Q&A: Surrogacy
Surrogacy
Question
https://www.maariv.co.il/journalists/Article-853433
Answer
I don’t have a clear position. From my perspective this is like the issue of prostitution. As a liberal, I support the freedom to do whatever one wants so long as it involves the free consent of adults. If women who are in distress want to make a living through surrogacy or prostitution, I do not see how this can be prohibited. I also object to the paternalism that supposedly cares for those women better than they themselves do. Is Kalman also going to support the women whom he forbids from making a living in this way?
As for viewing a person as an end and not as a means, that is just an empty slogan. An athlete too destroys his body in order to entertain the public that pays him for it.
I do not know the reality on the ground, so my remarks here are only theoretical. This is a principled approach. To formulate a practical position one needs to know the reality better. And of course, within the framework of the process, every woman must be clearly informed of all the risks and responsibilities she is taking on through her consent. And the fact that the process will favor the rich—that is true of every field and every need under the sun. Welcome to capitalism.
As for his comment about the High Court, I really do not agree. If under the current law (freedom of occupation, etc.) there is no basis to prohibit it, then the judges were right to permit it. If the Knesset wants, it is sovereign to legislate a law that regulates this, whether to permit it or prohibit it. The principle of legality holds that whatever is not forbidden is permitted. He assumes for some reason that the Knesset needs to pass a law permitting it, but that is exactly the opposite of the logic of the principle of legality.
Discussion on Answer
In principle yes, but of course without any responsibility to treat him. If it requires expenses or causes harm to other people, then there is justification to prohibit it.
The fact that there is a law permitting it for someone does not prohibit it for others. The High Court argues that freedom of occupation and the principle of equality require permitting it for everyone. If you are worried about women, then prohibit it for everyone. Very logical.
“The fact that there is a law permitting it for someone does not prohibit it for others” — I really don’t understand. Obviously if the law says that A and B are allowed, then only they are allowed. Otherwise the law is meaningless.
To override a Basic Law, an explicit statement is required. A law that wants to create an exception to the principle of equality and freedom of occupation has to state explicitly an override clause: it is forbidden for all the others to do this. And even then I’m not sure that it is always valid (a special majority is needed, etc.).
Are you also against the law that prohibits an adult from using drugs?
I don’t understand your last paragraph. There is a law that allows surrogacy for a couple and for a single woman. The whole discussion was about the fact that the Knesset is not changing the law.