I get that it seems gross that these able-bodied and fertile celebrities can just pay money to get a baby, but I'm at a loss as to how to limit that while giving a path for intended parents that can't have a child to work with a consenting woman to make that happen?
Why is the answer to anything related to women's bodies always to propose controlling what women do with their bodies? If men could rent out their reproductive organs, nobody would say anything about it and there would be very few laws.
Yes it feels gross and exploitative in the worst case, where women in non-US countries are being signed up to carry babies for US intended parents (see Mexico's bustling surrogate industry offering 1/5 the cost of US surrogates, and the selling point is that you never have to talk to them or have a relationship with the woman carrying your child. Gross.)
On the other end of the cost spectrum here's an example of surrogacy that people like the Kardashians and Lady Gaga are using - upwards of $500k for the best you can get [1]
Disclaimer: having a child through surrogacy due to a lack of biological equipment for me and my spouse. I struggled with the ethics and morality of this course for many years, and it was only settled after meeting our surrogate the first time and establishing a great relationship with her.
> Why is the answer to anything related to women's bodies always to propose controlling what women do with their bodies?
Strictly speaking, this would fall under the umbrella of controlling what everyone does with their bodies.
A close parallel to disallowing surrogacy is the fact that it's illegal to sell organs. Why should we prevent someone from selling a valuable, redundant organ like a kidney or a lung? The obvious reason is the same as the one used by European countries with regards to surrogacy: because it inevitably leads to the exploitation of the poor.
It's not the same thing at all. Losing an organ always involves major surgery, you have a very limited number of them and there is already an established system for altruistic donations.
Also, taking a kidney is a one time thing you can't defend against if a criminal doctor does it while you're in for a different surgery. That would be a real problem if secondary sales were legal. Compare that to pregnancy where you have months to get an abortion.
Giving birth also comes with real complications, but it's a natural part of life and already very common so we know how to manage the problems a lot better. Surrogacy is closer to any other form of sacrificing your health for money (like working in a coal mine) than selling organs.
There’s an obvious difference between the two: having a baby is not the same as giving away an organ.
Humans have a finite number of organs which they need to live. You are selling a finite resource and doing so has concrete drawbacks for the seller.
Having a baby does not give up anything. It is a win-win. Surrogates in the US are asked if they are done personally having children. The agency won’t let someone be a surrogate (usually) unless they affirm they are done having children of their own.
As an aside: a highly regulated market for organs would probably be a net positive for society. It would increase the total supply of organs and decrease demand for black market organ harvesting. It would almost certainly save many lives every year.
> Having a baby does not give up anything. It is a win-win.
I had a son recently -- everything indeed went fine, but my wife and I did read up on both the risks and the permanent changes to women's bodies that having a child brings. Among other things, a C-section is not recommended an unlimited number of times, and it is classified as a surgical procedure for a reason.
You can pay somebody to get a biological child that you cannot have, but at the same time you are paying them to carry some risk for you within their bodies and possibly undergo surgery for you. I am not anti-surrogacy myself, but it just is not that simple as a win-win.
My point is not about risk, my point is about giving up something which you cannot get back. Most surrogacy pregnancies don’t need C-sections and are normal uncomplicated births. The surrogate receives money + other benefits and can continue to live a normal healthy life with no change to her wellbeing after she gives birth.
If you are talking about risk, many transactions in life carry some risk. Your Uber Eats driver risks his life getting in the car or motorbike to bring you your Chipotle burrito. An oil rig worker daily risks heavy machinery injury in exchange for money. We accept that consenting adults are capable of accepting some risk.
Additionally: agencies do everything they can to mitigate medical risks as well. Intended parents are required to purchase good medical insurance for the surrogate if they don’t have any.
That seems an unfair assumption. Both the women in the title have been upfront with their medical histories to the press in the last years. (For the record I'm pro-foster care / adoption myself, the wealthy have excessive resources to give unwanted youth a home).
My state voted in favor of a "right to reproductive freedom" recently, in response to the surpreme court decision on abortion, which includes a "right to make and carry out all decisions about pregnancy".
If it's my body and my choice, who are you to say I cannot be a surrogate?
Probably most of the "scandal" or lack therof in the united states is consumed by arguments for or against abortion, for which there is still no consensus.
Because the desperation to have kids in the US from the religious outweighs the need to use it as an end around to attack lgbtq/disabled people so far.
