Is it ethical to outsource pregnancy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our surrogate lived out in the country where jobs were scarce and low paying and she wanted to stay home with her two young kids while pregnant. I didn’t hear any complaining.

So you rented a poor woman’s womb who felt she had no other choice. Nice.

[Anonymous]

I think there are a lot of gray areas.

I support gay couples having families, but I admit something doesn't always sit right with me when rich gay men have a baby and do big magazine covers etc. With minimal or no acknowledgement of the woman who made it possible. Can't put my finger on it but in some cases it just feels ick.

[Anonymous]

Sure. Why not. Are you able to compensate the surrogate appropriately or are you using a poor woman with no choice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is she paid well? Not just for her physical contribution but fur what you know, as someone who has given birth, can be a serious emotional upheaval as well? Like paid really, really, really well?

Is she doing this truly consensually with no weird power imbalances? Or is she a desperate woman in a desperate situation. You can (and should) heavily vet surrogacy agencies to find out how they recruit.

If the answer to the above is yes, and you have a *perfect* surrogacy contract, I think it can be done ethically. The contract has a lot of details you need to u sweat and though. I wouldn’t do it unless/until you have walked through and u d’état and every provision and why it is there.

Women still DIE from pregnancy and childbirth. Another person should risk their life bc OP doesn't want stretch marks??? Esp if the surrogate is a black women the odds are worse. Oh, wait. OP would never use a black surrogate never mind.

It is fine! They will get $20 an hour for their trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the argument is: as long as the other person has "free will" to decide to enter a contract-- enough money gives me the right to have full dominion over another person's body. Am I correct?

So, for the right amount of cash I can have my employee drug tested every day. For the right amount of money I could confine them for a period of time, as long as I want (if it's in the contract) and fully control what they eat and drink.

Where's the line?

Why are you putting free will in quotations? The line is coercion. I think if someone posted saying 'I hired a surrogate, is it ethical that I get to decide everything she eats and does for 9 months' everyone would agree that that was unethical. But that is not the same question as, 'is surrogacy unethical'. You want it to be black and white, it is not. Is taking a bicycle unethical? Not if I paid a store a fair price for it, but yes if i stole it. Acts in and of themselves are rarely (ever?) uniformly ethical or unethical, it is context that shapes morality.

Let's say I am a poor person and you offer me $400 a day to stay in a room (confinement) for as long as you want. As long as I am legally able to exit the contract if I want, then what is the problem? If you say you won't let me leave because I signed a contract without killing my family? Well that has changed the landscape.

If I was a teenager who wanted a car and you offered me $3000 if I got drug tested every day for six months is that unethical? What if I'm a parent and will only buy my kid a car if they get drug tested?

You put free will in quotations but it is the anchor of ethics. Free will doesn't mean lying or coercing someone into an unbreakable contract and then ruining their lives because at one point you got them to agree to something they didn't understand. Free will being important means that an agreement is likely ethical when it was entered into where both parties fully understand what is being asked and what is being offered, without coercion or force.

But also, of course I think there are lines. Is squid games ethical? They all fully understood what they were doing when they came back, but clearly, that is wrong. Primarily because there was substantial coercion.

What if my contract states that the confined person will be locked up for a month and they have no chance of backing out if they change their mind during the one month? Not that they forfeit the money but that there is no way out.

Then you have created an unethical contract. Ethics don't begin at end at step 1.

[Anonymous]

A very weird family in East Coast found two different surrogates for their two single adult sons (Doctors both of them, y'all) and got them a kid each. Grandparents, two sons, and their two daughters via surrogates live in the same house. Grandparents wanted their grandkids and now they are all happily raising them. The young men are not married. I think they are closet gays and parents could not handle it. Non-White, non-Christian immigrants coming from a very conservative culture. Extremely weird. I am from the same culture and I cannot even imagine the dysfunction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is she paid well? Not just for her physical contribution but fur what you know, as someone who has given birth, can be a serious emotional upheaval as well? Like paid really, really, really well?

