Critiquing: What Is the Christian View of Surrogacy?

November 13, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Logical Concerns — Ethical Issues — Philosophical Arguments — Emotional Bonds — Industry Critique

---

Introduction

The content titled “What Is the Christian View of Surrogacy?” discusses various objections and concerns regarding the practice of surrogacy from a specific perspective. The conversation addresses the moral and philosophical implications, the emotional bonds formed during pregnancy, and critiques the commodification of human life. Here, we will evaluate the logical coherence of the content, identify logical inconsistencies, highlight any logical fallacies and cognitive biases, and assess the obligation to substantiate claims.

Logical Coherence and Inconsistencies

Philosophical Arguments

Unclear Distinctions: The content frequently conflates different types of surrogacy (gestational and traditional) without clarifying the distinctions. For instance, the statement:

“A woman gets pregnant for the purpose of giving her baby away.”

This generalization overlooks the significant differences between a surrogate who uses her own egg (traditional surrogacy) and one who carries a child conceived from another woman’s egg (gestational surrogacy). The lack of differentiation leads to logical inconsistencies when discussing emotional bonds and moral concerns.

Emotional Bond Argument: The argument that emotional bonds formed during pregnancy are inevitably strong and morally significant is presented without sufficient evidence. The content states:

“There’s a deep bond and connection there.”

This claim assumes a universal experience without considering varying individual experiences or providing empirical evidence to support it.

Ethical Concerns

Commodification of Human Life: The content raises concerns about commodifying human life but fails to substantiate these claims with specific examples or data. For instance:

“You’re commodifying human beings.”

The argument assumes a direct correlation between surrogacy and commodification without addressing potential counterarguments or providing evidence of widespread commodification practices in surrogacy.

Moral Reversal: The claim that surrogacy turns a virtue into a vice is presented as a philosophical standpoint without clear logical support. The content states:

“You take something that is a virtue and turn it into a vice.”

This statement lacks a detailed explanation or logical reasoning to substantiate how and why this reversal occurs. It appears to be an opinion rather than a logically deduced conclusion.

Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

Logical Fallacies

Slippery Slope: The content frequently employs slippery slope arguments, suggesting that allowing surrogacy leads to severe ethical and societal issues without providing concrete evidence. For example:

“The lower that we think of human beings, the worst human beings will be treated.”

This assertion assumes a linear progression from surrogacy to the degradation of human dignity without substantiating the intermediate steps or causal links.

Straw Man: The content occasionally misrepresents the motivations and actions of those involved in surrogacy to make them easier to attack. For instance:

“Adults are owed a child if they want one.”

This oversimplifies and misrepresents the complex reasons individuals may pursue surrogacy, creating a straw man argument that is easier to refute.

Cognitive Biases

Confirmation Bias: The content reflects a confirmation bias, selectively presenting information and arguments that support the pre-existing viewpoint against surrogacy while ignoring counterarguments or evidence that might challenge this perspective.

Emotional Reasoning: The frequent appeals to emotional experiences and moral intuitions, such as the bond between a surrogate mother and the child, illustrate emotional reasoning. This bias can cloud objective analysis and lead to conclusions based more on feelings than on logical evaluation.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Need for Substantiation

The content includes several unsubstantiated claims that require evidence to be credible:

“You have a natural, for lack of a better word, institution or a feature of the natural world, which is motherhood.”

This claim assumes that motherhood has a specific natural order without providing scientific or philosophical support.

Testing Alleged Promises

To test any alleged promises or claims, it is essential to develop empirical studies or gather statistical data. For example:

• Emotional Bonding: Conduct psychological studies comparing the emotional bonds in traditional and gestational surrogacies to understand if and how these bonds differ.
• Commodification: Analyze data from surrogacy practices to determine if there is evidence of commodification and its extent.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

It is crucial to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. The content frequently presents strong conclusions without adequate evidence. For example:

“The farther you get from the natural order, the more unintended consequences you will have.”

This broad statement requires specific examples and empirical data to substantiate the causal relationship it implies. Encouraging a mindset that maps belief to evidence would involve critically assessing each claim’s supporting evidence before forming strong conclusions.

Conclusion

The content in “What Is the Christian View of Surrogacy?” presents several philosophical and ethical concerns regarding surrogacy but often lacks the logical coherence and substantiation needed to support its arguments fully. By identifying logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and the need for empirical evidence, we can better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments presented. This critique encourages a more evidence-based and logically consistent approach to discussing surrogacy and its implications.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section!