Should Women Be Allowed to Rent Their Wombs?
Beth Anderson earns extra income renting out her womb to infertile couples who dream of becoming parents—a mutually beneficial arrangement, as she sees it. "I really, really like being pregnant," she says. "They need help, it's something I want do, and it's a way for me to make a little bit of extra money."
But these types of arrangements are outlawed in many states. In Oklahoma, for example, surrogacy contracts are considered a form of child trafficking. In Michigan, surrogates face five years in jail and up to $50,000 in fines.
Gestational surrogacy contracts are also against the law in New York, but State Senator Brad Hoylman (D-27th Senate Dist.) introduced a bill last year that would change that. And he has first hand experience with the issue. Hoylman and his husband had to go to California to find a surrogate to carry their daughter Silvia, who's now four.
"If the [bill] passes, we'll have surrogates who could actually engage with intended parents and egg donors," says Hoylman.
"We don't want to turn baby making into a commercial industry," says Jennifer Lahl, president of the Center for Bioethics and Culture, who, among other things, worries that surrogacy contracts don't "anticipate every problem" that could arise between a surrogate and a couple.
With the legalization of same-sex marriage and ever-improving reproductive technologies, the movement to legalize commercial surrogacy is likely to grow in coming years.
About 6 minutes.
Produced and edited by Joshua Swain, with help from Todd Krainin and Amanda Winkler.
Scroll down for full text, links, and downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I just assumed this was OK everywhere. Why would this be an issue?
They aren't allowed to rent their vaginas out to males for the purpose of penis storage, so why should they be allowed to rent their wombs out for baby-manufacturing.
On the other hand I can see how one might argue that a few pre-site inspections would be required to be conducted before any manufacturing activity takes place.
Yep, gotta make sure the building is up to code.
Your point is well made, but If you're "storing" your penis in a vagina, you might be doing it wrong.
I think that invalidates the warranty. I keep mine on a cool, dry shelf beside the prescriptions.
Just remember to water it and play some classical music for it as well.
Or perhaps your vagina isn't being put to it's best possible use...
The word vagina afterall is derived from the Old Latin word meaning "a sheath or holster" for one's "sword".
I think prostitutes should claim that they are actually surrogates who prefer to begin gestation in the traditional manner.
can't they just be porn stars who are rehearsing?
I make up to usd90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to usd86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link......... Try it, you won't regret it!... http://www.jobs-check.com
I make up to usd90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to usd86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link......... Try it, you won't regret it!... http://www.jobs-check.com
I make up to usd90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to usd86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link......... Try it, you won't regret it!... http://www.jobs-check.com
I don't see how it's against public policy, as they can abort at will and can rent their vaginas. Why not the wombs, too?
can they rent their vaginas? How does that work?
They can sell use of their vaginas, but surely that's not the same as renting them. I mean, can my wife just rent a new one when things get a little stale?
Rent them out.
yes, so my wife can rent one and bring it home for me? You mean, again, sell the use of. I now only wish I can live long enough to see the day when we have rent-able vaginas.
Note that current state-of-the-art requires that a woman be attached to the vagina.
yes, but does it have to be the original owner?
She has her vaj - AND THE BOX IT CAME IN!!
Tip your veal and try your waitress! I'll be here all week!
Sounds like you just invented a new market: BOXFAX Vagina History Reporting
-1 Fleshlight
I think you are confusing "can" with "will".
Then again, maybe she is a lessor.
Renting == selling the use of
If I rent an apartment, that doesn't mean I can remove it from the apartment building and take it with me.
No.
Renting == buying the use of
Letting == selling the use of
I'm all for renting out the hallway...
but not the living room?
we call it a den.
We call it maize.
http://shepherdspiehole.typepa.....502970b-pi
Before I was born people thought people cared enough about native americans that they could use them to pitch their products.
If there's corn in it, you're using the wrong entrance...
