It was briefly mentioned at the start, but I really believe the housing crisis is such a big factor re incentives/issues of having children. It's not just about the money, but the stability, rootedness, community and flexibility to work/not work. And on top of that, the UK is one of the worst in the western world when it comes to rental rights, even compared to many US states
Re childcare, it's not just the under 2s. If you are working full time, the child needs around 9-plus hours a day of care. Not good for children of all ages. And school is not childcare, children get ill, plus extended school holidays, etc.
It's sad to see where the UK is now. I grew up on stories of John and Charles Wesley, CT Studd, FB Meyer, Charles Spurgeon, George Muller, Hudson Taylor, Eric Liddell. The torch passed over the Atlantic. Not just religiously, but after WWI and WWII, geopolitically as well. And now the proverbial torch is making its way across the Pacific. When I was a kid, I remember China's GDP passing that of Japan. More recently, it passed that of the EU, and India passed the UK at about the same time. Europe is not what it used to be, and while I admire Macron's ambitions I can't see a path to international primacy again, either for the EU as a whole or for European countries, without some unforeseeable sea change.
It feels like i always want to comment about IVF success being a lie because of my experience. My first pregnancy was ectopic and when i was in hospital for an emergency surgery I was in a room after with a dozen of eomen, most of them havin an ectopic after an IVF 😢 some of them not for the first time. It was so sad and shocking for me. Luckily I was still sort of young and then got pregnant twice without any intervention and got two kids. But would i even know about those unsuccessful, even tragic stories?
36:10 God forbid that we not really sound like we're committed to our corporate jobs Louise! Perish the thought. Sometimes I wonder if the professional middle classes remember that there is actually a life beyond work.
Great interview, however I would assume based on dating data and studies that many women in their 20s and 30s are hoping to meet a man in the top percentage of earners to marry, thus only a tiny percentage of men are actually desirable to have babies with. I can't imagine many women want a man who is simply an average earner anymore.
Broadly speaking, I think a lot of young people are very confused about what they want in life, what they _should_ want, how to go about getting it, and what sort of person they should be. This is true of both sexes, from my observation. There is no longer a clear path or model to follow. Roles are not clearly defined. Duties are not mentioned. Limitations rarely honestly discussed. As societies we tell young people: _"You're all individuals, figure out on your own what you want out of life and how to get it. Follow your dreams, whatever they may be. Don't concern yourself with what previous generations thought or did. They were probably ignorant bigots anyway. There's nothing to learn from them other than what not to do. We're more socially evolved than they were."_ Add career uncertainty and housing unaffordability, and the results are plain for all to see. It's a disaster. We're going to have a few generations of unhappy, lonely men and women.
I'm so glad she can make jokes about the state of our healthcare system. Almost like her party hasn't been in power for over a decade, overseeing it's demise... 🤔
Re end of life issues. As a free society we should have many legaly available ways for people to end it all and freely available information on how, but no involvement of doctors, government employes etc.
Lord Jonathan Sumption has probably addressed this most sensibly; the individual situation may logically call for action that cannot be socially santioned & for the sake of society & the majority of individuals, currently & in the future justly deserve the continuing guard rails against casualising the ending of human life. We stopped being a Free Society decades ago, I can't think of anything that government employees or medical professionals of one form or other aren't involved in & there's no way an organised policy change regarding Death could be made an exception. Make you own plans with those in your life & stop trying to externalise the difficulties on to other people.
I dunno… I think allowing someone to end their life instead of die in agony from cancer is more humane than deciding to not treat someone for cancer because they’re 80. If you’re not going to treat them, then also give them a way out. I say this after watching cancer decimate my family and watching my mother die at 15. We all needed counselling after. I worked for a cancer charity for many years as well and I feel this woman doesn’t understand the suffering this illness causes. If I’m given a terminal diagnosis, I’d prefer to end my life rather than be a burden and also know my beloved have to watch me suffer and to have that as their final memories. If we put animals to sleep out of kindness, then I think we can allow humans to elect to do this for themselves.
