Surrogacy

Your editorial, “Stand-In Moms: What’s the Law?” (Jan. 27) favors legalizing contracts for surrogacy as long as no one “profits,” and as long as the child is not “confused” by being permitted contact with his multiple parents.

Don’t Times’ editors see “profit” in the acquisition of another’s child? Nations in which children are transferable commodities--even manufactured to childless couples’ specifications--do not prevail, because commodities have no rights. Anna Johnson’s child cannot yet write a letter to the editor, but such a letter would probably be similar to letters you must receive from adoptees, like me, who are forever bound, even in adulthood, by contracts we were never party to. The contracts are designed to deprive us of equal protection, liberty, due process, complete medical information, heritage, kin, freedom to associate without intermediary control, and, most important, dignity from truth. If you’ve been reading our letters, you could not, in good conscience, advocate more legal lies.

TOM SCHAFRICK

Cathedral City