> Another high-profile case is Ms. Rachel, one of the most influential YouTubers in the United States, who has a channel with 21 million followers, a Netflix series, books and a commercial brand. [..] She has spoken out for LGBTQ+ rights, against the war in Gaza and against ICE mass detentions, especially of children — positions uncommon in the U.S. With a son aged eight, at 43 she became a mother again in 2025 via surrogacy, citing medical problems that prevented her from carrying a pregnancy. She drew no criticism.
Given her "I care about ALL children" stance, it would have been more on-brand for her to adopt an unwanted child than to lease a human body her own genetic lineage.
Surrogacy is the only option for Gay couples to have genetic children and I will fight to the death to defend the most basic right of existence, to have genetic offspring. To use pearl clutching and conservative moral panic BS to deny someone, especially Gay people, the right to have children, the most fundamental right of every form of life on earth, is barbaric and Europe should be ashamed for their cruelty and sickness and crimes against the Gay people and anyone else who needs surrogacy.
These same people would have no problem with women having an abortion up to the day of birth, but if a woman wants to voluntarily have someone else’s baby, it’s unethical?
The motivation here seems mostly like a vague disgust at the concept rather than any concrete criticism of the system’s implementation.
>I’m not sure the U.S. model is the right one, but what it needs is some regulation. It looks too much like a free market. It looks like livestock trading.
Surrogates are treated incredibly well throughout the entire process. Not only do they make a large amount of money, but they are often showered with gifts throughout the process. Insurance is purchased for them if they don’t already have it.
The entire process takes up to a year of bureaucracy, medical screenings, and planning.
There’s nothing exploitative about the implementation of surrogacy in the United States. I say this as someone who is intimately familiar with the process.
> These same people would have no problem with women having an abortion up to the day of birth,
Do these people exist anywhere outside of your convenient rhetoric? Do you follow them individually and cross reference their opinions from one issue to another?
I have met many people in the US who have this opinion, absolutely. Even on this site you can find them easily. Heck some of my own family hold this opinion!
I don’t really care about abortion as an issue, I am simply making the point that the people who wrote this article would probably make two contradictory arguments: “My body my choice” and also “my body but NOT my choice because this choice is icky and it looks too much like a free market”.
I get that it seems gross that these able-bodied and fertile celebrities can just pay money to get a baby, but I'm at a loss as to how to limit that while giving a path for intended parents that can't have a child to work with a consenting woman to make that happen?
Why is the answer to anything related to women's bodies always to propose controlling what women do with their bodies? If men could rent out their reproductive organs, nobody would say anything about it and there would be very few laws.
Yes it feels gross and exploitative in the worst case, where women in non-US countries are being signed up to carry babies for US intended parents (see Mexico's bustling surrogate industry offering 1/5 the cost of US surrogates, and the selling point is that you never have to talk to them or have a relationship with the woman carrying your child. Gross.)
On the other end of the cost spectrum here's an example of surrogacy that people like the Kardashians and Lady Gaga are using - upwards of $500k for the best you can get [1]
Disclaimer: having a child through surrogacy due to a lack of biological equipment for me and my spouse. I struggled with the ethics and morality of this course for many years, and it was only settled after meeting our surrogate the first time and establishing a great relationship with her.
[1] https://www.growinggenerations.com/intended-parents/surrogac...
> Why is the answer to anything related to women's bodies always to propose controlling what women do with their bodies?
Strictly speaking, this would fall under the umbrella of controlling what everyone does with their bodies.
A close parallel to disallowing surrogacy is the fact that it's illegal to sell organs. Why should we prevent someone from selling a valuable, redundant organ like a kidney or a lung? The obvious reason is the same as the one used by European countries with regards to surrogacy: because it inevitably leads to the exploitation of the poor.
If anything, I'm a bit surprised the US disallows organ sales (see 42 USC 274e: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/274e) while still allowing surrogacy contracts in most states.
It's not the same thing at all. Losing an organ always involves major surgery, you have a very limited number of them and there is already an established system for altruistic donations.
Also, taking a kidney is a one time thing you can't defend against if a criminal doctor does it while you're in for a different surgery. That would be a real problem if secondary sales were legal. Compare that to pregnancy where you have months to get an abortion.
Giving birth also comes with real complications, but it's a natural part of life and already very common so we know how to manage the problems a lot better. Surrogacy is closer to any other form of sacrificing your health for money (like working in a coal mine) than selling organs.
There’s an obvious difference between the two: having a baby is not the same as giving away an organ.
Humans have a finite number of organs which they need to live. You are selling a finite resource and doing so has concrete drawbacks for the seller.
