5 ms·

> Surrogacy at scale, artificial wombs, even gamete design and editing are all possible within this generation's lifetime. No, they aren't. Moreover, surrogacy

> Surrogacy at scale, artificial wombs, even gamete design and editing are all possible within this generation's lifetime. No, they aren't. Moreover, surrogacy is just as unethical as slavery, expect it to be banned worldwide soon.

jpatokal 8y ago
Wait, what? What's wrong with surrogacy if everybody involved consents?
- fortythirteen 8y ago
  (Playing devil's advocate) The child doesn't consent to a life of being outside of that social norm. One could make the argument that it's in the same ballpark as raising a child in religious extremism.
  - virmundi 8y ago
    I know you were playing devil's advocate, but that argument can be said of any child. It's functionally slavery to be born in Africa since the living conditions are terrible. It's functionally slavery to conceive a black child in America since it's statistically likely to be poor. It's functionally slavery to have a child born to rich parents since there is a high likelihood of emotional abuse due to drugged out mothers and workaholic fathers.
    - fortythirteen 8y ago
      That is an absolute cavalcade of stereotypes. Even then it has a major hole. In your vision those children will still be born into the societal norms of their larger group.
      - virmundi 8y ago
        Then we shouldn't allow gays to breed with lesbians to create a timeshare child. The same is true that the US should have actively stopped the intermarriage of blacks and whites for the same reason. India needs to stop the procreation of Christians since the social norm is Hindu.
        fortythirteen 8y ago
        An absolute false equivalence, save the "timeshare child" thing, which sounds disastrous for the well being of the child. Nobody in their right mind would argue that a child split between two homes is a preferable state. Regardless, there was no argument of banning anything made, so you've descended into hyperbole.
        virmundi 8y ago
        Would you not want to ban slavery? Do you want to keep these scientifically created children in their chains as the OP suggested they were in? You monster!
  - keldaris 8y ago
    And just to play devil's advocate against that argument in turn... the child didn't consent to being born. In fact, in most existing legal systems, children don't consent to much at all until the age of consent. And arguing that giving birth to a child without abiding by all social norms is immoral is an extremely slippery slope in and of itself. At least eugenics was (ostensibly, of course) concerned mostly with measurable traits, this is arguably worse.
  - slothtrop 8y ago
    No one chooses to be born, let alone in the manner in which they were born.
- jahaja 8y ago
  This attitude is so foreign to me that you could very well be a Marsian. Rich people exploiting poor people to bare the risks and burdens of pregnancy and labor? Have you even considered the degree of desperation one would need to be in to agree to such an arrangement?
  - obmelvin 8y ago
    Is it really exploitation if you pay someone who is well informed 50k [0]? Are there not legitimate cases where someone has significant risk of carrying a child themselves (e.g. extremely tiny body and hips)? Modern medicine has greatly reduced the risk - if you find someone who is informed, doesn't have these same risk factors and well compensated I honestly don't see a problem with it. There very well may be cases where the surrogate is being exploited, but I contest that the idea as a whole is fundamentally unethical. [0] - https://www.westcoastsurrogacy.com/surrogate-program-for-intended-parents/surrogate-mother-cost https://www.westcoastsurrogacy.com/surrogate-program-for-int...
    - jahaja 8y ago
