A thoughtful opinion piece but I found the discounting of Lauren's testimony disturbing. She is expressing the impact of learning that her conception was a result of surrogacy. You appear to dismiss her saying her market ideology is driving her reaction but it is not her ideology it is the reality of what occurs when the life of a human being is regarded as a commodity

Capitalism, so Marx wrote, is always on the look-out to commodify everything. So now it's births: somebody pays, somebody does the necessary labour, and that's pretty much all it is, a commercial arrangement. One party pays, the other delivers.

But if tourism exploits poorer regions, somewhat perverting the local culture, then surrogacy might fit in with that quite easily: along with saris and native sculptures and dot-paintings, why not a kid ? If there's a market for saris and dot-paintings, why not for babies ?

Except that there may be complications to do with children's rights, access by a birth-parent (if the birth-mother has contracted only part-sale), and the possibilities of a return of goods under the Sale of Goods Act, for not being of merchantable quality. And maybe many other legal issues.

Still, as long as some entrepreneurs are able to employ their capital to make it work, who are we to complain ?

Joe

Excellent article and I couldn't agree more. Especially the quote from Orwell. Never fails to amaze me the kind of nonsense the well educated will believe.
As far commodification goes, I fail to see how it differs from expensive fertility treatment. As far as paying a woman to carry it, I fail to see how this differs from paying a woman to clean our toilets, or a man to lay bricks. Neither is very pleasant but people need to earn a living. As far as the potential harm to child goes, I bet the reports author thinks its ok to kill unborn children.

Commercial surrogacy is another hard case. Sometimes it leads to a happy ending for all concerned. Often enough it does not, which is why many countries where it was a significant industry went on to ban it.

Essentially, commercial surrogacy is a form of prostitution, whereby women sell the use of their bodies for money. For obvious reasons it is far more invasive than prostitution for mere sex and involves an element of medical risk.

Problems arise both where the surrogate mother refuses to give up the child or where something goes wrong. High profile disputes have arisen in circumstances where a client couple refused to accept a disabled baby, or all the siblings of a multiple birth.

A significant number of wealthy or busy women are also known seek surrogacy in order to avoid the pain and inconvenience of giving birth.

It is a matter of opinion whether legalising commercial surrogacy is good public policy.

On the one hand, people ought to be able to do whatever they like so long as they do not hurt non-consenting others.

On the other hand, we have no obligation to automatically support the agreements of others, especially if we find them immoral.

So the solution is simple: let those who agree on a commercial surrogacy make their own arrangements, but let not the courts enforce such contracts, so if the surrogate mother changes her mind and wants to keep the baby, then despite the contract nobody can take her baby away.

(this however, need not prevent the courts from intervening and enforcing the contract if the biological parents change their mind because the baby is deformed and leave the baby with the surrogate)

BTW, the same applies if a prostitute takes a client's money but subsequently refuses to have sex with him. While prostitution should never be outlawed, in such cases it is OK for the courts to reject the clients' lawsuit.

---

Dear Rhys Jones,

«I fail to see how this differs from paying a woman to clean our toilets, or a man to lay bricks.»

In principle these are the same: both types of transactions must never be prohibited. However, no society is under obligation to support or guarantee any transactions between individuals: just as the people involved can choose to agree on whatever they like, society too can choose to support or not whatever it likes.

But if tourism exploits poorer regions, somewhat perverting the local culture, then surrogacy might fit in with that quite easily
Loudmouth,
so aptly put !