Probably not, but what does that have to do with this topic?

It had relevance to the mugging comparison. It is not exploitative to the extent of mugging because the deal holds here, and has to be met by the womb-renter too. Power imbalance therefore is not nearly on the same level.
Refutation to your claim about the:

And the mugger may as well shoot anyway.

What does being able to default on one’s side of the deal have to do with whether or not it qualifies as a deal? You could make that argument about all kinds of trades, particularly those occurring across national borders and jurisdictions.

(emphasis mine)

Don’t play stupid. So you clearly could not make that argument about this kind of trade. It was IMO relevant to the case to completely refute the claim that this situation is similar, otherwise the “it’s kind of like mugging” would have sticked. Perhaps it was your intention not to make it stick, but that’s how it looked like (sorry for the bad faith).

But I’ll drop it now.

But: not necessarily, not necessarily, and why would it?

Okay, good. Some here have, and those posters have not cared to explain their reasons in detail (other than “It’s just wrong/patriarchy, etc.!”).

I already did say that I thought this was a good article (#28), and people who hold a position close to Jill and you are not the ones I have problem against. It’s the ones who step on the next level: Banning this.

Jill and most of the other people here, myself included, are not advocating making this practice illegal.

Granted, and appreciated, that you nor Jill have not been arguing to outlaw this particular practice, though other threadizens have. But the point stands that, when it comes to certain kinds of coercion affecting trade terms, y’all are all for it. “Fair” trade restrictions, child support mandates, income redistribution via social security, welfare, public school funding, health care, etc., all manner of sin taxes (cigarettes, gasoline, luxury goods), are all coercive influences on trade, which many leftists support, often without even recognizing their coercive elements.

No, I’m not. I argued that coercive trade counted as trade under a definition that did not recognize coercion.

Fine, if that’s what you were arguing, I accept that.

*Sigh*

Some people do not agree that it is slavery.

So? That doesn’t mean that working under a different definition of slavery means that you’re inconsistent.

“The cake”. Extortion of “brown women” is wrong (according to many here, ot at least problematic) because of extortion and power differentials, muggery is (in your comments) wrong because of extortion and power differentials.

*headdesk* No! This situation is potentially wrong to the extent that it is exploitative. Mugging is clearly wrong because it is clearly exploitative! Would you just drop the offhand analogy in response to a completely different argument already? You’ve chewed it to death.

So you think the Western couple can just decide to not pay and still get the baby?

Probably not, but what does that have to do with this topic?

Care to answer the relevant questions on the issue:

Surrogate motherhood with (relatively) generous compensation is a trade, is it exploitation? Should rich Western people stop making economic transactions with less privileged people, or stop it, because of the power disparity? How does this help the less privileged?

Or will we continue these lawyerly games?

These lawyerly games are exactly why I have zero interest in discussing this with you. But: not necessarily, not necessarily, and why would it?

You’re changing your statement. Before, when you gave the example of a mugging, the extortion was the trade. Now you’re arguing that it is affecting the terms of the trade. The trade is “your wallet for nothing in return,” and the extortion/coercion is “if you do not accept this trade, I will shoot you.” So, now you’re making a valid comparison. Congrats.

No, I’m not. I argued that coercive trade counted as trade under a definition that did not recognize coercion. Then, in response to a different statement by a different person (you), I’m saying that it ain’t leftists, generally speaking, who refuse to recognize coercion when it occurs. They’re different statements involving different things.

Beyond that, though, your statement is a nonsense. Leftists, when they’re not saying that trade itself is theft or coercion, love it when certain types of coercion effect trade, just like some right-wingers do. It’s impressive, though, that you can argue that with a straight face when people in this very thread have stated that trades like the ones described in the article shouldn’t be allowed to occur, or should be required to occur at a higher price. How do you think that will be achieved, other than by coercion?

I haven’t seen many people arguing for cervix tariffs, here or in other discussions about surrogacy, whatever strawman-baiting Tuomas would like to fool around with. Jill and most of the other people here, myself included, are not advocating making this practice illegal.

However, as you see, the amount of compensation varies widely.

It’s not the leftists who want to ignore coercion and extortion when they affect the terms of a trade, thanks.

