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.

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?

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with this. Is it ethical to hire workmen on your roof? They might fall off. Ethical to have a police force? They might get shot. Ethical to eat crab or fish? Fishing is very dangerous. And so on.

Home repair food production and policing are all way more necessary to society than one individual person having a biological child. Reproduction is actually optional.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Going through the same process now for medical reasons. It makes me sad to think of all the wild judgement and speculation we might receive from people who don't the know the circumstances.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with this. Is it ethical to hire workmen on your roof? They might fall off. Ethical to have a police force? They might get shot. Ethical to eat crab or fish? Fishing is very dangerous. And so on.

Anonymous wrote:Surrogacy is illegal in most developed countries and should be illegal in the US. White, rich, entitled, narcissist women are using poor, in/ill-educated women to have their accessory children. Surrogacy is morally repugnant. It is buying babies and exploiting to women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surrogacy is illegal in most developed countries and should be illegal in the US. White, rich, entitled, narcissist women are using poor, in/ill-educated women to have their accessory children. Surrogacy is morally repugnant. It is buying babies and exploiting to women.

People keep saying surrogacy is illegal in most countries so I did a quick search and it looks like no, altruistic surrogacy is the most common standard, legally speaking. https://www.healthlawcentral.com/surrogacy/surrogacy-ethical-legal-issues/

Anonymous wrote:Surrogacy is illegal in most developed countries and should be illegal in the US. White, rich, entitled, narcissist women are using poor, in/ill-educated women to have their accessory children. Surrogacy is morally repugnant. It is buying babies and exploiting to women.

Anonymous wrote:Surrogacy is illegal in most developed countries and should be illegal in the US. White, rich, entitled, narcissist women are using poor, in/ill-educated women to have their accessory children. Surrogacy is morally repugnant. It is buying babies and exploiting to women.