Commercial Surrogacy Essay

A woman enters into a contract that consists on her getting pregnant with a strangers sperms, and after the baby is born, to give up the baby. The stranger is going to pay the medical expenses and $10,000 in exchange of claiming all the parental rights when the baby is born. The stranger is a good person who has not been able to have children on his own. Why does the morality of the action may seem doubtful? Philosopher Elizabeth Anderson wrote an essay called “is Women’s Labor a Commodity?” to explain in detail the reasons of commercial surrogacy being morally wrong. In her paper, Anderson explains that commercial surrogacy treats children and parental rights as objects that could be bought and sold for personal convenience. According to

Commercial surrogacy commodifies children because by paying the surrogate mother to give up her child, they treat the child as an object of exchange or commodity that can be bought and sold. As any business transaction, the parents give money for the exchange of an object, the child. The parents get their desired child and the mother gets the money, but what about what thee child think about this event? The parents and surrogate mother’s action were done with self-interest. It could be argued that they wanted the best for the child. However, the first priority in the intentional procreation of the child was not the welfare of the child but rather to give it up to the parents in exchange of money. Additionally, women’s labor is commodified because the surrogate mother treats her parental rights as it was a property right not as a trust. In other words, the decisions taken concerning the child are not done primarily for the benefit of the child. The act of the mother relenting her parental rights is done for a monetary price. She disposes of her parental rights, which are to be managed for the welfare of the owner, as if they were property right, which are to be handled for personal