The Parent Makers … Orrrrr … The Handmaid’s Tale Redux

The Parent Makers … Orrrrr … The Handmaid’s Tale Redux July 17, 2014

Did I say that the media promotes the creation/selling/buying of babies?

Did I say that the media is misogynist and makes light of the exploitation and degradation of women committed by commercialized medicine?

I linked to a number of examples of media propaganda for this brutal, dehumanizing exploitation of women and girls; this barbaric practice of creating/selling/buying people. But, as so often happens, I was aiming a bit too high on the food chain. I didn’t know about The Parent Makers.

This show is about an American organization called the British Surrogacy Center. The British Surrogacy Center is in California. So don’t let the accent fool you, this is the good ole USA, the Wild West of reproductive technology.

We are the big dogs in the baby creating/selling/buying junkyard. No one can compete with us in terms of reducing women, babies and human beings to the level of objects. We’ve got the market cornered on medicine’s inhumanity to women and children.

The Parent Makers is trash.

It is, however, highly-publicized trash.

The Parent Makers gets lots of hits on Google:

And it has it’s own equally trashy Twitter account:

It even has promos on YouTube.

Watch the video below and then ask yourself one question: Do you want your daughter used as a breeder for these guys? Do you want your grandchildren or your children created like widgets in a factory and then sold to the highest bidder?

If you don’t, you’d better start speaking out.

This is the world of the for-real Handmaid’s Tale.

And it ain’t pretty.

Public Catholic reader Caroline Farrow brought this story to my attention. Thank you Caroline!

"I didn't state that very well, sorry. Nothing wrong with the link, I just couldn't ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"You don't remember Lyndon Johnson doing any such thing because he didn't do any such ..."

Dr Christine Ford in Hiding Because ..."
"I haven't had the opportunity to read the FBI investigation. I'm not in the habit ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"Was there something wrong with the link?"

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."

Browse Our Archives

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

22 responses to “The Parent Makers … Orrrrr … The Handmaid’s Tale Redux”

  1. One of the more absurd things about such “baby making” is that it requires two women, not one-an egg donor and a surrogate.

    Why can’t the surrogate use her own eggs? It would be easier, cheaper, safer and far less invasive. Pregnancy would involve simple artificial insemination instead of egg harvesting and IVF.

    The reason why the surrogate can’t use her own eggs is that the surrogate then becomes the mother and you can’t have a contract to sell your own child. The absurd part is if you split the “mother” into two different women, you can. Society naturally recoils in horror at a contract to sell your child, yet has absolutely no problem with women risking their health to get around this taboo.

  2. And, just popping up today… another little problem with turning little human beings into objects you can arrange to buy, thru technically “non-purchasing” legal arrangements:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/07/09/The-View-Host-Rejects-Unborn-IVF-Baby-Experts-Respond

    Reminds me of another celeb couple that split, two gay guys, who had had twins via surrogate, one biologically the product of each man. They split up and each took “their” child with them, to opposite coasts, severing the twins from each other after being gestated together and spending their first (I think it was like a) year or so together. After all, they figured, they weren’t “really” siblings. Yep. Brave new world, indeed. :-/

  3. I felt ill when I heard the one guy (the “father”?) announce that he payed for a gorgeous, designer child with straight hair– the mind set behind it is beyond sickening. Children are NOT a consumer good that one can tailor to suit the aesthetic one desires. How long before a parent can “return” a kid that isn’t what they wanted– like one can return a car or a purse?

  4. Interesting. This is a far different type of “reality” show than all the other ridiculous “reality” shows that I do not watch. I would suspect this will run its’ course too. That doesn’t mean that the process won’t continue, but hopefully not in reality show form. Keary M. asked below if someone might return a child. That has already happened, according to the news anyhow, that a couple of children adopted from Russia were sent back—a good while ago as Russia has stopped allowing folks from the USA from adopting Russian children. Those were not designer children, those innocents that didn’t turn out as the “parents” thought they should. I would hope if folks go to all this trouble, they would at least raise the child with love and care. Money shouldn’t be involved if a surrogate is used. As for “selling” one’s eggs? Men sell their sperm—-and have forever. Perhaps a woman should be able to do the same with her eggs. I’m a bit torn on that. Of course that process for a woman isn’t as easy as the men have it! No one forces a woman to do it, anymore than anyone forces a man to donate. Matter of choice. However, babies shouldn’t be “sold.” The only expense to be paid should be the medical expenses for the pregnancy—nothing else. Also, no woman should be allowed to donate until she is at least 21. I’m sure folks are going to disagree with what I’ve said.

    • No woman should be paid to have her ovaries harvested. Period. Just as no one is paid to donate a kidney. This should be treated the same as organ donation.

      I remember reading about the adopted child who was returned to Russia. When I was in the legislature back in the 80s, the organizations that did international adoptions lobbied ceaselessly and successfully for regulations that basically shut down domestic adoptions. I am not talking about the people who adopt internationally because they cannot adopt a child any other way. I know people who’ve done this and every one I know is over the moon about their baby. However, I know, for a fact, that one of the reasons that it’s so hard to adopt here in this country is that the international adoption agencies worked to make it that way. The dollar before people. Again.

