Surrogacy is Morally Wrong

In this paper, I argue that if the debate about the morality of surrogacy is couched in terms of respect due to other human beings and the paramount importance of their intimate relationships with one another, then it may be shown that most ordinary instances of surrogacy are morally wrong. Human flourishing cannot be separated from one’s relationships with others and any circumstance which is destructive of such relationships must be considered immoral. The surrogate, unless she is treated as an object or merely as a means to an end, is intimately involved in the relationships between the child and its putative parents and important relationships become ambiguous and so harmed. Furthermore, if this view if rejected, then the feminist argument that surrogacy always involves the exploitation of the surrogate renders it immoral.

The debate about surrogacy revolves around the following issues: (a) whether it is in the interests of the child involved or in the interests of society; or (b) whether it is exploitative of the birth mother or in the interests of women, as a whole. In considering the issues under (a) it is often argued that children are at risk of harm from having socially constructed family relationships rather than natural ones. Many commentators have likened the experience of children and birth mothers in surrogacy arrangements to children and relinquishing mothers in adoption, and point to the potential psychological and social harm that may result. (1) One argument against surrogacy therefore revolves around the relationships which are involved. Although talk of interests seems to couch the debate in utilitarian terms (2) it is not the only way in which the arguments about surrogacy may be seen. Another way of seei...

... middle of paper ...

...s the potential for depersonalisation strong, quoting the case of a woman who said of her sister (in an a case of altruistic surrogacy), "We are just using Jacki as a suitcase really, an incubator to carry it. At the end of the day it’s our child". Rowland, R. Op. Cit., 164

(17) Ibid., 164-166

(18) Szikla, C. "Surrogacy, Why Women Lose",http://www.readings.com.au:8080/~wise/RT2.htm, 3-6

(19) Another solution is to say that this dichotomy does not hold and that there is nothing wrong with a ménage à trois (or à quatre, if both sperm and ovum are donated). This solution, however, changes our conceptions of marriage and radically alters the context in which the problem is being discussed in this paper.

(20) See Mitchell, J.D. "In Vitro fertilisation: The Major Issues - A Comment", Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 9, 1983, 196-199, who makes a similar point.