Is she doing this truly consensually with no weird power imbalances? Or is she a desperate woman in a desperate situation. You can (and should) heavily vet surrogacy agencies to find out how they recruit.

If the answer to the above is yes, and you have a *perfect* surrogacy contract, I think it can be done ethically. The contract has a lot of details you need to u sweat and though. I wouldn’t do it unless/until you have walked through and u d’état and every provision and why it is there.

Women still DIE from pregnancy and childbirth. Another person should risk their life bc OP doesn't want stretch marks??? Esp if the surrogate is a black women the odds are worse. Oh, wait. OP would never use a black surrogate never mind.

It is fine! They will get $20 an hour for their trouble.

What? You guys are insane.

[Anonymous]

You all assume surrogates are poor. I have a friend who was a surrogate because she loved being pregnant and didn’t want to work outside the home. She stayed home with her own two children and I don’t know the exact number, but I know they paid her enough to cover her mortgage payment, put money in savings, and she also had grad school paid for. She never got sick or had stretch marks…she’s beautiful and one of those people who just loves being pregnant and bounces back. After doing the surrogacy she had two more children of her own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the argument is: as long as the other person has "free will" to decide to enter a contract-- enough money gives me the right to have full dominion over another person's body. Am I correct?

So, for the right amount of cash I can have my employee drug tested every day. For the right amount of money I could confine them for a period of time, as long as I want (if it's in the contract) and fully control what they eat and drink.

Where's the line?

Why are you putting free will in quotations? The line is coercion. I think if someone posted saying 'I hired a surrogate, is it ethical that I get to decide everything she eats and does for 9 months' everyone would agree that that was unethical. But that is not the same question as, 'is surrogacy unethical'. You want it to be black and white, it is not. Is taking a bicycle unethical? Not if I paid a store a fair price for it, but yes if i stole it. Acts in and of themselves are rarely (ever?) uniformly ethical or unethical, it is context that shapes morality.

Let's say I am a poor person and you offer me $400 a day to stay in a room (confinement) for as long as you want. As long as I am legally able to exit the contract if I want, then what is the problem? If you say you won't let me leave because I signed a contract without killing my family? Well that has changed the landscape.

If I was a teenager who wanted a car and you offered me $3000 if I got drug tested every day for six months is that unethical? What if I'm a parent and will only buy my kid a car if they get drug tested?

You put free will in quotations but it is the anchor of ethics. Free will doesn't mean lying or coercing someone into an unbreakable contract and then ruining their lives because at one point you got them to agree to something they didn't understand. Free will being important means that an agreement is likely ethical when it was entered into where both parties fully understand what is being asked and what is being offered, without coercion or force.

But also, of course I think there are lines. Is squid games ethical? They all fully understood what they were doing when they came back, but clearly, that is wrong. Primarily because there was substantial coercion.

What if my contract states that the confined person will be locked up for a month and they have no chance of backing out if they change their mind during the one month? Not that they forfeit the money but that there is no way out.

Then you have created an unethical contract. Ethics don't begin at end at step 1.

Why is that unethical? Because the person can't change their mind? Pls be specific.

[Anonymous]

And of course if the baby has a developmental syndrome, they can require the surrogate to abort, correct? They are paying after all. Or is it, her body her choice? 🤔

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is she paid well? Not just for her physical contribution but fur what you know, as someone who has given birth, can be a serious emotional upheaval as well? Like paid really, really, really well?

Is she doing this truly consensually with no weird power imbalances? Or is she a desperate woman in a desperate situation. You can (and should) heavily vet surrogacy agencies to find out how they recruit.

If the answer to the above is yes, and you have a *perfect* surrogacy contract, I think it can be done ethically. The contract has a lot of details you need to u sweat and though. I wouldn’t do it unless/until you have walked through and u d’état and every provision and why it is there.

