Your editorial (April 5), "All Questions, No Answers," on surrogate parenting claimed that technology has learned how to outwit nature before it has learned whether we should--and wondered whether as a society we can be "comfortable" offering a biological way for childless couples to become parents.
Why should we be uncomfortable and why should be question the value of a contract in which a woman willingly consents to be artificially inseminated and bear a baby for the other party to the contract, who pays the woman for the service to be rendered?
In what sense does such a transaction smack of baby selling if the child is the natural child of the father? Why should renting a womb be objectionable if it is the one way for a childless couple to become parents?
And why should we worry that children born in such a way would be scarred if brought up in a home of acceptance and love? If technology can eventually eliminate the need for wombs in the child-bearing process, would it be men's decisions that women must of necessity go on experiencing the pain of child birth?