Is your body your own?

A senior family court judge allowed a British couple to keep a newborn child even though they had technically broken the law by giving more than “reasonable expenses” to the American natural mother.

Mr Justice Hedley said the existing rules on payments were unclear, and that the baby’s welfare must be the main consideration. Only in the “clearest case” of surrogacy for profit would a couple be refused the necessary court order to keep the baby.

If yes, then of course you can hire it out to carry a baby for someone else.

If your body is not your own, if you may only do with it what the State allows you to do (subject, of course, to not harming others), are you not therefore in some manner a slave of the State?

3 comments on “Is your body your own?

  1. “are you not therefore in some manner a slave of the State?”

    You know what the usual suspects will say: Freedom is Slavery.

  2. There is the baby to consider! I’d have thought (and hence the law) being sold to someone is pretty much like slavery (it might be OK, but seems sensible for law to take position its wrong without further evidence)

  3. If a woman can legally rent out her vagina, then why not her uterus? Because a third party – an unborn child – is involved and so some state regulation can probably be justified by reference to J S Mill’s harm principle. Surrogacy has more in common in this respect with abortion than with prostitution.

    So, to be consistent, either surrogacy and abortion (and prostitution) should be fully legal and an unregulated matter for consenting adults and the individual conscience; or surrogacy and abortion should be regulated to some extent by law.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.