Sacred Bond download epub

Phyllis Chesler (born 1940) is an American writer, psychotherapist, and professor emeritus of psychology and women's studies at the College of Staten Island. She has written other books, such as Women and Madness,Woman's Inhumanity to Woman, and About Men.

She begins this 1988 book with the statement, “On February 6, 1985, Mary Beth Whitehead, a twenty-eight-year-old housewife and mother of an eleven-year old boy and a nine-year old girl, signed a pre-conception or surrogate-parenting contract with lawyer Noel Keane’s Infertility Center of New York (ICNY)… The agreement provided that she (the ‘Surrogate’) … would submit to amniocentesis and/or abortion upon the demand of thirty-eight year old biochemist Bill Stern (the ‘Natural Father’) and his wife, thirty-eight year old physician Betsy Stern. Mary Beth was to receive… ten thousand dollars if she gave birth to Bill’s healthy baby---and legally surrendered custody to him, i.e., if she signed the adoption papers.” (Pg. 3)

Chesler poses a variety of questions, such as: “Who is a child’s true mother? The woman who gives birth to her?... The woman who actually takes care of her?... Does a child need a biological mother, if her father wants to take exclusive care of her---without involving any women?... What is a ‘fit’ mother? Who should decide?... What would replace the mother-infant bond---the oldest and strongest bond known to man… We must decide: Is a biological mother a human being … or is she only a surrogate uterus?... Should parenting become a blue-collar or white-collar occupation?... Should every child of the future be born at scientifically timed intervals with its sex, personality, skin-and-eye color all carefully preselected?... If a woman has the legal right to terminate a pregnancy because she and no one else has a right to her body, then at what point does her (pregnant) body cease to be hers alone?... Will the state automatically take custody of these children at birth, wall them up in institutions, sell them to the highest bidder?” (Pg. 8-11)

She observes, “What mother freely chooses to lose her child at birth or later, to the plagues of war, disease, and accident?... What mother freely hands her child over to blood strangers to be legally adopted by her ‘superiors,’ to be taught to forget her, to be punished for who she is---small hostage of her misfortune… Baby M is every child who has ever been physically, legally, or psychologically separated from her birth mother ‘for her own good’ in the mistaken belief that a child needs a father, a father-dominated family, and/or money more than she needs her birth mother, love, and freedom.” (Pg. 16-17)

She notes, “The women say… ‘We don’t like Mary Beth’---as if that somehow justifies what was done to her; as if any woman so disliked by those more powerful than herself deserves to be punished and publicly humiliated… Some feminists say: ‘If women can’t do what they want with their bodies, then well lose our right to abortion and pay equity.’ I hope not, but must women give up the right to keep our children… for the right not to bear children?... how can we deny that women have a profound and everlasting bond with the children they’ve birthed; that this bond begins in utero; that it is further strengthened by the experience of childbirth, breast-feeding and primary childcare… How can we deny that children bond with their birth mothers in utero, and that children suffer terribly in all kinds of ways when this bond is prematurely or abruptly terminated? Acknowledging these truths does not doom women to the status of surrogate uteruses---or men to the status of sperm donors. Patriarchal ‘civilization’ has already done so.” (Pg. 22-23)

She suggests, “Mary Beth Whitenead is the lightning rod for all these unspoken questions. Women are very hard on her. We see ourselves---and our collective past---in her. What we see is too problematic and unacceptable.” (Pg. 36)

She comments, “For a long time, I couldn’t understand why more women, feminist and antifeminist alike, didn’t view Mary Beth as a heroine. After all, look at what she was saying: ‘…I made a mistake. I can’t abandon my own flesh and blood. It’s my body and it’s my baby.’ Diverse groups of women should have found something here to admire. Most didn’t---because Mary Beth’s choice of surrogacy and then her change of heart about that choice put them (and her) into conflict with two opposing female role models: the Christian/religious one and the feminist/secular one… At this precise moment in history, surrogacy and how we feel about it is also a reflection of the war currently raging between secular feminism and religious patriarchy.” (Pg. 49)

She argues, “I still admire the spiritual context in which the Vatican discusses surrogacy. All life is sacred; ends never justify the means… feminists flinch when I say I respect the ‘seamless garment’ of logic worn by the Vatican. But why should my recognition of the Vatican’s consistency imperil my feminist credentials? Do I have to agree with my comrades on everything and with our ‘enemies’ on nothing?” (Pg. 94)

She wonders, “A woman may promise to marry a man. What if she changes her mind? Should we force her to marry him anyway? …. Are contracts sacred? Are they any more sacred than the bond between a mother and child? What makes a contract more important than a contraction?” (Pg. 109) Later, she asks, “Is it unreasonable to consider that the acquisition of a child by the process of pregnancy and birth is more compelling, and more inalienable, than the acquisition of a child by surrogacy, marriage, or social contract? (In my opinion, a child belongs to no one; but the right to mother the child belong to the birth mother.) If so, so we need a constitutional amendment that guarantees birth mothers and their children unbroken access to each other?” (Pg. 145-146)

She states, “so many people, ESPECIALLY women, enjoyed seeing Roxanne Pulitzer and Mary Beth Whitehead lose bloody and sensational battles that were stacked against them from the start. Women who have never been allowed to talk back eventually identify with the aggressor and have no pity for a victim who reminds them of themselves.” (Pg. 148)

She closes the book with the statement, “Judge Birger M. Sween ordered, liberal, unsupervised visitation to begin immediately between Mary Beth Whitehead-Gould and Baby M, her daughter.” (Pg. 166)

[NOTE: After reaching legal age, “Baby M” (Melissa Stern) legally terminated Mary Beth's parental rights.]

This book poses many thought-provoking and even disturbing questions, that are as relevant today as they were back in 1988.

