Skip to main content
Log in

Why Commercial Surrogate Motherhood Unethically Commodifies Women and Children: Reply to McLachlan and Swales

  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

McLachlan and Swales dispute my arguments against commercial surrogatemotherhood. In reply, I argue that commercial surrogate contractsobjectionably commodify children because they regardparental rights over children not as trusts, to be allocated in the bestinterests of the child, but as like property rights, to be allocatedat the will o the parents. They also express disrespect for mothers, bycompromising their inalienable right to act in the best interest of theirchildren, when this interest calls for mothers to assert a custody rightin their children.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, E. (1993) Value in Ethics and Economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1964) Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (Trans. H.J. Paton). New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLachlan, M.V. and Swales, J.K. (2000) Babies, Child Bearers and Commodification. Health Care Analysis (this issue).

  • Satz, D. (1992) Markets in Women's Reproductive Labor. Philosophy and Public Affairs 21, 107–131.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anderson, E.S. Why Commercial Surrogate Motherhood Unethically Commodifies Women and Children: Reply to McLachlan and Swales. Health Care Analysis 8, 19–26 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009477906883

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009477906883

Navigation