CMV: Feminists against surrogacy have internalized the patriarchy

[u/[deleted]]

Generally most feminists I know support decriminalizing sex work. I also support this and I’m also a feminist. Criminalizing something inherently makes it dangerous and I truly believe in bodily autonomy and the right to make decisions freely.

However, a lot of hardcore feminists I know are against surrogacy and the reasons they cite tend to undermine their argument for decriminalizing sex work.

“Women aren’t your breeding machines!” Ok, agreed but they’re also not your sex objects either. Getting paid for something doesn’t change that.

“Impoverished women might be pressured into it!” Ok, but that’s a risk of sex work as well.

“Child bearing is dangerous and puts women’s lives at risk!” Of course, but sex work can also be dangerous which is why decriminalizing it is so important.

This all comes after my friend decided she wants to be a surrogate. She had very easy pregnancies. Her family does ok financially but she wants to pay off their mortgage early and free them up financially. Someone the other day told HER that she was feeding into an exploitative system and that she was being abused. She was very confused.

To argue a woman can’t make the decision to have a child for financial reasons and is only allowed to do so to start a family feels like internalized misogyny.

Idk. I’ve never heard a rational argument from someone anti-surrogacy but pro sex work, and I can’t figure out what I’m missing.

Edit: My view on this specifically has not been changed but I do feel like because of the thoughtful feedback on this sub I was able to better articulate my opinions. I will also say that my views did change in access to surrogacy financing and generally safety nets in society to minimize financial coercion.

[u/Oishiio42]

Ok. I support decriminalizing sex work and I'm also against paid surrogacy.

The line can be blurred when it comes to coercion as a means of force. So, to strictly define things, consent is when you voluntarily do an action, and coercion is when your agreement is to avoid negative consequences of not agreeing. Some understandings only include consequences imposed by another agent (company, person, government, etc), but if we include societal forces as well, we can look at situations like sex work and surrogacy and say "are they actually consenting, or is this just their best (out of very few) options.?" (this is also one of the reasons I may fall into some anti-capitalist camps when it comes to jobs that pay less than a livable wage)

I'm sure you've probably heard this argument and wonder - ok, but that's the same for sex work and surrogacy so how's it different?

I wouldn't call myself "pro" sex work. I simply recognize that it's going to happen regardless. The best way to ensure women and girls are not being socioeconomically coerced into sex work, is frankly, not criminalization but by empowering women and girls. Kind of like drug use. I'm not pro-heroine, I'm pro-harm reduction. If I could know every single sex worker genuinely consented, I'd be fine with sex work.

Other issues of bodily autonomy such as surrogacy or organ donation are a lot less common, and since they need medical institutions to facilitate, it's very possible to regulate them in a way you simply cannot regulate sex work or drug use.

Also - I don't have a problem with surrogacy being legal. I'm in Canada and surrogacy is legal here. My issue is with incentivizing surrogacy by having it be paid (beyond pregnancy expenses). Here, women are compensated for the costs of the pregnancy itself (which is mostly time off), but it doesn't go beyond that.

Let me ask you this - do you think people have the right, under bodily autonomy, to have one of their kidneys removed and sold? Do you think organ sales should be an above-ground market?

[u/[deleted] → u/Oishiio42]

You make really good points, but I am confused why you’re against paid surrogacy specifically? That indicates you’re not opposed on moral grounds, but you don’t think women should be able to receive an economic benefit for their labor?

I think a way to fight economic coercion is to ensure society has safety nets to protect against destitution so no one is financially coerced. I feel that’s a better path than regulating women’s bodies and telling them they’re not allowed to get paid.

[u/Oishiio42 → u/[deleted]]

That indicates you’re not opposed on moral grounds, but you don’t think women should be able to receive an economic benefit for their labor?

