Many it is born.’ The typical case

Many scholars have written about commercial surrogacy, which involves
a contract in which a woman agrees to carry a child for another
person to whom she will relinquish the child when it is born.’
The typical case involves a married couple who cannot have their
own biological child because the wife is infertile. Therefore, the
couple enters into an agreement with a woman (the surrogate) who
will carry a child for them; the man (the father) provides the sperm
which will be used together with the surrogate’s egg to produce a
child! The surrogate will carry this child to term and subsequently
relinquish it to the father and his partner (the recipient woman) .
This is known as partial surrogacy; however, the recipient woman
may also donate her eggs, rendering the arrangement a “full surrogacy.”5
There are cases where friends or family members carry children
for each other without charging a fee; however, commercial surrogacy generally involves a broker who brings the parties together
for a fee and both the broker and the surrogate are paid.6
The existing literature surrounding the commercial surrogacy debate
shows that there is a tendency, by those on both sides, to compare
surrogacy to prostitution. This paper will show that this analogy
is sufficiently weak to undermine the arguments for which the
authors intend it to stand. First, the analogy minimizes the harms of
prostitution, an act that can present many problems, and at the same
time, makes surrogacy-an act which has less potential for harmseem
worse than it actually is by hiding the benefits and exposing
only tenuous harms. Thus, the analogy does a disservice to both surrogacy
and prostitution.8 Second, the analogy suggests, for some,
that surrogacy should be prohibited because a woman cannot rationally
“choose” surrogacy because of the negative connotations and
stigma involved.
Commodification 9 of the female’s uterus and/or eggs has further
been used to argue against both surrogacy and prostitution.’¬†