It doesn’t matter if it’s making babies as a commercial surrogate or a10-year-old kid stitching together basketball shoes in Vietnam, exploitation in any commercial transaction is wrong and should be punished.

Nicole just told Keith what they paid their gestational carrier. Photo: AFP.

But you don’t ban basketball shoes. And I don’t understand why Australians have been banned from using commercial surrogates overseas.

Last year NSW passed its Surrogacy Act which, when it comes into effect, will make pursuing commercial surrogacy overseas a criminal act.

The new changes mean someone who goes overseas to use a paid surrogate will face a penalty of two years’ jail, an $110,000 fine when they return.

While paid surrogacy in NSW is already illegal prospective parents have always had the option to venture overseas.

Will it work? If you’ll excuse the pun, I think it’s a case of the government putting all of its eggs into the “too hard” basket.

During her push for the changes NSW Minister for Community Services, Linda Burney, said the laws are in place to prevent the commodification of women and children.

This is a noble aim.

The problem is the law doesn’t discriminate and makes no allowances for women who willingly want to become commercial surrogates. It just declares “you are all exploited” and that’s that.

But is it the case? In the US women who want to become commercial surrogates are given thorough screening including police and financial checks.

I would never assume to tell them they are exploited without knowing their individual situation, nor would I assume to say they weren’t exploited.

The same is true for what is becoming the powerhouse of paid surrogacy – India.

It is easy to claim Indian women in this developing nation are being exploited but the hard evidence coming out of the country is contradictory and vague.

But what about the children who are the product of this commercial arrangement?

It is the part of the whole argument which has given me pause, and almost stopped me from writing this - commercial surrogates are producing a product and that product is a child.

Of course there is a thin semantic line - technically they aren’t selling the children, they are selling the gestation of one.

And that creates a veritable Pandora’s Box of moral and ethical issues.

The government is naive to think it will ever stop couples who can’t have their own children exhausting all the alternatives, legal or otherwise.

The reality is banning surrogacy will never stop people from trying, but they will do it without declaring it, effectively turning to “cash- in- hand mums”.

In an interview with the ABC last year Professor Jenni Millbank, a Family law specialist from the Sydney University of Technology said hopeful parents had already indicated they would go ahead with overseas surrogacy secretly.

Criminalising something, such as alcohol, has never gotten rid of it entirely - it pushes it underground with sometimes fatal consequences.

When we are talking about the wellbeing of a child every effort should be made to ensure it is safe.

It is a tough balancing act to weigh the rights of a child with the rights of individuals to become parents.

It is not one that should be undertaken lightly, and it is a difficult and uncomfortable task.

But who is better qualified or more compelled to take on this task than the government?

Speaking on abortion former US president Bill Clinton said he thought it should be “safe, legal and rare”.

The same argument should be applied to commercial surrogacy.

Most commented

56 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      11:13am | 21/01/11

      Surrogacy is no different from any other form of labour for hire. Men and women have been paid for the use of their bodies throughout the ages.

      I think the real basis for attacks on surrogacy is that it has the potential to liberate men. Currently, women have all the reproductive rights and men have none. However, making surrogacy an option would give men the opportunity to reproduce without kowtowing to the overarching deciding power of women.

      And this is just a shadow of what will come when the artificial womb is perfected ...

    • AliceC says:

      11:23am | 21/01/11

      Ummm, you still need a woman to be a surrogate, and no one can remove her ‘overarching deciding power ’ over her own body.

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s women who carry the baby and give birth, including all it’s risks. You wish remove the woman’s right to control her own body?

    • Eric says:

      12:01pm | 21/01/11

      What are you talking about, AliceC?

      A surrogacy contract is a free agreement to provide a service in exchange for money. There’s no removal of any right involved.

    • Jan says:

      12:25pm | 21/01/11

      Eric, your comment shows a lot of hatred and very little or no respect at all towards women.