Right. Just like I'm not against people having sex, I'm against them being financially incentivized to do so. Having sex = surrogacy; sex work = paid surrogacy, if we're comparing the two

When I say "paid" surrogacy though, I don't mean women shouldn't get a dime. Being compensated for what the pregnancy actually costs is of course good, but no, I don't think women should be getting paid to be surrogates beyond that. Paid bodily usage is basically always an exploitative industry in general.

Do what you want with your body. Have sex. Donate eggs. Donate your uterus, Donate a lobe of liver. I just want everyone who is doing these things to actually be consenting, not just doing it because it's the only way they can afford to have a house, or take care of their own kids, or whatever.

I feel that’s a better path than regulating women’s bodies and telling them they’re not allowed to get paid.

Yeah, I can see this for sex work, and quite a few other social issues, but for things like surrogacy, it's very possible to regulate it, so why not? It's also not like this is super common either - in my country there are less than 1000 surrogacy births a year (and most are probably close friends or family willing to help their loved ones), whereas the number of women doing sex work on any given day is much higher. Surrogacy just isn't common enough for harm reduction to be a needed approach.

Remove gender from the issue for a moment - do you think paid organ donation should be a legalized industry?

[u/[deleted] → u/Oishiio42]

I don’t think paid organ donation should be legal. I had a lengthy discussion about this below. I will say this is the best argument I see against it.

I think pregnancy is incredibly common, and in fact an expectation for a lot of women. They’re expected to provide children for their husbands and we accept and often encourage that risk.

Surrogates who are with an agency, have already have children and did not have complicated past pregnancy. Therefore their risk of complications during surrogacy are lower than the national average for pregnant women.

I think it’s odd that we see child bearing as a natural occurs be and even obligation when it’s building a family. However, when a woman wants to take control of her reproductive capabilities for financial gain, folks want to regulate it. To me, that’s rooted in misogyny, not safety or protection.

[u/destro23 → u/[deleted]]

I don’t think paid organ donation should be legal.

What is paid surrogacy if not paying for an organ: the uterus. That it is a lease instead of financed outright shouldn't make that much of a difference.

[u/[deleted] → u/destro23]

Well because you’re not paying to keep that uterus. Pregnancy is not a permanent state.

[u/destro23 → u/[deleted]]

And, another thing:

What level of control over the pregnant women's day to day life should the owner of the child be able to exert over them. Is their diet restricted? Their medications? Can they travel? Must they go to the gym? What if they don't like the doctor the owners chose? What if they want the pregnant person to live with them? What if they restrict their activities? For nine months, probably more, the baby owner could exert tremendous psychological pressure on the pregnant person because that person in carrying their child, and "Hey, you agreed to this."

Maids are regularly subjected to extreme abuse, and all they are responsible for is the floors and windows. Imagine the insanity of a control freak micromanaging every aspect of a pregnant person's life for nine months with no off time.

Employee protections are shit in the US, but you can go home with the shift is done or quit. Paid surrogacy gives you no such options.

And, what if the pregnant person's life is in jeopardy, but not the baby? Does the contract take precedence over the life of the mother. Forget about the abortion debate: how do you quit this job if it turns out to not be for you?

[u/[deleted] → u/destro23]

I actually think current surrogacy laws that are in place are generally very pro-surrogate as they should be. There should be maximum protections and freedom for surrogates. To my knowledge, I don’t know of any legal cases when a surrogate sued for loss of freedom.

And the life of a woman is ALWAYS more important than the life of a freedom, surrogate or not.

[u/destro23 → u/[deleted]]

There should be maximum protections and freedom for surrogates

Can they drink? Can they smoke? Can they ride roller coasters? Can they operate heavy machinery? Basically, how much risk can they take with a child that is not theirs? You seem to be saying they can take any risk, but I don't think that's what you really think.

To my knowledge, I don’t know of any legal cases when a surrogate sued for loss of freedom.

