Is it ethical to outsource pregnancy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I just can’t imagine a wealthy woman agreeeing to carry and nurture *your* baby for nine months, giving birth, and then gleefully handing him over to you, most likely never to be seen again.

Talk about trauma for both the baby AND the mother! Birth mothers definitely should have ongoing psychological support available.

This is literally the most common scenario in the us. Maybe not always a wealthy woman but a financially secure and independent woman yes yes yes.

Just because you cannot imagine something doesn’t mean it does not exist.

Wow. Continue in your delusion if you think most of these young women are financially “secure”, and they just want to get pregnant so you can have your dream baby.

I have never had a surrogate and am done having babies. I had hyperemesis three times (that is when you throw up the whole time and lose 10% of your body weight from 'morning' sickness). I also had crippling pelvic pain in the second and third pregnancies and was hospitalized twice with preeclampsia. Had surrogacy been something even somewhat financially feasible for me I would have been first in line. But I could not adequately compensate someone for that, so there was no way.

There is only one delusional person here, and its you.

I had 3 babies, worked out until 3 weeks before birth, list my baby weight within 6 months and lived being pregnant.

I often thought of being a surrogate because I like to give back … to much is given much is expected. Not everybody is you.

[Anonymous]

^^ugh typos

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I just can’t imagine a wealthy woman agreeeing to carry and nurture *your* baby for nine months, giving birth, and then gleefully handing him over to you, most likely never to be seen again.

Talk about trauma for both the baby AND the mother! Birth mothers definitely should have ongoing psychological support available.

This is literally the most common scenario in the us. Maybe not always a wealthy woman but a financially secure and independent woman yes yes yes.

Just because you cannot imagine something doesn’t mean it does not exist.

Wow. Continue in your delusion if you think most of these young women are financially “secure”, and they just want to get pregnant so you can have your dream baby.

I have never had a surrogate and am done having babies. I had hyperemesis three times (that is when you throw up the whole time and lose 10% of your body weight from 'morning' sickness). I also had crippling pelvic pain in the second and third pregnancies and was hospitalized twice with preeclampsia. Had surrogacy been something even somewhat financially feasible for me I would have been first in line. But I could not adequately compensate someone for that, so there was no way.

There is only one delusional person here, and its you.

I had 3 babies, worked out until 3 weeks before birth, list my baby weight within 6 months and lived being pregnant.

I often thought of being a surrogate because I like to give back … to much is given much is expected. Not everybody is you.

I am the PP and do not understand this reply. Genuinely. I know not everyone has horrible pregnancies, my point was that I was unable to pursue surrogacy despite medical reasons that could justify it because I couldn't afford it, to illustrate that surrogates are treated well. I made no sweeping generalizations about how all/most women experience pregnancy. I greatly envy people who had easy pregnancies!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on this thread know nothing about surrogacy in practice and just throw their opinions in the pot.
We used a surrogate. She was not poor. She agreed to carry the baby and go to the doctor and deliver at a hospital. Other than that she did whatever she wanted to do. We kept in touch of course and there were lots of legalities doctors lawyers etc etc. She DID NOT want another baby and gladly gave the baby to us. We paid her. I wish we could have paid her more but the RE made the most money.

And the surrogacy agency, which none of these fools have mentioned. You want to see where the biggest ethical issues are, look there.

I, too, am an parent through surrogacy. I raised these same points a few pages back, as have other IPs. People completely ignored my post. The folks arguing here have zero understanding of the facts and reality of how this actually works. They simply prefer to fight the things they can imagine without knowledge or experience. It’s fascinating and appalling in equal measure.

I fear for this country if this is what constitutes honest debate.

But ethics isn't just telling personal stories about how everything is peachy and no one was harmed. It's moral philosophy. So you have to take all possibilities into account.

Even if you are being Utilitarian- you have to look at both sides of the tracks of the Trolly Problem. Not just tell about how great it was that you were on the side of the ten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The big legality was that since it was gestational surrogacy she did not have the right to keep the baby. Other than that she had free will to live her life as a pregnant woman.

She could have easily hoped on a plane to a jurisdiction that viewed the matter differently

She could have done that. She could have fled to Mexico or anywhere. Except she didn’t. Everything went as planned. Easy birth. Both of our families moved to different states after that. But because of the ignorance surrounding the whole thing both families just recorded to keep their business to themselves.