^^ laughing at my desk. glad I'm the boss and have my own office so I don't have to explain what was so funny.
or are you?
It depends. Are you smoking a joint? Are there Mexicans?
+1 GAI MARRUJ ALSO
I call it a garage. For my Maserati.
/ Ted Nugent
My Maserati does 185- Joe Walsh
I can't drive
55
- Sammy Haggar (pre- the less-good Van Halen, although not as criminal as Gary Cherone...but he ain't no DLR)
You lost your license and now don't drive?
Slow ride. Take it easy.
Stopped reading after the word "allowed".
Interesting. the government usually stops allowing after the word "read".
Look Kristen, I think male-dominated state legislatures are a little more qualified to decide how you use your various body parts than you are. Did your uterus win a majority of votes in a heavily-gerrymandered district? I think not.
could you gerrymander a district for gender? That would be interesting to see.
Can you imagine a district made up entirely of soccer moms and liberal arts coeds? Christ on a cracker.
I do imagine this all the time... but not with politics in mind... typically crackers and jesus aren't involved either.
Yeah, baby! Just lookit these coeds from Smith College! Bow chicka wow wow!
i said gender. surely trans-women would be a different gender category.
Also, I did my undergrad here: http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/mul......state.jpg
You're lucky. I got my degree here.
that red headed chick in the back- with the beard- is exactly what I think about when I think of that school...
That's why the only guy I dated more than once in college went to Georgetown.
I was already engaged before I even went to college. The semester in Japan was the hardest.
No, YOU'RE lucky because I got my degree here.
Retriever fever, baby!
The "T" on the left.
Yeah - we call it "The People's Republic of Ann Arbor, Michigan"
Tut tut...UofM has a crapload of non-liberal-arts coeds, to balance out the fuckery.
Now, let's consider Northampton, MA.
"could you gerrymander a district for gender?"
gendermander
+1
+2
+3
gendermander
Fuck
Should women be allowed?
damned 1920 and the horrible, horrible aftermath it has birthed upon the world.
Look at all the wars we've had since women won the right to vote in the USA. Mere correlation?! Surely not.
Rise of Progressives AND Suffrage...just sayin'
Since suffrage, MILLIONS of people have died!
Answer: Yes, as long as the govt regulates it keep people safe and keep the price down.
/sarc
So - no Pussy Riots, as it were.
I concur.
Wait for pussy jihad....
Parthenophobia - morbid dread of virgins.
I don't know what that has to do with this article, but this article made me think of it.
Carry on.
I can't now. I have to figure how I'm going to use that word now.
You're worse than HM.
It was the name of a pledge class in my fraternity...I think two before mine. We were the Mendicant Mercenaries - or, as I translated it, "Begging Guns for Hire".
College - word games and beer. And sex. (pre-AIDS graduate)
(pre-AIDS graduate)
Screw you. I went at the height of the scare. It was like the Eddie Murphy routine.
Yeah, my buddy at work called it "the sport-fuckin' era".
Course, he just died of the lung cancer from smoking shitty Canadian "cigarettes" (AKA sawdust plus something else worse than sawdust) for 40 years, so....one don't getcha, the other'n will
Jesus's mommy was just a surrogate and she was canonized for it.
The Catholics certainly have a fetish for her. Us Presbys - not quite so much...
You Presbys must not like the Bible very much. She's all over the place in the gospels.
Wow - then I guess we'd better fetishize her. Thanks for the tip.
Or a whore that was a really good liar.
same thing, really.
Presumably she was his genetic mother, so no.
Though where he got the Y chromosome from is anybody's guess.
"I really, really like being pregnant," she says.
As the husband of a woman who had a hard pregnancy, I simply cannot comprehend this statement.
Also, seriously? You like it? You can't drink for 9+ months, you start waddling at 7-8 months, your hormones are a mess, you're starving all the time, and at the end of 9 months a human being (literally) rips its way out of you. What's wrong with people?
But despite my utter incapability of comprehending why anybody would ever do this to give birth to a child that isn't hers, it should be totally legal.
Besides the obvious freedom-based arguments, there is one very compelling practical argument: couples who can't conceive themselves may do anything to find a surrogate (instead of adopting, etc.), no matter what the law says. The law should protect the couple, the surrogate, and the child, instead of making the entire arrangement criminal or against public policy.
I agree it should be legal, but as an aside I hate the whole "Well since people are still going to do it we should just make it legal" argument, as if the point of lawmaking is to only make those things illegal that nobody would ever do.
Also, as another aside, are people so obsessed with having children with their own genes that they insist on having children via surrogacy instead of adoption? Or is adoption such a mixed bag that its better to look elsewhere? Anyone with any experiences have a thought?
Yes and yes. And adoption is a very difficult process in and of itself.
Yes, surrogacy is a valued service and one that should be perfectly legal and considered moral. Move along now.....
"Also, as another aside, are people so obsessed with having children with their own genes that they insist on having children via surrogacy instead of adoption?"
Could be a vestige of evolution.
As someone who took Obs-Gyn 2ce, I can comprehend, but not understand, it. I get that there are masochists, just can't get "into" it.
I never understood why a woman's body was hers alone as long as she wanted an abortion, but when that same body had the temerity to light up a joint......well, it suddenly wasn't hers anymore.
simple- one involves taking something out, the other putting in. They are never allowed to put in, only take out. Also, not put out.
What about pulling out? Is that still cool?
Only if you give her the cash up front and not in her hair.
Oh shit, that's not legal either, except in Nevada.
Wasn't this how the Ixians started out?
My thought was the Bene Tleilax and their axlotl tanks.
Trailer for sale or rent
Wombs to let, fifty cents..........
I ain't got no cigarettes...
Women renting out their wombs?
InCONCEIVable.
anybody want peanut?
You tear us up with your silly puns!
GOVERNMENT IS JUST WHAT WE DECIDE TO DO WITH ANOTHER WOMAN'S VAGINA, PEOPLE! HOW HARD IS THIS TO COMPREHEND?
A contract isn't supposed to anticipate every problem, only with the essential terms, offer, consideration, acceptance.
Here's some more of Ms. Lahl to give a fuller picture of her views and goals:
Because "rich people" can afford surrogacy, it must something to be viewed as evil? And of course, Ms. Lahl holds the unstated and contradictory view that there is some sort of sanctification that comes from the ability to give birth, while viewing the product of that ability as merely an extension of the woman, to be accepted or terminated at her whim.
Yeah, like a baby "knows" it's been separated from its birth mother....unless someone tells it when it's no longer a baby.
What a simple fuck.
but a baby changes everything. (Worst christmas song ever.)
Center for Bioethics and Culture
I stopped listening
She seems to have run out of ways to say, "This is icky." I expected the expression of the opinion, which is widespread, that trade should be allowed only between equals (or resulting in equal division of the (usually intangible) gains of trade), so people in bad bargaining positions shouldn't be allowed to trade or bargain at all. Unforeseen contractual problems, yeah standard argument from ignorance, never sincere. But...what will the siblings think?! Obvious the reporter recorded too much!
They should - to me, so I can furnish them.
my co-worker's ex-wife makes $88 every hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for nine months but last month her pay was $17807 just working on the laptop for a few hours. read the full info here..............
http://www.Jobsyelp.com
A woman can't rent her own womb. She can, however, let it to someone else.
Should government bureaucrats be allowed to tell women what they can do with their bodies?
My body, my choi... oh nevermind.
Coulda sworn they already did.
Amsoc would hire a lawyer to weasel out of the vagina/womb rental contract his wife signed just like he did with the mortgage.
Lawyers and judges will find ways to "complicate" these contracts. For instance, can the State go after surrogate dads or sperm donor dads for child support? Can the kid collect social security or other govt benefits of surrogate or donor parents? Can a kid inherit from surrogates/donors? There are a shitload of other issues about custody as well, which is why baby selling was banned in NY to begin with. Of course the legislature could address these issues and write some thoughtful, comprehensive law but . . .that's like asking them to actually do their fucking jobs instead of just campaign fund raising for the next election.
The question should NEVER be, "Should people be allowed to..." Instead it should ALWAYS be, "Is there a compelling reason for the state to be allowed to insert itself into this situation?"
My two point test for any legislation:
1. Is this necessary in order to protect individual liberties?
2. Is this creating the minimum possible intrusion?
If either question is answered with a no, then shitcan it.
Sorry, as with marriage, state's going to "insert itself" every time a case goes to court. You can argue about the details of the rules, but as long as there's a judiciary, there'll be rules. No dispute? No problem. But then, no problem, no issue, right?
Are you willfully obtuse or do you just like pretending not to understand the differences between contract, civil, and statutory law?
uptil I saw the check ov $9726 , I didnt believe ...that...my friends brother actually earning money part time on-line. . there uncles cousin has done this for under eighteen months and recently took care of the morgage on there villa and purchased a brand new Chevrolet .
look these up................... http://WWW.WORK4HOUR.COM
Why wouldn't it be legal? Maybe their gonna regulate the process, vagina inspections, etc.
Recycle Day are H&R.
Remember to separate your trash!
Has there ever been anyone who called themselves any sort of 'ethicist' who wasn't an idiot?
This person is a bioethicist.
Elizabeth Stoke Breunig says she's a Christian Ethicist.
I rest my case.
Ethicist is a modern euphemism for scold.
And, once again, we're supposed to assume that "commercial industry" is necessarily bad with no support for the statement at all.
Because government regulation totally anticipates every problem. The fuck?
Government regulation fixes everything.
/everyone knows
[quote]"We don't want to turn baby making into a commercial industry," says Jennifer Lahl, president of the Center for Bioethics and Culture....[/quote]
Currently, it's perfectly acceptable to charge a fee in the process of moving a baby from Womb A to Loving Arms B, so long as you aren't the one with eight pounds cannonballing outcher delicate bits.
Seems arbitrary.
Sigh.
"We don't want to turn baby making into a commercial industry,"
Then stop subsidizing welfare motherhood.
"Currently, it's perfectly acceptable to charge a fee in the process of moving a baby from Womb A to Loving Arms B, so long as you aren't the one with eight pounds cannonballing outcher delicate bits."
YOU can't sell your kidney, but that doesn't stop everyone else involved in putting it elsewhere from from profiting in the 'commercial industry'.
College kids could sell a kidney/rent a womb to pay for those massive student debts. More kidneys, more wombs.
A better solution than Obamacare and a better love story than Twilight.
A woman should be free to use her womb as she pleases, even if it is to make a profit by engaging in a consentual agreement with another individual, or couple.
The insurance companies most likely will not cover the expenses, and even if the woman were to have a child, the insurance company could put a clause in there holding her liable if she would try and game the system, keep the child a few years, then give the child over to said individual or couple.
"among other things, worries that surrogacy contracts don't "anticipate every problem" that could arise between a surrogate and a couple."
Yeah, because politicians and bureaucrats know how to magically anticipate every problem. Seriously.....WTF!!?? Everything they are involved in winds up in disaster, chaos, waste, and mismanagement...yet some folks are so delusional and believe otherwise.
In the spirit of the original post:
Woman posts Facebook ad offering men $700 to get her pregnant
Seems legit.
According to the woman who's planning to raise a child without a father.
I don't see anything wrong with not wanting to be in a relationship, but shouldn't that be a sign that you might not be fit to parent? Children are people too, but they have a harder time recovering than an adult when a person leaves them.
Having children is a lot of work. It's incredibly exhausting. Nobody can be "on" all the time.
So yes, it's probably a sign that the person is absolutely not fit to be a parent. Or crazy. Octomom comes to mind.
What is this statist wascalliness?
Womb and board is an twaditionallly wecognized wental awwangement. What has happened to wespect for pwoperty wights?
Wow, Reason is surely the cutting edge magazine for today's youth what with an article wondering if Hillary Clinton wiped her privates clean and another wondering if women have the right to rent wombats.
I remember when Reason ran actual, important stuff. Not this silly millennialbating crap.
It's a valid 2nd Amendment issue, you misogynist.
Women are prone to hysteria and then there's the female maladies they fall prey to every lunar cycle.
What Hillary does with her private wombats is none of our concern. Plus I don't even want to know.
In states that don't allow surrogacy contracts, people can still do surrogacy, they just have to call it "adoption" and limit what they pay the surrogate to the allowable birth mother expenses. The intended parent has to go through the same home study process as any adoptive parent, and there's the risk that the surrogate will decide to keep the baby, but that risk is much lower than in an actual adoption.
People who can afford surrogacy can generally afford to cross state lines (or travel overseas) to make it happen. By allowing surrogacy contracts, states can influence surrogacy more directly (such as by placing limits on payments, or allowing only women within a certain age range to be surrogates, or requiring specific health tests). By disallowing contracts, the state has no way to track how many surrogacies are actually happening, nor any of the details of those arrangements. It's much easier for exploitation to occur when there's no legal contract.
The New York bill (see below) allows "reasonable compensation," has a minimum age of 21, and in my skimming I didn't see a reference to health tests, thought I could have missed it.
I raised a kid that wasn't mine. There was no legal process. The mom, who was worse than worthless as a parent just gave the kid to me. I raised her as my own. I didn't want the state to know or have anything to do with it and for good reason. She turned out pretty well.
That's excellent!
( though apparently there wasn't as surrogacy contract.)
Basically, a surrogacy "contract" makes a human being subject to bargain and sale.
When a case about child custody gets into court, and there is this sort of confusion over parentage, the judge should rule on the basis of the child's best interests.
The fact that the woman who bore the child took money in exchange for a promise to give the child up should be relevant...but only in that it shows that she was willing to sell a human being. And the fact that someone paid money for the child should be relevant, but only in that it shows they were willing to *sell* a human being.
So in your standard surrogacy "contract" situation, both sides will be tainted, so unless a third party comes into the situation, the judge should rule on which candidate for parenthood is least bad.
Criminally speaking, attempting the sell a child should be treated the same whether the child is in the womb or outside it.
sell or buy.
Seriously, why should it be illegal to sell a 2-year-old, but legal to sell a child in the womb? What principle distinguishes the two cases?
I mean, why not have an enforceable contract by which the "surrogate" raises the child to the age of two, then hands it over to the party which paid the money?
Why not sell one's firstborn to a guy with money? I mean, it used to be done, though then it was fairly bluntly referred to as slavery.
Isn't the 'buyer' of surrogate gestation either 50% of the biological parents or 100% (in the case of an implanted egg)? So they are not buying the child who is biologically theirs, but rather paying someone to raise it for a specified period of time. Which isn't different in kind than paying a nanny or sending a kid to boarding school.
I looked up the New York bill, and it provides that absent a "gestational agreement," custody will be based on the best interests of the child, with genetic heritage a factor to be considered.
A contract to pay a nanny or a school doesn't involve signing away any parental rights. For parents to sign such a contracts, they must *already* have parental rights, and they keep those rights even after the contract is signed.
In contrast, a gestational agreement is specifically designated as a contract which (assuming the proper formalities are followed) gives the donors all parental rights, and denies all parental rights to the surrogate after birth.
So without a contract, the standard is best interests of the child, with a contract, the standard is enforcing the contractual terms.
And note this part of the bill (sorry for the all-caps, but they're in the original).
"THE AGREEMENT OF THE INTENDED PARENTS TO PAY REASONABLE COMPENSATION TO THE GESTATIONAL CARRIER IN EXCESS OF REASONABLE MEDICAL AND ANCILLARY COSTS SHALL NOT BE A BAR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF PARENTAGE."
So you can give reasonable compensation to the person carrying the child and you still get to be the parent.
Now, if you can distinguish this from buying a child, feel free.
Here's the bill text:
http://assembly.state.ny.us/le.....y=Y&Text=Y
Again, what about a law by which the surrogate parent agrees to give up the child when it's two years old?
Now, if you can distinguish this from buying a child, feel free.
They're not buying a child because the child is already theirs(genetically). Worse case they are paying for the other parent to give up their parental rights. Something that happens de facto in nasty divorce cases all the time.
Your entire problem here actually revolves around the idea that Top Men? in government can decide what is in the best interest of the child better than the parties to the contract.
I acknowledge that you might have a compelling point if you were arguing with a supporter of modern divorce laws.
By assuming a valid contract, I'm afraid you're begging the question.
And the discretion of judges could be limited by a presumption that the woman who bore the child should have custody - a presumption, by the way, which might reduce the chance of her having a "if I can't have the nobody will" abortion.
Have the baby
So riddle me this.
Why would a mother that had engaged in fraud, by taking money in exchange for surrendering her parental rights be deemed a more fit parent than the married father who paid money for sole custody?
Your supposition that she would be a more fit parent rests on the very same presumption of maternal superiority that is at the heart of family law (divorce and custody) that you reject above.
Further, why would such a woman have any claim to the baby at all if she were not biologically a parent, ie where the fertilized egg was not her own?
Look, put the presumption where you will, so long as paying for a child doesn't give a man or woman a leg up on determining custody.
Look, put the presumption where you will, so long as paying for a child doesn't give a man or woman a leg up on determining custody.
And they say progressives and socons aren't cut from the same cloth. I'm sorry, demonstrating that you have the means to provide shouldn't be a factor in custody disputes?
A totally accurate summary of my views! Not distorted in the least, nosiree!
When I sign a contract with the day care saying that they must give me back my child at the end of the day, am I buying a child?
I've already addressed that problem - such a contract doesn't address who has parental rights.
I've already addressed that problem - such a contract doesn't address who has parental rights.
Apparently you have never heard of the legal doctrine in loco parentis.
Apparently you've never heard of the doctrine of "sod off, you retard!"
To me unless the payment was huge, what it primarily showed was that one family wanted a baby much more than the other one did.
I would say that buying or selling human beings is what they call a badge or incident of slavery.
Which we don't need.
Eddie - put down the keyboard and take THREE STEPS BACK....
Why? Did you put an open trapdoor there?
I'd say no, due to surrogacy being a system practically built for fraud, having no recourse for prospective parents, and the fact that men have somewhere between zero and negative twelve on the scale of standing when it comes to "family" courts.
Get cracking on the artificial gestation, science!
this against morals
http://www.defafalkhleej.com/
I think that the heading here is just too bright and the author wanted to make the article more catching. Unfortunately, nowadays a lot of people have some fertility problems. But to my mind, each of us should have an opportunity to get a child. Moreover, we should have an opportunity to make a choice. Somebody will adopt a kid, somebody will ask for some help at the Centers for Human Reproduction. And nobody should judge such choice! It is all because of the main goal ? to get a full family. But I think that surrogacy should be used only if there is no other way. I mean, if your health is not so good, or there are some medical reasons and so on. I visited one Ukrainian Center for Human Reproduction and at once doctors said that they had a woman that just wanted to save her body! That was awful. So doctors from the Biotexcom clinic canceled her application. I think that the whole surrogacy industry isn't so bad. If couple looking for some help at such centers, if they have enough money (in Kiev, for example, the cheapest program costs almost 30k euros!), they are entirely sure that this child will be a real miracle for them.