Side note. I tend to listen to substack articles and, I don't know man, but your articles are always read by a woman. If we actually meet, I'd expect you to sound like her. I don't know what settings you'll have to do to your profile to get substack to use your correct pronouns... 😂😂😂
My exact thoughts! People argue that surrogacy has the potential to be exploitative because the person doing the actual job may get peanuts, while the agency packs the money. But exploitation is present in literally every industry! What people advocate for are laws and unions to protect the workers, and the same or similar should apply to surrogates.
I am mostly interested in your penultimate paragraph.
I sometimes draw an analogy between organ donation and surrogacy, and while I acknowledge that they are not entirely comparable, the distinction is particularly evident at the organ recipient-biological mother end. Unlike organ failure, the inability to have a biological child is not life-threatening.
However, the issue at hand concerns medical ethics and jurisprudence, where notions of right and wrong remain largely subjective. The level of risk involved or the number of times a donor can give part of their body is not necessarily the decisive factor for those on the opposite side of your moral spectrum. For instance, in Nigeria and several European Union countries, the sale of plasma or blood by donors is prohibited, with only free and voluntary donation being legally permitted, despite the fact that individuals can donate plasma or blood over 50 times in their lifetime without experiencing any significant medical complications. In short, it is societal values, rather than health risks or necessity, that form the foundation of the arguments of those on the opposing side. This is perhaps why their stance may come across to you as virtue signalling.
I agree that a framework of consent morality should be established. However, when objective moral rules are widely accepted by society, they become law, and we already have legal provisions regarding consent in areas such as sexual acts, sexual behaviour, marriage, and contracts. Perhaps surrogacy is deliberately excluded due to the overwhelming lack of consensus.
Side note. I tend to listen to substack articles and, I don't know man, but your articles are always read by a woman. If we actually meet, I'd expect you to sound like her. I don't know what settings you'll have to do to your profile to get substack to use your correct pronouns... 😂😂😂
Ha ha I'll check that out. Don't know why it would do that
My exact thoughts! People argue that surrogacy has the potential to be exploitative because the person doing the actual job may get peanuts, while the agency packs the money. But exploitation is present in literally every industry! What people advocate for are laws and unions to protect the workers, and the same or similar should apply to surrogates.
I am mostly interested in your penultimate paragraph.
I sometimes draw an analogy between organ donation and surrogacy, and while I acknowledge that they are not entirely comparable, the distinction is particularly evident at the organ recipient-biological mother end. Unlike organ failure, the inability to have a biological child is not life-threatening.
However, the issue at hand concerns medical ethics and jurisprudence, where notions of right and wrong remain largely subjective. The level of risk involved or the number of times a donor can give part of their body is not necessarily the decisive factor for those on the opposite side of your moral spectrum. For instance, in Nigeria and several European Union countries, the sale of plasma or blood by donors is prohibited, with only free and voluntary donation being legally permitted, despite the fact that individuals can donate plasma or blood over 50 times in their lifetime without experiencing any significant medical complications. In short, it is societal values, rather than health risks or necessity, that form the foundation of the arguments of those on the opposing side. This is perhaps why their stance may come across to you as virtue signalling.
I agree that a framework of consent morality should be established. However, when objective moral rules are widely accepted by society, they become law, and we already have legal provisions regarding consent in areas such as sexual acts, sexual behaviour, marriage, and contracts. Perhaps surrogacy is deliberately excluded due to the overwhelming lack of consensus.