Sample Argumentative Essay Paper on a Contract between the Surrogate and the Parents

Professor Michael Sandel's lecture is about making informed choices specifically on surrogacy.
Surrogacy is compared with baby selling. This is because the surrogate mother carries the baby in her to full
term delivers and hands them over for a fee. All emotions, despite their undeniable existence, are ignored
and the contract that exists with regard to surrogacy is enforced. In a case where the surrogate mother's egg
was used as opposed to an egg from the client or a donor, such a mother handing over the baby after birth
for a fee is undeniably equal to selling their baby.
While the arguments against the practice are valid, so were the arguments for the practice. It is
argued that enforcing such a contract between the surrogate and the parents would be against the rights of
the surrogate mother, such a mother knowing that a baby would grow to be born and accepted to offer
services at a fee and as long as the other party honors their end of the bargain, then, they too must honor
their end. While enforcing such a contract seems cruel, we must consider the inverse, what if it is the
would-be parents who refuse to take up the responsibility of the child, this would mean that surrogate would
not only have to pay tens of thousands in delivery fees but also cater for the Childs bills. Those who argue
against the practice would support the mother’s decision to go to court and try and get the contract enforced.
The parties should have equal rights, so, if the surrogate should have the right to enforce the said contract,
then, it should go without arguments that the surrogate mother cannot annul the contract, which shows that
this a business transaction and perhaps the argument that surrogacy is equal to baby-selling has validity.
The two objections that professor Sandel puts forth against commercial surrogacy. The
two are tainted/flowed consent and the second is that it is dehumanizing. Sandel uses the
example of baby M, where in the lower case, Elizabeth lost and her claim to the baby was given
to the Sterns and took over the rights. The Supreme Court would, however, overturn this decision
granting Elizabeth her motherhood rights to baby M, but granted full custody to the father, Mr.

3

Stern. The Supreme court argued that Elizabeth could not have known beforehand the
implication of emotional bend between herself and baby M before conception, leave alone birth,
further, her economic conditions forced her to take the del implying coercion. The supreme court
further argued that placing a price on human life is dehumanizing and that there are some things
that we cannot truly place a price upon, thus, making the surrogacy contract invalid.

4

Reference

Sandel, M. (2015). Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 05: "HIRED GUNS".