by Chris Bodenner
A reader writes:
You accuse Thomas Frank of believing that "women shouldn’t have full control over their bodies when it comes to surrogacy." Exactly where in Mr. Frank’s article does he make this claim? Is he demanding legislation to prevent women from seeking pregnancy surrogates? Is he advocating the bombing of fertilization clinics? There is an enormous difference between expressing distaste for someone’s choices and attempting to mandate someone’s choices through legislation or through force.
Another reader adds:
Name just a few that would like to outlaw or restrict surrogacy–let alone "many."
I see a lot of problems with surrogacy–among them, class and the belief that raising a child with your genes is more desirable than adoption (to women who are having trouble getting pregnant). Criticizing women for their choices is different from wanting to legally restrict their choices. I am pro-choice, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t problems with abortion or other reproductive issues. You can’t put up a wall saying, "it’s a choice" and expect all questions and criticisms to be deflected. People choose to be all sorts of things that are perfectly legal but also morally questionable.
Agreed, well put. I actually didn’t mean to imply that Frank himself wants to see legal restrictions on surrogacy. I used him more as a foil to illustrate the tension within left-liberalism between the greater good (restricting surrogacy to prevent exploitation) and personal liberty (keeping abortion unrestricted). His column conveys that tension, but I should have been more careful not to conflate his personal criticism of Kuczynski’s surrogacy with a desire to see it infringed.
The Dish 