Women still DIE from pregnancy and childbirth. Another person should risk their life bc OP doesn't want stretch marks??? Esp if the surrogate is a black women the odds are worse. Oh, wait. OP would never use a black surrogate never mind.

Roofers DIE from falling off a roof. Another person should risk their life because OP doesn’t want to do her own roofing? Many, many jobs entail risk, which is baked into the requirements for taking that job. Women who have had or are likely to have high-risk pregnancies do not qualify to be surrogates.

Stop paternalistically telling surrogates what they can and can’t do with their bodies. Trust women to make their own decisions.

You are comparing surrogacy to roofing. I can't even with you.

I'm not talking to surrogates or telling them what to do. I'm talking to OP who wants to not get pregnant for VANITY. That's disgusting and vile.

Why is it ethical for you to rent someone’s muscles, but not their uterus? Because it is her special sacred lady-place? I’m reminded of an article I read years ago about Indian surrogacy and some pious white foreigner asking a surrogate if she felt exploited. She laughed politely and said that her previous job had been literally breaking rocks, and that was exploitation.

Exactly. Who is the potential bio mom to say that another woman doesn't deserve what to her may be huge amounts of money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the argument is: as long as the other person has "free will" to decide to enter a contract-- enough money gives me the right to have full dominion over another person's body. Am I correct?

So, for the right amount of cash I can have my employee drug tested every day. For the right amount of money I could confine them for a period of time, as long as I want (if it's in the contract) and fully control what they eat and drink.

Where's the line?

Why are you putting free will in quotations? The line is coercion. I think if someone posted saying 'I hired a surrogate, is it ethical that I get to decide everything she eats and does for 9 months' everyone would agree that that was unethical. But that is not the same question as, 'is surrogacy unethical'. You want it to be black and white, it is not. Is taking a bicycle unethical? Not if I paid a store a fair price for it, but yes if i stole it. Acts in and of themselves are rarely (ever?) uniformly ethical or unethical, it is context that shapes morality.

Let's say I am a poor person and you offer me $400 a day to stay in a room (confinement) for as long as you want. As long as I am legally able to exit the contract if I want, then what is the problem? If you say you won't let me leave because I signed a contract without killing my family? Well that has changed the landscape.

If I was a teenager who wanted a car and you offered me $3000 if I got drug tested every day for six months is that unethical? What if I'm a parent and will only buy my kid a car if they get drug tested?

You put free will in quotations but it is the anchor of ethics. Free will doesn't mean lying or coercing someone into an unbreakable contract and then ruining their lives because at one point you got them to agree to something they didn't understand. Free will being important means that an agreement is likely ethical when it was entered into where both parties fully understand what is being asked and what is being offered, without coercion or force.

But also, of course I think there are lines. Is squid games ethical? They all fully understood what they were doing when they came back, but clearly, that is wrong. Primarily because there was substantial coercion.

What if my contract states that the confined person will be locked up for a month and they have no chance of backing out if they change their mind during the one month? Not that they forfeit the money but that there is no way out.

Then you have created an unethical contract. Ethics don't begin at end at step 1.

Why is that unethical? Because the person can't change their mind? Pls be specific.

Because the individual does not retain their free will through the course of the contract (they cannot leave), and this is unethical BECAUSE it is highly unlikely they were adequately prepared for what the experience would be like. If they were properly prepared, then I think the ethics are less clear. This is not ALWAYS unethical. An astronaut, for example, cannot back out of the space mission once they are up there. And because of this, the burden is on NASA to ensure that anyone who is going up into space understands that, they understand what it will be like, they train rigorously and they are tested extensively psychologically as well to make sure these people understand the choice they are making.

A transgender person undergoes an incredible amount of medical screening and counseling before making an irrevocable choice. And that is a choice they are making for themselves. But a doctor would be unethical going along with such a decision if it were made casually due to the potential harm they would be responsible for.

