Does Commercial Surrogacy Commodify Children In A Morally Problematic Way?

Q3. Does commercial surrogacy commodify children in a morally problematic way?

The term ‘Commercial surrogacy (CS)’ defines the surrogate mother as somebody who gets paid for delivering children to commissioning couples. In my opinion, CS commodifies children in morally problematic ways where the child lacks the natural bond with her mother pre and post pregnancy leading to traumatic circumstances. Surrogacy is delegated as a form of an ‘alienated labour’ where women’s conceptive limits are utilised as a physical labour, and the status of that child is consigned as an ‘object’ or as a commodity (Anderson, 2000). Therefore, the business of surrogacy is ethically problematic since it comprises the transaction of the child. Such course of action

Anderson states that “[A] surrogacy agreement is degrading to the child who is to be the outcome of it, since, for all practical purposes, the child will have been bought for money” demonstrating that CS rejects the natural, biological and psychological bond between the surrogate and her tyke (p.20). This demonstrates that CS prohibits the mother from developing that essential bond with her baby, this manner constrains her to detach and confine herself from her pregnancy. Usually, the child is the ‘end’ objective in pregnancy. For the surrogate mother, the child turns in the ‘means’ (as a product), for something else, in particular, money. The time when the child becomes a ‘means’ the child is commoditised. Surrogacy neglects the nobility or supremacy of the welfare of the child. It comprises of subordination of the child well-being, the surrogate and for the commissioning guardians desire to have a child. When the child discovers that their introduction to the world included another mother, the tyke would be influenced by sentiments of being betrayed. This is the most traumatic circumstance where one would feel that he/she has been utilised as a product. Specially in the case of diagnosing disability, the alternative of fetus removal could be considered by the surrogate; but if the surrogate may, in any case, wish to continue with the birth, the dispatching couple may no longer need the child. As

Hence, having denied that the surrogate is the mother of the kid, the main coherent result is to see the relationship as one possession, the surrogate as a ‘human compartment’ and the child as the ‘product’ who has no relation to her other than being the outcome of her physical labour. It is identified as a “practice that treats…..commodity if its production, distribution or enjoyment is governed by one or more norm distinctive to the market” (p.19). This clarifies where numerous individual’s work and are not connected to the ‘item’ of their work or the work procedure. With CS, reproduction is something that I believe has a place in a private sector and should be encompassed with emotional connections. In my perception women’s regenerative limits should not be utilised as physical labour and that status of the child, should not be consigned to that of a