This is a thoughtful piece and discusses some important moral and factual issues. It was pleasing that the author (given his religious background)does not rely on religious arguments.

It is hard not to notice that the author nevertheless has little that is positive to say about assisted reproduction. I would have thought that facilitating the joy of parenthood for otherwise childless couples, who really wanted a child, was the big positive for IVF.

The author mentions "concerns about the long term health risks for children of IVF". Some discussion of the evidence behind such concerns would have been useful.

I agree with the author that there are a lot of negatives associated with commercial surrogacy. I personally regard both commercial surrogacy (and for that matter payment for live organ donation)as forms of prostitution (and far more invasive than paid sex).

I just don't see an issue here, any more than that in controlled consensual contractual, paid for sex!
IVF assisted pregnancy has been with us for decades! And it's high time commercial surrogacy was legalized in this country!
As well as making it easier and faster, for principled parents to adopt!
There's many a poor mum, down at heel and finished making her own family, that would have few qualms, about providing a rent a womb, for others to complete there own, impossible to personally have, families!
And make no mistake it's happening, legally, with increasing frequency elsewhere!
If its done here, we reduce the risks!
Done elsewhere, just increases them for intending parents and surrogate mums, who all too soon, are the forgotten party, in this million dollar money-go-round. Where the middle man reaps most of the profit?!
Given we can not actually decide or control what occurs in other countries, we should just legalize it here!
If only to halt this patently, every which way cruel, extremely profitable for a few, trade in, patently immoral, baby trafficking?
Rhrosty.

Dear Rhorsty,

Decriminalise - definitely.
Moralise - not.

While governments must not interfere with what consenting people do, there is no justification for government and courts to uphold and enforce immoral contracts.

Yuyustu:
The immoral part is nothing whatsoever to do with surrogacy, just the obscene profiteering on the part of few clearly unscrupulous grubby money makers, preying on some unfortunate couples, and their dirt poor surrogate!
Cheers Rhrosty.

It does seem odd that the author should be happy with Third World women doing backbreaking work in the fields for a year or two when they could be earning more money and being looked after in relative comfort by carrying and having someone else's baby. Since the author's byline tells us that he's "director of the Life, Marriage and Family Centre, Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney", nobody should have any difficulty working out where his real priorities are. But here's a hint; they've got nothing to do with human welfare.

Does the author feel that a woman from the 3rd world is having her human rights violated by bearing a surrogate child? Is this not her choice?

The women is paid probably more than she can earn for the rest of her life, and I get annoyed when some sanctimonious do gooders feel that she should be banned from grasping the opportunity to lift herself from poverty because the transaction violates their vision of what is right.