[Anonymous]

Ethics regarding donor egg and donor sperm from 25 years ago just sound ridiculous. As do the “ethics” of IVF. People just sit around making up scenarios that are very rare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ethics regarding donor egg and donor sperm from 25 years ago just sound ridiculous. As do the “ethics” of IVF. People just sit around making up scenarios that are very rare.

Again, that's how ethics works.

We all have to decide if our actions are worth the risk of harm to others. So when I drive my car to work I risk the lives of others. But I have decided that the benefit to society of my work is worth the risk.

So for surrogacy, you are deciding that the TINY risk of death and the perhaps slightly larger risk of harm, is worth it for you to have your own biological child. Some of us disagree with that decision. You have to be open to that disagreement because they are allowed to have different opinions. In the end, society at large has to make these calculations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on this thread know nothing about surrogacy in practice and just throw their opinions in the pot.
We used a surrogate. She was not poor. She agreed to carry the baby and go to the doctor and deliver at a hospital. Other than that she did whatever she wanted to do. We kept in touch of course and there were lots of legalities doctors lawyers etc etc. She DID NOT want another baby and gladly gave the baby to us. We paid her. I wish we could have paid her more but the RE made the most money.

And the surrogacy agency, which none of these fools have mentioned. You want to see where the biggest ethical issues are, look there.

I, too, am an parent through surrogacy. I raised these same points a few pages back, as have other IPs. People completely ignored my post. The folks arguing here have zero understanding of the facts and reality of how this actually works. They simply prefer to fight the things they can imagine without knowledge or experience. It’s fascinating and appalling in equal measure.

I fear for this country if this is what constitutes honest debate.

But ethics isn't just telling personal stories about how everything is peachy and no one was harmed. It's moral philosophy. So you have to take all possibilities into account.

Even if you are being Utilitarian- you have to look at both sides of the tracks of the Trolly Problem. Not just tell about how great it was that you were on the side of the ten.

Oh did you finally go read the wikipedia page on ethics? Now you know fun buzz words like utilitarianism and the details of the trolley problem?

Moral philosophy fails if it does not confront reality. Kant's morality could never be applied to the real world. And I studied philosophy and college me was a lot like you, believing there was a right and a wrong and that allowing pesky things like context to alter your moral code was wrong.

But the real world context for ethical problems is critical to making ethical structures that actually hold up in the real world. Grow up PP, it is difficult to figure out how to navigate life doing the most good, and the least amount of harm. Like you said, you need to take all possibilities into account. In our country, with organ donation as an example you have frequently cited, we have decided we are more ok with people dying of preventable kidney failure than we are paying people to donate kidneys (and that isn't me saying that is the right or wrong choice, just saying that is the choice we have made). You want to make the choice to deprive families of wanted children and women of wanted work in order to ensure that no woman is ever taken advantage of. I don't agree with that choice but I can understand making it. You refuse to see the other half of the equation you are putting out there, and so honestly I think your opinion is not fully considered. You aren't grappling with consequences of your preferred choice, you just want it to be the unquestionable better choice. But there are almost no real world ethical conundrums where there is an easy correct choice. Your unwillingness to face that makes you a poor arguer and someone who I would never want making large decisions for society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ethics regarding donor egg and donor sperm from 25 years ago just sound ridiculous. As do the “ethics” of IVF. People just sit around making up scenarios that are very rare.

Again, that's how ethics works.

We all have to decide if our actions are worth the risk of harm to others. So when I drive my car to work I risk the lives of others. But I have decided that the benefit to society of my work is worth the risk.

So for surrogacy, you are deciding that the TINY risk of death and the perhaps slightly larger risk of harm, is worth it for you to have your own biological child. Some of us disagree with that decision. You have to be open to that disagreement because they are allowed to have different opinions. In the end, society at large has to make these calculations.

The surrogate, who is an adult woman with successful pregnancies is the one deciding that. Also the legislature feels the risk is legal as well as the RE and many other people involved. Don’t infantilize women for your beliefs.