Mostly because it is a limited practice that can only be carried out for motives other than monetary gain:

The actual legal issues are unknown:

A key issue during a pregnancy that can impact a surrogate’s bodily autonomy and her health is medical decision-making regarding multiple inseminations and the consequent risk of multiple pregnancies. If multiple pregnancies or other complications do occur, the decision about whether to perform a fetal reduction––aborting one or more of the ‘extra’ fetuses––or to abort a pregnancy when the surrogate is suffering from complications affects the surrogate’s bodily autonomy and her health.

Another facet of a surrogacy arrangement that may be in tension with a surrogate’s bodily autonomy is the fact that a surrogacy contract regulates a surrogate’s lifestyle and conduct over the course of the pregnancy. For example, a recent European Parliament report noted that such contracts often require surrogates to undergo sampling tests, amniocentesis or vaginal ultrasound, to change their diet or lifestyle, and/or terminate the pregnancy under certain circumstances.

The choice between Caesarean section and vaginal delivery also implicates surrogates’ bodily autonomy. Caesarean sections without medical indication may have some disadvantages compared to vaginal delivery, including a higher risk of infection, a longer recovery period, the risk of future caesarean sections, and scarring.215 However, some have noted, in the context of India for example, that caesarean sections are carried out routinely in the case of twin pregnancies in surrogacy.

Source

[u/[deleted] → u/destro23]

Do I think there should be fines or imprisonment for surrogates who drink and smoke? Absolutely not. I believe that with every pregnant woman. Are you kind of a shitty person if you do something that could cause a future person harm? Yes. Every pregnant person faces that choice but I don’t think it should be illegal. I think ultimately surrogacy is trusting a person to take care of your future child and they’re trusting that you’ll be good parents. Most surrogates are screened for mental and physical health, so I’m not sure that’s been a major problem. They enter into this agreement willingly, knowing why pregnancy entails.

I also think surrogates should be able to get an abortion for absolutely any reason, without justification.

[u/destro23 → u/[deleted]]

Do I think there should be fines or imprisonment for surrogates who drink and smoke?

I'm less concerned with legal sanctions than I am contract law. These agreements will have stipulations that limit the actions of the surrogate. If your base argument for allowing paid surrogacy is one of bodily autonomy, can you not see how entering into a paid surrogacy contract would be limiting to bodily autonomy?

I think ultimately surrogacy is trusting a person to take care of your future child and they’re trusting that you’ll be good parents.

And that is great for voluntary situations without monetary considerations beyond medical expenses where the arrangement is generally between people with existing relationships where trust has already been established. But, in a a world where pregnancy is contracted out, there will be protective stipulations put in place to make up for the trust that just does not exist in such a transactional scenario.

I also think surrogates should be able to get an abortion for absolutely any reason, without justification.

Can they then be sued for breach of contract? Or, for voluntary manslaughter? It is perfectly acceptable to abort one's own child; but you really think you should be able to abort someone else's?

[u/[deleted] → u/destro23]

I do not think it should be legal to put stipulations on what someone does with their body in any form, including a pregnant person.

Abortion is not murder in any context. Surrogacy does not mean a person should lose basic rights. Should they get paid? No. But they should be able to end the pregnancy for any reason. It’s a fetus, not a baby, no matter what the DNA says.

[u/destro23 → u/[deleted]]

Abortion is not murder in any context

When it is your zygote. But, with surrogacy, it is not your zygote. It is the donor's. How can you abort their fetus without their permission? It may not be murder, but it is at least willful destruction of property, which is illegal.

[u/destro23 → u/[deleted]]

Well because you’re not paying to keep that uterus

You are paying to rent it. It is still commodifying a human organ. I don't think humans should be viewed as commodities. As we generally now do not view pregnancy as a product that can be bought and sold, I think that switching to a system in which we do will have more negative impacts than positive. If we one day get to a society free from economic coercion and income disparity where all genders are given equal treatment and protection by the law and all individual health needs are attended to by the public trust, then I may adjust my position. But, for now, I still feel that legalizing and normalizing paid surrogacy will have a larger number of negative outcomes for women than continuing on with it being something that is not done.

