Surrogate Mother Told to Abort Female Triplet!

[Carrikature]

With this argument you could equally argue against a married couple procreating at all (e.g. rather than adopting).

At best, you could use it to argue that a married couple should consider foster/adoption in addition to or in lieu of having their own children (which I'd be perfectly fine with arguing). There's nothing wrong with the basic biological imperative to procreate. There's something wrong with the lengths people go to in order to fulfill it.

Let's not forget, either, that a significant portion of people seeking surrogates are same-sex couples or celebrities who don't wish to sacrifice their own physique.

[Joel]

At best, you could use it to argue that a married couple should consider foster/adoption in addition to or in lieu of having their own children (which I'd be perfectly fine with arguing). There's nothing wrong with the basic biological imperative to procreate. There's something wrong with the lengths people go to in order to fulfill it.

So it's just a matter of degree then, not a matter of kind. As technology develops then, if these extra "lengths" become ever easier, simpler, and cheaper, the degree of the immorality of them will diminish, perhaps to nothing?
This would suggest that you don't oppose these practices per se.

[Carrikature]

So it's just a matter of degree then, not a matter of kind. As technology develops then, if these extra "lengths" become ever easier, simpler, and cheaper, the degree of the immorality of them will diminish, perhaps to nothing?
This would suggest that you don't oppose these practices per se.

No. The degree of immorality is not related to the ease with which it's performed. I outright oppose these practices.

[Joel]

No. The degree of immorality is not related to the ease with which it's performed. I outright oppose these practices.

But that seems to contradict what you said just before, that the wrong lies in "the lengths people go to".

[Carrikature]

But that seems to contradict what you said just before, that the wrong lies in "the lengths people go to".

I think you're getting too caught up on 'lengths', but more to the point, it seems like you're trying to find a singular reason to refute (both in my case and in Spart's). I'm against surrogacy on multiple levels: the wrong lies both in the act and in the justification for the act. Making surrogacy easier wouldn't change any of that. The fact that it's not easy (or cheap) just shows how far people are willing to go. Plastic surgery is another example of people going to great lengths in the name of self-indulgence.

[Joel]

I think you're getting too caught up on 'lengths', but more to the point, it seems like you're trying to find a singular reason to refute (both in my case and in Spart's). I'm against surrogacy on multiple levels: the wrong lies both in the act and in the justification for the act. Making surrogacy easier wouldn't change any of that. The fact that it's not easy (or cheap) just shows how far people are willing to go. Plastic surgery is another example of people going to great lengths in the name of self-indulgence.

Okay. So why is the act wrong in itself?

[Spartacus]

With this argument you could equally argue against a married couple procreating at all (e.g. rather than adopting).

I don't understand this critique. Explain further?

There is a difference between compensating someone for their labor and monetizing human relationships themselves. This is particularly troubling when it means the creation of new human beings becomes a commercial act, when it ought to be the result of a free and mutual act of self-gift, that is, the result of sex between a husband and wife.

[Joel]

There is a difference between compensating someone for their labor and monetizing human relationships themselves. This is particularly troubling when it means the creation of new human beings becomes a commercial act, when it ought to be the result of a free and mutual act of self-gift, that is, the result of sex between a husband and wife.

If the husband and wife are unable to have normal, unaided sex, then would you say it's okay to get the assistance if the assistant does it as a free gift to the couple? And becomes wrong when it's an exchange instead of a free gift? It's the presence of an exchange that makes it wrong?

Or suppose the couple know how to do IVF or artificial insemination themselves. So they could do it without any exchange taking place. That would be okay?

From what you've been saying before, I'm guessing that you think they are wrong regardless whether any exchange takes place. So I'm not sure why you are arguing that they are wrong because an exchange takes place. Or perhaps are you only saying that an exchange makes these practices worse wrongs? But it seems like someone would have to first agree that the practices are wrong apart from an exchange taking place, before they could consider whether the presence of an exchange makes them worse wrongs.

[Spartacus]

If the husband and wife are unable to have normal, unaided sex, then would you say it's okay to get the assistance if the assistant does it as a free gift to the couple? And becomes wrong when it's an exchange instead of a free gift? It's the presence of an exchange that makes it wrong?

Or suppose the couple know how to do IVF or artificial insemination themselves. So they could do it without any exchange taking place. That would be okay?

My objection is that the baby doesn't come about through sexual intercourse on the part of the parents. If a couple is unable to have normal intercourse, then they are not able to validly enter into a marriage. In the case of IVF, the baby doesn't come about through intercourse, so, again, no, it would not be OK.

[Carrikature]

Okay. So why is the act wrong in itself?

In a nutshell? This:

IVF involves the commodification of human life; surrogacy (particularly in its commercial form) commoditizes the surrogate mother as well.

[Joel]

My objection is that the baby doesn't come about through sexual intercourse on the part of the parents. If a couple is unable to have normal intercourse, then they are not able to validly enter into a marriage. In the case of IVF, the baby doesn't come about through intercourse, so, again, no, it would not be OK.

So it seems that it comes down to a Catholic premise, that non-Catholics are unlikely to hold.

(Some side notes: I did not know that my cousin's marriage to a husband who is paralyzed from the waist down would have been prohibited by the Catholic church, had they been Catholic. But for the discussion we could sidestep that by supposing that the husband had become paralyzed some time after consummating the marriage but prior to procreation. Also when I said "unable to have normal intercourse" I should have more broadly said, "unable to procreate via normal intercourse", since a married couple may be able to have normal intercourse yet be infertile via normal intercourse but fertile with some form of assistance, such as IVF.)

Okay. So why is the act wrong in itself?

In a nutshell? This:

As I've just been discussing with Spartacus a few posts up, surrogacy could be done via free gift--without any exchange. So if the objection is to the presence of an exchange, then that is not an objection to the act itself.

[Spartacus]

So it seems that it comes down to a Catholic premise, that non-Catholics are unlikely to hold.

Sex and procreation should be linked? What a revolutionary and exclusively sectarian idea!

(Some side notes: I did not know that my cousin's marriage to a husband who is paralyzed from the waist down would have been prohibited by the Catholic church, had they been Catholic. But for the discussion we could sidestep that by supposing that the husband had become paralyzed some time after consummating the marriage but prior to procreation. Also when I said "unable to have normal intercourse" I should have more broadly said, "unable to procreate via normal intercourse", since a married couple may be able to have normal intercourse yet be infertile via normal intercourse but fertile with some form of assistance, such as IVF.)

If you can't consummate the marriage, then the marriage will never be consummated. You can exchange vows, but if consummation is an indispensable element of marriage, then the exchange of vows doesn't make a marriage

[One Bad Pig]

If you can't consummate the marriage, then the marriage will never be consummated. You can exchange vows, but if consummation is an indispensable element of marriage, then the exchange of vows doesn't make a marriage

Several early saints agreed to marry (because they had legally been betrothed) but live celibate lives together. Consummation of a marriage is certainly not a legally indispensable element of marriage (outside of the purview of the RCC, at any rate).

[Spartacus]

Several early saints agreed to marry (because they had legally been betrothed) but live celibate lives together. Consummation of a marriage is certainly not a legally indispensable element of marriage (outside of the purview of the RCC, at any rate).

To exchange vows in that way isn't bad, but it isn't the full sacrament of marriage

[DesertBerean]

I'm not so sure that it's exclusively a RCC viewpoint. Perhaps a search for some survey might show what Christian groups think about surrogacy. My own denomination doesn't have an official position but I've found some opinions in an article by a fellow member.