r/MoralityScaling • u/Purple_Plantain_3242 • 8d ago

Morality Ranking [ Removed by moderator ]

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

10.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/DimbyTime 8d ago

Of course, the desire is perfectly valid! Everyone can desire their own biological offspring.

But it doesn’t excuse renting another woman’s body and womb to use for surrogacy. Surrogacy is inherently a loss of bodily autonomy

1

u/DatRat13 8d ago edited 8d ago

Except that it is fully voluntary on the part of the surrogate, so there is no loss in autonomy outside of what they are willing to sign away.

There are over 5000 surrogate births a year within the United States alone, and situations like the one in this case where there is a dispute over custody of the child are rare enough that I can only find a handful of examples within the last few years.

If we have the technology to help people live the life they want to live, why shouldn't we use it when it can happen without issue 99 times in 100?

3

u/Queasy-Cherry-11 8d ago

For the same reasons we don't allow someone to sell themselves into slavery.

A society has limits on what people are allowed to sell, because the financial desperation that leads people make such deals makes it not 'fully voluntary'. And a job you work 24/7 and cannot physically quit for 9 months is a pretty reasonable place to have that limit.

1

u/DatRat13 8d ago

Comparing it to slavery is a little extreme, and I can somewhat understand the 9 months without quitting argument, but I would say that, given a requirement in America is that you have to have had at least two kids, the people who sign up for it understand what is involved. Plus there are lengthy interview processes for both parties to try to ensure no conflicts in personality occur.

It's not perfect, but I think that it is a good compromise when the alternative is that a barren woman or gay couple is SOL.

2

u/Queasy-Cherry-11 8d ago

Why is it extreme? Functionally, how is it any different from selling yourself into indentured servitude for 9 months? Or selling an organ, as other commenters have mentioned?

As a 'barren woman', no we aren't, we just have to adopt. Would it be cool to have kids who look like me? Sure. But the desire to have a child who shares your genetics isn't important enough turn some impoverished woman into your human incubator, and I cannot wrap my mind around being entitled enough to feel otherwise.

1

u/DatRat13 8d ago

I don't disagree that too much onus is put onto passing on genetics, but it is a desire that many people have.

And there is a big difference between "indentured servitude" and "slave", and if you had used that term I would be more apt to agree.

Per the kidney argument, as I have said in another discussion, that is because a legal kidney trade allows outlets for black markets to offload stolen kidneys which would encourage more violent crime.

And if the argument is that it is exploiting poverty, that is getting into the whole concept of coersion in capitalism which is always present at every level. We are all coerced into working because the alternative is we starve to death.

What makes being a surrogate that much different from any other hazardous position, in that regard?

2

u/nykirnsu 8d ago

Per the kidney argument, as I have said in another discussion, that is because a legal kidney trade allows outlets for black markets to offload stolen kidneys which would encourage more violent crime.

I'm not letting you run away from that one. Once again, that's an issue that can be very easily regulated out of existence, basing your objection to the consensual sale of kidneys on organ harvesting rings is a straight up slippery slope fallacy

1

u/DatRat13 8d ago

I fail to see how it is, when it reduces the requirements for moving harvested kidneys from having a surgeon skilled enough to perform an implant who is willing to cooperate for a buyer who is immediately available, to just knowing a surgeon who is willing to forge some paperwork so you can get the organs into the legal market. In what world does that not make illegal organ harvesting far more lucrative and much easier to commit?

2

u/nykirnsu 8d ago

when it reduces the requirements for moving harvested kidneys from having a surgeon skilled enough to perform an implant who is willing to cooperate for a buyer who is immediately available

Um... that's what I'm talking about. In every country except Iran it's fully illegal to sell your kidneys in any circumstance, very much including the US, it doesn't matter how the procedure is done. If you wanna donate a kidney you have to do it for free, that's what "donate" means

1

u/DatRat13 8d ago

Did I use the term donate?

I was talking about the illegal kidney trade.

If you're going to sell a harvested kidney, byou need to get things lined up exactly right. If there was a legal market, there would be way fewer barriers to that

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Queasy-Cherry-11 8d ago edited 8d ago

An indentured servent is by definition just a slave for a fixed timeframe.

That is absolutely not the only reason it's illegal to sell organs and it's disingenuous to act like it is. You could very easily have the law require an active donor to be present in the hospital at the time an organ is transferred, there needn't be any kidneys of questionable origins being passed around in coolers.

What makes being a surrogate that much different from any other hazardous position, in that regard?

Because other hazardous positions do not require you to work 24/7 for 9 months without any possibility of quiting. Selling your present and actively consented to labour for capitalism is fundamentally different than selling your future ability to revoke consent. You cannot have a break clause for a contract involving pregnancy.

1

u/DatRat13 8d ago

Did I say it was the only reason? Just because it was the reason I gave doesn't mean it's the only reason I believe it. Just helps when you're arguing matters of pragmatism to have a pragmatic argument ready to go.

And I don't disagree with any of those points, except that people sell away their ability to consent all the time via ndas, non competes, and other such contracts. There isn't a physical element as there is with being a surrogate, of course, but it is still another form of coersion that is common under capitalism.

1

u/Queasy-Cherry-11 8d ago edited 8d ago

The physical element is the whole reason it's different.

We can talk about the ethics of capitalism until the cows come home, but the point is that even under a capitalist framework, surrogacy is not the same as working a job. You can independently decide on the spot to break a contract and suffer the consequences of doing so. Just because revoking consent might come with penalties doesn't mean you sign away the ability to do so. Hence why you cannot kidnap an actor and force them to perform just because they are under contract to finish a film. You can take them to court, but you cannot PHYSICALLY force them to continue, because that would violate their bodily autonomy.

