approach of reproductive rights, drawing primarily on a reproductive justice framework.

Keywords

Reproductive and contractual rights Agency Alienation Altruistic surrogacy Embodiment Social stereotypes Infertility Stratified reproduction Surrogacy as work 

References

  1. ACRJ. 2005. A new vision for advancing our movement for reproductive health, reproductive rights and reproductive justice. Oakland, CA: Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice, Website.Google Scholar
  2. Agamben, G. 1998. Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Translated by D. Heller-Roazen. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alcoff, L. 2006. Visible identities: Race, gender, and the self. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, Elizabeth S. 1990. Is women’s labor a commodity? Philosophy & Public Affairs 19 (1): 71–92.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, Elizabeth S. 2000. Why commercial surrogate motherhood unethically commodifies women and children: Reply to McLachlan and Swales. Health Care Analysis 8: 19–26.Google Scholar
  6. Andrews, Lori. B. 1986. The stork market: The law of the new reproduction …the baby selling laws. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 20: 1–53.Google Scholar
  7. Andrews, Lori. 1989. Between strangers: Surrogate mothers, expectant fathers, and brave new babies. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  8. Appadurai, A. 1986. The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Arlamovsky, Maria. 2016. ‘Future baby’, NGF-Nikolaus Geyrhalter Filmproduktion.Google Scholar
  10. Arneson, Richard J. 1992. Commodification and commercial surrogacy. Philosophy and Public Affairs 21 (2): 132–16.Google Scholar
  11. Atwood, Margaret. 1985. The handmaid’s tale. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.Google Scholar
  12. Bailey, Alison. 2011. Reconceiving surrogacy: Toward a reproductive justice account of Indian surrogacy. Hypatia 26: 715–741.Google Scholar
  13. Baker, Brenda M. 1996. A case for permitting altruistic surrogacy. Hypatia 11: 34–48.Google Scholar
  14. Banerjee, Amrita. 2011. Re-conceiving “borders”: A feminist pragmatic phenomenology for postcolonial feminist ethics and politics. A dissertation Presented to the Department of Philosophy and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  15. Becker, G. 2000. The elusive embryo: How women and men approach new reproductive technologies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bentham, Jeremy. 1982. Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  17. Berend, Zsuzsa. 2010. Surrogate losses: Understandings of pregnancy loss and assisted reproduction among contract mothers. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 24: 240–262.Google Scholar
  18. Berkhout, Suze G. 2008. Buns in an oven: Objectification, surrogacy and women’s autonomy. Social Theory and Practice 34: 95–117.Google Scholar
  19. Bharadwaj, A. 2016. Conceptions: Infertility and procreative technologies in India. New York, Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  20. Blyth, E. 1994. I wanted to be interesting. I wanted to be able to say ‘I’ve done something interesting with my life: Interviews with SMs in Britain. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 12 (3): 189–198.Google Scholar
  21. Bordo, S. 1993. Unbearable weight: Feminism, western culture and the body. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. Brähler, E., and Y. Stöbel-Richter. 2002. Soziologische, epidemiologische und politische Aspekte der Reproduktionsmedizin. In Vom Stammbaum zur Stammzelle. Reproduktionsmedizin, Pränataldiagnostik und menschlicher Rohstoff (S. 97-110), ed. E. Brähler, Y. Stöbel-Richter und U. Hauffe. Gießen: Psychosozial-Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. Callahan, Joan C., and Dorothy E. Roberts. 1996. A feminist social justice approach to reproduction-assisting technologies: A case study on the limits of liberal theory. Faculty Scholarship, Paper 1155.Google Scholar
  24. Carmeli, Yoram S., and Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli. 1994. The predicament of masculinity: Towards understanding the male’s experience of infertility treatment. Sex Roles 30 (9–10): 663–677.Google Scholar
  25. Cho, Sumi, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, and Leslie McCall. 2013. Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs 38 (4): 785–810.Google Scholar
  26. Chrisler, Joan C. 2013. Introduction: A global approach to reproductive justice psychosocial and legal aspects and implications. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law 20: 1–25.Google Scholar
  27. Colen, S. 1995. Like a mother to them: Stratified reproduction and West Indian childcare workers and employers in New York. In Conceiving the new world order: The global politics of reproduction, ed. F. Ginsburg and R. Rapp, 78–102. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. Corea, Gena. 1985. The mother machine: Reproductive technologies from artificial insemination to artificial wombs. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  29. Cornell, Drucilla. 1998. At the heart of freedom: Feminism, sex, and equality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–1299.Google Scholar
