The Pros And Cons Of Surrogacy

Recent evidence by Stanford University has shown that a surrogate’s womb may act as more than just a home for a fetus, in fact, the womb may effects how a child’s genes will be programmed (Moss and Baden). If this study is correct it would suggest that surrogacy may be more than just a service. Additionally, this evidence would change the role of a surrogate to lean farther away from a service provider, and closer to selling a child with whom a surrogate has genetic ties too. Studies like these have amplified anti-surrogacy arguments like those of Barba Rothman. In her article, “On Surrogacy” Rothman rejects the idea that, “a woman can be pregnant with someone else’s baby… it reduces a woman to a container.” Furthermore, Rothman insists that surrogacy is baby-selling.
Judge Sorhow’s insisted in the Baby M. case that couples are not buying a baby because someone cannot buy something that is already there’s, Rothaman puts the claim in a different perspective (Pantich 275). For example, in a situation where a sperm donor changed his mind and one day asked the couple for his child back, the donor would technically hold genetic ties to the child. However it seems that in this scenario, the sperm donor would have no right over that child
Unlike Rothman, Vida Pantich author of “Surrogate Tourism and Reproductive Rights” does not regard surrogacy as baby-selling, nor is she convinced by arguments that suggest separating children from mothers is detrimental. Instead, Pantich claims that the argument should be aimed towards the global perspective because commercial surrogacy no longer just concerns women in one county, across the globe couples are crossing borders to find surrogates at a much cheaper price than developed nations (275). As a result, the Pantich claims that the real argument lies on whether commercial surrogacy exploits women in underdeveloped