What you're rly implying imo, underneath the "motherhood is sacred" argument, might be something more like, "the psychological harm of separation is too severe". (Things became codified as "sacred" in olden times, because they had adaptive utility. Unless we're gonna believe in magic, ok?) Here's the problem: that would be a much better argument if it involved PHYSICAL harm. However, if precedent is established for PSYCHOLOGICAL harm being sufficient grounds to make things illegal, you can see how that would easily be used as grounds to make EVERY PERCEIVED DISCOMFORTING THING illegal. Look at it this way (I actually hope this is helpful): NORMS are used in a healthy society, to regulate PSYCHOLOGICAL harms. LAWS are used in a healthy society, to regulate PHYSICAL harms. Sure there are gray areas, but if you're not generally adhering to this rubric Louise, I'm afraid we might end up on opposite sides of some protest someday. And I don't want that to happen, because I consider myself a fan, who continues to groove on your style and vibes. Edit: this comment is abt surrogacy, might not have been clear.
Surrogacy is harmful for both the mother and child, who are psychologically proven to bond during gestation. There are many cases here in the US of surrogate mothers trying to keep the children because of this harm. I would pose that the problem arises whenever we try to spare a child from it's right to it's mother and father by displacing it in a foreign womb.
@@blondetapperware8289 I don't like surrogacy at all, I might have been more uncomfortable previously, with somewhat stigmatizing couples, who might be unable to have children or might be homosexual etc., for resorting to surrogacy. I might have commented on this channel in the past (don't exactly remember,) that I don't think they should be stigmatized. I've probably shifted slightly in this regard, I think they should be at least somewhat stigmatized, because of the potential/actual harms associated with surrogacy (social stigma can be a powerful thing). However, I always maintain that using the law to prohibit something, is a powerful tool that must only be used as sparingly as possible. I'm very much a "small l" libertarian, and this ethos is at the heart of American culture, and of free society. It's worth emphasizing, that I'm not closed-minded. I'm also an empiricist. Technology at any given time, allows us to do some things, and not others. Someday, it is likely that we will be able to use advanced fMRI machines and other tech, to precisely quantify and measure physiological pain, and other experiences. We will likely be able to dissolve the boundary btw the physical and psychological, btw epistemology and ontology, and to understand, quantify and observe states of consciousness. Unfortunately, 'techno-utopia' has not yet arrived. In our modern society, norms and values can certainly influence laws and restrictions, but the latter must be foremost addressed on the basis of practicality, and the two magisteria must ultimately be kept separate.
I agree with you on so much of this. I think "psychological harm" is a slippery slope to removing children from parents as someone with power decides that something is abuse (e.g. being sceptical of a new gender identity, or requiring a child complete homework or anything!). Having said that, there are some things that cause psychological harm that are already illegal, even if no physical harm is caused. For example, holding people in hostage situations. Or kidnapping. Even if no physical harm comes to a kidnapped child, it's still both morally wrong and illegal. In my mind, surrogacy is a form of kidnapping. You are stealing the child away from the mother it's expecting to be with. Even if no physical harm comes to the child, or mother, it should still be illegal.
@@AmyDawson-s1d But remember, those things aren't illegal because they cause psychological harm, they're illegal because they infringe on the autonomy of persons, and compromise the basic functioning of society. Also, ppl must understand, it's not a choice btw mother or adoptive parents. It's a choice btw adoptive parents, and never being born. (Women would not have surrogacy babies in the first place, obviously, without financial incentive). AT BOTTOM, the argument of Louise and others, is that it's better to NEVER HAVE BEEN BORN, than to endure the trauma of being raised by adoptive parents, instead of by one's biological mother. I think this is, quite clearly, not a strong enough argument.
I keep getting reminded, that one of the main things on which I seem to disagree with Louise, is surrogacy. Not sure it ever specifically occurred to me, to take a particularly strong stance on this. I still think it's sort of simple: You're essentially creating adoption cases, yes, and that may seem questionable. But, you're creating adoption cases where the perfectly vetted and approved adoptive parents (with appropriate regulation) are already lined up. Human trafficking has a definition, and this is NOT it. Besides, I thought we needed various pro-natalist policies, and more family formation? (Children should obviously not be taken away from FIT biological mothers against their will, UK was right to reject 'no takesies backsies'). LP & Co. always say, 'it's renting out the wombs of poor women, so trigger disgust reflex now'. Not gonna work on me homie. Last time I checked, "free country" means you can get piercings and tats, get wasted and do dumb shit, have kids and not raise them properly, have kids and give them to an adoption agency or prearranged surrogacy agency, buy fireworks in Pennsylvania, doesn't mean any of those things are a good idea. It just means the State can't tell me what to do, unless it involves chopping off trans kids' body parts, or inordinately disrupting the public space, etc. I reserve the right to be pretty much left alone someplace, and for persons to do (mostly) whatever they want with their lives. Why should this conflict with any ideology? You can pushback via influencing norms and civil society, with stigmatization, and I'm with you there. But, use the government to restrict anything other than physically harming children, murder, literal trafficking, or destroying the public space, as per example? No, as usual, this is the kind of thing that differentiates "large C" Conservatism, that's 2nd world authoritarian shit, in the free world you need to leave ppl alone legally, pending incredibly severe cases, or pending essentially undebatable common sense regulation. Why all the overly impositional controls on ppl? What, do you live on an island or something?
