I also read the article, but with a slightly different perspective--that of an egg donor. The brouhaha on this site regarding the surrogacy article once again exemplifies the sad truth that Salon is slowly becoming the Fox News of the left. I found Benifer's response--and the angry head-nodding by other members--reactionary and completely misinformed, to the point where I had to wonder if you skimmed the article for parts that you could criticize and zeroed in on the parts that would make a good lefty rant sure to be savored by self-righteous "feminists."

Classism? What about YOUR classism? Condemning someone whose uterus doesn't work but wants a biological child just because she's rich seems to be a pretty clear indicator of that. Did you miss the section in which Ms. Kuczynski described the thorough process by which she and her husband selected their surrogate--refusing, for example, to choose someone who seemed like she was doing it just for the cash? You know, to avoid exploiting people? Or would acknowledging that part and giving them the benefit of the doubt have watered down Benifer's mean-spirited, reactionary, and ridiculous argument?

Listen. Some people are infertile; some of these people have money and want babies. Others of us are fertile, and don't want or are done having babies. I'm an egg donor because I'm not planning to use my eggs--my young, fertile, plentiful, early-twenties eggs--for quite some time if ever, and since people are so willing to pay for them, it's a good deal for everyone. Essentially, at this point in my life I want money more than I want to use my eggs to make a baby and love it and hug it and call it George, and whoever it is that used my eggs to make their kid(s?) wanted a kid more than they wanted their money. It's a trade, and a fair one.

No one coerced me or forced me into this; it's very nice to have the extra cash (three-quarters of which I save for grad school and the rest of which I put towards luxuries that my internship wages would not support) and I do enjoy being somewhat more cushioned from the financial annoyances of student life, but that's like saying game show contestants are being exploited--I'm doing it for more than the money; conversely, I would NOT do something that assumes more physical or emotional risk than I am willing to take on (participating in a clinical trial or being a surrogate, for example) just because I'm getting paid. When you idiots shriek that I'm being exploited, you're also saying that I'm not mature enough to make my own choice regarding what to do with my body, not intelligent and resourceful enough to research the risks and potential consequences aside from what the doctors at the fertility clinic have told me (which, for the record, is quite honest, accurate, and thorough), and not contemplative enough to consider the ethical questions at stake and make a decision in keeping with my values and my goals.

If you folks even KNEW the vetting process and the amount of time and paperwork donors have to put in simply to be considered, you would (grudgingly, perhaps) concede that no one who does this does it reluctantly or out of necessity.

I simply don't understand the furor over egg donation and surrogacy, particularly when it comes from people who, with respect to other reproductive matters, tend to be fanatically pro-choice (as, for the record, am I). If you want the pro-life zealots to respect the choices you make with your reproductive organs, it wouldn't hurt to exercise the same courtesy with those of us who use ours in ways you may not.

To sum up my own rant that is probably longer than the article inspiring it, you are doing the greatest disservice of all to Cathy, the surrogate you've characterized as exploited and demeaned. She knew what she was getting into; she could decide for herself what conduct she would demand from others. Don't take that away from her; don't treat an articulate, intelligent, and phenomenally generous woman ("baby mama"??? Really?!) as a pawn simply because that perspective is more palatable to your own hypocritical and poorly-researched opinion.

Robert Franklin--

Regarding being sued for breach of contract in case of an abortion--some states have laws regarding this, and some states are too far behind the times to have bothered. Most laws surrounding surrogacy do state that a woman has an abortion for a NON-HEALTH-RELATED reason is guilty of breach of contract, although I don't know of very many couples who would actually bother to sue their surrogate--hell, just using one in the first place apparently results in a shitstorm if you're wealthy and write bluntly about the process in a national media outlet. In the states that don't have laws, most couples will use a private attorney specializing in these kinds of issues to draft an agreement that will hold the woman to be in breach if she aborts. Also, some parents-to-be stipulate that the surrogate does abort in the event that the fetus has a genetic defect or abnormality such as Down Syndrome or anencephaly.

ART is veeery interesting.