Slate takes a look at India’s half-billion-dollar-a-year reproductive-tourism industry. “The primary appeal of India is that it is cheap, hardly regulated, and relatively safe,” writes Amana Fontanella-Khan. “Surrogacy can cost up to $100,000 in the United States, while many Indian clinics charge $22,000 or less. Very few questions are asked. Same-sex couples, single parents and even busy women who just don’t have time to give birth are welcomed by doctors.” The industry, however, has been plagued by horror stories and accusations of exploitation, and an Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill is being considered. (HT: Market Design) [%comments]
Renting Wombs in India
and 
. You can also watch it on 
“…even busy women who just don’t have time to give birth…”
There are women who don’t have time to give birth, but have time to care for a baby?
Womb For Rent:
Small but Expandable, Single Occupancy but up to 8 can be Acommodated. Poor Light, No Windows. No Furniture except for an Organic Bean Bag Chair. Heat and Plumbing Included. Nutrive Meals a Plus. Quiet Neighborhood. Pugilists, Kickboxers and Tap Dancers Discouraged. Available for fixed Lease of Nine and half months–Non Negotiable.
There exist nannies.
Honestly … Would you want to have your child born to a woman (a) you do not know (b) in a country on the other side of the world, where you can not regularly see the surrogate’s living conditions (c) deal with the headaches of immigrating your child back to the US and (d) put up with the risk in dealing with the horror stories involved mentioned in this article
If you can not have a child – there are other alternatives where you deal with the same risks that I mentioned above.
There are thousands of orphaned children around the world who need a loving family/parent – consider that a better alternative as well as knowing that you have improved the life of a child in need. The same $22,000 can cover the adoption fees.
If a woman thinks she is too busy to give birth and then requires a nanny to raise the child, she should think twice about having children.
I don’t know what research Amana Khan cites when writing about “busy women who just don’t have time to give birth”. It’s a terribly inflammatory accusation. The NYTimes own Stephanie Saul wrote in her series “21st century Babies” that interviews with US surrogacy agencies found no client willing to hire a surrogate JUST because of time constraints. It’s too risky, and too emotionally difficult of a process to go through.
I think that if the NYT is going to reprint parts of Slate’s article, including a very toxic accusation of working women, there should be some fact checking first. I think readers should stop and think critically about the feasibility that time-crunched western women are fueling the surrogate industry in India.
I think that most women who would consider using any surrogate are doing so because they can not have a baby themselves not because of time constraints.
This actually makes a lot of sense for men who make a decent living and can afford a nanny.
They get access to their childrens whole life and can be assured no woman will take away their right to raise their child as they see fit.
I mean better than men with decent money getting married and just going on a hope and a prayer in a situation where over the last hundred years 50 percent of marriages fail.
So yea much better to have your own kids and actually not have your love for them be used as a weapon against you.
Look at the billionaires like tiger woods who are losing their kids.
I am sure that no matter how much money you have when you get attached and protective of your offspring it must be painfull to have them taken away.