With regard to surrogacy, different countries have different legal frameworks and they have different outcomes depending on what the law allows. So the approach of having commercial surrogacy with little or no regulation has (from memory, I haven't done the research to provide a link) led to cases where single men have bought babies with the intention of abusing them, sometimes in collusion with other men. There are women who commission/buy a great many babies that they simply can't care for (they're rich, they hire nannies) and the motivation for that is a little unclear, but it would be a stretch to say that the children in that situation were raised in a family environment that was condusive to a normal and healthy upbringing. Which is to say that no regulation is likely a bad thing - mainly for the children, also likely for the surrogates. I'm really not sure that surrogacy is the same as adoption in terms of vetting the commissioning parents. Adoption is regulated. I don't think commissioning parents are vetted in the same way (?) my understanding is that they proceed with the consent of the surrogate, and it's largely a private contractual arrangement. All of which is to say - some regulation is necessary, and the more vetting the better. In writing this out I've also realised I need to do more research myself. I've got a general impression of what is possible in different countries just from reading news articles, and if I want a better informed opinion I should really go away and research the specifics of the laws in different countries. But that's a task for another day! I think you are right though that we can't expect a notion of the 'sacred' to really stand, and that the best option is cultural policing of moral norms. The issue is that I'm not convinced we can maintain consensus on moral norms and I'm expecting over the coming decades that 'norms' around family formation and child rearing will be expanded somewhat. I'm thinking thruples and the like for a start. Babies are vulnerable. Without strong social/moral norms I would be comfortable accepting regulation and law to protect them.
@@littlelights6798 I almost completely agree, and I even feel like I might have written your reply, to myself, in some sort of fugue state (that's almost exactly how I would consider lots of those things). I know abt some of this stuff, I'm no expert. The case for waaay more regulation is strong, especially in the US. But here's an important point: I think lots of the time, pushing for a ban, gets in the way of regulation. For example (in US,) if abortion were more available in more places, if early detection were easy, if ppl weren't pushing for a total ban and closing clinics, then there would be almost no need for anyone to ever seek beyond 12 weeks. It would then be easier to impose post-12-week-ban with little pushback, which I think is justifiable based on neuroscience. Similarly with surrogacy, I think pushing for a ban rather than for those implied, perfectly sensible regulations to which few ppl would object, is likely to polarize ppl (I think this already happens) and as a result, those important regulations are less likely to receive bipartisan support. Finally, I'm skeptical of your last point: I think that if civil society utterly fails, and dissipates, then totalitarianism and/or disorder can't be far behind. I doubt that measured, narrow regulations, would follow neatly from a complete cultural breakdown. Appreciate comment, as you can see from pfp, I'm a big green octopus who lives underwater, nice of you to shine a littlelight.
Yes, @@Jules-Is-a-Guy! I am a right-leaning libertarian who believes most human activities should be freely allowed or, at least, regulated. Outright bans of a particular activity should be very rare.
Wow! A sensible, informed, and compassionate politician. Hurrah!
A politician with values and the integrity to stand by them. Great interview, thank you.
Fabulous discussion. Thank you
Wow add Miriam to the list of another reason to love British ladies.
It was briefly mentioned at the start, but I really believe the housing crisis is such a big factor re incentives/issues of having children. It's not just about the money, but the stability, rootedness, community and flexibility to work/not work. And on top of that, the UK is one of the worst in the western world when it comes to rental rights, even compared to many US states
Re childcare, it's not just the under 2s. If you are working full time, the child needs around 9-plus hours a day of care. Not good for children of all ages. And school is not childcare, children get ill, plus extended school holidays, etc.