You’re changing your statement. Before, when you gave the example of a mugging, the extortion was the trade. Now you’re arguing that it is affecting the terms of the trade. The trade is “your wallet for nothing in return,” and the extortion/coercion is “if you do not accept this trade, I will shoot you.” So, now you’re making a valid comparison. Congrats.

Beyond that, though, your statement is a nonsense. Leftists, when they’re not saying that trade itself is theft or coercion, love it when certain types of coercion effect trade, just like some right-wingers do. It’s impressive, though, that you can argue that with a straight face when people in this very thread have stated that trades like the ones described in the article shouldn’t be allowed to occur, or should be required to occur at a higher price. How do you think that will be achieved, other than by coercion?

Here in Canada selling eggs is illegal, they must be given for free. But in the US eggs are for sale. I came across a really disturbing California-based site with photos of all their prospective donors, genetic details, academic achevements, race, etc. Rather than each donor changing the same fee, the fees varied, presumably because some highly-in-demand donors can make more money out of the whole messy business (and egg donation is a heck of a lot more trouble than sperm donation). Started looking at prices, wondering how they’d determined how to set them, and soon discovered that white women without any education beyond high school were charging significantly higher rates than similarly placed minority women. White women in college, or with college degrees, were especially sought after. However, the black medical student’s price was strikingly lower than the prices charged by white women with a comparable academic record.

Couples who choose egg donors generally go nuts over highly educated women, assuming that they’ll pass on ‘the smart gene’. But I noticed a white woman who was an undergrad at a university that is not at all well-known, could still charge more than the African-American med student at one of the top five schools in the US.

But as a middle-class westerner with much more personal economic power (and a share in vastly greater national economic power) than the sweatshop employees, well, I feel really uncomfortable about the notion that I benefit from their labor. In my ideal world, nobody should have to have such a shitty job, or at the very least, their pay should be commensurate with the shittiness. We shouldn’t have large groups of people so desperate for employment that they’re willing to take on shitty jobs for microscopic wages. Pregnancy for pay might not be quite as shitty as a sweatshop job for some of the duration, but I hear there’s bits at the end that are pretty bad, and there’s the health risks, and so forth. And prostitution and other sex trade things seem to me like they’re probably similarly shitty.

However, there are two important differences between sweatshop jobs and pregnancy/sex-trade jobs, which I think make a difference in the appropriate response. The obvious one, of course, is that surrogacy and the sex trade are shitty jobs nearly exclusively populated by women (surrogacy being, naturally, 100% female). So all the usual gender issues come into play here, and I won’t discuss those in detail, since it’s been done already.

The other difference is that purchase of surrogacy or of sexual favors is, um, entirely optional. It’s not a life necessity. Even though it may make vast improvements in the purchaser’s quality of life, it’s still essentially a luxury good. Many sweatshop products, on the other hand, are such things as affordable and decent clothing, often with a target audience of poorer Americans. It’s hard for me to make the argument that the purchase of sweatshop clothing by someone who can’t afford decent alternatives is an ethical lapse. And I recognize that if I choose to avoid purchasing sweatshop clothing myself then I’m exercising my middle-class privilege. But the option to purchase surrogacy isn’t even available to poorer Americans, much less members of less wealthy societies, and somehow they survive without it. Choosing surrogacy is a choice to acquire something beyond the basic necessities of life, and when one makes such choices, the ethical implications start to matter far more than in choices about necessities.

It’s not that I begrudge westerners with fertility issues the ability to have children who share their genetic material. I know the emotional significance of having one’s “own” child. But I think it’s important to recognize that even when both parties end up better off after a transaction than they were before, it doesn’t mean the transaction is not exploitative. I can’t quite bring myself to say the western parents are wrong to engage in such a transaction, but I’d still be disgusted if an acquaintance of mine did it, in the same way (but to a greater degree than) I’d be disgusted if they hired a prostitute. I’d find myself wondering how their desire to have their own genetic child could possibly trump their awareness of the social issues, when there are so many other ways to adopt a child which are less potentially problematic.

So, anyway, this has gotten kind of rambling and long, but it’s was just what I was thinking.