MN editorial on how wonderful surrogacy is

That's an unusual element for sure. the military might compare - you can't just leave, you usually have to agree to serve out a certain period of time

Yes that's true. It used to be possible to buy yourself out of the army but that's gone now. But even in these very exceptional circumstances presumably the sanctions for breaking the contracts are finance and / or criminal? They might be very unpleasant but presumably deserters are not forced to continue?

Outwith these exceptional circumstances the penalties for breaking a contract will be purely financial/ reputational.

If we were going to make laws about altruistic surrogacy for strangers maybe anonymity would be ideal.

I think the law here is a little different. Friends of mine had a stranger donate a kidney to their daughter, and while they did not know the person at the time, they were later able to meet him and he became quite close to them.

SimplySteveRedux

Aah, apologies, I didn't know that.

As an aside, what you did was incredibly brave and generous. I doubt there are many people who would do that for a complete stranger.

But you can donate to a known recipient like a family member can't you? That's what I had in mind when comparing it to surrogacy.

Sorry it was drilled into me during the process altruistic kidney donation is to a stranger, whereas people who donate to friends/family are more commonly referred to as living donors.

As an altruistic kidney donor I have no idea who received my kidney, I was given no information. Not the case with altruistic surrogacy.

But you can donate to a known recipient like a family member can't you? That's what I had in mind when comparing it to surrogacy.

I would say that theoretically, from the position of the donor, altruistic surrogacy would be similar to altruistic donation

As an altruistic kidney donor I have no idea who received my kidney, I was given no information. Not the case with altruistic surrogacy.

That's an unusual element for sure. the military might compare - you can't just leave, you usually have to agree to serve out a certain period of time. You even put aside certain other rights that are considered normal for employees, for example with relation to medical treatments you may be required to take drugs or vaccinations you'd normally have a choice about, you are subject to different laws, there are restrictions on your political activity.

So, I would say people can make decisions at that level. What is different is that it's an agreement with the state, rather than with other private individuals, and for the good of society as a whole rather than a private benefit, and those might be significant differences.

I don't think the pregnancy can result in death argument is particularly strong or relevant. The vast majority of women in first world countries do not die as a result of pregnancy. The US has a higher mortality rate than the UK but that is down to poor pre- natal care for poor women. A surrogate is likely , one would assume, to be given proper health care.

The comparison with being a job falls down is that there is no other job where the "employee" can't get out of the job.

For example my senior employees have to give a lengthy period of notice. If they just walk out I can't catch them, tie them up and make them work out that notice.

In theory I could sue them for any actual financial loss caused by their breach of contract and/or interdict them for working for someone else until the notice period expires but they will and cannot be forced to work for me.

A surrogate can't get out of her 9 month contract other than by having an abortion.

I would say that theoretically, from the position of the donor, altruistic surrogacy would be similar to altruistic donation. Clearly both can be exploited if they aren't regulated carefully, but maybe it could be done. From a regulation perspective I suspect regular organ donation is simpler to manage which might be a consideration.

There isn't the additional question of the rights of the child itself with an organ so that factor has to be discussed additionally. You could compare egg and sperm donation, and I think the issue is really the same there and it also should also not be allowed. You likely cannot stop people from making informal arrangements in any case but the law should support the rights of the child when it comes down to it.

The bar for altruistic seems rather low when it comes to this

This is all besides the point. Can you buy and sell adults and children? No. Why can you buy and sell babies?

And I don't think you should be able to do it. The only form that I find in any way acceptable is where it is truly altruistic and done freely, with no obligation or coercion - in those cases I don't think there's evidence that it is harmful.

There is no 'Yes but' here.

The yes buts occur if you look at the concern about depriving a child of knowing its genetic parents for example. That could also happen with children conceived with a donor egg or sperm or even naturally, and this is sometimes intentional. If you raise that point you get a "yes, but"

Saying that the surrogate mother risks death or injury, yes that's true. As do altruistic organ donors. Again, that gets a "yes, but", but where's the difference?

As long as both are aware of the risks and are doing it of their own free will, what is the difference?

This is all besides the point. Can you buy and sell adults and children? No. Why can you buy and sell babies?

decomposibgcomposers

There is no 'Yes but' here. Adoption is fundamentally for the good of a child who finds themselves in a position where they need parents . Surrogacy is not for the good of the child because they don't exist at the point decisions are made. It is all about the needs of adults not children.

Transaction is a great word for it. A transaction takes place where the baby is the commodity being traded. How can that be ethical?

