We don't need a lot of things, though. Most of the impacts we have on other animals or on the planet are caused by us seeking things we don't "need".
We usually weigh up the benefit of the thing we want to the person who wants it; against the potential for harm (to a person, class of people or something else) from them getting it. Then we make a decision as a society.
Where there are things that individuals want to do which would help them but harm others, we make it illegal in extreme cases and highly regulated in others.
For me the commercial surrogacy falls into that space, so we are in agreement. There are enough perverse incentives to make it overall more likely to be harmful to a class of people (impoverished women, basically), than it is beneficial to others.
Organ donation has a massive benefit but again, potential perverse consequences if commercial, so people who want to do it because they need the money should be protected from making a decision that isnt in their best interests.
Your ideal organ donation regulatory framework would work just as well for surrogacy, and in fact is pretty close to the UK model as is.
So the discussion becomes one about weighing benefit and harm.
First, what is the value of the benefit of an infertile couple having a baby? Well, to them, it's substantial, possibly the greatest "want" of their lives, is not frivolous, is one that most of us can empathise with, comes from the deepest human place and therefore should be seriously weighed up.
What is the risk of harm to surrogates? In one area, personal and emotional trauma, signficant physical risk. At the class level, risk of eroding the idea of consent and creating a sense of commodity around women's bodies.
So how can we minimise to nil the risk of harm to surrogates while preserving the benefits? This all assumes that where possible, we like the idea of choice and would ideally have people being able to pursue their wants- which isn't a given; but if we want less individual choice this would mean we have to re-evaluate absolutely all our way of life, so that's for another day).
Ways that the Uk model minimises risk:
You have to have had healthy babies before being a surrogate and if you have health conditions you will be strongly advised against doing it, turned down by clinics and agencies.
This also goes for your own mental health - you have to disclose your own level of risk. Agencies also make you build a very viable relationship between IPs and surros and will not proceed with supporting agreements if this is not there.
No profit. Insurance and expenses, including the expenses around risk and loss, are priced in and the IPs pay for everything needed, but not £100,000 for the sake of it. No commercial agencies.
So that's just a few. Everything on the thread that has been discussed as a "omg isn't this awful!" is actually already mitigated and there are things in place already to minimise risk to surrogates as it stands in UK practice.
We could go further to regulate surrogacy and minimise risk further. But to my mind if we go much further we risk removing choice from all the parties here. Thist
would seem weirdly disproportionate; given, as I say, that we seem to be happy to tolerate risk of harm to a shedload of folks in the world, in the service of our other wants.