Summary Of George Anderson's Dilemma

Another limitation to Anderson’s argument is her appeal to Kantian principles. She concurs, by using a Kantian conception of respect and use, that the surrogate mother’s integrity as a human is destroyed. While Anderson believes the father would be commodifying the surrogate by hiring her, the question of whether he has adopted maxims which share the goals of the surrogate should be asked. By entering into a contract, unforced, this may be the case for the surrogate. The surrogate’s maxim is to have a child in order to acquire money from the father whose maxim is paying the surrogate so that he may acquire a child. One could argue Kant’s conception of respect may not wholly and apply itself to the argument of commodification.

Arneson also

She makes this comparison with the belief that surrogacy sells what prostitution sells without the stigma – the ability for a man to control the woman in question. Commercial surrogacy allows women’s labour to be used and controlled by others. For instance, the surrogacy agreement gives the couple substantial control rights over the surrogate’ body, such as rights to determine what the surrogate eats, drinks and does (Satz 1992: 113). While Anderson does not explicitly make this claim, it is certainly implied with the idea that surrogacy is equivalent to renting a womb. Anderson demonstrates that surrogacy tends to be a wealthier person buying something that should not be sold from a less privileged woman (1990: 85). Moreover, the act of surrogacy would be immoral if the surrogate mother is forced by her economic circumstances to enter into the contract. Women in developing countries often enter into surrogacy because they have they have no reasonable alternative but to do so. Thus, they are unfree. Nevertheless, prohibiting such contracts fails to give due respect to the choices and freedoms women have. For instance, countries have differing laws on surrogacy, depending on whether it is an altruistic or commercial agreement. However, Arneson has made a persuasive argument that, morally, there may not be a difference between the two (1992: 155). The countries which prohibit surrogacy can be said to reduce women’s individual liberty. As men are permitted to sell their sperm, making sperm a commodity, it would be wrong to infringe on the rights of women to prevent them from participating in a similar