Home Categories About
argument top image
Should surrogacy be legal? Should surrogacy be legal?
Yes, surrogacy should be legal. Yes, surrogacy should be legal.
No. Surrogacy should be illegal. No. Surrogacy should be illegal.
It depends: surrogacy should be legal only under certain conditions. It depends: surrogacy should be legal only under certain conditions.
Surrogacy allows people unable to have children naturally to have them Surrogacy allows people unable to have children naturally to have them
Surrogacy is about a woman's bodily autonomy Surrogacy is about a woman's bodily autonomy
Surrogacy is a practical solution Surrogacy is a practical solution
Surrogacy is a natural way to have babies who are wanted Surrogacy is a natural way to have babies who are wanted
Surrogacy exploits women Surrogacy exploits women
Surrogacy is immoral Surrogacy is immoral
Prospective parents should adopt instead Prospective parents should adopt instead
Surrogacy has long-term negative impacts Surrogacy has long-term negative impacts
A child born to a surrogate is in an uncertain legal situation A child born to a surrogate is in an uncertain legal situation
Only altruistic surrogacy should be legal Only altruistic surrogacy should be legal
Debate Mini Map

Should surrogacy be legal?
Back to question

It depends: surrogacy should be legal only under certain conditions.

< (3 of 3)

Only altruistic surrogacy should be legal

If no money is involved, than surrogacy is pure generosity.
Brenda M. Baker
< (1 of 1)

Context

Many countries accept altruistic surrogacy but not commercial surrogacy because it is the financial aspect (exploitation of the mother and commodification of the baby) of the surrogacy that seems problematic. If no money is involved, then surrogacy is altruistic. While it is illegal to pay someone to be a surrogate in the UK, intended parents are expected to cover expenses.

The Argument

By attaching financial incentive to surrogacy, a market is created in women's bodies. This is ethically wrong and leads to situations of exploitation where women are utilising their bodies in a deeply intrusive way due to a need for money. However, altruistic surrogacy, where there is not a financial incentive, should be allowed. Women should be able to have children out of the goodness of their hearts, in order to do a good deed for those who may not otherwise be able to have them.

Counter arguments

In reality, “altruistic” surrogacy means that a woman goes through exactly the same thing as in commercial surrogacy, but gets nothing in return. It demands the woman to carry a child for nine months and then give it away. She has to change her behaviour and risk infertility, a number of pregnancy-related problems, and even death. She is still used as a vessel, even if told she is an angel. The only thing she gets is the halo of altruism, which is a very low price for the effort and can only be attractive in a society where women are valued for how much they sacrifice, not what they achieve. Countries that ban commercial surrogacy have the opposite desired effect by encouraging citizens to travel overseas for surrogacy.

Proponents

Premises

[P1] Involving finances in surrogacy makes it exploitative. [P2] Women should be able to become surrogates, as long as it is an altruistic act.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Only allowing surrogacy without payment only ensures that women are not valued for the labour they are providing.

References

In the Wild

This page was last edited on Thursday, 5 Mar 2020 at 10:55 UTC