In this short essay by Ellen Goodman she mostly talks about how surrogacy between wealthy countries and third world countries. She comments on how women in Anand will earn between $5,000-$7,000 for the delivery of a child and int heir normal day to day life they would have earned $25 a month for crushing glass in a factory. She also brings up the conclusion that surrogacy is becoming an international trade. I feel that the pathos in this argument is negative she is telling us the outcomes of the surrogacy. she portrays that surrogacy is bad and how its always the wealthy taking advantage or using the poor people of the third world.
What is the writer's purpose?
Is the writer trying to change readers' views by offering a new interception of a phenomenon, calling readers to action, or trying to muster votes or inspire future investigations?
From this question i think that she is not so much trying to change the readers' perception on the subject but trying to enlighten on the information about the subject.
Well i found it interesting and disturbing that when i realized that it is unjustly to sell yourself or your children but when it comes to surrogacy it is becoming a business that is flourishing.
I agree that the author definatly has a negative point of view against surrogacy. The way she talks about children and babymaking as a "marketplace" is disturbing but it does get her point across. The article does lack a solution to the problem she is addressing and also I think she fails to touch on the positive side of surrogacy. There have been many situations where it has worked out perfectly, and by adding that in there it could make her sound more credible.
ReplyDelete