[Anonymous]

You are welcome to your opinion however.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on this thread know nothing about surrogacy in practice and just throw their opinions in the pot.
We used a surrogate. She was not poor. She agreed to carry the baby and go to the doctor and deliver at a hospital. Other than that she did whatever she wanted to do. We kept in touch of course and there were lots of legalities doctors lawyers etc etc. She DID NOT want another baby and gladly gave the baby to us. We paid her. I wish we could have paid her more but the RE made the most money.

And the surrogacy agency, which none of these fools have mentioned. You want to see where the biggest ethical issues are, look there.

I, too, am an parent through surrogacy. I raised these same points a few pages back, as have other IPs. People completely ignored my post. The folks arguing here have zero understanding of the facts and reality of how this actually works. They simply prefer to fight the things they can imagine without knowledge or experience. It’s fascinating and appalling in equal measure.

I fear for this country if this is what constitutes honest debate.

But ethics isn't just telling personal stories about how everything is peachy and no one was harmed. It's moral philosophy. So you have to take all possibilities into account.

Even if you are being Utilitarian- you have to look at both sides of the tracks of the Trolly Problem. Not just tell about how great it was that you were on the side of the ten.

Oh did you finally go read the wikipedia page on ethics? Now you know fun buzz words like utilitarianism and the details of the trolley problem?

Moral philosophy fails if it does not confront reality. Kant's morality could never be applied to the real world. And I studied philosophy and college me was a lot like you, believing there was a right and a wrong and that allowing pesky things like context to alter your moral code was wrong.

But the real world context for ethical problems is critical to making ethical structures that actually hold up in the real world. Grow up PP, it is difficult to figure out how to navigate life doing the most good, and the least amount of harm. Like you said, you need to take all possibilities into account. In our country, with organ donation as an example you have frequently cited, we have decided we are more ok with people dying of preventable kidney failure than we are paying people to donate kidneys (and that isn't me saying that is the right or wrong choice, just saying that is the choice we have made). You want to make the choice to deprive families of wanted children and women of wanted work in order to ensure that no woman is ever taken advantage of. I don't agree with that choice but I can understand making it. You refuse to see the other half of the equation you are putting out there, and so honestly I think your opinion is not fully considered. You aren't grappling with consequences of your preferred choice, you just want it to be the unquestionable better choice. But there are almost no real world ethical conundrums where there is an easy correct choice. Your unwillingness to face that makes you a poor arguer and someone who I would never want making large decisions for society.

Why does it bother you so much that someone has come to a different conclusion than you did? Why do you need to resort to insults and saying their opinion isn't well-considered? B.c you are the final arbiter?

Paid kidney donation I feel has more risk of harm than benefit-- because dialysis machines exist. People can live for a very long time with this technology. Sure it's time consuming but it is life-saving.

I think the case for transactional surrogacy is worse even than paid organ donation. Having your own biological baby is completely optional. It does not save the life of another human. (Barring having a baby to donate bone marrow to a sibling etc which is a whole different topic)

Maybe there will come a time I would change my mind. I do get the point of it being work. But where we are now, as a society, I just see too much exploitation of workers and a multitude of other problems (for profit healthcare, weak unions, more billionaires than ever etc) for me to trust the harm/benefit ratio would be at an acceptable level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on this thread know nothing about surrogacy in practice and just throw their opinions in the pot.
We used a surrogate. She was not poor. She agreed to carry the baby and go to the doctor and deliver at a hospital. Other than that she did whatever she wanted to do. We kept in touch of course and there were lots of legalities doctors lawyers etc etc. She DID NOT want another baby and gladly gave the baby to us. We paid her. I wish we could have paid her more but the RE made the most money.

And the surrogacy agency, which none of these fools have mentioned. You want to see where the biggest ethical issues are, look there.

I, too, am an parent through surrogacy. I raised these same points a few pages back, as have other IPs. People completely ignored my post. The folks arguing here have zero understanding of the facts and reality of how this actually works. They simply prefer to fight the things they can imagine without knowledge or experience. It’s fascinating and appalling in equal measure.

I fear for this country if this is what constitutes honest debate.

But ethics isn't just telling personal stories about how everything is peachy and no one was harmed. It's moral philosophy. So you have to take all possibilities into account.