A surrogate goes through a lot of counseling, many have already had children, an ethical surrogacy would take place with a woman who fully comprehended what she was going to go through. And understood fully that once the process started, it would be extraordinarily difficult to extract themselves from the process. Any surrogate hired without fully ensuring that they understand these things would be hired unethically. But, notably, there is nowhere in this country where people think a surrogate should be tied up and force fed prenatal vitamins. The surrogate WILL have the ability to pursue an abortion, or just drink a lot of tequila. Their free will is never removed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the argument is: as long as the other person has "free will" to decide to enter a contract-- enough money gives me the right to have full dominion over another person's body. Am I correct?

So, for the right amount of cash I can have my employee drug tested every day. For the right amount of money I could confine them for a period of time, as long as I want (if it's in the contract) and fully control what they eat and drink.

Where's the line?

Why are you putting free will in quotations? The line is coercion. I think if someone posted saying 'I hired a surrogate, is it ethical that I get to decide everything she eats and does for 9 months' everyone would agree that that was unethical. But that is not the same question as, 'is surrogacy unethical'. You want it to be black and white, it is not. Is taking a bicycle unethical? Not if I paid a store a fair price for it, but yes if i stole it. Acts in and of themselves are rarely (ever?) uniformly ethical or unethical, it is context that shapes morality.

Let's say I am a poor person and you offer me $400 a day to stay in a room (confinement) for as long as you want. As long as I am legally able to exit the contract if I want, then what is the problem? If you say you won't let me leave because I signed a contract without killing my family? Well that has changed the landscape.

If I was a teenager who wanted a car and you offered me $3000 if I got drug tested every day for six months is that unethical? What if I'm a parent and will only buy my kid a car if they get drug tested?

You put free will in quotations but it is the anchor of ethics. Free will doesn't mean lying or coercing someone into an unbreakable contract and then ruining their lives because at one point you got them to agree to something they didn't understand. Free will being important means that an agreement is likely ethical when it was entered into where both parties fully understand what is being asked and what is being offered, without coercion or force.

But also, of course I think there are lines. Is squid games ethical? They all fully understood what they were doing when they came back, but clearly, that is wrong. Primarily because there was substantial coercion.

What if my contract states that the confined person will be locked up for a month and they have no chance of backing out if they change their mind during the one month? Not that they forfeit the money but that there is no way out.

Then you have created an unethical contract. Ethics don't begin at end at step 1.

Why is that unethical? Because the person can't change their mind? Pls be specific.

Because the individual does not retain their free will through the course of the contract (they cannot leave), and this is unethical BECAUSE it is highly unlikely they were adequately prepared for what the experience would be like. If they were properly prepared, then I think the ethics are less clear. This is not ALWAYS unethical. An astronaut, for example, cannot back out of the space mission once they are up there. And because of this, the burden is on NASA to ensure that anyone who is going up into space understands that, they understand what it will be like, they train rigorously and they are tested extensively psychologically as well to make sure these people understand the choice they are making.

A transgender person undergoes an incredible amount of medical screening and counseling before making an irrevocable choice. And that is a choice they are making for themselves. But a doctor would be unethical going along with such a decision if it were made casually due to the potential harm they would be responsible for.

A surrogate goes through a lot of counseling, many have already had children, an ethical surrogacy would take place with a woman who fully comprehended what she was going to go through. And understood fully that once the process started, it would be extraordinarily difficult to extract themselves from the process. Any surrogate hired without fully ensuring that they understand these things would be hired unethically. But, notably, there is nowhere in this country where people think a surrogate should be tied up and force fed prenatal vitamins. The surrogate WILL have the ability to pursue an abortion, or just drink a lot of tequila. Their free will is never removed.

Until the couple decides they want to selectively reduce triplets, or the baby has spina bifida so they want her to abort. What if she doesn't want to?

[Anonymous]

If the surrogate consents, then I feel it is ethical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the argument is: as long as the other person has "free will" to decide to enter a contract-- enough money gives me the right to have full dominion over another person's body. Am I correct?