Never underestimate how much worse a Labour government could be.
Great video. Trust your instincts.
I just gained so much respect for admitting that women are supporting these things.
It's sad to see where the UK is now. I grew up on stories of John and Charles Wesley, CT Studd, FB Meyer, Charles Spurgeon, George Muller, Hudson Taylor, Eric Liddell. The torch passed over the Atlantic. Not just religiously, but after WWI and WWII, geopolitically as well. And now the proverbial torch is making its way across the Pacific. When I was a kid, I remember China's GDP passing that of Japan. More recently, it passed that of the EU, and India passed the UK at about the same time. Europe is not what it used to be, and while I admire Macron's ambitions I can't see a path to international primacy again, either for the EU as a whole or for European countries, without some unforeseeable sea change.
It feels like i always want to comment about IVF success being a lie because of my experience. My first pregnancy was ectopic and when i was in hospital for an emergency surgery I was in a room after with a dozen of eomen, most of them havin an ectopic after an IVF 😢 some of them not for the first time. It was so sad and shocking for me. Luckily I was still sort of young and then got pregnant twice without any intervention and got two kids. But would i even know about those unsuccessful, even tragic stories?
36:10 God forbid that we not really sound like we're committed to our corporate jobs Louise! Perish the thought. Sometimes I wonder if the professional middle classes remember that there is actually a life beyond work.
For the PMC work is status is life.
Great interview, however I would assume based on dating data and studies that many women in their 20s and 30s are hoping to meet a man in the top percentage of earners to marry, thus only a tiny percentage of men are actually desirable to have babies with. I can't imagine many women want a man who is simply an average earner anymore.
Broadly speaking, I think a lot of young people are very confused about what they want in life, what they _should_ want, how to go about getting it, and what sort of person they should be. This is true of both sexes, from my observation. There is no longer a clear path or model to follow. Roles are not clearly defined. Duties are not mentioned. Limitations rarely honestly discussed. As societies we tell young people: _"You're all individuals, figure out on your own what you want out of life and how to get it. Follow your dreams, whatever they may be. Don't concern yourself with what previous generations thought or did. They were probably ignorant bigots anyway. There's nothing to learn from them other than what not to do. We're more socially evolved than they were."_
Add career uncertainty and housing unaffordability, and the results are plain for all to see. It's a disaster. We're going to have a few generations of unhappy, lonely men and women.
Then I see a lot of childless women and men.
As a mother now Grandmother çhildren are a giff from God therefore should be greated as such.
I'm so glad she can make jokes about the state of our healthcare system. Almost like her party hasn't been in power for over a decade, overseeing it's demise... 🤔
👍🏻
Re end of life issues. As a free society we should have many legaly available ways for people to end it all and freely available information on how, but no involvement of doctors, government employes etc.
This is why I often argue for free market Futurama telephone booths.
Lord Jonathan Sumption has probably addressed this most sensibly; the individual situation may logically call for action that cannot be socially santioned & for the sake of society & the majority of individuals, currently & in the future justly deserve the continuing guard rails against casualising the ending of human life.
We stopped being a Free Society decades ago, I can't think of anything that government employees or medical professionals of one form or other aren't involved in & there's no way an organised policy change regarding Death could be made an exception.
Make you own plans with those in your life & stop trying to externalise the difficulties on to other people.
@@GodsOwnPrototype Sounds like a "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" argument that says "If you are one of the few, screw you."
@@skylinefever Not necessarily a bad thing. There are times when it is wise to prioritize the collective over the individual, and vice versa.
@@cabbage9398 Well, make sure the few get an occasional piece of recognition, otherwise they might rise up.
I dunno… I think allowing someone to end their life instead of die in agony from cancer is more humane than deciding to not treat someone for cancer because they’re 80. If you’re not going to treat them, then also give them a way out. I say this after watching cancer decimate my family and watching my mother die at 15. We all needed counselling after. I worked for a cancer charity for many years as well and I feel this woman doesn’t understand the suffering this illness causes.
If I’m given a terminal diagnosis, I’d prefer to end my life rather than be a burden and also know my beloved have to watch me suffer and to have that as their final memories.
If we put animals to sleep out of kindness, then I think we can allow humans to elect to do this for themselves.