Having a baby does not give up anything. It is a win-win. Surrogates in the US are asked if they are done personally having children. The agency won’t let someone be a surrogate (usually) unless they affirm they are done having children of their own.
As an aside: a highly regulated market for organs would probably be a net positive for society. It would increase the total supply of organs and decrease demand for black market organ harvesting. It would almost certainly save many lives every year.
> Having a baby does not give up anything. It is a win-win.
I had a son recently -- everything indeed went fine, but my wife and I did read up on both the risks and the permanent changes to women's bodies that having a child brings. Among other things, a C-section is not recommended an unlimited number of times, and it is classified as a surgical procedure for a reason.
You can pay somebody to get a biological child that you cannot have, but at the same time you are paying them to carry some risk for you within their bodies and possibly undergo surgery for you. I am not anti-surrogacy myself, but it just is not that simple as a win-win.
My point is not about risk, my point is about giving up something which you cannot get back. Most surrogacy pregnancies don’t need C-sections and are normal uncomplicated births. The surrogate receives money + other benefits and can continue to live a normal healthy life with no change to her wellbeing after she gives birth.
If you are talking about risk, many transactions in life carry some risk. Your Uber Eats driver risks his life getting in the car or motorbike to bring you your Chipotle burrito. An oil rig worker daily risks heavy machinery injury in exchange for money. We accept that consenting adults are capable of accepting some risk.
Additionally: agencies do everything they can to mitigate medical risks as well. Intended parents are required to purchase good medical insurance for the surrogate if they don’t have any.
The baby is a part of the mother's soul. If anything, it's worse than selling a kidney.
>able-bodied and fertile celebrities
That seems an unfair assumption. Both the women in the title have been upfront with their medical histories to the press in the last years. (For the record I'm pro-foster care / adoption myself, the wealthy have excessive resources to give unwanted youth a home).
[flagged]
My state voted in favor of a "right to reproductive freedom" recently, in response to the surpreme court decision on abortion, which includes a "right to make and carry out all decisions about pregnancy".
If it's my body and my choice, who are you to say I cannot be a surrogate?
Probably most of the "scandal" or lack therof in the united states is consumed by arguments for or against abortion, for which there is still no consensus.
Because the desperation to have kids in the US from the religious outweighs the need to use it as an end around to attack lgbtq/disabled people so far.
> Another high-profile case is Ms. Rachel, one of the most influential YouTubers in the United States, who has a channel with 21 million followers, a Netflix series, books and a commercial brand. [..] She has spoken out for LGBTQ+ rights, against the war in Gaza and against ICE mass detentions, especially of children — positions uncommon in the U.S. With a son aged eight, at 43 she became a mother again in 2025 via surrogacy, citing medical problems that prevented her from carrying a pregnancy. She drew no criticism.
Given her "I care about ALL children" stance, it would have been more on-brand for her to adopt an unwanted child than to lease a human body her own genetic lineage.
Surrogacy is the only option for Gay couples to have genetic children and I will fight to the death to defend the most basic right of existence, to have genetic offspring. To use pearl clutching and conservative moral panic BS to deny someone, especially Gay people, the right to have children, the most fundamental right of every form of life on earth, is barbaric and Europe should be ashamed for their cruelty and sickness and crimes against the Gay people and anyone else who needs surrogacy.
What happened to “my body my choice”?
These same people would have no problem with women having an abortion up to the day of birth, but if a woman wants to voluntarily have someone else’s baby, it’s unethical?
The motivation here seems mostly like a vague disgust at the concept rather than any concrete criticism of the system’s implementation.
>I’m not sure the U.S. model is the right one, but what it needs is some regulation. It looks too much like a free market. It looks like livestock trading.
Surrogates are treated incredibly well throughout the entire process. Not only do they make a large amount of money, but they are often showered with gifts throughout the process. Insurance is purchased for them if they don’t already have it.
The entire process takes up to a year of bureaucracy, medical screenings, and planning.
There’s nothing exploitative about the implementation of surrogacy in the United States. I say this as someone who is intimately familiar with the process.
> These same people would have no problem with women having an abortion up to the day of birth,
Do these people exist anywhere outside of your convenient rhetoric? Do you follow them individually and cross reference their opinions from one issue to another?
I have met many people in the US who have this opinion, absolutely. Even on this site you can find them easily. Heck some of my own family hold this opinion!
I don’t really care about abortion as an issue, I am simply making the point that the people who wrote this article would probably make two contradictory arguments: “My body my choice” and also “my body but NOT my choice because this choice is icky and it looks too much like a free market”.