Does a poor woman or a woman in a poor country, in a non-regulated market, have control over her body once she has entered into a surrogate pregnancy? Or is her body: the food she eats, the exercise and activities she performs, the work she can and can't do, her daily life, etc, etc, under the control of the adoptive parents? To what extent does her life and her body, by enveloping the uterus that holds the client's baby, become subservient to the clients' desires?

How could she be so completely and utterly "under the control of the adoptive parents"? She lives in India, they live in Israel. It's not like they can just pop in to check on her every afternoon. Now if they paid to relocate her to Israel to live in their house and under their control, or if they paid enforcers in India to monitor her every activity and regulate her diet, etc. then your point would be valid and I'd agree with your criticisms. But there's no evidence that either is the case here. Most likely they expressed a list of desires to her, and she agreed to them in principle, and then went back to living her life as she did to that point. And, since they live thousands of miles apart, they had to take it on faith that she was doing everything she could to have a healthy pregnancy, while she knew that in spite of their concerns, she wouldn't have them breathing down her neck at all times. And leaving aside the Orwellian control that you've suggested, in reality there was probably just an agreement for her to undergo regular health check-ups to make sure the pregnancy was a healthy one, along with the provision of money to pay for them. Why would an agreement like that be controversial? Millions of non-surrogate mothers-to-be go in for such regular medical appointments multiple times a year. Such a contractual agreement in this case would not constitute exploitation.

So let me get this straight:

A woman renting her womb to get a house IS exploitation.

A woman working 16 hours a day/7 days a week at a textile sweatshop for the equivalent of a few US dollars a week so YOU can dress in style on the cheap, ISN'T exploitation.

Now I understand.

Thanx for the clarification Laurel62.

Having been to India, and having many Indian friends, I am aware that there is a real cultural difference with this issue. It is not all that uncommon for an Indian woman to give a baby to a childless friend - a situation that is virtually impossible to imagine in most Western countries. It's important that people aren't taken advantage of, but it's also important to understand cultural differentiation on these issues.

With regard to Israeli controls on surrogacy- read the article again, it's illegal in Israel.

"I used the terms "incubator", etc, to illustrate a potential mindset on the part of a client. I can *certainly* see many clients thinking in those terms, even though I don't, personally."

Ok, so you can see many clients thinking in those terms and you're assuming that poor Indian women are too stupid to see the evil clients who think this way or too stupid to engage in a contractual agreement with these types of people? That they have no right to make a decision about this because they are poor Indian women?

Or did you not read the part in the article where, in this particular arrangement, the clients and the women never meet at all, so whatever one thinks about the other is completely irrelevant, unless you believe in telepathic psychological abuse?

CAS's points still stand. In a regulated, controlled environment where both parties are protected with good legal contracts and medical safeguards, there's nothing exploitive about surrogacy. In your worst imagined fears, yes it's exploitive. But so is marriage, employment, friendship, parenting, pet ownership and nearly any other human relationship/interaction.

you might make some sense in your spoutings.

BTW: Brightstar, as usual you demonstrate your complete unfitness as a future parent, husband or even basic human being.

I am supposed to take advice from a mere feminist, one who hates me and ignores my needs at that...

To compare your high-paying architect's job -- which you can quit anytime you like, to look for another job you prefer -- to being used as a third-world Guinea pig for the rich, is disgusting and self-serving.

Marketing, not architecture. I cannot quit, at least until I have half a mil plus in the bank. I only WISH I had a womb to rent out to earn the US equivalent of $150k for nine months (less really since the belly does not get big until the fifth month) of work. Wow, three pregnancies and I could retire, if I were female and Indian, imagine that!

The reason you can't have a baby is not simply that you don't have both testicles and ovaries (as I guess you feel entitled to, in your sexually confused, woman-hating way), but that you are a substandard, hateful elf of a human being.

I most definitely do not hate women. I love women. Feminists I do hate due to their utter hatred and lack of compassion towards men and their needs. I only want all the rights and freedoms and options women are afforded. How can wanting this for myself be hatred of anyone else? (explain please in your spouting irrational manner).

It is but YOU who hate. Hate us men.

BTW substandard hateful elves (whatever THAT is) have babies all the time without getting permission from YOU.

Thanks for confirming that you gals are nothing more than blown up windbags of hatred and malice who have nothing but ad hominem rancor to loft (I love that word) at others like so much poo.

Back to the question-- how do you ladies (loosely, VERY loosely) propose that we men gain the equivalent reproductive rights that you women today enjoy? EXPLAIN PLEASE, hopefully in some coherent manner.