Negotiating 'Surrogate Mothering' and Women's Freedom.
Agency
Choice
Coercion
Feminist theory
Motherhood
Surrogacy
Journal
Asian bioethics review
ISSN: 1793-9453
Titre abrégé: Asian Bioeth Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101608807
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2022
Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
05
11
2021
revised:
19
03
2022
accepted:
28
03
2022
entrez:
6
7
2022
pubmed:
7
7
2022
medline:
7
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Surrogacy is one of the desired reproductive technologies for family formation, yet surrogate mothers are subjected to unethical treatments and unbalanced power relations in India. Such treatment obscures women's free decision-making and can be detrimental to their maternal self. Recently, the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, has received the President's approval to regulate surrogacy practices by limiting them for the altruistic motives which have again provoked the burning debates regarding reproductive technologies, women's emancipation and procreative labour. The paper thus explores women's agency, maternal freedom and surrogate arrangements in Indian society. The complexity of the implementation of the law, vulnerability of surrogate labour, woman's bodily autonomy and reproductive choices have been analysed. This has been done through comprehensive feminist discussions on motherhood experience in terms of enforced vs. voluntary to find the way to protect women's freedom and subjectivity in the task of 'mothering as empowerment'.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35791331
doi: 10.1007/s41649-022-00205-6
pii: 205
pmc: PMC9250556
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
271-285Informations de copyright
© National University of Singapore and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of InterestThe authors declare no competing interests.
Références
Philos Public Aff. 1990 Winter;19(1):71-92
pubmed: 11651966
Signs (Chic). 1993 Spring;18(3):618-39
pubmed: 11659996
Asian Bioeth Rev. 2021 Mar 8;13(2):133-148
pubmed: 33968212
Hastings Cent Rep. 1983 Oct;13(5):28-34
pubmed: 6643034