Laura partly agrees

Laura partly agrees with the fact that women who agree on contractual pregnancy are interchangeable but says that it is the same for most of other jobs . She also says that it is false that women cannot have say about whose sperm to harbor because it can be guaranteed through proper regulation. The issue here is disposition of the contracted pregnancy fruit which is the baby so the position here is a version of the claim that separation of reproduction and child bearing is wrong.

Women expect to be attached to their children and it is seen by all as desirable but if the children are to be reared by others who have the capability of forming a good attachment, then there is nothing wrong is a surrogate is not able to form it, therefore the real question here is maternal instincts and the effects of suppressing them. Assumptions made from this therefore is that bonding with babies is natural and good and therefore it would be simple minded for a person to think that babies are only biologically determined.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

John Robertson points out that arguments which are against separation of reproduction and child bearing which are used against contracted pregnancy are valid although they are not used in the cases or adoption, however, Krimmel rejects the view by arguing that there is a moral difference between giving away an already existing baby from deliberate creation of one so that it can be given away.

Therefore as there are negative outcomes of adoption, Laura argues that people should be aware of the practices which have similar features and therefore social descriptions of surrogacy does not justify the outcry against its practice clearly and therefore another issue of surrogacy as baby selling is crucial as it taints and exploits women. The issue of whether surrogacy is baby selling brings out a recognizable form of practice which does not include any payments and also seems clear that controversy focuses on the commercial form of the act and therefore it is concluded that surrogacy is baby selling and it is wrong.

However, paid surrogacy as baby selling is denied by proponents on one hand as they argue that women only make available the biological services that they have. On the other hand, the opponents say that the women end up being paid nothing or very little if they fail to give a live or healthy child meaning that they are selling the baby but if they were selling their services, then they ought to be given the full pay for the service whether the child is born dead or alive.

It is therefore true that women who enter into the contract relieving the clients the responsibility are exploited since they have after all done their part of the deal and risked and therefore they should get the full pay. If the normal child bearing gives no guarantee that the baby to be born will be healthy and live then why should contracted pregnancy? (Khuse & Peter, 205) There are other reasons which make surrogacy seem as selling services and not the child.

First is that children are not considered as property therefore one cannot sell what they do not have. Therefore if one could own a baby, there could be no problem with selling it and if the ownership ceases at some point before birth, then the act would not be selling the baby but the service. However, if surrogacy cannot be described as baby selling then what happens when a birth mother offers her child to someone else? a possible suggestion is that she simply gives up her parental rights and her relationship with the baby.

One worry involved in contracted pregnancy is that women cannot be involved without harming themselves since it is not easy to let go off a child without concern, however this does not seem to be quite true. Another worry is that the practice harms children since their welfare is important and they should be considered just like other people and therefore a society which fails to meet their needs is not morally satisfactory, however, Laura sees this as a tool being used as a trump card against the autonomy of such women.

This is because only the possible risks are heard but not the possible benefits which could be substantial, another objection is how children will react to the fact that their biological mother conceived on behalf of another, however since it is not known, historical evidence shows that if the practice is honest and the contractors used common sense, then there would be no problem. There are also cases of where the existing children of such mothers worry that they might be given away but it can be made clear to them that there is a difference between surrogacy and baby selling or slavery (Khuse & Peter, 206)