Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76dd75c94c-28gj6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T08:04:16.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - “Quiet, Dependent, Nice, and Loyal”: Surrogacy Agencies’ Discourse of International Surrogacy

from Part II - Familialism and Reproduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2017

By
Hedva Eyal  and
Adi Moreno
Edited by
Hagai Boas ,
Yael Hashiloni-Dolev ,
Nadav Davidovitch ,
Dani Filc  and
Shai J. Lavi
Hagai Boas
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University Center for Ethics
Yael Hashiloni-Dolev
Affiliation:
The Academic College of Tel Aviv Yaffo, School of Government and Society
Nadav Davidovitch
Affiliation:
Ben Gurion University Department of Health Systems Management
Dani Filc
Affiliation:
Ben Gurion University
Shai J. Lavi
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Bioethics and Biopolitics in Israel
Socio-legal, Political, and Empirical Analysis
 , pp. 139 - 159
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrews, P. and Wood, F., 2014. Uberpreneurs: How to Create Innovative Global Businesses and Transform Human Societies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Arditti, R., Klein, R. D., and Minden, S., 1984. Test Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? London: Pandora Press.Google Scholar
Berkovitch, N., 1997. Motherhood as a National Mission: The Construction of Womanhood in the Legal Discourse in Israel. Women’s Studies International Forum, 20(5/6), pp. 605–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birenbaum-Carmeli, D., 2007. Contested Surrogacy and the Gender Order: An Israeli Case Study. Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies, 3(3), pp. 21–44.Google Scholar
Birenbaum-Carmeli, D. and Carmeli, Y. S., 2010. Introduction. In Carmeli, Y. S. and Birenbaum-Carmeli, D., eds. Kin, Gene, Community: Reproductive Technologies among Jewish Israelis. Oxford: Berghahn Books, p. 372.Google Scholar
Bryman, A., 2012. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carmeli, Y. S. and Birenbaum-Carmeli, D., 2010. Kin, Gene, Community: Reproductive Technologies among Jewish Israelis Carmeli, Y. S. and Birenbaum-Carmeli, D., eds., Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Corea, G., 1986. The Mother Machine: Reproductive Technologies from Artificial Insemination to Artificial Wombs. London: The Women’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dempsey, D., 2012. More Like a Donor or More Like a Father? Gay Men’s Concepts of Relatedness to Children. Sexualities, 15(2), pp. 156–174.Google Scholar
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. s, 2000. The Handbook of Qualitative Research, second ed. Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. s, eds., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Donat, O., 2007. Fractured Pro-natalism. Tel-Aviv University (Hebrew).Google Scholar
Fairclough, N., 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, second ed., New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ferraretti, A. P. et al., 2010. Cross-Border Reproductive Care: A Phenomenon Expressing the Controversial Aspects of Reproductive Technologies. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 20(2), pp. 261–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogiel-Bijaoui, S., 1999. Families in Israel: Between Familism and Postmodernism. Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.Google Scholar
Franke, K. M., 2001. Theorizing Yes: An Essay on Feminism, Law, and Desire. Columbia Law Review, 101(1), pp. 181–208.Google Scholar
Franklin, S., 2013. Biological Relatives: IVF, Stem Cells, and the Future of Kinship, Durham, NC, and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Gooldin, S., 2008. Technologies of Happiness: Fertility Management in a Pro-natal Context. In Yona, Y. and Kemp, A., eds. Citizenship Gaps: Migration, Fertility and Identity in Israel. Jerusalem: The Van Leer Institute, pp. 167–206.Google Scholar
Hashiloni-Dolev, Y., 2006. Between Mothers, Fetuses and Society: Reproductive Genetics in the Israeli-Jewish Context. Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Women’s Studies & Gender Issues, 12, pp. 129–150.Google Scholar
Hochschild, A. R., 2011. Emotional Life on the Market Frontier. Annual Review of Sociology, 37(1), pp. 21–33.Google Scholar
Hudson, N. et al., 2011. Cross-Border Reproductive Care: A Review of the Literature. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 22, pp. 673–685.Google Scholar
Inhorn, M. C. and Patrizio, P., 2012. The Global Landscape of Cross-Border Reproductive Care: Twenty Key Findings for the New Millennium. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 24(3), pp. 158–163.Google Scholar
Kahn, S. M., 2000. Reproducing Jews: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception in Israel. Durham, NC, and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Laufer-Ukeles, P., 2013. Mothering for Money: Regulating Commercial Intimacy. Indiana Law Journal, 88(4).Google Scholar