      • Having not tried adopting, I had no idea that the foreign adoption agencies had much power here in the states. That’s awful.

    • And “sending them back” is what you do with a return for a defective product. A child in any way should NEVER be considered a product. And this is the reason that the Church is against anything but natural procreation and pushes for sex only within the confines of a marital covenant, so that the parties with vested interest (mother and father) can raise the child together. Creating children through IVF has lots of unintended consequences for the children. Have you looked at any of the advocacy groups started by children conceived in this manner? The selfishness of the desire of the parents to have children using these technologies is creating psychological problems for the babies. Here is one example… http://childrenhaverights-saynotoreprotech.blogspot.com/2009/02/ivf-children-are-living-experiment.html

      • I agree, sending a child back is something that should never happen. What is unfortunate,however, is some children born the “natural” way are abandoned and mistreated by their parents too.

  5. I just posted a few minutes ago, then decided to add this and the post was already in the “line” for review. A good friend of my son was born when his father was 18. At that time his father chose to have a vasectomy after the birth. He and the mother divorced. Many years later the father remarried and his wife wanted children. She knew of the vasectomy. They used IVF with donor sperm to have 2 children, a boy and 3 years later a girl. (no, they didn’t place a gender order). The sperm donor was the same for both children. Both of those children are now in their early 20’s and doing fine. They are beautiful, bright children and as far as I know they know how they were conceived. The money spent in this case was for the fertility clinic, as a surrogate wasn’t used, only donor sperm. This isn’t exactly like the egg donation discussed in the post but there had to be someone willing to donate sperm to help create a new life when the husband couldn’t. In some ways that is what a woman who donates is doing too. To me it would be harder to be a surrogate, because the woman carries and gives birth—-then gives up the baby . I couldn’t do that after carrying for 9 months.

    • Aside from the moral implications of this, do you have any idea what is done to women whose ovaries are harvested? This is a monstrous practice pagansister. One way it is excused is by trying to equate it with sperm donation. I don’t feel like going through it right now, but it’s like the old joke about eggs and bacon. The chicken was involved, the pig was committed.

      What I am advocating is simply to take the money out of it. If people want to volunteer, then, with the caveats I mentioned, I do not advocate making it illegal.

      • Understand where you are coming from, Rebecca. Yes, I have an idea of the procedures for egg harvesting. As I said previously, I have mixed feelings about the selling part. I an leaning your way.

        • And, pagan sister, you know how dangerous and hazardous long-term egg harvesting is, don’t you? One friend, an MD, almost died and it would be hard to be more informed, and that was just during the hormone therapy. If they talk young women in to this, they face a lifetime of potential complications, including early menopause and various neoplasms. Plus, there is a fair amount of evidence that these designer children, through no fault of their own are genetically more delicate, some actually damaged.
          Rebecca, good analogy with the bacon and eggs.

          • Sorry to hear about your friend, but am glad she is OK. As to early menopause? I was, IMO, lucky to have had that happen to me, and easily. No, not caused by surgery. That part can be a good thing! 🙂

    • Had he not had the vasectomy instead of indulging in his own self interest he would never have had to “hire” a donor. Two (or 3 or 4) wrongs still do not make a right. Plus, no matter how “fine” the children seem to be they are still deprived of their natural father.

        • Theodore, were you ever 18? Divorce happens. Teen marriages don’t always work out any more than older at marriage do. Perhaps they have a slimmer chance. Which woman wasted her time on him, his first wife or his 2nd wife? He and the 2nd wife and the mother of his other 2 children are still married. He has 3 children total, even though the other 2 happen to only carry his wife’s genes. He is just as much their father as he is to his first son.

          • I was 18 once. But even then, I was searching for a woman to marry forever.

            I was going about it all wrong though.

            I have a tendency to be disapproving of the serial adultery culture we now live in; I consider it to be inferior at best and quite dangerous for children and women at worst.

            A woman would do well to listen to the first wife of any man she’s dating. There is a reason he is divorced.

            • In this case the first wife was also a teen also. I have a feeling that the 2nd wife never met or had reason to meet the first wife before she married him. However she has seen her several times over the years as they are the mother and the step mother of the first child.

      • Excuse me? Were you ever 18? I also expect you have never done anything others might see as unwise when you were that age or ever. Good for you. The 2 children of his 2nd and final marriage, as he and his wife are still married, are HIS children, just as his first son was and is. He helped raise them with their mother, his wife, with love and care. A parent is the person who raises a child, not necessarily the sperm donor. If indeed the “sperm donor” wanted to be their natural father he wouldn’t be providing sperm anonymously to a fertility clinic, huh? Following your line of thinking, I guess an adopted child really isn’t the couple’s child, since they didn’t provide their egg and sperm through sex to conceive the baby. They only raise the baby as their own, but he or she is “deprived” of the biological couple. Really? BTW, where was the ‘wrong” here?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.