Anonymous wrote:Wow. There is a lot on this thread. Lots of very firmly held opinions by people who, based on their comments, know very little about surrogacy.

I don’t have time to address everything, but one thing I have noticed is the repeated claim that poor women even can be surrogates. FYI. In the US, at least (globally it’s different), you have to be middle class and financially stable to be a surrogate. Caveat: surrogates can lie about their financials and there are shady agencies and clinics who are less scrupulous.

But overall, financial stability is a critical part of surrogate selection. It is very hard to manage and carry a pregnancy to term in low-income environments. It’s too risky. Poverty comes with health effects that may be harmful to the pregnancy, there may be housing and food insecurity, etc. So while I certainly wouldn’t say it never happens, it’s highly undesirable and isn’t to norm. Most US surrogates are financially secure.

Signed,
A parent by surrogacy (medically necessary) who has been in this space for over a decade

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. It is not ethical to rent a woman’s womb. Women are not chattel.

Since when does chattel get paid?

The essence of slavery is the lack of choice and fair compensation. Neither of those apply here, so gtfo with your (ahem) histrionics. OP isn’t talking about hiring a poor woman from a developing nation and your constant effort to argue that it’s the same thing just shows how much you infantalize women, and how incapable you think they are of making their own choices.

Since when DO chattel get paid, not does. The word is always plural.

Anyway, why on earth do you think it's one person arguing this argument? Face it, many people feel this way and many different people have posted on this thread. Oh, and this pesky lil thing called the European Court of Human Rights.

Sure, grammar pedantry totally bolsters a weak argument.

There’s clearly more than one person, but there’s also one person who’s been spending a whole lot of time here. You can recognize her because she has a little to offer except inchoate moral outrage, confusion about which continent we’re on, and the deep conviction that no woman knows her own mind enough to freely choose to be a surrogate.

However, you are absolutely correct that this may describe more than one person.

I think you're the one who is being historianic now. That was never the argument. And it's a little disingenuous to bring feminism into it. Have you learned nothing about class privilege? I'm fine with it being completely altruistic like in the UK but as soon as money changes hands things are suspect and it makes people into a commodity

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s similar to donating organs. People usually donate to family members/friends, or perhaps to a stranger out of the goodness of their heart. But you can’t sell your organs. I have the bodily autonomy to decide what I do with my extra kidney, and I can donate it if I want, but accepting money then sets up a dynamic where the poor are exploited by the rich.

See PP above who paid a poor woman with little access to jobs or childcare. How many women would be a surrogate if we had a society where women earned a fair wage and they had the work/life balance to care for their children? Would that same woman have been a surrogate if she could get a good job and hire a nanny? My guess is probably not.

FWIW I love being pregnant and am open to being a surrogate for family/very close friends. One family member did ask me, and like OP, it was because she didn’t want the damage of pregnancy and childbirth on her body. I was not okay with that and it made me feel like she saw my body as expendable and already damaged. And I know I’ll get flamed for this, but honestly, I don’t think either women or men who are that precious about their bodies make good parents. There’s so much more to life than having flat abs or flawless skin, and kids shouldn’t be raised in a house where people obsess over their bodies.

Anonymous wrote:All you ladies claiming you would be surrogates-- you do know you have to basically have IVF, right? Many, many shots in your muscle and transvaginal ultrasounds.

I'm a veterinarian and we do this in cows and horses. It's called Embryo Transfer. The "genetically superior" female is super ovulated and many embryos are created. Then the animals that aren't as valuable are hormonally manipulated to accept the embryos of the female that is more highly valued.

See how I find it ethically gross to do to people? It sets up a system where certain people are more worthy b.c they have money, and that gives them the right to use another woman's body.

I know you will start yelling about people having free will- though there is lots of evidence of trafficking and coercion in the industry. A desperately poor person can easily be forced into being a gestational carrier.

Anonymous wrote:I think this is a troll thread. We did it but for medical reasons. Even the smoothest pregnancy involves almost a year of hand holding / emotional support of the surrogate. Healthy bay though.

Anonymous wrote:People are so effing crazy, as evidenced by this thread.

As others have said, if the surrogate is willing and not coerced and you compensate well then of course this is ethical. People die doing construction work all the time but no one questions the ethics of hiring a crew to build you something.

If everyone involved has free will and is being treated well, then all the consenting adults are making their own choices and everything is, IMO, fully ethical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. It is not ethical to rent a woman’s womb. Women are not chattel.

Since when does chattel get paid?

The essence of slavery is the lack of choice and fair compensation. Neither of those apply here, so gtfo with your (ahem) histrionics. OP isn’t talking about hiring a poor woman from a developing nation and your constant effort to argue that it’s the same thing just shows how much you infantalize women, and how incapable you think they are of making their own choices.

Since when DO chattel get paid, not does. The word is always plural.

Anyway, why on earth do you think it's one person arguing this argument? Face it, many people feel this way and many different people have posted on this thread. Oh, and this pesky lil thing called the European Court of Human Rights.

Sure, grammar pedantry totally bolsters a weak argument.

There’s clearly more than one person, but there’s also one person who’s been spending a whole lot of time here. You can recognize her because she has a little to offer except inchoate moral outrage, confusion about which continent we’re on, and the deep conviction that no woman knows her own mind enough to freely choose to be a surrogate.

However, you are absolutely correct that this may describe more than one person.