Surrogacy, the practice of carrying and birthing a child intended to be raised by another, in has existed in some form has existed in society since ancient times. In 1986 the story of Baby M made the news in the United States and worldwide. The landmark case brought the subject of the legal, moral, and ethical implications of the practice into the public consciousness. In 1990, Elizabeth S. Anderson, now a professor at the University of Michigan, wrote an article opposing commercial surrogacy stating that surrogacy was alienates, degrades, and commodifies women. In this paper I will look at Anderson’s main arguments against surrogacy, as mentioned above. I will compare Anderson’s arguments with those of Richard J. Arneson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, who wrote Commodification and Commerical Surrogacy, as a denial to Anderson’s condemnationof commercial surrogacy. By looking at the two opposing viewpoints on the subject I will determine which position is more ethically sound. Anderson’s arguments against the commodification of women’s labour can be divided into three areas: alienation, degradation, and exploitation. To maintain simplicity I will be confining the scope of the essay to Anderson’s argument of surrogacy being the commodification of women’s labour, and confining it to practices in the developed world.Anderson argues that though a surrogate has control over her body during the pregnancy, she does not have control over what happens to the ‘product’ extracted from her body. Anderson also argues that the social norms surrounding pregnancy are designed to encourage parental love for the child, that by giving up the child to the intended parents, her labour is alienated (1990, p. 82). Anderson brings up the subject of sonograms as not only diagnostic tests, but to assist a pregnant woman in bonding with the foetus (1990, p. 81). Her argument seems to suggest that pregnant woman need extra assistance in bonding withtheir potential child through the wonders of modern medicine. I believe that this is a slight insult to women, that they need these extra, and mostly unnecessary procedures to form abond with the foetus. For 200 000 years humans survived without them, why, then, do we need them now to further a maternal bond? Arneson rebuts this argument by saying that the surrogacy contract does not determine how a woman feels, but how she must act (1992, p. 158). The surrogate is well within her rights, argues Arneson, to feel however she wants, andas such she should be free to make any sort of labour contract she wishes regardless of what type of work it is. Anderson’s argument seems to assume that every instance of surrogacy entails the surrogate being forced to commit an act against her will and ignores the fact that some, if not most, surrogates are fully aware of the requirements. Regardless ofthe emotions a woman may feel towards having to give up a child to be raised by others, it isnot immoral unless the woman was deceived in some way or coerced into surrogacy. Anderson’s second argument is that of degradation of the surrogate. This thinking maybe true in some cases, but can it be true in all cases? Are all women who act as surrogates being degraded or think they are being degraded by a patriarchal society? Probably not. Anderson makes the comparison of surrogates to that of a hatchery (1990, p. 83). Again Anderson herself degrades surrogates by removing their autonomy. It seems that she cannotfathom that a woman would put herself into the position of being a surrogate without some sort of force. Anderson further implies this view when she states “should she suffer psychologically from being forced to give up her child” (1990, p. 83). A surrogate, acting out of her own free will, is not ‘giving up her child’. Though Anderson seems outraged by her perceived degradation, she herself is degrading women by removing their agency and portraying them as docile and incompetent creatures who cannot enter into a contract without being coerced or exploited, and who are incapable of securing and obtaining a support system if one is necessary. Arneson rebuts Anderson’s assertion by asking the question why is it permissible for a woman to act as a surrogate for a friend or family member but as soon as money is entered into the equation it becomes morally unacceptableand degradation (1992, p. 152). Arneson’s point that the exchange of money for the service of surrogacy does not make the practice intrinsically harmful, is a more plausible approach tothe situation. There is no reason why the exchange of money would deem surrogacy immoral or degrading.The third argument posed by Anderson is that of exploitation through not offering her anything but what the norms of commerce demand in return (1990, p. 81). Arneson’s rebuttalis that as long as there is no fraud or misrepresentation, the failure to reciprocate altruism is not necessarily wrong (1992, p. 155). Arneson addresses the claim that a surrogate is likely to be poor and the intended parents likely to be better off financially thus leaving the surrogate with less bargaining power(1992, p. 155). I believe this to be a fundamentally flawed argument as the surrogate would have just as much bargaining power as the intended parents due to her having the ability to bear children. A surrogate, it could be argued, who is not being forced or coerced is in the position of power to demand whatever market value she puts on her own body. If the intended parents cannot meet that financial burden, they would have to look elsewhere. This situation hardly seems like a surrogate being exploited.While there are valid arguments against surrogacy due to the commodification of women’s labour, I do not see how this is inherently negative. All jobs involve the commodification of one thing or another, why should the labour of women be given special consideration? The idea of surrogacy conjures up visuals of Margaret Atwood’s famous dystopian society in A Handmaid’s Tale, where women are forced into acting as baby factories by the patriarchal religious government. Though this vision may not be far off from some of the surrogacy practices in developing nations, and even in places in the Global North, it is unfair to say that all women are forced into some sort of baby-factory slavery, thatthey will suffer emotionally, or necessarily be treated poorly. Even if it was the case that women