Alexie Walker

EN 101

Argument Essay

14 December 2020

Test-Tube Babies: Not for the Average Joe

Ah, the joys of parenthood. How appealing it sounds to change poopy diapers and wipe

snotty noses on the regular. Whether it is to carry on the bloodline or to experience all that comes

with being a parent, having children is a major dream of many people all over the world.

Unfortunately for some, natural reproduction is not a viable option. Infertility is a complex

problem with a plethora of modern-day solutions that often raise tricky questions regarding

morality and ethicality. The lengths that parents will go to to conceive a biological child truly

push the boundaries of science as well as challenge society’s perception of a real family. Despite

many arguing that the fertility market is an essential income source for many donors,

exceedingly expensive treatments, cheaper options overseas, and high prices for donors with

desirable traits reveal that the fertility market is catered toward the wealthy.

The fertility market can be an essential income source for anyone willing to donate

genetic material or her womb. According to Australian author Justin Healey in ​Surrogacy Issues​,

“[Surrogates are] most likely to be women who are vulnerable or financially needy: low-income

single mothers, migrants, unemployed women, or mothers unable to work and care for her

children at the same time--enticed (or induced) by the minimum payment” (49). A saving grace

for women who are desperate for assistance can sometimes lie in their primal gift of giving life;

when they have nothing else to turn to, their bodies yield relief. Arlie Russell Hochschild, a
sociology professor at the University of California and author of “Our Baby, Her Womb,”

highlights how fruitful surrogacy can be by pointing out that ten years’ salary in India can be

provided by becoming a surrogate mother (425). Desperate and vulnerable women have a

difficult time passing up opportunities for income that are unmatched anywhere else in their

environment. Surrogacy pays well, and the hefty compensation outweighs the hormones, the

labor, and the void that remains afterward.

Even though the fertility market can produce income for those willing to seek it, it is

often too expensive for couples that are in search of alternative methods of conception. In

California alone, surrogacy can run an expense of about $134,000 (Smith par. 6). This amount is

astronomical when compared to having a child naturally, and many hopeful parents cannot swing

the sizable fee. Like the poverty-stricken mothers who are desperate for the money, expectant

parents are equally as desperate for a child that, because of income limitations, may never come.

In the article “Shopping for Fertility Markets,” French journalist Guillemette Faure regards the

commercialism of fertility services in the United States by remarking, “[T]he only thing required

from a single woman who wants to get pregnant is a credit card” (par. 5). Faure implies that

money is the prerequisite for starting a family unnaturally. However, the prices that come with

surrogacy, IVF (in-vitro fertilization) treatments, and artificial insemination are often high; many

of these options are the few left for infertile parents longing for a biological child. When parents

are eager for a child, they are willing to pay huge sums in hopes that it will give them a family.

This desperate and highly emotional endeavor is preyed upon by companies that are looking to

make a profit. Wealthier parents are willing to pay the hefty amounts as well, but they have the
means to while also remaining financially stable. The danger arises when parents take shortcuts

to make more budget-friendly decisions instead of choices that benefit their well-being.

Because of the colossal prices of common fertility treatments, many couples seek

alternatives overseas, most times at the expense of safe conditions and ethical employment.

When recounting the experiences of a young American couple seeking fertility services in India,

Hochschild showcases the awful conditions of the overseas clinic by quoting the hopeful mother:

“So this blood-work guy comes into the clinic office with dusty feet. . . . He looked like a street

vendor. He pulled syringes out of what I thought was a dirty camera bag. He entered the exam

room with his rubber gloves already on” (Mason qtd. in Hochschild 423). These are conditions

that would never be accepted in the United States, but because patients are paying fractions of

the American fees, decent surroundings are nearly waived completely. Hochschild goes on to

describe the couple as imagining themselves to be “outsourcers” getting the best price for an

otherwise expensive service (426). A tactic like this is seen in business transactions, so

witnessing it when human life is the product is a bit unsettling. Cost is a motivating factor in any

negotiation, and surrogacy is no different, even if safety is traded in the process. Safety,

however, is not the only advantage of having affluence in this world.

Not only can wealthy people afford treatments without having to outsource, but they can

also demand specific traits and abilities from their donors. Jessica Cohen shares her encounter

delving into the business of selling her eggs in the article “Grade A: The Market for a Yale

Woman’s Eggs.” She recalls seeing an advertisement for an egg donor with a list of oddly

specific traits in exchange for a handsome reward. Cohen recalls, “Beyond their desire for an Ivy

League donor, they wanted a young woman over five feet five, of Jewish heritage, athletic, with
a minimum combined SAT score of 1500, and attractive” (74). She explains how she contacted

the placers of the ad despite not meeting the minimum SAT score requirement requested. The

couple's adamance on the excessively specific requirements shocked Cohen and put a bad taste in

her mouth (74-79); the impersonal nature of this agreement led her to wonder about the couple's

intentions. Cohen furthers this by arguing, “I understand the desire for a child who will resemble

and fit in with the family. But once a couple starts choosing a few characteristics, shooting for

perfection is too easy--especially if they can afford it” (78). Prospective parents who have the

means to design the child of their dreams are allowed to do just that simply because the resources

are available to them. Money giving these children an edge up before they are conceived is a true

testament to the capitalist nature of this industry.

Of course, every parent wants what is best for his or her child, but there comes a time

when money creates a stark divide. Not only can wealthy parents strive to create perfectly

tailored children, but they might be in the small margin who have fertility treatments and

surrogacy as options at all. While the fertility market can generate income for those who need it,

the expensive treatments, risky outsourcing, and aggressive pursuit of perfection display a clear

preference toward those with money. Wealth creates many opportunities for advancement in

almost every aspect of life. That is no different in the pursuit of a child amidst infertility. Cohen

gives insight into this fact when she notes, “Infertility is not a modern problem, but it has created

a modern industry” (76). While infertile parents are yearning for a child and a family, there are

other factors at work that capitalize on this primitive desire to reproduce. Companies consumed

by greed with little remorse or sympathy is nothing new, but it seems especially indelicate in this

context; big pharma companies continue to prey on the unhealthy, and infertile individuals are
not safe from this assault. Wealth is undoubtedly the ticket to liberation from crippling

capitalism, especially in the fertility market.

 Works Cited

Cohen, Jessica. “Grade A: The Market for a Yale Woman’s Eggs.” ​Atlantic​, vol. 290, no. 5, Dec.

2002, pp. 74–78. ​EBSCOhost​, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=

pwh&AN=8509447&site=pov-live.

Faure, Guillemette. “Shopping for Fertility Markets.” ​Reason​, vol. 40, no. 9, Feb. 2009, pp.

44–45. ​EBSCOhost​, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=

36122263&site=pov-live.

Healey, Justin. ​Surrogacy Issues.​ Spinney Press, 2015. ​EBSCOhost​,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1022391&site=ehost-live

&scope=site.

Hochschild, Arlie Russell. "Our Baby, Her Womb" ​Acting Out Culture: Readings for Critical

Inquiry,​ by James S. Miller, 3rd ed., Bedford/St. Martin's, 2015, pp. 418-29.

Smith, Natalie. “Bearing the Cost.” ​New Scientist​, vol. 241, no. 3211, Jan. 2019, pp. 20–21.

EBSCOhost​, doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(19)30019-3.