The straw man is an all-too-common feature of contentious debates. On one level, this is understandable: why engage with your opponent’s actual argument when you can create another, weaker version of it which can be easily defeated or dismissed? The problem, of course, is that you never actually get anywhere: neither side understands the other, there’s little to no possibility of anyone changing their mind, and the victorious side in the debate is simply the one most successful at misrepresenting the other.

The straw man’s brother, the steel man (which involves deliberately trying to engage with the strongest arguments your opponents put forward), is much rarer, but leads to much more fruitful discussions.

Over at The Public Discourse, Jennifer Lahl takes on a surrogacy steel man. What do opponents of surrogacy, she asks, have to say to the happy families, the ones who report that surrogacy was a thoroughly postive experience.

Typically, the women who have had favorable experiences as surrogates express their love and delight in helping a couple who otherwise couldn’t have a child build a family. The people who have used a surrogate express gratitude to the women who gave them much-desired children. The comments typically make one or all of the following three claims.

First: The children born of surrogacy are alright. A mother’s womb is an arbitrary place of little to no importance, and biological connectedness doesn’t matter. What is of utmost importance is that a child is wanted and loved.

Second: Surrogacy is a wonderful option to help others. Ultimately this is about choice, reproductive rights, and freedom without government intrusion. If you oppose surrogacy, the argument goes, then don’t be a surrogate or use a surrogate mother, but let others have this choice.

Third: The surrogate is part of the family and thus is not an exploited woman. She is well-compensated, and contracts protect her. These new technologies are simply keeping up with the pace of new modern families.

Although these three claims are common, they can each be countered with a fuller picture of the realities of surrogacy and its impact on men, women, and children

For example, when it comes to the argument that surrogacy can be a wonderful, free choice made by one woman to help another, Lahl points out that this doesn’t match the reality of most surrogate mothers.

Internationally, women who serve as surrogates often are not making a free choice to act as surrogates, because their decision is driven by financial desperation. Surrogacy laws in India – which were drafted by fertility industry specialists – fail to protect illiterate women, who are often the targets of the fertility industry. These laws simply tie women to contracts that protect the agencies, clinics, and intended parents, leaving the surrogate mother without any protection if she gets sick or is harmed during the course of the pregnancy. In addition, in many cultures where surrogacy is common, the husband decides what can and cannot be done with his wife’s body, and she must obey.

Although some women in the US may feel that being a surrogate is an empowering or selfless choice, this is simply not true for the majority of women.

The whole thing is well worth reading: Lahl takes pro-surrogacy arguments seriously, and counters them with studies, testimonies of children and mothers involved in surrogacy, and careful examinations of the practice as it actually exists.

If only more people were confident enough to take on a man of steel rather than one of straw.