    • Molly says:

      12:29pm | 21/01/11

      Wow, I never realised that there were men around with a burning anger against women having “all the reproductive rights”......

      As a woman, I would have certainly given up my ‘rights’, if it meant I could share the physical, hormonal and emotional changes of pregnancy and labour with my husband…..But hey, I accepted the whole gender difference thing ages ago.

    • Sam says:

      01:01pm | 21/01/11

      @Jan, hatred towards *some* women just like your hatred towards *some* men (otherwise you haven’t lived long enough). I’m with Eric. I hate *some* women. Deal with it.

    • Kika says:

      01:46pm | 21/01/11

      Hey Eric, well that’s new to me. I’m still waiting for my husband to be ‘ready’ to have children. Have no idea when that will be, but I am waiting patiently.
      So it looks as though I don’t have all the reproductive rights. I’m sure there’s a lot of women out there exactly like me.

    • KH says:

      02:22pm | 21/01/11

      Sad Sad Reality - “With all the incomprehensible number of unwanted children and abortions we see each year, one wonders if women are even capable of regulating their own biology”

      And men aren’t either.  Ever heard of condoms?  How about not having sex?  How about inventing a male contraceptive pill?  You can have all the responsibility if you want it.

      Wow. There really are some fools out there…...........

    • Luce says:

      02:59pm | 21/01/11

      Jesus Eric, do you really see yourself and your gender as THAT much of a victim? Its kind of.. well.. the only words I can think of are limp and pathetic.

      Firstly, men do have rights. No these rights aren’t quite equal, but then again neither is the sacrifice. There are few things a man has to do that are equivalent to what a woman’s body has to go through for 9 months in housing, feeding and growing the child, not to mention the actual birthing process, which I’ve been told can be more painful then having your legs ripped off.

      Perspective Eric, perspective.

    • Eric says:

      03:40pm | 21/01/11

      Well, Kika, you don’t have to wait for your husband.

      You could just “forget” to take the Pill. You could find another man to do the duties. You could go for artificial insemination, or IVF, or both, at the expense of the taxpayer.

      You have all the choices. Men have none.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      04:16pm | 21/01/11

      KH thanks for giving us a look at chick logic in action AKA no logic at all.

      “And men aren’t either.  Ever heard of condoms?  How about not having sex?”

      1. Men don’t have the baby growing inside them, if we did the unwanted pregnancy rate would drop dramatically.
      2. Women carry the baby. AKA pregnancy is always a woman’s fault.
      3. Sex is a biological necessity for men, not a tool to snare wealth and status like it is for women.
      4. Men have absolutely no say over whether the baby should be carried to term, thus pregnancy should be a completely female responsibility.

      “You can have all the responsibility if you want it.”

      5. Men don’t have the option to terminate unwanted pregnancies, so they shouldn’t have the liability to support them. It’s nice to know you agree.

    • Kika says:

      04:39pm | 21/01/11

      No Eric, my husband is smarter than that. Even if I forget the pill he still wears condoms. Not that he doesn’t trust me, it’s just he likes to be especially safe. And like I said, I don’t feel it’s right to ‘sperm’ raid and then feign surprise when I do fall pregnant.

    • Kika says:

      04:44pm | 21/01/11

      Sad Sad Reality -  I think you’re wrong. Men do have the choices to terminate pregnancies. I know. My ex made me have one. I was young and naive and scared and had no family support either. I had nowhere to go. So I did it. I gave HIM the reproductive rights and I am the one bearing the pain of it, not him. He’s moved on with his merry life with no lingering pain and anguish while I am here remember what I went through, for him.

      And I’m sure there’s a lot of women out there who went through the same thing.

      And I think you’re also wrong with the unwanted pregnancy rate. If men got pregnant, oh my gosh. *Most* men carry on at a slight tickle in the throat, let alone having a period or having a baby. Yes, that’s right. To have a baby you gotta have periods too. Would you like that? I doubt it.

