Although children harm should be foreseen, Laura wonders about double standards applied by the speculation, the first occurs when those opposing surrogacy oppose the attempts of reduce the number of handicapped babies who are born, it is argued that the handicapped are glad to be alive despite their problem hence preventing their birth will be paternalistic. With the reasons of why parents have children, there is no reason why it is a problem if one was conceived to provide a child to a person who desperately wanted one.
Therefore, it should not matter whether a child was born as an accident, was adopted, born due to unavailability of abortion or contraception, to continue a family line, to sex-balance a family, cement a failing marriage or as a child bearing experience so long as in the end the child is raised in an intelligent and loving environment. The other double standard is disparity between children and women interests and therefore the conflicts of interests between the two should apply same rules for any other moral subject and should not sacrifice one individual.(Khuse & Peter, 207), There are circumstances which make surrogate mothering immoral although it is not necessarily so, for example, coercing women to engage in the practice and the contract clauses which subordinate women’s desire and the clauses legitimating inadequate pay for risks and penalties due to birth of a handicapped child or a dead one should be known that it is not her fault (Khuse ; Peter, 207).
A solution to such problem is enactment of a law forbidding surrogacy agreements even though women will still engage in them which leaves the vulnerable to those who would decline to pay or change of mind. Fair and reasonable regulations should be enacted to prevent women exploitation, many poor women are in jobs exposing themselves to dangerous chemicals making them sicken and die more often than other society members, however this does not add another dangerous option but seeks to clean dangerous work places although it may not take place in the near future.In conclusion, the assertion by some opponents that contracted pregnancy is not a real choice is not convincing since she says it is immoral yet she believes the expanded choices masks the contraction of choice, she also fear that endorsement of uncritical freedom of reproduction choice would be endorsing conceivable alternatives which may be adopted and abandon responsibility to evaluate actions advocating freedom of choice, These arguments according to Laura are not persuasive.It should be remembered that contracted pregnancy is a low-tech approach to social problems and would slow expensive and dangerous high-tech solutions, this regards the one sided emphasis on risk.Desire for children is not going away soon and the traditional marriages or blood ties prohibit an acceptable practice which is likely to satisfy people’s desire and other benefits, therefore contracted pregnancy may be less risky compared to other jobs and has other advantages since it is not a full time job therefore one has a chance to improve her career and paying for it would make people to recognize it as a socially useful enterprise and that children are very valuable in the society and their welfare and upbringing is very important for the society.Reference: Kuhse Helga & Singer Peter, bioethics: an anthology, Blackwell Publishing, ISBN: 0631203117, 1999, P 202-207.