Is Commercial Surrogacy Morally Inadmissible? The Commodification Objection

Abstract

What is wrong with commercial surrogacy that justifies its prohibition? This article explores how the commodification argument has been used in the philosophical literature to substantiate the moral and legal condemnation of commercial surrogacy. I discuss three arguments available in the literature: (i) the incommensurability argument, (ii) the alienation argument, and (iii) the negative effects argument. I introduce a fourth argument: (iv) the consumer contract argument. I argue that while (i), (ii), and (iii) cannot offer strong moral reasons to justify the moral inadmissibility of commercial surrogacy, (iv) can. The consumer contract argument holds that the asymmetric distribution between rights and obligations that justifies the consumer contract model results in the intended parents and the surrogacy agencies (if any) unfairly benefiting at the expense of surrogates. I argue that (iv) provides reasons in favor of state intervention, but not in favor of a ban on commercial surrogacy.