    • meld says:

      05:34pm | 21/01/11

      well I think you should do it Eric, pay a surrogate and then take sole care of an infant leading up to when they leave home (if they ever do) more power to you if you want kids, i don’t have a problem with that, i have a problem with men complaining that the woman gets to decide if she keeps the child until men can carry the baby to term i am sorry in the end it is still the womans choice.

      I want eric to reproduce, he keeps things entertaining

    • Eric says:

      05:34pm | 21/01/11

      Well Kika, that’s a case of persuasion. The fact that someone managed to manipulate you into renouncing your rights doesn’t mean you don’t have those rights. Your ex had no legal right to force you to abort, and if you had sought support from women’s groups or police you would have got it.

      However, the subject here is not the right to avoid children - but the right to have children. In this area, women have it all and men have nothing. You can get impregnated from many sources, as I’ve listed above; but a man can only have children if a woman agrees to help him. There’s the imbalance.

    • Lisa H. says:

      06:12pm | 21/01/11

      Who is moderating this blog? Kika, please don’t take to heart Eric and others’ stupid and ill conceived comments.

      Every one over the age of 25 knows a woman who is being delayed in planning her family because her ‘partner’ is not willing to go further. I know several women that have been pushed either beyond their natural limit, or to the edge.

      Kika, your husband should be mature enough to know that a woman’s desire for a baby can be as biological as his need for sex…and , arguably, a cultural need in terms of her ongoing social status.

      If Eric ever had a girlfriend, he would know that women exchange sex for the FUTURE consideration of their reproductive needs. Many doctors would say women are disadvantaged in this exchange of sex for a unspoken promise…which is one reason why the IVF industry is booming.

    • Bugalug says:

      10:21pm | 21/01/11

      @Eric
      I will preface this post by saying that you have provided so much entertainment since I started reading The Punch 6 or so months ago.  It is almost a daily ritual to review the days articles just so I can skip the main text in order to find your predictable first post and watch the punters pile in with equal predictability.  However, recently I took the time to scan your posts for URLs that expressed the basis of your world view.  I will make none of the assumptions about what ‘seared your soul’ and made you so ‘bitter’ and a ‘misogynist’ that other posters have and simply say that you have been entirely consistent based on this world view.  The problem is, first posting probably does not allow you time to fully develop your argument and it just ends up sounding like hate.

      If I am correct, your argument is based on the idea of marriage as property rights.  On the surface, this sounds like patriarchal ownership of women, but in fact it is more to do with a (perhaps inbuilt) desire for humans to further the existence of themselves via the genes of their offspring, and the negotiating rights of men and women to achieve this.  So I can understand that the idea of paid surrogacy is both;
      1.  A shorter and more discrete form of ‘marriage’ (in the context of property rights)
      2.  A concept that gives both women and men more choice over reproduction (AliceC, you completely missed the point)

      Win-win all round!  It may surprise some people that you would agree to giving women more choice over their bodies (ie a lady can reproduce in a loving relationship or exchange it for money.  The choice is hers for the choosing.  Nobody should force you to enter a marriage or surrogacy arrangement). 

      The problem is that your posts are often so blunt, that the subtlety of ‘choice for all’ is lost.  It may well be that the balance of power in gender relations has swung past the half way point, but it is a heavy pendulum and it ain’t going to stop it’s movement, it has a lot of momentum and there is little point in trying to stop it.  A more effective approach is to embrace it and use it for your own choices and rights (ie paid surrogacy in this instance).  You might throw some posters off balance if you come out and embrace such concepts instead of coming out punching with phrases like “the overarching deciding power of women”.  Yes women have choices, but those choices can be exercised by you as well.

      I would never claim to be an expert on the topic (or any topic for that fact), but I have tried to understand more by reading books on the subject.  I would thoroughly recommend “Princesses and Porn Stars” by Emily Maguire.  In the closing chapters she talks about feminism being about choices for all people, not only women.  It is enlightening and made me think that instead of fighting the shift, an understanding of it can allow you to use it’s power.

    • Eric says:

      08:59am | 22/01/11

      @Bugalug

      Thank you for your thoughtful comment - all too rare a thing. I’m glad to provide your daily entertainment. smile

      “The problem is, first posting probably does not allow you time to fully develop your argument and it just ends up sounding like hate.”

      Yes, you’re absolutely right. This is compounded by my love of brevity, as well as my intention to make an impact. My comments have been quite effective, but it seems a lot of people are getting the wrong impression. I will try to add some more positive content - seriously. This is becoming a real problem with my message, even though there are some people who can see through to the bigger picture.

      “If I am correct, your argument is based on ..... Win-win all round!”

      You are absolutely correct about that. I am all for equal rights and more freedom for everyone. Unfortunately, as you have noted, my delivery falls short on making this clear.

      “It may well be that the balance of power in gender relations has swung past the half way point, but it is a heavy pendulum and it ain’t going to stop it’s movement, it has a lot of momentum and there is little point in trying to stop it.”

      Yes and no. The pendulum was first swung, after all, by a small number of committed idealists - then accelerated by many followers. Its return will be accomplished the same way.

      “A more effective approach is to embrace it and use it for your own choices and rights (ie paid surrogacy in this instance).”

      My own choices and rights don’t come into this. I have always been in a position to take advantage of the social landscape, new or old.

      However, I have a strong sense of injustice. My concerns are not for myself - I’m perfectly comfortable, I have no children and don’t want any - but for the other men who are screwed by the system.

    • Centrelink Babies says:

      11:23am | 21/01/11

      Havent we already created with the baby bonus and hand-outs to single mums who pop out dozens of kids and sit on the pension? Every one who has a baby wants a hand out these days and its us sinle hard working tax payers who fork out for it.

    • At Work says:

      12:04pm | 21/01/11

      Well, silly me. I must have an account stashed somewhere with all that build-up of government funds from the last 17 years of single motherhood…

      Oh, wait. I work too. And raise a child. Please don’t perpetuate stereotypes- not all Asians are good at Maths, not all tradies are dumb cavemen and not all single mothers are deadbeat welfare cheats.

    • Cloud Strife says:

      12:07pm | 21/01/11

      I’d like to know where all these “Welfare Queen” myths come from. The people I know on benefits, whether they have kids or not, are doing it pretty tough.

    • Eric says:

      12:17pm | 21/01/11

      You’re right, At Work. It’s totally wrong to perpetuate stereotypes - such as:

      “After all, the amount of single men out there who are trying to become fathers is enormous! They’re protesting in the streets, waving banners…

      “Wait. No they’re not. They’re at the pub, at work, on the couch thanking their lucky stars

    • At Work says:

      12:37pm | 21/01/11

      You’re right. Sorry..

      They’re at the pub, at work, on the couch, playing sports, designing interiors, cooking, cleaning, digging holes, cutting hair, programming computers, teaching children and finally… doing nothing all day but trying invoke ire on websites…

      Is that a little better? I was aiming for examples, not pushing a stereotype.

    • AdamC says:

      11:26am | 21/01/11

      Isn’t ‘exploitation’ solely in the eye of the beholder?

      If I pay woman in Kerala $AUD1000 to carry by boyfriend and my baby (neither of us, of course, having a uterus) am I exploiting her? I wouldn’t think I am. She may think she should have gotten more and I, of course, would like to pay as little as I can, but that is the case with any commercial transaction.

      Some people may say that is distasteful, that I am ‘commodifying’ a child. To them, I say this:

      I could be an unemployable alcoholic whose hobbies include beating my knocked-up, drug addict de facto at every opportunity. After a meeting with her social worker about her ‘options’, said de facto decides to keep the baby, who can, after being born with a drug dependency and suffering withdrawal, look forward to a lifetime of abuse and neglect at our hands. In that situation, I can go down to the Centrelink office and obtain financial reward from the government for creating a child that will, in time, doubtless become a burden on the state.

      I think that is far more offensive.

    • At Work says:

      11:47am | 21/01/11

      Yes Eric, you’re right. After all, the amount of single men out there who are trying to become fathers is enormous! They’re protesting in the streets, waving banners…

      Wait. No they’re not. They’re at the pub, at work, on the couch thanking their lucky stars they can’t get knocked up and left with a screaming bundle.

      Eric, you need to get a job. Professional Troll is clearly not mentally challenging enough for you, your arguments are starting to contradict themselves.

    • Femnazi says:

      12:21pm | 21/01/11

      Agreed.

      Men don’t have reproductive rights? Naww, sorry would men like a uterus? That’s just basic biology.

      Eric is good for one thing - I’m a much happier woman after reading his numerous woman-bashing posts, last night I went home and thanked my wonderful, wonderful boyfriend for not being so closed-minded and woman-hating as so many out there and in particular this one who seems insistant on hurting women who come across these blogs. Thanks Eric!! While I know it had the opposite effect of what he intended, he makes me so happy to have a good, mature and reasonable man.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      01:09pm | 21/01/11

      @Femnazi

      You have a wuss. And you know it. That’s why your yoga instructor is starting to look so nice.

    • Gregg says:

      11:49am | 21/01/11

      I suppose the South Welshwomen will just have to move a little further south of the border or north or east first before travelling abroad.

    • Sweetbiscuit says:

      12:11pm | 21/01/11

      While I’m sure there is abuse of the Surogacy system, as stated by the author, this is not always, nor necessarily the case. 
      As a woman who cannot carry babies to term, I have been offered surrogacy by two friends - both already mothers themselves.  These women understand the love of parenthood and the desperation of those who are denied it. 
      Many commercial surrogates are already mothers too.  And they have a commercial advantage - they know they have a fully functioning “body shop”.  They are not abused or exploited. If I had the opportunity to provide this wonderful service to a couple wanting a child, and at the same time pay for my son to go to a private school, I guarantee I would be exploring these options.  Just like alcohol or marijuana, if it is legal, it is policed and monitored reasonably well, to ensure the health and safety of both providers and consumers.  If it is made illegal, consequences can be fatal.

    • Lisa H. says:

      03:36pm | 21/01/11

      Wouldn’t you have any sense of responsiblity for the future life that you have created? What if you disagreed with the way that the child was being raised? What if you felt that the child was being neglected, wither emotionally or physically? Do you have any responsibility to the child? And if not, why not?
      I guess I’m putting my first reactions on a plate here - that a moral person would not push a woman to the cheapest possible dollar for the life-risking and strenuous job of labour… and any moral mother who takes her job seroiusly would not be disinterested in the future of a child that she was reponsible for creating.

    • MelD says:

      04:49pm | 24/01/11

      usually with surrogacy the other person’s womb is merely an oven for it to cook in, when you give up your children for adoption you don’t get a say in how they are raised, why should you when you don’t share DNA with the child?

    • HearNorThere says:

      01:25pm | 21/01/11

      The only issue I have with surrogates is how they might treat their body through the pregnacy. Because it’s not their baby are the going to be as careful as someone giving birth to their own child? When they’re thinking money they’re not really think baby are they? Most would do the right thing but money does have the ability to attract the less desirable.

    • Dilbert says:

      01:44pm | 21/01/11

      Who gets the baby bonus and maternity leave in a surrogacy deal?  The person giving birth or the people who end up with the baby?

    • Dilbert says:

      01:46pm | 21/01/11

      And don’t we already have a generation of cash-in-hand mums?
      Maternity Leave
      Baby Bonus
      Family Benefit’s payments
      etc.

    • Luce says:

      03:06pm | 21/01/11

      Dilbert, the welfare payments they receive are scraps compared to the cost of raising a child. Basic cost-benefit analysis suggests eating socks for a living would be more profitable then receiving handouts because you have children.

    • Lexi says:

      07:06am | 22/01/11

      Let’s just call it a small investment in the creation of future taxpayers. The taxpayers who will fund the hospitals for our dotage.

    • john tracey says:

      01:52pm | 21/01/11

      we are creating a good generation of mums without the tories

    • Kika says:

      01:53pm | 21/01/11

      I’ve seen a documentary before about surrogacy in India. It was following a story of an Australian woman who had paid an agency in India to perform the IVF and impregnate a surrogate woman for a lot of cash. The Australians were so excited thinking they were getting a baby, their baby. Then the Indian woman’s husband backed out of the plan and made her get a termination. The Australian couple were heartbroken.

      It’s so complicated. It’s so risky. I can understand why the government would want to ban commercial surrogacy. But I can’t understand why the surrogacy can’t be legal in families or friends. My aunty was struggling falling pregnant for a long, long time and the only viable option for her to have her own biological child would be to implant an embryo into a surrogate. Her uterus was too scarred and her fallopian tubes were too filled with fluid for an embryo to stick. All of the female members in my family would have been willing to lend our uterus for 9 months for my aunty to become a mother. Naturally there would have been issues about who was the ‘mother’ who was the ‘aunty’ etc but I’m sure that’s better than having a stranger doing it. You just don’t know whether the surrogate would really be prepared for handing over the baby.

    • john tracey says:

      01:54pm | 21/01/11

      abird in the hand is worth two in the bush

    • Elphaba says:

      02:33pm | 21/01/11

      This is like people who believe all women who work in brothels are exploited and demeaned.  Sure, some of that exists in the industry, but plenty of women choose prostitution as a career path.

      So long as all parties, in every venture, are willing and not coerced, belittled, intimidated etc, then leave each to their own.

    • darren de emeriago says:

      02:47pm | 21/01/11

      husbands always give “their pay packet cash in hand to their wives

    • Kika says:

      04:47pm | 21/01/11

      Not mine! 50/50 all the way with everything. Even though he earns more. The only difference is that he contributes more to our nest egg account. But other than that, we both pay expenses and share the bills 50/50. My spending money is mine, and his is his.

    • Static says:

      02:53pm | 21/01/11

      Sometimes we must realise that every woman may not be able to have a baby. I dont think its a right and I think surrogacy could be fraught with all sorts of problems.  So if nature dictates that you may not be able to have a baby, sometimes just sometimes shouldnt we listen

    • Kika says:

      04:56pm | 21/01/11

      Hey like I’ve said above - my aunty struggled for 11 years trying to conceive. She found herself a good doctor and presto - she now has 2 beautiful twins. They are beautiful. She loves those kids and is a great mother.

      I understand your view, but if nature made you deaf wouldn’t you want something to help you hear? If nature made you blind, wouldn’t you want something to help you see? If you had cancer, wouldn’t you want to get better? What’s wrong with someone wanting to have children? It’s natural.

      In the past people used to be called ‘barren’. But that is a horrible name to cast onto anyone. If medical technology can help someone be a mother, why not? I don’t necessarily agree with Medicare paying for half the bill, but I don’t not support IVF. I never know, I may need it myself one day. I’d love to be a mother, but my husband is dragging his feet about it. By the time he is ready it may be already too late for me to conceive naturally. Is this natures way of telling me that I’m not supposed to be a mother?

    • Paul says:

      09:23pm | 21/01/11

      Nature is an evil, sadistic bitch.

      Take a look at evolution. Survival of the fittest. Nature has no mercy. The only reason we put up with that stuff, really, is because we have no choice.

      http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1955#comic
      Note: The actions/personalities of humanity in general have more to do with MEMETIC evolution, than genetic will ever, while civilisation exists.

    • Lexi says:

      07:12am | 22/01/11

      LOL This is akin to the argument that gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to have children.

      My answer to that is: a couple who can pay for IVF or surrogacy is most likely educated, intellegent and hardworking. I know plenty of gay couples who earn good money from good jobs, are in long term, stable, commited relationships. Own their own homes and have an excellent support network of family and friends.

      And yet, ‘nature’ seems to want 16 year old crack addicts with no education and no hope of a long term committed relationship or good earning capacity to have numerous children.

      So, when it comes to reproduction, let’s not talk about listening to nature. Sometimes she screws up, just like the rest of us. Unless nature is secretly working for the Public Sector Union trying to generate stacks of DOCS jobs. Oooh, a conspiracy.

    • Arbrokmiarmdad. says:

      03:15pm | 21/01/11

      Just another example of more attempted control in the Nanny State

      Perhaps this is the thin end of wedge and eventually all parents including recipients of surrogate children will have to be interviewed and need to pass an exam. As it should be.

      Bravo Eric.

      P.S why isn’t the euphemism “Poppy state”?

      I

    • Lisa H. says:

      05:27pm | 21/01/11

      Bravo Eric? He reads like a teenager.

    • Kurt says:

      08:27pm | 21/01/11

      Is must really piss Eric off that his mother was a woman ... but maybe therein lies his problem ...

    • Lexi says:

      12:00pm | 22/01/11

      Ah, FB has its beneifts… Why doesn’t The Punch have a “like” button too?

    • mary says:

      07:05am | 22/01/11

      Bottom line is that people are ‘buying’ a child as opposed to naturally conceiving and carrying one. Who is ever to know anyones motives? But when a natural act such as conceiving and gestation gets turned into a business deal, that is scary.

    • John C says:

      09:28am | 22/01/11

      As I understand it, the NSW government passed laws that allow homosexual couples to adopt a child that is not their own. And that is fair enough - I have no problems with that at all.

      Yet, it also passes a law that prevents a man and a woman from having their own child, who otherwise would not be able to have that child for medical reasons, using a human agent who is prepared, paid or whatever, to allow her body to be used for this purpose.

      This is an incredible double standard. And I would bet that Minister Burney would be the first person to assert that a woman has the right to decide about her own body.

      This government is concerned about the well being of children born in this way?? The same Government that administers a department, DOCS, which has proved time and time again that it is unable or unwilling to deal with complaints about child abuse, sometimes with tragic results.

      At least in just 9 weeks (63 days) this government will disappear into the dustbin it so richly deserves.

    • Thommo says:

      11:34am | 22/01/11

      You can apply my one simple code of ethics to all situations in life. That is, never interfere with anything anyone else is doing unless they are harming someone who does not want to be. Live by that and see how the world changes

    • mike says:

      01:54pm | 22/01/11

      There is a difference between the “10-year-old kid stitching together basketball shoes in Vietnam”, and her hiring her uterus to me so I can have a family like a “normal person”. That is why this law has been put in place.

    • Eric says:

      05:25am | 23/01/11

      What is the difference, Mike? Apart from the fact that it’s a lot easier to gestate for nine months and become wealthy in third world terms, than to work for a lifetime and still be poor. If anything, surrogacy is a dream come true for poor women.

    • LittleB says:

      09:23am | 11/02/11

      I’ve not read all of the comments following this article (except for the first few comments made by Eric: creepy and insensitive much?) , but I’m going to throw my two cents in anyway: criminalizing foreign surrogacy (in my opinion) is a step in a good direction.

      Regardless of ethical issues surrounding exploitation and a woman’s rights to her body, there are other means for men and women (in Australia) wanting to have children that are more safe to women, more cheap and legal than under the table agreements, and more responsible - such as adoption.

      In my opinion adoption (-from within your own country - thank you very much Brangelina) is a much more productive thing to do if we take in to account global population and the stupidly astonishing high rate at which we’re all reproducing - and the very poor way in which we are currently preparing for the 9 billion people that the UN predicted will be here in 2050.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter