Abstract
The chapter describes intending parents (IPs) narrative accounts of their experiences of egg donation and surrogacy in India. IPs describe non-technological selection in their narratives of family formation, referred to in this chapter as selective moments. IPs emotional investments in these moments are highlighted in the narratives of selecting gamete donors and surrogate mothers. Drawing on data from two different groups of participants, the chapter examines how selective moments differ for gay men and heterosexual couples. The thread that connects all the instances discussed is the emotion embedded in the selective processes involved in commercial surrogacy as conveyed by AustralianĀ IPs.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anleu, S.R. 1992. Surrogacy: For Love But Not for Money? Gender and Society 6: 30ā48.
Bellware, K. 2014. White Woman Who Sued Sperm Bank Over Black Baby Says Itās Not About Race. The Huffington Post, October 3.
Berkhout, S.G. 2008. Buns in the Oven: Objectification, Surrogacy, and Womenās Autonomy. Social Theory and Practice 34: 95ā117.
Blyth, E., and L. Frith. 2009. Donor-Conceived Peopleās Access to Genetic and Biographical History: An Analysis of Provisions in Different Jurisdictions Permitting Disclosure of Donor Identity. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 23: 174ā191.
Bokek-Cohen, Y.A. 2015. How Do Anonymous Sperm Donors Signal Credibility Through Their Self-Presentations? Health Sociology Review 24: 81ā93.
de Castro, E.V. 2012. The Gift and the Given: Three Nano-Essays on Kinship and Magic. In Kinship and Beyond: The Genealogical Model Reconsidered, ed. S.C. Bamford and J. Leach. New York: Berghan.
Desai, K. 2012. India, a Designer Baby Factory? First Post, Life. Accessed 6 June 2017. http://www.firstpost.com/living/india-a-designer-baby-factory-327471.html
Franklin, S. 2013. Biological Relatives: IVF, Stem Cells, and the Future of Kinship. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Gammeltoft, T.M. 2013. Potentiality and Human Temporality. Current Anthropology 54: S159āS171.
Gammeltoft, T.M., and A. Wahlberg. 2014. Selective Reproductive Technologies. Annual Review of Anthropology 43: 201ā216.
Gell, A. 1988. Technology and Magic. Anthropology Today 4: 6ā9.
Georges, E. 1996. Fetal Ultrasound Imaging and the Production of Authoritative Knowledge in Greece. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 10: 157ā175.
Greenfeld, D.A., and E. Seli. 2011. Gay Men Choosing Parenthood Through Assisted Reproduction: Medical and Psychosocial Considerations. Fertility and Sterility 95: 225ā229.
Gupta, J.A. 2006. Towards Transnational Feminisms: Some Reflections and Concerns in Relation to the Globalization of Reproductive Technologies. European Journal of Womenās Studies 13: 23ā38.
Hill, E. 2010. Worker Identity, Agency and Economic Development, Womens Empowerment in the Indian Informal Economy. London and New York: Routledge.
Inhorn, M.C., and S. Tremayne. 2016. Islam, Assisted Reproduction, and the Bioethical Aftermath. Journal of Religion and Health 55: 422ā430.
Kirkman, L. 2010. The Good Sense About Surrogacy. Viewpoint [Online] 2: 20ā24.
KrolĆøkke, C.H. 2011. Biotourist Performances: Doing Parenting During the Ultrasound. Text and Performance Quarterly 31: 15ā36.
Levine, A.D. 2010. Self-Regulation, Compensation, and the Ethical Recruitment of Oocyte Donors. Hastings Center Report 40: 25ā36.
Marcus, G.E. 1995. Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 95ā117.
Markens, S. 2007. Surrogate Motherhood and the Politics of Reproduction. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and California: University of California Press.
McCandless, J. 2005. Recognition of Family Diversity: The āBoundariesā of RE G. Feminist Legal Studies 13: 323ā336.
