Article contents
Abstract
In this article, 1 argue that the liberal framework—its autonomous individuals with equal rights—allows judges to justify enforcing surrogacy contracts. More importantly, even where judges do not enforce surrogacy contracts, the liberal framework conceals gender and class issues which insure that the surrogate will lose custody of her child. I suggest that Marx's analysis of estranged labor can reveal the class and gender issues which the liberal framework conceals.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1989 by Hypatia, Inc.
References
Allen, Jeffner. 1984. Motherhood: The annihilation of women. In Mothering: Essays in feminist theory. Trebilcot, Joyce ed., NJ: Rowman and Allenheld.Google Scholar
Annas, George. 1988. Death without dignity for commercial surrogacy: The case of Baby M. In Hastings Center Report 18, April/May.Google ScholarPubMed
Annas, George. 1987. Baby M: Babies (and justice) for sale. In Hastings Center Report 17, June.Google Scholar
Annas, George. 1986. The baby broker boom. In Hastings Center Report 16, December.Google ScholarPubMed
Eaton, Thomas. 1986. Comparative responses to surrogate motherhood. Nebraska Law Review 65: 686.Google Scholar
Gibson, Mary. 1988. The legal and moral status of surrogate motherhood. Paper presented at the American Philosophical Association Eastern Division Meeting, Washington D.C., December.Google Scholar
Jaggar, Alison. 1983. Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.Google Scholar
Johnson, Sandra. 1987. The Baby “M” decision: Specific performance of a contract for specially manufactured goods. Southern Illinois University Law journal 11.Google Scholar
Keane, Noel. 1987. Paper presented at the seminar on Surrogate Motherhood. Berry College. Rome, Georgia. April 1987.Google Scholar
Ladd, Rosalind. 1988. Woman in labor: Some issues about informed consent. Paper presented at Society for Women in Philosophy conference, Radcliffe College.Google Scholar
Leibson, J. 1986. Surrogate Parenting Associates Inc. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky. Supreme Court of Kentucky. Ky., 704, South West Reporter, 2nd Series, 209.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1975. Economic and philosophical manuscripts. In Early Writings. Hoare, Quintin ed., R., Livingstone and G., Benton, trans. NY: Random House.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1975a. Critique of Hegel's doctrine of the state. In Early Writings. Hoare, Quintin ed., R., Livingstone and G., Benton,: Random House.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1975b. Excerpts from James Mill's Elements of political economy. In Early witings. Hoare, Quintin ed., R., Livingstone and G., Benton, Random House.Google Scholar
Schoeman, Ferdinand, ed. 1984. Philosophical dimensions of privacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511625138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Janet Farrell. 1986. Possessive power. Hypatia. 1 (2): 103–120.10.1111/j.1527-2001.1986.tb00840.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorkow, . 1987. Stern v. Whitehead. New Jersey Superior Court. 217, N.J., Super., 313, 525, A.2d 1128.Google Scholar
Wilentz, C.J. 1988. The matter of Baby “M”. New Jersey Supreme Court. N.J., 537, Atlantic Reporter, 2nd Series, 1234.Google Scholar
- 22
- Cited by