Even if you are being Utilitarian- you have to look at both sides of the tracks of the Trolly Problem. Not just tell about how great it was that you were on the side of the ten.

Oh did you finally go read the wikipedia page on ethics? Now you know fun buzz words like utilitarianism and the details of the trolley problem?

Moral philosophy fails if it does not confront reality. Kant's morality could never be applied to the real world. And I studied philosophy and college me was a lot like you, believing there was a right and a wrong and that allowing pesky things like context to alter your moral code was wrong.

But the real world context for ethical problems is critical to making ethical structures that actually hold up in the real world. Grow up PP, it is difficult to figure out how to navigate life doing the most good, and the least amount of harm. Like you said, you need to take all possibilities into account. In our country, with organ donation as an example you have frequently cited, we have decided we are more ok with people dying of preventable kidney failure than we are paying people to donate kidneys (and that isn't me saying that is the right or wrong choice, just saying that is the choice we have made). You want to make the choice to deprive families of wanted children and women of wanted work in order to ensure that no woman is ever taken advantage of. I don't agree with that choice but I can understand making it. You refuse to see the other half of the equation you are putting out there, and so honestly I think your opinion is not fully considered. You aren't grappling with consequences of your preferred choice, you just want it to be the unquestionable better choice. But there are almost no real world ethical conundrums where there is an easy correct choice. Your unwillingness to face that makes you a poor arguer and someone who I would never want making large decisions for society.

Why does it bother you so much that someone has come to a different conclusion than you did? Why do you need to resort to insults and saying their opinion isn't well-considered? B.c you are the final arbiter?

Paid kidney donation I feel has more risk of harm than benefit-- because dialysis machines exist. People can live for a very long time with this technology. Sure it's time consuming but it is life-saving.

I think the case for transactional surrogacy is worse even than paid organ donation. Having your own biological baby is completely optional. It does not save the life of another human. (Barring having a baby to donate bone marrow to a sibling etc which is a whole different topic)

Maybe there will come a time I would change my mind. I do get the point of it being work. But where we are now, as a society, I just see too much exploitation of workers and a multitude of other problems (for profit healthcare, weak unions, more billionaires than ever etc) for me to trust the harm/benefit ratio would be at an acceptable level.

It is hard to tell how many people I'm arguing with. I am not bothered that someone has come to a different conclusion than I have. I am bothered that there appears to be at least one poster who does not adequately evaluate the other side of the argument. Who is claiming that because she was abused she could have easily been coerced into surrogacy, who believes that all surrogates are poor women being manipulated and mistreated. She has repeatedly denied the possibility that a financially well off woman could willingly and with full knowledge of the consequences choose to become a surrogate. She is denying reality to make a theoretical ethical point. If that poster is not you, then feel free to ignore the ire coming through in my post.

I could argue with you about kidney donation but that would be off topic and I do not think that any answer is obviously right there either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I just can’t imagine a wealthy woman agreeeing to carry and nurture *your* baby for nine months, giving birth, and then gleefully handing him over to you, most likely never to be seen again.

Talk about trauma for both the baby AND the mother! Birth mothers definitely should have ongoing psychological support available.

But truly there are people like that! My friend was one of them. She loved being pregnant but already had 2 kids and her husband didn’t want any more. So the surrogacy was a compromise. She went through pregnancy again and carried the baby for another family. Win-win! See the posts above too!

My friend was a surrogate for this exact reason. It really happens. She's not rich, but she's certainly fine financially. It was more of an altruistic thing than a "I have to do this or my family will starve" thing...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on this thread know nothing about surrogacy in practice and just throw their opinions in the pot.
We used a surrogate. She was not poor. She agreed to carry the baby and go to the doctor and deliver at a hospital. Other than that she did whatever she wanted to do. We kept in touch of course and there were lots of legalities doctors lawyers etc etc. She DID NOT want another baby and gladly gave the baby to us. We paid her. I wish we could have paid her more but the RE made the most money.

And the surrogacy agency, which none of these fools have mentioned. You want to see where the biggest ethical issues are, look there.

I, too, am an parent through surrogacy. I raised these same points a few pages back, as have other IPs. People completely ignored my post. The folks arguing here have zero understanding of the facts and reality of how this actually works. They simply prefer to fight the things they can imagine without knowledge or experience. It’s fascinating and appalling in equal measure.