What you're rly implying imo, underneath the "motherhood is sacred" argument, might be something more like, "the psychological harm of separation is too severe". (Things became codified as "sacred" in olden times, because they had adaptive utility. Unless we're gonna believe in magic, ok?)
Here's the problem: that would be a much better argument if it involved PHYSICAL harm. However, if precedent is established for PSYCHOLOGICAL harm being sufficient grounds to make things illegal, you can see how that would easily be used as grounds to make EVERY PERCEIVED DISCOMFORTING THING illegal.
Look at it this way (I actually hope this is helpful): NORMS are used in a healthy society, to regulate PSYCHOLOGICAL harms.
LAWS are used in a healthy society, to regulate PHYSICAL harms.
Sure there are gray areas, but if you're not generally adhering to this rubric Louise, I'm afraid we might end up on opposite sides of some protest someday. And I don't want that to happen, because I consider myself a fan, who continues to groove on your style and vibes.
Edit: this comment is abt surrogacy, might not have been clear.
Surrogacy is harmful for both the mother and child, who are psychologically proven to bond during gestation. There are many cases here in the US of surrogate mothers trying to keep the children because of this harm. I would pose that the problem arises whenever we try to spare a child from it's right to it's mother and father by displacing it in a foreign womb.
@@blondetapperware8289 I don't like surrogacy at all, I might have been more uncomfortable previously, with somewhat stigmatizing couples, who might be unable to have children or might be homosexual etc., for resorting to surrogacy.
I might have commented on this channel in the past (don't exactly remember,) that I don't think they should be stigmatized. I've probably shifted slightly in this regard, I think they should be at least somewhat stigmatized, because of the potential/actual harms associated with surrogacy (social stigma can be a powerful thing).
However, I always maintain that using the law to prohibit something, is a powerful tool that must only be used as sparingly as possible. I'm very much a "small l" libertarian, and this ethos is at the heart of American culture, and of free society.
It's worth emphasizing, that I'm not closed-minded. I'm also an empiricist. Technology at any given time, allows us to do some things, and not others.
Someday, it is likely that we will be able to use advanced fMRI machines and other tech, to precisely quantify and measure physiological pain, and other experiences. We will likely be able to dissolve the boundary btw the physical and psychological, btw epistemology and ontology, and to understand, quantify and observe states of consciousness.
Unfortunately, 'techno-utopia' has not yet arrived. In our modern society, norms and values can certainly influence laws and restrictions, but the latter must be foremost addressed on the basis of practicality, and the two magisteria must ultimately be kept separate.
@@doetodeer Dam I had a pretty good reply, YT is removing everything I say today.
I agree with you on so much of this. I think "psychological harm" is a slippery slope to removing children from parents as someone with power decides that something is abuse (e.g. being sceptical of a new gender identity, or requiring a child complete homework or anything!).
Having said that, there are some things that cause psychological harm that are already illegal, even if no physical harm is caused. For example, holding people in hostage situations. Or kidnapping. Even if no physical harm comes to a kidnapped child, it's still both morally wrong and illegal.
In my mind, surrogacy is a form of kidnapping. You are stealing the child away from the mother it's expecting to be with. Even if no physical harm comes to the child, or mother, it should still be illegal.
@@AmyDawson-s1d But remember, those things aren't illegal because they cause psychological harm, they're illegal because they infringe on the autonomy of persons, and compromise the basic functioning of society.
Also, ppl must understand, it's not a choice btw mother or adoptive parents. It's a choice btw adoptive parents, and never being born. (Women would not have surrogacy babies in the first place, obviously, without financial incentive).
AT BOTTOM, the argument of Louise and others, is that it's better to NEVER HAVE BEEN BORN, than to endure the trauma of being raised by adoptive parents, instead of by one's biological mother.
I think this is, quite clearly, not a strong enough argument.
💋💋💋❤🔥❤🔥💋💋💋
The Slipper Slope fallacy.
I keep getting reminded, that one of the main things on which I seem to disagree with Louise, is surrogacy. Not sure it ever specifically occurred to me, to take a particularly strong stance on this.
I still think it's sort of simple:
You're essentially creating adoption cases, yes, and that may seem questionable. But, you're creating adoption cases where the perfectly vetted and approved adoptive parents (with appropriate regulation) are already lined up.
Human trafficking has a definition, and this is NOT it. Besides, I thought we needed various pro-natalist policies, and more family formation?