  31. DasGupta, Sayantani, and Shamita Das DasGupta. 2014. Globalization and transnational surrogacy in India: Outsourcing life. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  32. Dawe, Gavin S., W. Tan Xiao, and Xiao Zhi-Cheng. 2007. Cell migration from baby to mother. Cell Adhesion and Migration 1: 19–27.Google Scholar
  33. Deomampo, Daisy. 2013. Gendered geographies of reproductive tourism. Gender & Society 27: 514–537.Google Scholar
  34. Dickenson, Donna. 2007. Property in the body: Feminist perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Donchin, A. 1996. Feminist critiques of new fertility technologies: Implications for social policy. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 21 (5): 475–498.Google Scholar
  36. Donchin, A. 2010. Reproductive tourism and the quest for global gender justice. Bioethics 24 (7): 323–332.Google Scholar
  37. Douglas, M. 1970. Natural symbols: Explorations in cosmology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Dube, L. 1998. On the construction of gender: Hindu girls in patrilineal India. In Socialization, education and Women: Explorations in gender identity, ed. K. Chanana, 168–192. New Delhi: Orient Longman.Google Scholar
  39. Dworkin, Andrea. 1983. Right-wing women. New York: Perigee Books.Google Scholar
  40. Ehrich, K., and C. Williams. 2010. A ‘healthy baby’: The double imperative of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Health 14: 41–56.Google Scholar
  41. Finley, Nancy J. 1989. Theories of family labor as applied to gender differences in caregiving for elderly parents. Journal of Marriage and Family 51 (1): 79–86.Google Scholar
  42. Foucault, M. 1997. Ethics, subjectivity and truth: The essential works of Foucault, ed. Paul Rabinow. Translated by Robert Hurley and others.Google Scholar
  43. Franklin, S., and C. Roberts. 2006. Born and made: An ethnography of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. New Jersey, Oxfordshire: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Fulfer, Katy. 2017. Cross-border reproductive travel, neocolonialism, and Canadian policy. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 10 (1): 225–247.Google Scholar
  45. Ginsburg, F., and R. Rapp. 1995. Conceiving the new world order: The global politics of reproduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  46. Greil, A.L. 1991. Not yet pregnant: Infertile couples in contemporary America. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Greil, A.L., K. Slauson-Blevins, and J. McQuillan. 2010. The experience of infertility: A review of recent literature. Sociology of Health & Illness 32: 140–162.Google Scholar
  48. Greil, A.L., J. McQuillan, M. Lowry, and K.M. Shreffler. 2011a. Infertility treatment and fertility-specific distress: A longitudinal analysis of a population-based sample of U.S. women. Social Science and Medicine 73 (1): 87–94.Google Scholar
  49. Greil, Arthur, Julia McQuillan, and Kathleen Slauson-Blevins. 2011b. The social construction of infertility. Sociology Compass 5 (8): 736–746.Google Scholar
  50. Gupta, J.A. 2000. New reproductive technologies, women’s health and autonomy: Freedom or dependency. New Delhi: Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  51. Gupta, R., S. Sankhe, R. Dobbs, J. Woetzel, A. Madgavkar, and A. Hasyagar. 2014. From poverty to empowerment: India’s imperative for jobs, growth and effective basic services. Mumbai: McKinsey Global Institute.Google Scholar
  52. Gutmann, M.C. 2007. Fixing men: Sex, birth control, and AIDS in Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  53. Harrison, Laura. 2016. Brown bodies, white babies: The politics of cross-racial surrogacy. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Hassan, N. 2010. Milk markets: Technology, the lactating body, and new forms of consumption. WSQ: Women’s Studies Quarterly 38 (3): 209–228.Google Scholar
  55. Held, Virginia. 1987. Non-contractual society: A feminist view. In Science, morality, and feminist theory, ed. M.P. Hanen and K. Nielsen. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
  56. Hill, John Lawrence. 1990. The case for enforcement of the surrogate contract. Politics and the Life Sciences 8 (2): 147–160.Google Scholar
  57. Hochschild, A. R. 2004. The commodity frontier. In Self, social structure and beliefs: Essays in sociology, ed. J. Alexander, G. Marx, and C. Williams. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  58. Hochschild, Arlie. 2011. Emotional life on the market frontier. The Annual Review of Sociology 37: 21–33.Google Scholar
  59. ICPD Programme of Action. 1994. Cairo, Egypt: International Conference on Population and Development. United Nations Population Funds.Google Scholar
  60. Ikemoto, Lisa C. 2015. Egg freezing, stratified reproduction and the logic of not. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 1 (4): 112–117.Google Scholar
  61. ILO. 2012. Statistical update on employment in the informal economy ILO. Department of Statistics. http://laborsta.ilo.org/applv8/data/INFORMAL_ECONOMY/2012-06-Statistical%20update%20-%20v2.pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2017.