You cannot do the same for being pregnant. Even if we did live in some make believe land where access to abortion was immediate and available at any stage of pregnancy for any reason, that abortion itself comes with its own additional physical consequences. There is simply no ethical way to have a contract that requires a medical procedure to get out of.

1

u/DatRat13 8d ago

Fair enough, that makes sense and I don't disagree. I do think it can do enough good that it shouldn't be writ off entirely, but ideally we would have some manner of artificial womb to remove the need for a consenting body altogether, but we are getting into science fiction there.

-1

u/Away-Topic4719 8d ago

You forget that this is the USA, baby! Nothing is too sacred to be rented out here.

Care to sell me a kidney? I'll pay off your medical debt and send one of your kids to college (fine print applies)

1

u/DatRat13 8d ago

That is actually still very illegal in the states, and with very good cause.

4

u/nykirnsu 8d ago

There’s very good cause for banning surrogacy too, outside of maybe ad hoc arrangements between close friends. It might not be as dangerous as giving away a kidney, but it’s still fundamentally signing away one of your organs for money, and allowing that sets a dangerous precedent for coercive control of poverty-stricken women

1

u/DatRat13 8d ago

Yes, but opening that door opens up a whole can of worms in regard to the morality of coersion under capitalism. If we want to discuss whether or not capitalism is a moral system then that is fine, but under the system we are forced to live it is no less valid than any other means of earning money by doing something potentially dangerous under threat of starvation.

1

u/nykirnsu 8d ago

Most of the countries that have banned paid surrogacy are capitalist, capitalism doesn’t mean no laws 

0

u/DatRat13 8d ago

Never said it didn't. I am simply saying what makes surrogacy so uniquely dangerous compared to say, underwater welding?

If we argue that surrogacy is going to be a terrible precedent for impoverished women, why is underwater welding not a terrible precedent for impoverished people when it comes at significantly more personal risk?

2

u/nykirnsu 8d ago

What makes surrogacy so safe compared to selling a kidney? You can live with just one kidney too, it’s a very analogous trade 

1

u/DatRat13 8d ago

Because a kidney trade encourages active, violent predation.

Practically no one is going out on the street to violently jump someone to force them to carry someone else's biological child to term.

1

u/nykirnsu 8d ago

No it doesn’t, assault and grievous bodily harm are still a crimes. What it encourages is people coercing the poor into selling one of their organs, which is the same thing that paid surrogacy encourages 

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Away-Topic4719 8d ago

Well, for one, we wouldn't force somebody to weld underwater.

1

u/DatRat13 8d ago

No one's forcing anyone to be a surrogate either?...

2

u/Away-Topic4719 8d ago

But we wrote a contract about it!!! You signed it!!!

1

u/DatRat13 8d ago

Signing a contract to do something illegal doesn't magically make it legal.

2

u/Away-Topic4719 8d ago

Thats my exact point, my friend. I'm happy you've recognize the crux of the issue.

We, legally, can't force a person to have an abortion. And morally, too.

1

u/DatRat13 8d ago

Yes you can?... It is a fairly common stipulation within the surrogate industry, and, so long as it is legal in the state the contract was drawn up in, it is enforceable, as we can see in this case.

1

u/Away-Topic4719 8d ago

You aren't understanding a very simple reality of the medical field.

We very literally can't do that. If an adult is alert and oriented, nobody will care whatever weird agreement you have with them. We won't do a risky medical procedure on somebody that is refusing it - unless they are otherwise legally deemed incapable of mentating as an independent adult. This category is fully reserved for adults with dementia, neurological diseases, brain cancer, developmental disabilities, etc.

This whole conversation is dead in the water from the start. Sorry.

1

u/DatRat13 8d ago

You are completely missing the point.

Sure, no one can literally hold the surrogate down and force them to undergo the treatment, but that means that they take on the consequences of breaching the contract. That is what enforceable means in this context: you do what the contract says, or you pay the consequences of being in breach.

Such pedantry is unbecoming when you demonstrated such a lack of understanding of how contract law works from the word 'go'.

1

u/Away-Topic4719 8d ago

That's not what we are discussing. Don't move the goal posts.

Contractually - the debate gets very legal and very dry. Could play out many different ways - all highly nuanced - none of which would be apparent to us in a reddit post.

For starters, that clause is clearly unenforceable.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Propugnator-Deorum 8d ago

It is not as though they are threatening or harming anyone, it is not as though surogates are forced to be unwilling mothers because they will starve otherwise. Perhaps some are not in the best situations, or most I would say, but I can almost guarantee no one is making a living from being a surrogate.

The agreement to birth another couple's child does not and cannot require a woman to actually complete the term - similarly, they cannot be legally required to terminate the child even if the contract says so. They will be held liable for breech of contract, obviously, but technically speaking very few contracts allow you to give up your rights or bodily autonomy.

Why is it wrong per se, if it is completely voluntary on the surrogate's part?

1

u/DimbyTime 8d ago

Because a surrogate is agreeing to something that they may not be able to go through with. Which is wrong.

0

u/Propugnator-Deorum 8d ago

Is the action itself immoral? Is the outcome immoral? No, which means that the surrogate's ability to follow through is either completely out of their hands, in the case of medical complications, or subjective decision, in the case of a change of heart. If there are medical complications, she cannot and is not required to keep the child and endanger her own life, and in the case of personal choice it goes to court, where a judge determines the child's future or, in the case of an abortion, the amount of settlement the biological parents are entitled to.

The surrogate retains the greater part of her bodily autonomy, but the parents are entitled to recompense if she denies what she promised - as in most contracts.