Lipkin, N. and Samama, E., 2010. Surrogacy in Israel – Status Report 2010 and Proposals for Legislative Amendment. Haifa.Google Scholar
Lustenberger, S., 2014. Questions of Belonging: Same-Sex Parenthood and Judaism in Transformation. Sexualities, 17(5–6), pp. 529–545.Google Scholar
Majumdar, A., 2014. Nurturing an Alien Pregnancy: Surrogate Mothers, Intended Parents and Disembodied Relationships. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 21(2), pp. 199–224.Google Scholar
Markham, A., 2004. Internet Communication as a Tool for Qualitative Research. In Seale, C. et al., eds. Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. London: Sage Publications, pp. 358–74.Google Scholar
Mashiach, S. et al., 2010. The Contribution of Israeli Researchers to Reproductive Medicine: Fertility Experts’ Perspective. In Carmeli, Y. S. and Birenbaum-Carmeli, D., eds. Kin, Gene, Community. Oxford: Berghahn Books, pp. 51–60.Google Scholar
Mor-Yosef, S. et al., 2012. Recommendations of the Public Committee for the Regularization of Fertility and Reproduction in Israel. Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Moreno, A., 2016a. Crossing Borders: Remaking Gay Fatherhood in the Global Market. University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Moreno, A., 2016b. Families on the Market Front. In Intimate Economies: Bodies, Emotions and Sexualities on the Global Market. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Nahman, M. R., 2006. Materializing Israeliness: Difference and Mixture in Transnational Ova Donation. Science as Culture, 15(3), pp. 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nahman, M. R., 2013. Extractions: An Ethnography of Reproductive Tourism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Nordqvist, P., 2011. “Dealing with Sperm”: Comparing Lesbians’ Clinical and Non-Clinical Donor Conception Processes. Sociology of Health & Illness, 33(1), pp. 114–129.Google Scholar
Pande, A., 2010. Commercial Surrogacy in India: Manufacturing a Perfect Mother‐Worker. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 35(4), pp. 969–992.Google Scholar
Pande, A., 2011. Transnational Commercial Surrogacy in India: Gifts for Global Sisters? Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 23(5), pp. 618–625.Google Scholar
Parry, B., 2015. Narratives of Neoliberalism: “Clinical Labour” in Context. Medical Humanities, 41, pp. 31–37.Google Scholar
Radin, M. J., 1996. Contested Commodities: The Trouble with Trade in Sex, Children, Body Parts, and Other Things. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rapp, R., 2011. Reproductive Entanglements: Body, State, and Culture in the Dys/Regulation of Child-Bearing. Social Research, 78(3), pp. 693–718.Google Scholar
Rapp, R., 1999. Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Raymond, J. G., 1990. Reproductive Gifts and Gift Giving: The Altruistic Woman. The Hastings Center Report, 20(6), pp. 7–11.Google Scholar
Raymond, J. G., 1998. Women as Wombs: Reproductive Technologies and the Battle over Women’s Freedom. Melbourne: Spinifex Press.Google Scholar
Rich, A., 1976. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Institution and Experience. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Rose, N., 2001. The Politics of Life Itself. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(6), pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Rothman, B. K., 1984. The Meaning of Choice in Reproductive Technology. In Arditti, R., Duelli Klein, R., and Minden, S., eds. Test-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? London: Pandora, pp. 22–33.Google Scholar
Rudrappa, S., 2015. Discounted Life: The Price of Global Surrogacy in India. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Rudrappa, S. and Collins, C., 2015. Altruistic Agencies and Compassionate Consumers: Moral Framing of Transnational Surrogacy. Gender & Society, 29(6), pp. 937–959.Google Scholar
Sama, R. G. for W. and H., 2012. Birthing a Market: A Study on Commercial Surrogacy. New Delhi.Google Scholar
Samama, E., 2011. From Baby M to Google Baby. 15 Years to the Israeli Surrogacy Law. In 15 Years to Israeli Surrogacy Law. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University.Google Scholar
Samama, E., 2012. A Womb for Rent: “Within Me, but Not Mine.” The Surrogacy Law in Israel: Vision, Policy and Reality. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.Google Scholar
Teman, E., 2010. The Last Outpost of the Nuclear Family: A Cultural Critique of Israeli Surrogacy Law. In Carmeli, Y. S. and Birenbaum-Carmeli, D., eds. Kin, Gene, Community. Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. 2005. Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. Inside Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Triger, Z., 2015. A Different Journey: Experiences of Israeli Surrogacy Parents in India. Theory and Criticism, 44, pp. 177–202 (Hebrew).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×