  62. Inhorn, Marcia C. 2002. Sexuality, masculinity, and infertility in Egypt: Potent troubles in the marital and medical encounters. The Journal of Men’s Studies 10: 343–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Inhorn, Marcia C. 2009. Right to assisted reproductive technology: Overcoming infertility in low-resource countries. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 106: 172–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Inhorn, M., and P. Patrizio. 2012. The global landscape of cross-border reproductive care: Twenty key findings for the new millennium. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 24: 158–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Inhorn, Marcia C., and Frank van Balen. 2002. Infertility around the globe: New thinking on childlessness, gender, and reproductive technologies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  66. Jaggar, A.M., and P.R. Struhl. 1978. Feminist frameworks: Alternative theoretical accounts of the relations between women and men. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  67. Johnson, Katherine M., and Jasmine Fledderjohann. 2012. Revisiting “her” infertility: Medicalized embodiment, self-identification and distress. Social Science and Medicine 75 (5): 883–891.Google Scholar
  68. Katz, Avi. 1986. Contract motherhood and the baby-selling laws. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 20: 1–53.Google Scholar
  69. Khetarpal, Abha, and Satendra Singh. 2012. Infertility: Why can’t we classify this inability as disability? Australasian Medical Journal 5 (6): 334–339.Google Scholar
  70. Kimbrell, A. 1993. The human body shop the engineering and marketing of life.Google Scholar
  71. Kishwar, M. 1993. Abortion of female fetuses: Is legislation the answer? Reproductive Health Matters 1 (2): 113–115.Google Scholar
  72. Klein, Renate. 2017. Surrogacy: A human rights violation. Melbourne: Spinifex Press.Google Scholar
  73. Krones, T., and G. Richter. 2004. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD): European perspectives and the German situation. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29: 623–640.Google Scholar
  74. Kuchroo, Sakshi. 2016. Banning commercial surrogacy is the only way forward: Professor Mohan Rao of Jawaharlal Nehru University talks about the pros and cons of the surrogacy bill. Governance Now 7 (16): 38–39.Google Scholar
  75. Lamont, M’le, S. Pendergrass, and M. Pachucki. 2015. Symbolic boundaries. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences 23: 850–55.Google Scholar
  76. Letherby, Gayle. 2002. Challenging dominant discourses: Identity and change and the experience of ‘infertility’ and ‘involuntary childlessness’. Journal of Gender Studies 11 (3).Google Scholar
  77. Littleton, Christine A. 1987. Reconstructing sexual equality. California Law Review 1279. http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol75/iss4/2. Accessed 15 Aug 2017.
  78. Luna, Zakiya, and Kristin Luker. 2013. Reproductive justice. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 9: 327–352.Google Scholar
  79. MacKinnon, Catharine A. 2011. Trafficking, prostitution, and inequality. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 46: 271–309.Google Scholar
  80. Majumdar, Anindita. 2014. The rhetoric of choice: The feminist debates on reproductive choice in the commercial surrogacy arrangement in India. Gender, Technology and Development 18 (2): 275–301.Google Scholar
  81. Mauss, M. 1985. A category of the human mind: The notion of the person; the notion of the self. The category of the person 1–25.Google Scholar
  82. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1995 (1945). Phenomenology of perception. Translated by Colin Smith. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  83. Miall, Charlene E. 1986. The stigma of involuntary childlessness. Social Problems 33 (4): 268–282.Google Scholar
  84. Mies, M. 1988. From the individual to the dividual: In the supermarket of “reproductive alternatives”. Reproductive and Genetic Engineering 1 (3): 225–237.Google Scholar
  85. Mill, J.H. 1989. Chapter on socialism. In On liberty and other writings, ed. Stefan Collini. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Mishra, K., and A. Dubey. 2014. Indian women’s perspectives on reproduction and childlessness: Narrative analysis. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 4.Google Scholar
  87. Mistry, R., O. Galal, and M. Lu. 2009. Women’s autonomy and pregnancy care in rural India: A contextual analysis. Social Science and Medicine 69 (6): 926–933.Google Scholar
  88. Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 2003. Under western eyes” revisited: Feminist solidarity through anticapitalist struggles. Signs 28 (2): 499–535.Google Scholar
  89. Mohapatra, Seema. 2012. Achieving reproductive justice in the international surrogacy market. Annals of Health Law 21 (1): 191–200.Google Scholar
  90. Morgan, R. (1996). Sisterhood is global. New York: Feminist Press.Google Scholar
  91. Morgan, Robin. 2003. Sisterhood is forever: The women’s anthology for a new millennium. New York: Washington Square Press.Google Scholar
  92. Nahar, P., and A. Richters. 2011. Suffering of childless women in Bangladesh: The intersection of social identities of gender and class. Anthropology and Medicine 18 (3): 327–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. NDTV. 2015. We the people—The surrogacy debate; of motherhood or money? YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OlBHVKZzjg. Accessed 14th Aug 2017.
