title: Why the "widespread agreement" is wrong: contesting the non-harm arguments for the prohibition of full commercial surrogacy.
abstract: Entering a commercial surrogacy agreement is an offence in almost all Australian jurisdictions. A 2009 Consultation Paper produced by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General suggested that there was "widespread agreement" that commercial surrogacy should remain prohibited. The arguments most commonly raised against legalising commercial surrogacy are not harm-based; that is, they do not purport to show that any party involved is tangibly, objectively and non-consensually worse off as a result of the transaction. This would be very difficult to show. Rather, the arguments against commercial surrogacy tend to focus on non-harm considerations, including principally concerns about the commodification of life and exploitation. This article argues that there are no sound non-harm reasons for banning one form of commercial surrogacy namely full commercial surrogacy.
authors.forename: Peter
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Gaffney
mesh_terms: D003132:Commerce / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D011247:Pregnancy; D013533:Gestational Carriers / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*