Some describe this as a win-win situation. The doctors get clients, the childless get children and the surrogates get much-needed money. But some media horror stories have challenged this happy vision.Lesser reporters might have assumed that women from an "essentially semi-feudal and pre-industrial" culture rely solely on religion for moral guidance. By stating that opposition to abortion is based in religion and ethics, this reporter respects both the pro-life position and the Indian women who espouse it. So thank you, Ms Fontanella-Khan and Slate, for bringing attention to this abuse of women's rights, and for portraying pro-lifers fairly.
. . .
In another disturbing case, an upper-class Indian woman hired a surrogate to carry her child and invited her to live in her home during the pregnancy. The client accused the surrogate mother of stealing and not only kicked her out of the house but coolly informed her that she didn't want her services anymore and that she should terminate the pregnancy. Surrogates get paid only on delivery of the baby, so this kind of situation is economically devastating for a surrogate. It can also severely compromise the ethical and religious beliefs of surrogates who may not wish to undergo an abortion.
I do take issue with the phrase "terminate the pregnancy," which is obviously not a problem unique to this article. I recently heard a wonderful quote about this issue; please tell me if you know its original source.
Pro-lifers don't object to terminating pregnancies. Pregnancies are only supposed to last a short while. We favor terminating them around nine months. The objection is to killing children.