I fear for this country if this is what constitutes honest debate.

But ethics isn't just telling personal stories about how everything is peachy and no one was harmed. It's moral philosophy. So you have to take all possibilities into account.

Even if you are being Utilitarian- you have to look at both sides of the tracks of the Trolly Problem. Not just tell about how great it was that you were on the side of the ten.

Oh did you finally go read the wikipedia page on ethics? Now you know fun buzz words like utilitarianism and the details of the trolley problem?

Moral philosophy fails if it does not confront reality. Kant's morality could never be applied to the real world. And I studied philosophy and college me was a lot like you, believing there was a right and a wrong and that allowing pesky things like context to alter your moral code was wrong.

But the real world context for ethical problems is critical to making ethical structures that actually hold up in the real world. Grow up PP, it is difficult to figure out how to navigate life doing the most good, and the least amount of harm. Like you said, you need to take all possibilities into account. In our country, with organ donation as an example you have frequently cited, we have decided we are more ok with people dying of preventable kidney failure than we are paying people to donate kidneys (and that isn't me saying that is the right or wrong choice, just saying that is the choice we have made). You want to make the choice to deprive families of wanted children and women of wanted work in order to ensure that no woman is ever taken advantage of. I don't agree with that choice but I can understand making it. You refuse to see the other half of the equation you are putting out there, and so honestly I think your opinion is not fully considered. You aren't grappling with consequences of your preferred choice, you just want it to be the unquestionable better choice. But there are almost no real world ethical conundrums where there is an easy correct choice. Your unwillingness to face that makes you a poor arguer and someone who I would never want making large decisions for society.

Why does it bother you so much that someone has come to a different conclusion than you did? Why do you need to resort to insults and saying their opinion isn't well-considered? B.c you are the final arbiter?

Paid kidney donation I feel has more risk of harm than benefit-- because dialysis machines exist. People can live for a very long time with this technology. Sure it's time consuming but it is life-saving.

I think the case for transactional surrogacy is worse even than paid organ donation. Having your own biological baby is completely optional. It does not save the life of another human. (Barring having a baby to donate bone marrow to a sibling etc which is a whole different topic)

Maybe there will come a time I would change my mind. I do get the point of it being work. But where we are now, as a society, I just see too much exploitation of workers and a multitude of other problems (for profit healthcare, weak unions, more billionaires than ever etc) for me to trust the harm/benefit ratio would be at an acceptable level.

It is hard to tell how many people I'm arguing with. I am not bothered that someone has come to a different conclusion than I have. I am bothered that there appears to be at least one poster who does not adequately evaluate the other side of the argument. Who is claiming that because she was abused she could have easily been coerced into surrogacy, who believes that all surrogates are poor women being manipulated and mistreated. She has repeatedly denied the possibility that a financially well off woman could willingly and with full knowledge of the consequences choose to become a surrogate. She is denying reality to make a theoretical ethical point. If that poster is not you, then feel free to ignore the ire coming through in my post.

I could argue with you about kidney donation but that would be off topic and I do not think that any answer is obviously right there either.

I think it's hard to follow the through line of an argument- I think many people have posted. It's an emotional topic.

But no one can deny both possibilities: just as there absolutely are people who volunteer willingly and will even do it for free, the possibility also exists that someone could be forced into it. No matter how well-regulated the system is/would be. And to some, that's serious enough to come down on the side of no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on this thread know nothing about surrogacy in practice and just throw their opinions in the pot.
We used a surrogate. She was not poor. She agreed to carry the baby and go to the doctor and deliver at a hospital. Other than that she did whatever she wanted to do. We kept in touch of course and there were lots of legalities doctors lawyers etc etc. She DID NOT want another baby and gladly gave the baby to us. We paid her. I wish we could have paid her more but the RE made the most money.

And the surrogacy agency, which none of these fools have mentioned. You want to see where the biggest ethical issues are, look there.

I, too, am an parent through surrogacy. I raised these same points a few pages back, as have other IPs. People completely ignored my post. The folks arguing here have zero understanding of the facts and reality of how this actually works. They simply prefer to fight the things they can imagine without knowledge or experience. It’s fascinating and appalling in equal measure.