(Children should obviously not be taken away from FIT biological mothers against their will, UK was right to reject 'no takesies backsies').
LP & Co. always say, 'it's renting out the wombs of poor women, so trigger disgust reflex now'.
Not gonna work on me homie. Last time I checked, "free country" means you can get piercings and tats, get wasted and do dumb shit, have kids and not raise them properly, have kids and give them to an adoption agency or prearranged surrogacy agency, buy fireworks in Pennsylvania, doesn't mean any of those things are a good idea.
It just means the State can't tell me what to do, unless it involves chopping off trans kids' body parts, or inordinately disrupting the public space, etc.
I reserve the right to be pretty much left alone someplace, and for persons to do (mostly) whatever they want with their lives.
Why should this conflict with any ideology? You can pushback via influencing norms and civil society, with stigmatization, and I'm with you there.
But, use the government to restrict anything other than physically harming children, murder, literal trafficking, or destroying the public space, as per example?
No, as usual, this is the kind of thing that differentiates "large C" Conservatism, that's 2nd world authoritarian shit, in the free world you need to leave ppl alone legally, pending incredibly severe cases, or pending essentially undebatable common sense regulation.
Why all the overly impositional controls on ppl? What, do you live on an island or something?
With regard to surrogacy, different countries have different legal frameworks and they have different outcomes depending on what the law allows.
So the approach of having commercial surrogacy with little or no regulation has (from memory, I haven't done the research to provide a link) led to cases where single men have bought babies with the intention of abusing them, sometimes in collusion with other men.
There are women who commission/buy a great many babies that they simply can't care for (they're rich, they hire nannies) and the motivation for that is a little unclear, but it would be a stretch to say that the children in that situation were raised in a family environment that was condusive to a normal and healthy upbringing.
Which is to say that no regulation is likely a bad thing - mainly for the children, also likely for the surrogates.
I'm really not sure that surrogacy is the same as adoption in terms of vetting the commissioning parents. Adoption is regulated. I don't think commissioning parents are vetted in the same way (?) my understanding is that they proceed with the consent of the surrogate, and it's largely a private contractual arrangement.
All of which is to say - some regulation is necessary, and the more vetting the better.
In writing this out I've also realised I need to do more research myself. I've got a general impression of what is possible in different countries just from reading news articles, and if I want a better informed opinion I should really go away and research the specifics of the laws in different countries. But that's a task for another day!
I think you are right though that we can't expect a notion of the 'sacred' to really stand, and that the best option is cultural policing of moral norms. The issue is that I'm not convinced we can maintain consensus on moral norms and I'm expecting over the coming decades that 'norms' around family formation and child rearing will be expanded somewhat. I'm thinking thruples and the like for a start.
Babies are vulnerable. Without strong social/moral norms I would be comfortable accepting regulation and law to protect them.
@@littlelights6798 I almost completely agree, and I even feel like I might have written your reply, to myself, in some sort of fugue state (that's almost exactly how I would consider lots of those things).
I know abt some of this stuff, I'm no expert. The case for waaay more regulation is strong, especially in the US.
But here's an important point:
I think lots of the time, pushing for a ban, gets in the way of regulation. For example (in US,) if abortion were more available in more places, if early detection were easy, if ppl weren't pushing for a total ban and closing clinics, then there would be almost no need for anyone to ever seek beyond 12 weeks. It would then be easier to impose post-12-week-ban with little pushback, which I think is justifiable based on neuroscience.
Similarly with surrogacy, I think pushing for a ban rather than for those implied, perfectly sensible regulations to which few ppl would object, is likely to polarize ppl (I think this already happens) and as a result, those important regulations are less likely to receive bipartisan support.
Finally, I'm skeptical of your last point: I think that if civil society utterly fails, and dissipates, then totalitarianism and/or disorder can't be far behind. I doubt that measured, narrow regulations, would follow neatly from a complete cultural breakdown.
Appreciate comment, as you can see from pfp, I'm a big green octopus who lives underwater, nice of you to shine a littlelight.
This is why we shouldn't listen to Americans.
Yeah, I never understood being horrified by using surrogates either.
Or free and willing women being employed as surrogates.
Yes, @@Jules-Is-a-Guy!
I am a right-leaning libertarian who believes most human activities should be freely allowed or, at least, regulated.
Outright bans of a particular activity should be very rare.