Phyllis Chesler (born 1940) is an American writer, psychotherapist, and professor emeritus of psychology and women's studies at the College of Staten Island. She has written other books, such as Women and Madness and About Men.

She begins this 1988 book with the statement, “On February 6, 1985, Mary Beth Whitehead, a twenty-eight-year-old housewife and mother of an eleven-year old boy and a nine-year old girl, signed a pre-conception or surrogate-parenting contract with lawyer Noel Keane’s Infertility Center of New York (ICNY)… The agreement provided that she (the ‘Surrogate’) … would submit to amniocentesis and/or abortion upon the demand of thirty-eight year old biochemist Bill Stern (the ‘Natural Father’) and his wife, thirty-eight year old physician Betsy Stern. Mary Beth was to receive… ten thousand dollars if she gave birth to Bill’s healthy baby---and legally surrendered custody to him, i.e., if she signed the adoption papers.” (Pg. 3)

Chesler poses a variety of questions, such as: “Who is a child’s true mother? The woman who gives birth to her?... The woman who actually takes care of her?... Does a child need a biological mother, if her father wants to take exclusive care of her---without involving any women?... What is a ‘fit’ mother? Who should decide?... What would replace the mother-infant bond---the oldest and strongest bond known to man… We must decide: Is a biological mother a human being … or is she only a surrogate uterus?... Should parenting become a blue-collar or white-collar occupation?... Should every child of the future be born at scientifically timed intervals with its sex, personality, skin-and-eye color all carefully preselected?... If a woman has the legal right to terminate a pregnancy because she and no one else has a right to her body, then at what point does her (pregnant) body cease to be hers alone?... Will the state automatically take custody of these children at birth, wall them up in institutions, sell them to the highest bidder?” (Pg. 8-11)

She observes, “What mother freely chooses to lose her child at birth or later, to the plagues of war, disease, and accident?... What mother freely hands her child over to blood strangers to be legally adopted by her ‘superiors,’ to be taught to forget her, to be punished for who she is---small hostage of her misfortune… Baby M is every child who has ever been physically, legally, or psychologically separated from her birth mother ‘for her own good’ in the mistaken belief that a child needs a father, a father-dominated family, and/or money more than she needs her birth mother, love, and freedom.” (Pg. 16-17)

She notes, “The women say… ‘We don’t like Mary Beth’---as if that somehow justifies what was done to her; as if any woman so disliked by those more powerful than herself deserves to be punished and publicly humiliated… Some feminists say: ‘If women can’t do what they want with their bodies, then well lose our right to abortion and pay equity.’ I hope not, but must women give up the right to keep our children… for the right not to bear children?... how can we deny that women have a profound and everlasting bond with the children they’ve birthed; that this bond begins in utero; that it is further strengthened by the experience of childbirth, breast-feeding and primary childcare… How can we deny that children bond with their birth mothers in utero, and that children suffer terribly in all kinds of ways when this bond is prematurely or abruptly terminated? Acknowledging these truths does not doom women to the status of surrogate uteruses---or men to the status of sperm donors. Patriarchal ‘civilization’ has already done so.” (Pg. 22-23)

She suggests, “Mary Beth Whitenead is the lightning rod for all these unspoken questions. Women are very hard on her. We see ourselves---and our collective past---in her. What we see is too problematic and unacceptable.” (Pg. 36)

She comments, “For a long time, I couldn’t understand why more women, feminist and antifeminist alike, didn’t view Mary Beth as a heroine. After all, look at what she was saying: ‘…I made a mistake. I can’t abandon my own flesh and blood. It’s my body and it’s my baby.’ Diverse groups of women should have found something here to admire. Most didn’t---because Mary Beth’s choice of surrogacy and then her change of heart about that choice put them (and her) into conflict with two opposing female role models: the Christian/religious one and the feminist/secular one… At this precise moment in history, surrogacy and how we feel about it is also a reflection of the war currently raging between secular feminism and religious patriarchy.” (Pg. 49)

She argues, “I still admire the spiritual context in which the Vatican discusses surrogacy. All life is sacred; ends never justify the means… feminists flinch when I say I respect the ‘seamless garment’ of logic worn by the Vatican. But why should my recognition of the Vatican’s consistency imperil my feminist credentials? Do I have to agree with my comrades on everything and with our ‘enemies’ on nothing?” (Pg. 94)

She wonders, “A woman may promise to marry a man. What if she changes her mind? Should we force her to marry him anyway? …. Are contracts sacred? Are they any more sacred than the bond between a mother and child? What makes a contract more important than a contraction?” (Pg. 109) Later, she asks, “Is it unreasonable to consider that the acquisition of a child by the process of pregnancy and birth is more compelling, and more inalienable, than the acquisition of a child by surrogacy, marriage, or social contract? (In my opinion, a child belongs to no one; but the right to mother the child belong to the birth mother.) If so, so we need a constitutional amendment that guarantees birth mothers and their children unbroken access to each other?” (Pg. 145-146)

She states, “so many people, ESPECIALLY women, enjoyed seeing Roxanne Pulitzer and Mary Beth Whitehead lose bloody and sensational battles that were stacked against them from the start. Women who have never been allowed to talk back eventually identify with the aggressor and have no pity for a victim who reminds them of themselves.” (Pg. 148)

She closes the book with the statement, “Judge Birger M. Sween ordered, liberal, unsupervised visitation to begin immediately between Mary Beth Whitehead-Gould and Baby M, her daughter.” (Pg. 166)

[NOTE: After reaching legal age, “Baby M” (Melissa Stern) legally terminated Mary Beth's parental rights.]

This book poses many thought-provoking and even disturbing questions, that are as relevant today as they were back in 1988.