  94. NSSO. 2012. Informal sector and conditions of employment in India NSS 66th ROUND (July 2009–June 2010). National Sample Survey Office National Statistical Organisation Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation Government of India.Google Scholar
  95. NSSO. 2013. Key indicators of employment and unemployment in India. New Delhi: The National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.Google Scholar
  96. Padmanabhan, Anil. 2016. Formalizing India’s informal economy. Live Mint. http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/4kxau3CejBat9uAIEakIKK/Formalizing-Indias-informal-economy.html. Accessed 15 Aug 2017.
  97. Pande, A. 2010. Commercial surrogacy in India: Manufacturing a perfect mother-worker. Signs 35: 969–992.Google Scholar
  98. Pande, A. 2014. Wombs in labor: Transnational commercial surrogacy in India. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Pateman, Carole. 1988. The sexual contract. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Petchesky, Rosalind Pollack. 1995. From population control to reproductive rights: Feminist fault lines. Reproductive Health Matters 3 (6): 152–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Pfeffer, N. 2011. Eggs-ploiting women: A critical feminist analysis of the different principles in transplant and fertility tourism. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 23 (5): 634–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Philip, C.M. 2017. Aadhar helps railways trace parents of trafficked kids. Bangaluru: The Times of India, 8th November.Google Scholar
  103. Pujari, S., and S. Unisa. 2014. Failing fatherhood: A study of childless men in rural Andhra Pradesh. Sociological Bulletin 63: 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Radin, M.J. 1995. What, if anything, is wrong with baby selling? Pacific Law Journal.Google Scholar
  105. Rapp, Rayna. 1999. Testing women, testing the fetus: The social impact of amniocentesis in America, 368. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  106. Raymond, Janice G. 1990. Reproductive gifts and gift giving: The altruistic woman. Hastings Center Report 20 (6): 7–11.Google Scholar
  107. Raymond, J.G. 1993. Women as wombs: Reproductive technologies and the battle over women’s freedom. San Francisco: Harper.Google Scholar
  108. Reddy, Sunita, and Tulsi Patel. 2015. There are many eggs in my body: Medical markets and commodified bodies in India. Global Bioethics 26 (3–4): 218–231.Google Scholar
  109. Riessman, C. 2000. Stigma and everyday resistance practices, childless women in South India. Gender Society 14: 111–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Roberts, E.F. 1998. “Native” narratives of connectedness: Surrogate motherhood and technology. In Cyborg babies: From techno-sex to techno-tots, ed. R. Davis-Floyd and J. Dumit, 193–211. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  111. Roberts, Dorothy E. 1996. Race and the new reproduction. Faculty Scholarship. Paper 1154.Google Scholar
  112. Robertson, John A. 1983. Procreative liberty and the control of conception, pregnancy, and childbirth. Virginia Law Review 69 (3): 405–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Robertson, John A. 1986. Embryos, families, and procreative liberty: The legal structure of the new reproduction. Southern California Law Review 59: 939–1041.Google Scholar
  114. Rose, Nikolas. 2001. The politics of life itself. Theory, Culture and Society 18 (6): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Rotabi, K.S., N.F. Bromfield, and P. Fronek. 2015. International private law to regulate commercial global surrogacy practices: Just what are social work’s practical policy recommendations? International Social Work.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872814564706.Google Scholar
  116. Rothenberg, K.H. 1996. Feminism, law, and bioethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 6 (1): 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Rothman, Barbara Katz. 1992. Reproductive technologies and surrogacy: A feminist perspective. Creighton Law Review 25: 1599–1616.Google Scholar
  118. Roy, S. 2015. Trafficked tribal girls forced to conceive, deliver babies for sale. New Delhi: Hindustan Times: 25th Feb.Google Scholar
  119. Rudrappa, S., and C. Collins. 2015. Altruistic agencies and compassionate consumers: Moral framing of transnational surrogacy. Gender & Society 29: 937–959.Google Scholar
  120. Ryan, Maura A. 1990. The argument for unlimited procreative liberty: A feminist critique. Hastings Center Report 20: 6–12.Google Scholar
  121. SAMA. 2012. Birthing a market: A study on commercial surrogacy. New Delhi: SAMA-resource group for women and health.Google Scholar
