Abstract
Some feminists hold that surrogacy contracts should be unenforceable or illegal because they contribute to and perpetuate unjust gender inequalities. I argue that in developed countries, surrogacy contracts either wouldn't have these negative effects or that these effects could be mitigated via regulation. Furthermore, the existence of a regulated surrogacy market is preferable on consequentialist grounds.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 702-708 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Bioethics |
| Volume | 38 |
| Issue number | 8 |
| Early online date | 27 Jul 2024 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Oct 2024 |
Bibliographical note
I would like to thank James Fanciullo, Adam Bradley, Dan Pallies, and Andrea Sauchelli for their comments on this article during a Lingnan Work in Progress Series Talk. I would also like to thank James Fanciullo for his comments on a draft of this paper, particularly his comments regarding Satz's position on specific performance contracts.Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Author(s). Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Author(s). Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Keywords
- commodification
- contract surrogacy
- Debra Satz
- feminism
- surrogacy
- Humans
- Surrogate Mothers/legislation & jurisprudence
- Contracts/legislation & jurisprudence
- Pregnancy
- Developed Countries
- Feminism
- Gender Equity
- Female
