Should just be battery, of course. If he'd succeeded, I'd think she deserved civil damages for the effort she'd put into the pregnancy to that point (gestational surrogates are about $30k, so pro-rate that).

Also, "she gave birth to his child"? No genetic involvement on her part, huh? What an obnoxious phrase. I expect better of Salon, even in the pink ghetto of Broadsheet.

"Also, 'she gave birth to his child"? No genetic involvement on her part, huh? What an obnoxious phrase.'" --Claire Fontaine

"It normally goes without saying that a woman gives birth to her own child, and seems redundant to point it out." --le_chat_rose

The phrase makes the woman sound like an incubator. It goes with the idea that a woman produces children for the husband's family.

To many Christians, not being able to push their views on other people is a loss of freedom.

Btw, to the person who said s/he thinks it's fine to put the Ten Commandments up in public buildings: which particular ten commandments would be used for that, the Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant set?

As Splendide's links show, an adopted child's BMI is usually about the same as that of his/her biological parents, not that of the adoptive parents who raise the child.

As for this latest study, I think it may be looking at things the wrong way around: perhaps fat guys are simply more permissive parents, possibly because society expects them to be jolly and cheerful? So a fat guy may be a permissive parent, and his children are genetically likely to be fat, but it doesn't mean that the former causes the later.

This reminds me of the study that "proved" that left-handed people die earlier... until someone pointed out that the reason there were so few left-handed old people around is because they'd been forced to use their right hands.

Maybe this will make Salon stop trying to force Hillary down our throats, or at least ease up a bit.

Some women enjoy being pregnant, some do not. I do not look forward to pregnancy, but I have no fertility problems (that I know of) and I would like to have children in a few years. I'd love to be able to pay 20k to another woman to carry a pregnancy for me. She'd get a good amount of money for something that's barely a part-time job, and I'd get a baby that's biologically mine and my husband's without having to deal with the inconveniences of pregnancy and childbirth.

What's so special about carrying and giving birth to a baby that it can't be done by someone else? Nobody remembers even their first few years of life, much less anything in the womb. As long as the surrogate doesn't drink or use illegal drugs, it won't make any difference.

How many factory workers are there because they really really want to work on the assembly line? How many office drones trudge into work each day for the sheer pleasure of working in a tiny cubicle? How many McDonalds clerks are truly committed to the ideals of the golden arches? Someone being "forced" to work by the simple necessity of needing money for food and housing is not enslaved. Someone being forced by her culture to turn over her money to her husband or mother-in-law is disturbing no matter what her job is.

I don't think pregnancy creates a bond that can't be duplicated by simply parenting the child. I hope you all don't believe that fathers and adoptive mothers can't bond with their children. That's a dangerous myth that causes a lot of unhappiness when women feel they haven't "bonded" with their children in the way our culture tells them they should (r.i.p. Candace Newmaker)

Canuckistan Bob, it's only "distasteful" because it's uncommon. Hiring a wet nurse wasn't distasteful when a lot of people did it. Tattoos were once considered distasteful, now they're common.

Aycharaych, Thalidomide is a legal drug when prescribed by a doctor. No doctor today would prescribe it for a pregnant woman.

Jrbrown10, if the mother-in-law or husband takes her money after she's spent ten hours on her feet waitressing is that so much better simply because it's less money and no wealthy white woman benefited from it?

The death rate from a lot of jobs is far higher than the death rate for pregnancy. Being a garbage collector, trucker, farmer, steel worker, or taxi driver is dangerous, but we don't prohibit people from doing those jobs nor companies from hiring them. Waitresses and factory workers suffer frequent injuries; do you want to shut down restaurants and factories? While it would be nice for everyone to be able to live a life of luxury, free from toil and danger, most of us are not so privileged. Even most of those "wealthy white older women" you despise got so wealthy (and so old) by slogging their way up the professional ladder.

As for emotional attachment, I think only each woman can judge how she'd deal with that. The India program in the article only accepts surrogates who've already had one child, so they've all had something to compare it to. The article says that the women find the money they're bringing in empowering and that the program makes sure the money goes to the surrogate herself. Being able to earn more in nine months than her husband could in ten years likely does give the woman more power and status in many, though not all, of these families.