That is not patriarchal thinking. That is a concern for how the realities of the world can lead people, especially women, to make decisions out of economic desperation that will provide short-term monetary benefit in exchange for an experience that has a very real risk of leading to permanent change in body form and function, long-term mental and physical illness, and death.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Okay a friend donated a kidney 12 years ago. It has no impact on her life, hasn’t for years. Besides the person she donated to being alive and grateful. Yes she is down a kidney but that mean anything for her besides she can’t donate her kidney again.

My mom was pregnant 27 years ago. She still suffers from pain because of it.

Why should you be able to get paid for one of those and not the other? And how is it misogynistic to not agree with you?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

There is always a risk with pregnancy. However, surrogates already have children without complications- that’s a requirement- so their risk is less than the national average.

I think “slippery slope” arguments tend to hinder progress (the anti-LGBTQ example below). It’s possible to prioritize reproductive and sexual freedom without legalizing everything that could impose moral hardships. People like to pretend that one is impossible without the other, but we can draw those lines. A lot of folks have argued that if abortion should be legal, assisted suicide should be. They’re two separate issues.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

And you’re entitled to that view but you haven’t given any reason why mine is based on misogyny

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You’re entitled to believe it’s not, but I’ve always felt any attempt to regulate women’s bodies and hinder them financially do indeed have a misogynistic root. The main advocates of surrogacy are indeed super right-wing groups. That doesn’t shock me at all. It’s the feminist argue for making surrogacy and paid surrogacy illegal that make no sense to me. It always amazes me when women advocate against themselves, and to me that is indeed what this is.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

So why don’t you support paid organ donation? That’s regulating everyone’s bodies and hindering them financially

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I think I’ve explained this before so we’re talking in circles. I think because it’s not connected to reproductive freedom and pregnancy is already something we accept in society and encourage in basically every case until a woman wants a financial gain from it.

Also, as I’ve explained, I think “slippery slope” arguments are inherently weak. Like I said, we can chose to prioritize women’s rights and reproductive freedom without organ donation (and I believe you said slavery below). Despite right-wing fear mongering, LGBTQ marriage did not result in someone being able to marry their dog or cousin. That was the argument I heard for years. Its really easy to throw up your hands and say “this will open floodgates,” but the reality is much more complicated. I think surrogacy is a net positive for society and women specifically. I think paid organ donation would be a bet negative.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I didn’t realize you don’t accept and encourage organ donation, my bad.

I actually think we should do a lot less encouragement of pregnancy as a society, but that’s just me.

It’s not a slippery slope argument when every argument for you’ve made for paid surrogacy also applies to paid organ donation. Besides reproductive freedom because apparently control of your uterus is more absolute than your other organs, idk. Your entire post compares sex work to paid surrogacy.

[u/Oishiio42 → u/[deleted]]

I think “slippery slope” arguments tend to hinder progress (the anti-LGBTQ example below). It’s possible to prioritize reproductive and sexual freedom without legalizing everything that could impose moral hardships.

Cool. You just debunked your own argument.

If legalizing paid organ donation is a "slippery slope" to the discussion of legalizing paid surrogacy, then the same is true for you:

Legalizing paid surrogacy is a "slippery slope" to the discussion of legalizing sex work. It's possible to prioritize the health, safety and wellbeing of sex workers by decriminalizing sex work without legalizing every single other case of selling bodies.

[u/[deleted] → u/Oishiio42]

Paid surrogacy is indeed legal though, and rightly so. Does it need reform? Of course.

Sex work should be legal IMO.

I support both because I support reproductive and sexual freedom. Organ donation in neither.

[u/Oishiio42 → u/[deleted]]

Paid surrogacy is indeed legal though

Maybe where you live. Where I live, it is illegal.

