General view that assumes that genetic links, not social factors are essential to both maternal feelings and the development of a child’s identity are used in many cases. Yet, when the birth mother is also a genetic mother, these arguments are ussually reversed in order to undermine her claims to the child. In those cases it is argued that the male’s partner’s sperm and payment of money constitute legitimate access to the baby and that the commissioning woman’s maternal claims derive from marriage to him. More difficulties arise when donor ova from a third women are used. Here the commissioning woman’s claim to maternity rights is through marriage as the wife of genetic father(if his sperm are used); the birth mother is again denied rights in the child. In contrast when donated ova are used without surrogacy, the birthing mother is considered to have full rights in the child by virtue of the pregnancy and birth experience.

The case of Mary Beth Whitehead , which was highly publicized is a “good”’ example to draw upon, where the power of institution was guided with principles of governmentality, where mental health professionals were able to define not only motherhood but also pathology and principal rights of human beings in order to please those who pay. Article “Social Construction of Mary Beth Whithead” by Michelle Harrison describes a case of surrogate mother Marry Beth Whitehead. She was not only a birth mother, but also a genetic mother, as her ova was fertilized by commisioning’s couple husband’s( Mr. Stern) sperm.After she gave a birth to the baby, she refused to give it up and that’s when a long history of court attendance begun. How is the power of institution prelevant to these case? As I qoute from Michelle Harrison, “ the premise underlying the use of mental health experts is that their testimony is both scientific and objective. However, mental health beliefs exist within context of culture at large. Prelevant beliefs about mental health reflect class and gender biases…”. To illustrate: “When Mary Beth Whitehead did poorly on a test, it was considered a sign of psychopathology; when the Sterns did poorly it was considered either irrelevant or a sign of anxiety.” (Harrison,1987;304). This example clearly illustrates that definition of motherhood is shaped by power of institutions and governmentality to confirm the parentage to those who pay.

In conclusion, dealing with new reproductive technologies motherhood is not a Universal issue, as different societies hold different norms. In case of Australia only the birth mother is the legitimate mother, in contrast , the Egyptian society defines mother only by genetic relations, and lastly in case of Western societies, the mothers are those who pay. Dealing with these dichotomies, it can be argued that motherhood is defined through money, as a motherhood is a class issue, through power, as pastoral method and governmentality is used to define appropriate parents; and also through gender norms that label altruistic surrogacy as “acceptable” in contrast with unnaceptable commercial surrogacy, because altruistic surrogacy does not violate appropriate gender norms and does not threaten a nuclear family. The motherhood is suppose to be about love, not money, but even if the commercial surrogacy was completely banned, the motherhood would still be about money,as it is not accesible to everyone. As we learned, new reproductive technologies can create more than two biological parents. What are the implications? “Naturalization” of one mother and “denaturalization” of the other, as one of them becomes a partial citizen and looses her rights to the baby (Schrauwer, 2005; “New Reproductive Technologies”). In case of new reproductive technologies, money and power define motherhood not love.
WORD COUNT: 2 246