Anonymous wrote:

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

Not in the US but whatever.

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: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

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote: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?