      Yes. I don't like this kind of rationalization where one lifts up edge-cases without regard to its proportionality. - "I was able to buy a really nice house after discovering Herbalife".
    - philipov 8y ago
      If you pay attention you will discover that ethics does not ever rest on the fundamental essence of an idea, but on the particular human circumstances in which it most often occurs. By stripping away those circumstances, and adopting the most optimistic view possible, you are cherry-picking: all things can be ethical when you remove them from reality and imagine they only occur under the most favorable interpretation. There is a theory under which totalitarian dictatorship may be benevolent, but we consider it unethical for politicians or the military to establish one, because reality differs from theory. Likewise, professors dating students or managers dating direct reports can be totally consensual and free from coercion. It is unethical nonetheless, because we recognize what happens in practice is more important than the rare counterexample. Do not confuse ethics with moral absolutism!
- tzs 8y ago
  Note: I had the same question. Below are some of the points that a bit of Googling turned up. My comments in parens. Some issues that some seem to have with it. 1. Some are concerned with the emotional effects on the surrogate. There are strong biological factors that make a mother get strongly attached to the child they carry, so giving it up immediately could be bad for them. (tzs: I don't see how this is different from women who give up for adoption a newborn conceived the conventional waw, so this issue seems to me to be orthogonal to surrogacy) 2. Some say it promotes the commoditization of women's bodies, especially poor women. There is actually "surrogacy tourism", similar to "sex tourism", where people from wealthier western countries go to poor countries where there is a thriving trade in rental wombs. As with the women in those countries who serve the sex tourism trade, the women proving the wombs are often coerced into the business and are not getting the rewards. 3. Some say that there are already born children who need adoptive parents. People who cannot have children the conventional way should be adopting those children. I saw a response to that argument, pointing out that a couple that waits until their careers are going well to try to produce children might try for quite a while to conceive before suspecting something is wrong, then might spend a few years trying various fertility treatments. By the time all of that fails, they can easily be too old to be allowed to adopt. 4. Recognition of surrogacy varies quite a bit around the world. Commercial surrogacy is legal in India. Altruistic surrogacy, but not commercial surrogacy, is legal in the UK and Australia. All forms of surrogacy are prohibited in France and Germany. In the US it depends on the state, some allowing commercial surrogacy and some prohibiting it [1]. This could lead to children with questionable legal status. If you had a couple from country X, a "no surrogacy" country, acquire a surrogate child in country Y, a "fully recognized commercial surrogacy" country, it might be possible to get a situation where there is no country that recognizes the child as one of its citizens. (tzs: overall, from what I read, it seems no one has offered any good argument that surrogacy is inherently unethical, but there is a lot of potential for abuse, and a lot of areas it can touch that you could easily overlook such as interactions with things like citizenship. It seems to be one of those areas where you should regulate it from the start, rather than letting it develop commercially freely and then try to patch up any bad aspects you discover). [1] https://www.creativefamilyconnections.com/us-surrogacy-law-map/ https://www.creativefamilyconnections.com/us-surrogacy-law-m...