Exactly. This is a planned situation, not an intimate relationship, so there is no comparison to consensual sexual relationships between adults. It’s a transaction, exactly.

Often things are comparable in some ways and not others Nothing wrong with that. I think you can compare organ donation and selling with surrogacy in some ways. It's often useful when people try to take the tack that it is there body, they can do what they like, use it for any labour they like. Because no, there are reasons we restrict certain transactions around bodies. It's perfectly reasonable to point out that we allow people to make very risky decisions, even for fun, so why should surrogacy be different.

Comparisons like this are limited, but they often help make the question clearer. If we know its not so much that it is a dangerous job, what is it?

It seems to me to be comparing apples and oranges.

But why? People are putting forward reasons for objecting to it, but when it's pointed out that those reasons apply to other situations too the reply is "yes, but". As was mentioned above about there being a risk of death and injury - why is that unacceptable in the case if surrogacy but acceptable in say rock climbing? If someone willingly enters into surrogacy through their own free will why aren't they free to take on the risk?

Many of the objections that are being stated here apply to children full stop. Why are people less bothered that say, a child conceived following a one night stand won't know their father? The effect on the child will potentially be the same as a child born via surrogacy, or it might be worse because the child of a surrogate might well know all of the people involved in its conception and birth.

If you raise objections to something you can't be surprised if people ask why it's a problem in example A but not in B.

Transaction is a great word for it. A transaction takes place where the baby is the commodity being traded. How can that be ethical?

As has been shown, paid surrogacy is illegal but the loopholes regarding expenses allow it to go ahead. Even with the few truly altruistic surragacies the baby is still a commodity.

In surrogacy it's a transaction of a person created for that purpose, and separated from elements of their most intimate human relationships. All for the good of the adults making the transaction.

Absolutely, well said.

Yes, I think there is a lot more potential for exploitation on many levels. And that can be a good reason to ban or regulate an industry. And for that matter so can the direct danger, if the work itself isn't important. So in that view the work might be legitimate but isn't worth the risks involved or the cost to manage them on a societal level. Enough so that it is ok to restrict people's freedom to do the legitimate work.

For me, the most important idea is totally diferent, I think it isn't legitimate work, that it comes down to selling, or gifting, children, as if they were possessions. Which more and more seems to be how our society thinks of children, but fundamentally it's wrong.

If you can't sell or give away a person the whole basis of surrogacy comes apart. In a way it doesn't with adoption which is about duty of care and how that is managed when the parent is unable or unwilling to take that on. It's really society and the state making accommodation to fulfil the needs of the child and his or her rights as a vulnerable citizen. It's not about the parents really, either the biological or adopted ones, its not done for their good, though that may be the accidental effect.

In surrogacy it's a transaction of a person created for that purpose, and separated from elements of their most intimate human relationships. All for the good of the adults making the transaction.

The point I'm trying to make is that highly skilled, trained jobs don't have the potential to be as exploitative as a 'service' that many women, even those who are disadvantaged or vulnerable, are able to provide.

We don't generally stop people from being astronauts, arctic fishermen, underwater welders, or anything else, because it is too dangerous.

I couldn't walk into one of these types of jobs tomorrow though if I found myself in dire straits. A woman with learning disabilities and desperate for cash isn't going to be offered a job as a deep sea diver. She was however offered 'expenses' to become a surrogate.

It's really one-sided. Surrogacy is very exploitative - yes there's circumstances where it's truly altruistic but it's quite rare, most is commercial. The closest industry to can compare it to is prostitution, it's probably worse though! at least with the sex industry some do choose with complete free will to earn an income that way and you aren't locked into a "client" for 10+ months performing a "service" that still kills women every year even in high income countries. I'm not actually suggesting that surrogacy should be banned, more it needs way more regulation

It seems to me to be comparing apples and oranges.

That’s because it is. ‘What about these other people over here who also have it tough but don’t get enough help’ is a rather pointless and annoying derailment. We’re not here to fix everything right now, we are concentrating on surrogacy, a completely unique situation. I also think society actually has a lot to say about absent or unknown fathers and the effects thus has in children and in their adulthood.

I guess children who don't know who their father is may also be affected but society pays little regard to them.

But this is not an intentional, planned, situation. If a couple splits up soon after a child is born (as mentioned upthread) this isn't the intention from the start. In surrogacy it is the explicit intention that the baby will be separated from it's mother at birth.

It seems to me to be comparing apples and oranges. Like if someone buys a gun, plans to kill a person then kills them that is worse than someone who accidentally runs over and kills someone - because of the intention and planning vs what is an accident and not intended.