If a woman is living in poverty and feels she has no choice but to hire out her body, even if she would rather not, just so a rich woman can stay in shape (for example), I'd say that's exploitative. That's not always the case, as the article makes clear, but the risk of exploitation is obvious.
This is a non-issue that is being blown out of proportion and will greatly affect the 99% of infertile and same sex couples that use surrogacy to start their families. It’s veiled homophobia and misogyny. Women can make their own decisions what to do with their bodies
Sorry, what is the non-issue? The possible exploitation of women? There's no homophobia or misogyny on my part - if you honestly can't see any moral complexity to this issue, or how a woman's 'freedom of choice' can be compromised by all manner of coercive factors, I'm kind of astonished
I don’t think you know anything about surrogacy outside this article. The scenarios you are talking about are not even remotely the majority of surrogate pregnancies. If you are too blind to see the homophobia or misogyny that’s not my problem that’s yours.
I'm not saying they are the majority. I'm not saying surrogacy should be banned. I'm saying there are obvious moral issues that need to be considered. Some opponents of surrogacy may be homophobic or misogynistic; my argument obviously isn't.