jpatokal 8y ago

Wait, what? What's wrong with surrogacy if everybody involved consents?

fortythirteen 8y ago
(Playing devil's advocate) The child doesn't consent to a life of being outside of that social norm. One could make the argument that it's in the same ballpark as raising a child in religious extremism.
- virmundi 8y ago
  I know you were playing devil's advocate, but that argument can be said of any child. It's functionally slavery to be born in Africa since the living conditions are terrible. It's functionally slavery to conceive a black child in America since it's statistically likely to be poor. It's functionally slavery to have a child born to rich parents since there is a high likelihood of emotional abuse due to drugged out mothers and workaholic fathers.
  - fortythirteen 8y ago
    That is an absolute cavalcade of stereotypes. Even then it has a major hole. In your vision those children will still be born into the societal norms of their larger group.
    - virmundi 8y ago
      Then we shouldn't allow gays to breed with lesbians to create a timeshare child. The same is true that the US should have actively stopped the intermarriage of blacks and whites for the same reason. India needs to stop the procreation of Christians since the social norm is Hindu.
      - fortythirteen 8y ago
        An absolute false equivalence, save the "timeshare child" thing, which sounds disastrous for the well being of the child. Nobody in their right mind would argue that a child split between two homes is a preferable state. Regardless, there was no argument of banning anything made, so you've descended into hyperbole.
        virmundi 8y ago
        Would you not want to ban slavery? Do you want to keep these scientifically created children in their chains as the OP suggested they were in? You monster!
- keldaris 8y ago
  And just to play devil's advocate against that argument in turn... the child didn't consent to being born. In fact, in most existing legal systems, children don't consent to much at all until the age of consent. And arguing that giving birth to a child without abiding by all social norms is immoral is an extremely slippery slope in and of itself. At least eugenics was (ostensibly, of course) concerned mostly with measurable traits, this is arguably worse.
- slothtrop 8y ago
  No one chooses to be born, let alone in the manner in which they were born.
jahaja 8y ago
This attitude is so foreign to me that you could very well be a Marsian. Rich people exploiting poor people to bare the risks and burdens of pregnancy and labor? Have you even considered the degree of desperation one would need to be in to agree to such an arrangement?
- obmelvin 8y ago
  Is it really exploitation if you pay someone who is well informed 50k [0]? Are there not legitimate cases where someone has significant risk of carrying a child themselves (e.g. extremely tiny body and hips)? Modern medicine has greatly reduced the risk - if you find someone who is informed, doesn't have these same risk factors and well compensated I honestly don't see a problem with it. There very well may be cases where the surrogate is being exploited, but I contest that the idea as a whole is fundamentally unethical. [0] - https://www.westcoastsurrogacy.com/surrogate-program-for-intended-parents/surrogate-mother-cost https://www.westcoastsurrogacy.com/surrogate-program-for-int...
  - jahaja 8y ago
    Yes. I don't like this kind of rationalization where one lifts up edge-cases without regard to its proportionality. - "I was able to buy a really nice house after discovering Herbalife".
  - philipov 8y ago
    If you pay attention you will discover that ethics does not ever rest on the fundamental essence of an idea, but on the particular human circumstances in which it most often occurs. By stripping away those circumstances, and adopting the most optimistic view possible, you are cherry-picking: all things can be ethical when you remove them from reality and imagine they only occur under the most favorable interpretation. There is a theory under which totalitarian dictatorship may be benevolent, but we consider it unethical for politicians or the military to establish one, because reality differs from theory. Likewise, professors dating students or managers dating direct reports can be totally consensual and free from coercion. It is unethical nonetheless, because we recognize what happens in practice is more important than the rare counterexample. Do not confuse ethics with moral absolutism!
tzs 8y ago
Note: I had the same question. Below are some of the points that a bit of Googling turned up. My comments in parens. Some issues that some seem to have with it. 1. Some are concerned with the emotional effects on the surrogate. There are strong biological factors that make a mother get strongly attached to the child they carry, so giving it up immediately could be bad for them. (tzs: I don't see how this is different from women who give up for adoption a newborn conceived the conventional waw, so this issue seems to me to be orthogonal to surrogacy) 2. Some say it promotes the commoditization of women's bodies, especially poor women. There is actually "surrogacy tourism", similar to "sex tourism", where people from wealthier western countries go to poor countries where there is a thriving trade in rental wombs. As with the women in those countries who serve the sex tourism trade, the women proving the wombs are often coerced into the business and are not getting the rewards. 3. Some say that there are already born children who need adoptive parents. People who cannot have children the conventional way should be adopting those children. I saw a response to that argument, pointing out that a couple that waits until their careers are going well to try to produce children might try for quite a while to conceive before suspecting something is wrong, then might spend a few years trying various fertility treatments. By the time all of that fails, they can easily be too old to be allowed to adopt. 4. Recognition of surrogacy varies quite a bit around the world. Commercial surrogacy is legal in India. Altruistic surrogacy, but not commercial surrogacy, is legal in the UK and Australia. All forms of surrogacy are prohibited in France and Germany. In the US it depends on the state, some allowing commercial surrogacy and some prohibiting it [1]. This could lead to children with questionable legal status. If you had a couple from country X, a "no surrogacy" country, acquire a surrogate child in country Y, a "fully recognized commercial surrogacy" country, it might be possible to get a situation where there is no country that recognizes the child as one of its citizens. (tzs: overall, from what I read, it seems no one has offered any good argument that surrogacy is inherently unethical, but there is a lot of potential for abuse, and a lot of areas it can touch that you could easily overlook such as interactions with things like citizenship. It seems to be one of those areas where you should regulate it from the start, rather than letting it develop commercially freely and then try to patch up any bad aspects you discover). [1] https://www.creativefamilyconnections.com/us-surrogacy-law-map/ https://www.creativefamilyconnections.com/us-surrogacy-law-m...