I fear for this country if this is what constitutes honest debate.

But ethics isn't just telling personal stories about how everything is peachy and no one was harmed. It's moral philosophy. So you have to take all possibilities into account.

Even if you are being Utilitarian- you have to look at both sides of the tracks of the Trolly Problem. Not just tell about how great it was that you were on the side of the ten.

Oh did you finally go read the wikipedia page on ethics? Now you know fun buzz words like utilitarianism and the details of the trolley problem?

Moral philosophy fails if it does not confront reality. Kant's morality could never be applied to the real world. And I studied philosophy and college me was a lot like you, believing there was a right and a wrong and that allowing pesky things like context to alter your moral code was wrong.

But the real world context for ethical problems is critical to making ethical structures that actually hold up in the real world. Grow up PP, it is difficult to figure out how to navigate life doing the most good, and the least amount of harm. Like you said, you need to take all possibilities into account. In our country, with organ donation as an example you have frequently cited, we have decided we are more ok with people dying of preventable kidney failure than we are paying people to donate kidneys (and that isn't me saying that is the right or wrong choice, just saying that is the choice we have made). You want to make the choice to deprive families of wanted children and women of wanted work in order to ensure that no woman is ever taken advantage of. I don't agree with that choice but I can understand making it. You refuse to see the other half of the equation you are putting out there, and so honestly I think your opinion is not fully considered. You aren't grappling with consequences of your preferred choice, you just want it to be the unquestionable better choice. But there are almost no real world ethical conundrums where there is an easy correct choice. Your unwillingness to face that makes you a poor arguer and someone who I would never want making large decisions for society.

Why does it bother you so much that someone has come to a different conclusion than you did? Why do you need to resort to insults and saying their opinion isn't well-considered? B.c you are the final arbiter?

Paid kidney donation I feel has more risk of harm than benefit-- because dialysis machines exist. People can live for a very long time with this technology. Sure it's time consuming but it is life-saving.

I think the case for transactional surrogacy is worse even than paid organ donation. Having your own biological baby is completely optional. It does not save the life of another human. (Barring having a baby to donate bone marrow to a sibling etc which is a whole different topic)

Maybe there will come a time I would change my mind. I do get the point of it being work. But where we are now, as a society, I just see too much exploitation of workers and a multitude of other problems (for profit healthcare, weak unions, more billionaires than ever etc) for me to trust the harm/benefit ratio would be at an acceptable level.

It is hard to tell how many people I'm arguing with. I am not bothered that someone has come to a different conclusion than I have. I am bothered that there appears to be at least one poster who does not adequately evaluate the other side of the argument. Who is claiming that because she was abused she could have easily been coerced into surrogacy, who believes that all surrogates are poor women being manipulated and mistreated. She has repeatedly denied the possibility that a financially well off woman could willingly and with full knowledge of the consequences choose to become a surrogate. She is denying reality to make a theoretical ethical point. If that poster is not you, then feel free to ignore the ire coming through in my post.

I could argue with you about kidney donation but that would be off topic and I do not think that any answer is obviously right there either.

I think it's hard to follow the through line of an argument- I think many people have posted. It's an emotional topic.

But no one can deny both possibilities: just as there absolutely are people who volunteer willingly and will even do it for free, the possibility also exists that someone could be forced into it. No matter how well-regulated the system is/would be. And to some, that's serious enough to come down on the side of no.

But this is true for virtually anything. And so what is it about surrogacy that makes it so wrong. You could force people to wait in hot lines for you at Disney, force someone to be a bone marrow giver, force someone into a boxing ring. If the line is “optional activity” there are many many optional activities that we allow cogent rational humans to decide to do. IE, every single player in the NFL right now is deciding their compensation and personal desires are worth the risk of playing.

It seems by singling our surrogacy for banning that we are infantilizing women who want to be surrogates and dismissing women who want to be mothers. It is baffling to me that we can write off a woman’s desire for a baby as optimal (when it is written into our DNA to desire to reproduce [not that everyone has to want children but it is a biological imperative nonetheless]) but sports entertainment, movie production (a system rife with abuse of less powerful people) etc are not seen as crises in our culture.