Some of you have probably already seen the W. Saletan piece over at Slate discussing the implications of a surrogacy arrangement company losing it's money and the capacity to pay the pregnant surrogates of it's clients.

A few commenters are bringing up the interesting point that indentured servitude is illegal in the united states, and that contracted pregnancy without payment is work without payment. Of course surrogates probably do not want to abort their client's fetuses, but surrogacy being their only source of income, some may not have a choice. If her fetus is past 23 weeks and an abortion is illegal, her choice becomes even more limited.

Being 100% pro-choice I believe that the fetus 'belongs' to the gestational mother, and she has a right to do as she wishes with her own body regardless of who is paying her, or the actual genetic makeup of the baby. Should she then have the right to contract out to new, willing adoptive parents with the means to pay (assuming her original clients can't)? If she should not happen to make arrangements with the original genetic parents, should they have the right to sue for custody when the baby is born, or is their 'right' to the baby forfeited with their inability to pay? Could she sue for child support? I wanted to bring these questions here, because I think a lot of them have implications outside of this specific case, and possibly have  meaning to all of us, as in this brave new world our bodies seem to be becoming tools of reproductive science for better or worse. 

0

You recommended