So, for the right amount of cash I can have my employee drug tested every day. For the right amount of money I could confine them for a period of time, as long as I want (if it's in the contract) and fully control what they eat and drink.

Where's the line?

Why are you putting free will in quotations? The line is coercion. I think if someone posted saying 'I hired a surrogate, is it ethical that I get to decide everything she eats and does for 9 months' everyone would agree that that was unethical. But that is not the same question as, 'is surrogacy unethical'. You want it to be black and white, it is not. Is taking a bicycle unethical? Not if I paid a store a fair price for it, but yes if i stole it. Acts in and of themselves are rarely (ever?) uniformly ethical or unethical, it is context that shapes morality.

Let's say I am a poor person and you offer me $400 a day to stay in a room (confinement) for as long as you want. As long as I am legally able to exit the contract if I want, then what is the problem? If you say you won't let me leave because I signed a contract without killing my family? Well that has changed the landscape.

If I was a teenager who wanted a car and you offered me $3000 if I got drug tested every day for six months is that unethical? What if I'm a parent and will only buy my kid a car if they get drug tested?

You put free will in quotations but it is the anchor of ethics. Free will doesn't mean lying or coercing someone into an unbreakable contract and then ruining their lives because at one point you got them to agree to something they didn't understand. Free will being important means that an agreement is likely ethical when it was entered into where both parties fully understand what is being asked and what is being offered, without coercion or force.

But also, of course I think there are lines. Is squid games ethical? They all fully understood what they were doing when they came back, but clearly, that is wrong. Primarily because there was substantial coercion.

What if my contract states that the confined person will be locked up for a month and they have no chance of backing out if they change their mind during the one month? Not that they forfeit the money but that there is no way out.

Then you have created an unethical contract. Ethics don't begin at end at step 1.

Why is that unethical? Because the person can't change their mind? Pls be specific.

Because the individual does not retain their free will through the course of the contract (they cannot leave), and this is unethical BECAUSE it is highly unlikely they were adequately prepared for what the experience would be like. If they were properly prepared, then I think the ethics are less clear. This is not ALWAYS unethical. An astronaut, for example, cannot back out of the space mission once they are up there. And because of this, the burden is on NASA to ensure that anyone who is going up into space understands that, they understand what it will be like, they train rigorously and they are tested extensively psychologically as well to make sure these people understand the choice they are making.

A transgender person undergoes an incredible amount of medical screening and counseling before making an irrevocable choice. And that is a choice they are making for themselves. But a doctor would be unethical going along with such a decision if it were made casually due to the potential harm they would be responsible for.

A surrogate goes through a lot of counseling, many have already had children, an ethical surrogacy would take place with a woman who fully comprehended what she was going to go through. And understood fully that once the process started, it would be extraordinarily difficult to extract themselves from the process. Any surrogate hired without fully ensuring that they understand these things would be hired unethically. But, notably, there is nowhere in this country where people think a surrogate should be tied up and force fed prenatal vitamins. The surrogate WILL have the ability to pursue an abortion, or just drink a lot of tequila. Their free will is never removed.

Until the couple decides they want to selectively reduce triplets, or the baby has spina bifida so they want her to abort. What if she doesn't want to?

These are thorny ethical issues that have actually come up! In the US current legal precedent says that you cannot force a surrogate to abort a baby! In the US you are only supposed to transplant a single embryo due to increased risk to the gestational carrier in multiples pregnancies. Even overseas they only implant 2. In an extremely rare situation where a single embryo split into 3+ identical twins I imagine there would be a lot of angsting around what decisions had to be made. And the choice would likely lie with the gestational carrier (the flip side is the gestational carrier finds she is pregnant with three babies and SHE wants to selectively reduce for her own health despite opposition from the parents). Generally the courts in the US side with the surrogate's free will in these issues.

You honestly sound like you just have a gut feeling this is bad but you know virtually nothing about ethics, medical ethics, or gestational ethics at all or even much about the surrogacy process and are talking entirely out your truthiness butt.