  122. Sandelowski, M. 1991. Compelled to try: The never-enough quality of conceptive technology. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 5: 29–47.Google Scholar
  123. Sandelowski, Margarete, Diane Holditch-Davis, and Betty G. Harris. 1990. Living the life: Explanations of infertility. Sociology of Health & Illness 12 (2): 195–215.Google Scholar
  124. Saravanan, S. 2010. Transnational surrogacy and objectification of gestational mothers. Economic and Political Weekly 45: 26–29.Google Scholar
  125. Saravanan, S., and R.R. Ranadive. 2010. Mother anonymous (Documentary). India: Frame of Mind Communications Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai and Asia and Europe in a Global Context, University of Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
  126. Saravanan, S. 2013. An ethnomethodological approach to examine exploitation in the context of capacity, trust and experience of commercial surrogacy in India. Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine 8: 10.Google Scholar
  127. Saravanan, S. 2015. Global justice, capabilities approach and commercial surrogacy in India. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 18: 295–307.Google Scholar
  128. Saravanan, S. 2016. ‘Humanitarian’ thresholds of the fundamental feminist ideologies: Evidence from surrogacy arrangements in India. Analize: Journal of Gender and Feminist Studies 6: 66–88.Google Scholar
  129. Saravanan, S. 2017. When doctors rock the cradle. Governance Now 8: 56–58.Google Scholar
  130. Sayeed, U. 1999. Childlessness in Andhra Pradesh, India: Treatment seeking and consequences. Reproductive Health Matters 7 (13): 54–64.Google Scholar
  131. Scheman, Naomi. 1983. Individualism and the objects of psychology. Discovering Reality 161: 225–244.Google Scholar
  132. Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. 2000. The global traffic in human organs. Current Anthropology 41 (2): 191–224.Google Scholar
  133. Scheper-Hughes, N., and M. Lock. 1987. The mindful body: A prolegomenon to future work in medical anthropology. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 1: 6–41.Google Scholar
  134. Schick, M., S. Rösner, B. Toth, T. Strowitzki, and T. Wischmann. 2016. Exploring involuntary childlessness in men—A qualitative study assessing quality of life, role aspects and control beliefs in men’s perception of the fertility treatment process. Human Fertility 19 (1): 32–42.Google Scholar
  135. Schroeder, P. 1988. Infertility and the world outside. Fertility and Sterility 49: 765–767.Google Scholar
  136. Senarath, U., and N.S. Gunawardena. 2009. Women’s autonomy in decision making for health care in South Asia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health 21 (2): 137–143.Google Scholar
  137. Shalev, Carmel. 1989. Birth power: The case for surrogacy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  138. Shalev, C. 1998. Halakha and patriarchal motherhood - An anatomy of the new Israeli Surrogacy Law. 32. Israeli Law Review: 51.Google Scholar
  139. Shanley, Mary Lyndon. 1993. “Surrogate mothering” and women’s freedom: A critique of contracts for human reproduction. Signs 18 (3): 618–639.Google Scholar
  140. Sharp, L.A. 2000. The commodification of the body and its parts. Annual Review of Anthropology 1: 287–328.Google Scholar
  141. Shultz, Marjorie M. 1990. Reproductive technology and intention-based parenthood: An opportunity for gender neutrality. Wisconsin Law Review 297–398.Google Scholar
  142. Sloan, C., B. Gough, and M. Conner. 2010. Healthy masculinities? How ostensibly healthy men talk about lifestyle, health and gender. Psychology and Health 25: 783–803.Google Scholar
  143. Stöbel-Richter, Y., M.E. Beutel, C. Finck, and E. Brähler. 2005. The ‘wish to have a child’, childlessness and infertility in Germany. Human Reproduction 20: 2850–2857.Google Scholar
  144. Subedi, Madhusudan. 2015. Contractual transaction: How renting a uterus makes the human body a commodity in Nepal. Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology 9: 1–25.Google Scholar
  145. Swazey, J.P. 1992. Spare parts: Organ replacement in American Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  146. Teman, Elly. 2009. Embodying contract motherhood: Pregnancy as a dyadic body-project. Body & Society 15: 47–69.Google Scholar
  147. Teman, Elly. 2010. Birthing a mother: The surrogate body and the pregnant self. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  148. Thompson, Hazel. 2013. Horrors of India’s brothels documented. British Broad Casting. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-24530198. Accessed 15 Aug 2017.