McDougall, L. 2014. The Biomagical Vulva: A āClean Slitā. PhD, Macquarie University.
Millbank, J. 2011. The New Surrogacy Parentage Laws in Australia: Cautious Regulation or ā25 Brick Wallsā? Melbourne University Law Review 35: 165.
āāā. 2014. Identity Disclosure and Information Sharing in Donor Conception Regimes: The Unfulfilled Potential of Voluntary Registers. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 28: 223ā256.
Munjal-Shankar, D. 2014. Identifying the āReal Motherā in Commercial Surrogacy in India. Gender, Technology and Development 18: 387ā405.
Norton, W., N. Hudson, and L. Culley. 2013. Gay Men Seeking Surrogacy to Achieve Parenthood. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 27: 271ā279.
Novakovic, B., and R. Saffery. 2012. The Ever Growing Complexity of Placental EpigeneticsāRole in Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes and Fetal Programming. Placenta 33: 959ā970.
Pande, A. 2009. āIt May be Her Eggs But Itās My Bloodā: Surrogates and Everyday Forms of Kinship in India. Qualitative Sociology 32: 379ā405.
Pinborg, A., A. Loft, L.B. Romundstad, U.-B. Wennerholm, V. Sƶderstrƶm-Anttila, C. Bergh, and K. AittomƤki. 2016. Epigenetics and Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 95: 10ā15.
RagonƩ, H. 1994. Surrogate Motherhood: Conceptions of the Heart. Boulder and Oxford: Westview Press.
āāā. 1996. Chasing the Blood Tie: Surrogate Mothers, Adoptive Mothers and Fathers. American Ethnologist 23: 352ā365.
Ravelingien, A., V. Provoost, E. Wyverkens, A. Buysse, P. De Sutter, and G. Pennings. 2015. Lesbian Couplesā Views About and Experiences of Not Being Able to Choose Their Sperm Donor. Culture, Health and Sexuality 17: 592ā606.
Rowland, R. 1992. Living Laboratories: Women and Reproductive Technologies. Sydney: Spinifex Press.
Sifris, A. 2015. The Family Courts and Parentage of Children Conceived Through Overseas Commercial Surrogacy Arrangements: A Child-Centred Approach. Journal of Law and Medicine 23: 396.
Swan, N. 1990. Australian Ethics Committee Approves Surrogacy. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.) 301: 254.
Teman, E. 2010a. Birthing a Mother. The Surrogate Body and the Pregnant Self. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press.
āāā. 2010b. My Bun, Her Oven. Anthropology Now 2: 33ā41.
Whittaker, A. 2015. Thai In Vitro: Gender, Culture and Assisted Reproduction. New York: Berghahn.
Whyte, S., and B. Torgler. 2015. Selection Criteria in the Search for a Sperm Donor: Behavioural Traits Versus Physical Appearance. Journal of Bioeconomics 17: 151ā171.
Whyte, S., B. Torgler, and K.L. Harrison. 2016. What Women Want in Their Sperm Donor: A Study of More than 1000 Womenās Sperm Donor Selections. Economics and Human Biology 23: 1ā9.
Williams-Jones, B. 2002. Commercial Surrogacy and the Redefinition of Motherhood. The Journal of Philosophy, Science and Law 2: 13.
Yovich, J. 1988. IVF Surrogacy and Absent Uterus Syndromes. The Lancet (British Edition) 332: 331ā332.
Zanghellini, A. 2010. Lesbian and Gay Parents and Reproductive Technologies: The 2008 Australian and UK Reforms. Feminist Legal Studies 18: 227ā251.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
Ā© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stockey-Bridge, M. (2018). Technologies of Enchantment: Commercial Surrogacy and Egg Donation in India. In: Wahlberg, A., Gammeltoft, T. (eds) Selective Reproduction in the 21st Century. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58220-7_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58220-7_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-58219-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-58220-7
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)