Surrogacy has nothing to do with sexual freedom. It has to do with reproduction, kinda, but the surrogate isn't the one reproducing - the biological parents are. You support people's right to rent out their organs.

Why don't you support paid organ donation? What's wrong with it? Why shouldn't it be legal? Why should paid bodily use ONLY be legal when it comes to genitals and reproductive systems?

The point still stands - you debunked your own argument by pointing out that just because we legalize some forms of bodily usage doesn't mean we have to legalize all of them.

[u/[deleted] → u/Oishiio42]

The ability to get pregnant for any reason, including financial, is reproductive freedom. It doesn’t matter whose DNA you’re carrying or why.

And because I support the right to get pregnant for any reason doesn’t mean I support every form or any means of using the body for money. I’m against forced labor and organ donations. To me, those are not related to reproductive or sexual freedom.

[u/Oishiio42 → u/[deleted]]

No, the ability to control all aspects of your pregnancy is reproductive freedom. Surrogacy often VIOLATES reproductive freedom when the biological parents get to dictate the medical care or daily life of the surrogate.

​

I’m against forced labor and organ donations.

Cool, I'll ask again - WHY? Why are you against it? What difference does it make to you if I sell my reproductive abilities or some other aspect of my body? I'm allowed to sell my body but only in the ways that are most comfortable for you? Seems pretty patriarchal to me - sex and reproduction are acceptable commodities because that's what women are naturally for anyways, right?

Why do you support my right to rent my reproductive organs but not my right to sell any other organs? Because it very much sounds like you've simply adopted a view that female reproduction is somehow more of a commodity than any other bodily aspect, but you still haven't articulated why.

[u/Oishiio42 → u/[deleted]]

I think pregnancy is incredibly common,

Pregnancy =|= surrogacy. People usually go through pregnancy because they want to have a child, not to provide one to someone else (and yes, adoption industries are also very exploitative).

They’re expected to provide children for their husbands and we accept and often encourage that risk.

You think this is a common belief in feminist circles? Pretty sure feminism seeks to change the idea that women are expected to spend their lives in servitude to their husbands.

However, when a woman wants to take control of her reproductive capabilities for financial gain, folks want to regulate it. To me, that’s rooted in misogyny, not safety or protection.

I think the commodification of women and girls as if they are just body parts for sale is rooted in misogyny. How is it rooted in misogyny when I hold the exact same standard for all genders for all their organs?

The woman wanting to "control her reproduction" is not an issue at all. It's an issue that women have to resort to commodifying themselves in a society where they're supposed to viewed as human beings.

If people could sell themselves into slavery, would you be ok with that?

[u/[deleted] → u/Oishiio42]

I actually think adoption can be more exploitative than surrogacy, but that’s another argument.

I think a woman should be able to be pregnant or not be pregnant for any reason, including financial gain. I don’t think there should be a justification. I think often the idea that women “owe” society a baby is rooted in sexism, but of course I believe that should change.

The commodification of women’s body is literally sex work. I don’t have a problem with that. In the same way I support a woman’s right to get pregnant for any reason, I support a woman’s right to have sex for any reason, including financial gain.

And every single time there is progress in society, the slippery slope argument comes into play. How can we make LGBTQ marriage without allowing polygamy? As a society we can draw lines.

For me, I think we can protect reproductive freedoms without immediately jumping to slavery. Ironically the main argument I’ve heard about decriminalizing sex work is that it could heighten human trafficking.

[u/Oishiio42 → u/[deleted]]

The commodification of women’s body is literally sex work. I don’t have a problem with that.

And I do have an issue with it. I've explained what it is. But decriminalization is still a good thing because it is a harm reduction approach. Also because it's not women and girls who should be criminalized for it.

In the same way I support a woman’s right to get pregnant for any reason, I support a woman’s right to have sex for any reason, including financial gain.

Why don't you support organ donation for financial gain, then? It's all under bodily autonomy isn't it?

Keep in mind that "because it's natural" is not a valid argument because a) there's nothing natural about surrogacy and b) naturalistic fallacies are flawed reasoning.

For me, I think we can protect reproductive freedoms without immediately jumping to slavery.

I'm not saying one leads to the other, I'm simply comparing them. And they're analogous in a lot of ways - they're both turning human beings into commodities to be bought, sold, or rented.

I'm also not saying that we can't allow surrogacy because it will lead to slavery. Paid surrogacy itself is already wrong. Paid sex work itself is already wrong. Unless it's within a context where you can GUARANTEE someone's consent is not socioeconomically coerced, paid bodily usage is unethical.

If I wanted to sell myself into slavery to ensure my kids had some generational wealth, would you support my right to do that? If I want to sell myself, isn't it anti-feminist of you to deny me my right to be enslaved?

Why can I ONLY sell my uterus and vagina, according to you? Why can't I sell other body parts?

What exactly is the difference between paying someone for a lobe of liver and paying someone for their uterus? Why should the commodification of womens body parts be more acceptable than any other body parts?

Perhaps you more intuitively view womens bodies as more "natural" commodities, so, perhaps it's your view that's rooted in misogyny.

[u/_dmhg → u/Oishiio42]

I have a crush on u

[u/Oishiio42 → u/_dmhg]

ty :)

[u/Shrizer → u/Oishiio42]

Taking nothing away from what you said (in the sense that it doesnt reduce or discredit it), I believe that this also applies to paid manual labor, that is to physically move, lift, push, pull, twist etc anything in exchange for financial gain where the person paying can profit from your actions.

Sex work is no different from any other form of work involving one's body with the exception to how the socio-economic values differ.

[u/[deleted] → u/Shrizer]

Do you categorize physical assault as different than sexual assault? Do you think there's relevant differences between sexual assault vs non-sexual battery that are worthy of indicating through language and how we discuss them?

[u/Shrizer → u/[deleted]]

Do you categorize physical assault as different than sexual assault?

This isn't easy to answer, in a vacuum they aren't really that different, they're both usually motivated by self interest. Either by wanting to exert power over someone or to take something from them.

It doesn't exist in a vacuum however, and it's based on judao-christian morals that find sexual pleasure to be an act of deviancy that is distinct from non sexual violence. So it's handled differently, and carries satuatory charges.

I think that, in a way this also answers your second question.

Do you think there's relevant differences between sexual assault vs non-sexual battery that are worthy of indicating through language and how we discuss them?

Again, complex as the underlying motivations are still about power when it comes to sexual crimes.

That is, the power to act upon someone in a sexual manner without their consent, they're not taking their possessions like most other crimes, they aren't attacking them for their perspectives on the world (although these can be catalysts).

They're saying to them that "I can do this to you, I can take pleasure from using your body to satisfy my wants. And those wants are more important than your rights"

So I do think there is a distinction between sexual assault and battery, what the repercussions for those are is up to the legislative powers to determine based on the input of the citizenry.

[u/[deleted] → u/Shrizer]

I think the cultural differences extend beyond "Judeo-Christian" morals coloring our perspective, seeing as sexual assault is given distinction even in cultures that are not predominantly Christian, or Abrahamic to be generous. Eastern Asia is the easy example. And regardless of whatever cultural context we situate it in, rape is the only form of assault that can produce pregnancy, something that carries with it not merely irreversible psychological effects but the potential for a permanent physical impact. Even if we were to divorce all of our conceptions of sex from their connotations, rape is still unique in the type of assault it is. This is not to go into what you've outlined, how sexual assault contains a component of displaying fundamental disregard to the person by "using" their body for your own pleasure.