  149. Tieu, Mathew M. 2009. Altruistic surrogacy: The necessary objectification of contract mothers. Journal of Medical Ethics 35: 171–175.Google Scholar
  150. Tong, Rosemarie. 2009. Feminist thought: A more comprehensive introduction. Colarado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  151. Truong, T.D. 2001. Human trafficking and organised crime. ISS Working Paper Series/General Series 339:1–30.Google Scholar
  152. UNFPA. 2004. Investing in people: National progress in implementing the ICPD programme of action 1994–2004. United Nation Population Fund New York.Google Scholar
  153. Unisa, S. 1999. Childlessness in Andhra Pradesh, India: Treatment-seeking and consequences. Reproductive Health Matters 7: 54–64.Google Scholar
  154. Van Balen, F., and H.M.W. Bos. 2009. The social and cultural consequences of being childless in poor-resource areas. Facts, Views & Vision in ObGyn 1 (2): 106–121.Google Scholar
  155. Van Niekerk, Anton and Liezl Van Zyl. 1995. The Ethics of surrogacy: Women’s reproductive labour. Journal of Medical Ethics 21: 345–349.Google Scholar
  156. Vora, Kalindi. 2009. Indian transnational surrogacy and the commodification of vital energy. Subjectivities. 28 (1): 266–278.Google Scholar
  157. Vora, Kalindi. 2013. Potential, risk and return in transnational Indian gestational surrogacy. Current Anthropology 54: S97–S106.Google Scholar
  158. Vora, Kalindi. 2010. Medicine, markets and the pregnant body: Indian commercial surrogacy and reproductive labor in a transnational frame. Scholar & FeministOnline 9(1/2).Google Scholar
  159. Wendell, Susan. 1987. A (qualified) defense of liberal feminism. Hypatia 2 (2): 65–93.Google Scholar
  160. Whiteford, L.M., and L. Gonzalez. 1995. Stigma: The hidden burden of infertility. Social Science and Medicine 40: 27–36.Google Scholar
  161. Whittaker, Andrea M. 2011. Reproduction opportunists in the new global sex trade: PGD and non-medical sex selection. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 23: 609–617.Google Scholar
  162. Wichterich, C. 2000. The globalized woman: Reports from a future of inequality. North Melbourne: Spinifex Press.Google Scholar
  163. Widdows, Heather. 2009. Border disputes across bodies: Exploitation in trafficking for prostitution and egg sale for stem cell research. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2 (1): 5–24.Google Scholar
  164. Widge, A. 2002. Sociocultural attitudes towards infertility and assisted reproduction in India. Current Practices and Controversies in Assisted Reproduction 60–74.Google Scholar
  165. Williams, Wendy Webster. 1982. The equality crisis: Some reflections on culture, courts, and feminism. Women’s Rights Law Report 7: 175.Google Scholar
  166. Wirtberg, I., A. Möller, L. Hogström, S.E. Tronstad, and A. Lalos. 2007. Life 20 years after unsuccessful infertility treatment. Human Reproduction 22: 598–604.Google Scholar
  167. Wischmann, T., and P. Thorn. 2013. (Male) infertility: What does it mean to men? New evidence from quantitative and qualitative studies. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 27: 236–243.Google Scholar
  168. Young, Iris Marion. 2005. On female body experience “throwing like a girl” and other essays. Feminism & Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1093/0195161920.003.0001.
  169. Zilberberg, J. 2007. Sex selection and restricting abortion and sex determination. Bioethics 21: 517–519.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anthropology, South Asia InstituteHeidelberg UniversityHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations