This paper examines two contrasting ethical perspectives on surrogacy. Drawing on Payne (2018), it presents the case that surrogate mothers possess the autonomous right to decide whether to carry a child for others, regardless of financial compensation, and that external observers cannot legitimately override that personal choice. It then presents Krause's (2018) counterargument, which emphasizes the emotional and relational harm that commercial surrogacy can cause—particularly the bond formed between surrogate and child that is severed at birth, and the broken relationships that follow. Together, these perspectives frame surrogacy as a practice that sits at the intersection of personal autonomy, utilitarian ethics, and intimate human relationships.
The paper demonstrates effective comparative ethical analysis: it takes two peer-reviewed sources with opposing conclusions and uses their frameworks (autonomy theory and relational/utilitarian ethics) as lenses to evaluate the same practice. Rather than simply summarizing each source, the paper identifies the specific ethical principle each author prioritizes and explains why those principles lead to different conclusions about surrogacy.
The paper is organized into two main argumentative blocks. The first block presents Payne's (2018) pro-surrogacy argument, grounded in the principle of individual autonomy, and addresses the counterpoint about external pressure. The second block introduces Krause's (2018) critique, focusing on relational harm, emotional loss, and the limits of financial autonomy. The references section closes the paper. This two-part structure mirrors a classic compare-and-contrast ethical essay format appropriate for undergraduate philosophy or bioethics coursework.
Surrogacy sits at the intersection of personal freedom, intimate relationships, and commercial practice. Two scholarly perspectives—one grounded in individual autonomy and the other in relational ethics—offer sharply contrasting conclusions about whether surrogacy is morally justifiable.
Payne (2018) supports surrogacy by demonstrating that a woman's autonomy should be the determining factor in whether she chooses to become a surrogate. Autonomy is the right to determine what is best for oneself based on personal understanding and willingness. Therefore, when it comes to surrogacy, the woman should be free to decide what she wants for her own body and life.
Due to the nature of surrogacy in contexts where the intended couple compensates the surrogate mother financially, many people tend to view the arrangement as the commercialization of surrogacy. With commercialization comes the concern that women are coerced into the practice by third-party actors. However, Payne (2018) advocates for women who opt into surrogacy by demonstrating that they do so out of a genuine willingness to help others. We cannot dismiss the autonomy of surrogate mothers simply because they receive payment. Everyone should have the right to determine how they wish to live their lives, and we cannot in good conscience deny surrogate mothers the opportunity to make that personal choice. The decision to become a surrogate is a deeply personal one, and only the surrogate mother herself can know with certainty whether she is truly willing. Outside observers cannot make that determination on her behalf.
Surrogate mothers may wish to assist a sister, a friend, or another loved one, and they offer the use of their womb voluntarily. The central issue, as Payne (2018) frames it, is whether the woman has freely determined her own willingness. Preserving the autonomy of the surrogate mother should therefore serve as the moral compass by which we evaluate the ethics of surrogacy.
According to the Swedish Governmental Investigator, there is a concern that women may become surrogates under pressure from family or friends rather than out of genuine willingness (Payne, 2018). However, identifying the true motivator behind any individual's decision is not straightforward, since surrogacy remains a profoundly personal choice that resists easy external judgment.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.