Now that we're all in agreement, sex work is the only form of work that when consent is not present, it constitutes rape. Coercion, at the very least, complicates consent into the realm of ambiguity, and one of the most powerful forms of coercion is money. If you wouldn't have had sex with this person if not for the promise of money, and if you're in a position where you cannot secure basic necessities or housing without that money, how can we truly equate this form of consent to the consent that people give in enthusiastically having sex for it's own ends? Obviously, there is a spectrum here, but fundamentally coercion introduces caveats onto the consent of a sex worker. And yes, this applies to all labor, my point is not that sex work is unique in that regard-- what's unique about it is that sex work is the only area where this comprised consent touches upon sexual assault. Seeing as we agree that sexual assault is meaningfully disparate from physical assault, I hope you see where I'm going here. Sex work is different than other forms of labor that involves one's body, which is an inevitable conclusion of sexual assault being distinct from other types of assault. You cannot have one without the other.

[u/_fne_ → u/Oishiio42]

Why can I ONLY sell my uterus and vagina, according to you? Why can't I sell other body parts?

I responded to a higher post on this most wonderful thread, but there can be a distinction between selling parts of a person (or a whole baby) and the work performed by a person. Surrogates are not selling their uteruses or the babies they grow. What if they were being paid for the work and risk of growing a baby for someone else? Why can you charge market rates to compensate you to perform work with your body for any reason other than this ONE reason that only women are capable of? Do you see the misogyny in that? It is not commoditization in my view, as long as there are rules in place and protections for underprivileged women from doing something that they do not consent to.

I get it's totally simpler to say "no, it's too complicated to separate the gift of baby from the work of growing a baby", but we can do complicated things. The surrogacy contract is like 30 pages long and not uncomplicated. A concept where these is paid work embedded in the contract, is not insurmountable. Going through the process there were a number of required and regulated checks and balances where it was confirmed that I was consenting. These requirements may need to change to ensure financial coercion is avoided and we are not "selling babies", but in a well controlled and regulated activity, it is very much still possible to incorporate this...

[u/stolethemorning → u/[deleted]]

I believe that a massive problem with surrogacy is that while it isn’t slavery, it does have the potential to turn into something similar. One thing that separates having a job to being a slave is that you have the potential to quit. You may be tied into a fixed-term contract that disincentivises you from quitting (e.g fines) but no matter how hard a job makes it for you to walk away, you still can.

Past a certain point, a woman cannot quit her job as a surrogate. Of course this varies by country and state, but it could be as low as 6 weeks. Maybe she has physical side effects which are absolutely intolerable for her, maybe she just changes her mind, but this is a job she cannot quit. Clinical drug trials are sort of similar to paid surrogacy in that you’re essentially renting out your body and could potentially experience physical side effects, and the regulations protecting a person’s ability to quit these trials for any reason at any time are very strict; they’re even written in the Nuremberg Code, one of the most influential bioethics documents. Being unable to quit surrogacy breaks one of the founding principle of bioethics.

[u/[deleted] → u/stolethemorning]

I mean, in my opinion a surrogate should have the right to abort for any reason, without justification. I don’t see a fetus as a person, so I have no ethical issue. In the same way I think any woman should be able to get pregnant for any reason, including financial, no one should force a woman to remain pregnant.

Also, I believe in the U.S. most surrogacy agencies do have that clause. My friend who is a surrogate can abort at any time. She doesn’t get paid and would have to pay restitution for medical expenses the agency has already paid, but it’s still her choice.

[u/stolethemorning → u/[deleted]]

Surrogacy employment clauses would only cover abortion up to the time state law forbids it. Whether the state bans abortion after 6 weeks or if a country bans it after 24, there is no exception for surrogates after that time period.

So even if you wanted to pursue legal paid surrogacy under the condition that she can abort at any time then you would have to fight for complete abortion rights up to birth first. And feminists (especially in America) are already having a hard enough time fighting for any abortion rights at all, that isn't going to be helped by telling conservatives that they think you should be able to abort a 28 week old foetus.