Goodman’s main argument was that international surrogacy is unethical. In her words babies have become “products” and the world has developed a surrogate “marketplace”. She brings up issues like what will the offspring will be told when they grow older, what responsibilities the family contracting the surrogate mother has, and what issues could arise from illiterate, poor people signing the contract.
In order to establish pathos in her argument, Goodman explains and even sympathizes somewhat with the opposite side. She talks about the women who are contracted and their reasons for taking the job. Some of the international women contracted come from third world countries and would have to work years and years to ever make as much money as they could from becoming a surrogate mother. Goodman includes the heart-wrenching story about the mother who used the money she received to buy a heart operation for her son to show that she is sympathetic and understanding. Including stories like that make Goodman more appealing and kind in her audience’s eyes.
The question I chose is related to ethos and how knowledgeable Goodman is of the opposing side. She seems very knowledgeable and has even taken the time to research specific international surrogate women and learn their stories. The majority of her column is actually focused on the other side and only towards the end does Goodman establish her own argument. I thought the way she developed the column was very effective and I was able to see her thought process and how she came to have the point of view that she has.
What strikes me as most disturbing is the word choice that Goodman uses. Her word choice comes with a very negative connotation and image. Describing babies as “products” and surrogacy as an international “business” makes the whole process seem very emotionless. She compares the surrogate mothers to slaves and talks about “selling children” which gives the audience the impression that this is morally wrong and horrific. Although her word choice was a bit disturbing, it made for a very effective argument.
I felt the same response to Goodman's word choice. She made it seem as if the ability to have children was becoming more of a business venture than a gift. I also agree that it made an effectice argument for her, but for families that have turned to surrogacy it kind of felt that she was only pointing out the negative of overseas surrogacy.
ReplyDelete