Those health risks exist for pregnancy regardless of whether the pregnancy is a surrogate pregnancy, a pregnancy inside of marriage, or a pregnancy outside of marriage.
I'm inclined to disagree with referring to surrogacy as renting as well, because the body part is not temporarily detached for
This isn't something you can plug into a spreadsheet. It's *not* a matter of "which number is bigger", it's a matter of how you personally weigh and value moral choices, and the effect on the individual and society. There is no simple, objective, provably correct answer.
Could we, perhaps, dispense with the obfuscation of the situation by describing it in terms of different people's moralities and instead discuss the real world consequences?
There's people who think abortion is inherently immoral and would prefer both mother and child die in event of complications
The argument against paying for organs is that it induces people to take health risks they would otherwise not -- they won't voluntarily give up an organ, but they will for pay. The moral calculus is complex. How many people may die from selling an organ, vs. how many *won't* die from lack of one?
Assuming a one to one organ transfer between two humans- and setting aside for the moment alternative organ sources such as cloned or otherwise artificial organs- then that's one person who'll certainly die without the organ (the recipient) or two who may die if the surgery goes poorly (donor and
Comments
It is someone's own body, after all.
If someone made a necklace from their own hair, would you similarly oppose them selling that?
Yes, it is someone's body but making body parts saleable leads to abuse and exploitation.
In a literal sense surrogacy is paying someone to become pregnant then adopting the baby.
I'm inclined to disagree with referring to surrogacy as renting as well, because the body part is not temporarily detached for
There's people who think abortion is inherently immoral and would prefer both mother and child die in event of complications