Therefore, it is highly beneficial for all parties involved to have a mutually beneficial contract that acknowledges that there can be a real wage price for a priceless item, such as the gestational period to produce a child. Although I agree with the fair trade model, I do hold one reservation in regards to payment contingent on outcome. This reservation arises from Humbyrd stating that the surrogate should still be paid even if they chose to have a voluntary abortion (Humbyrd pp.111). I will begin by discussing the benefits for women by having alternative employment options, I will then examine why the fair trade model increases benefits to both parties and I will address my reservations for the fair trade model. To conclude I will assess the objection of gender inequality in regards to the fair trade model. .
The fair trade model ensures there are safe and well paying work options for women without skills. One of the main arguments against international surrogacy is that it exploits women because they are not paid a fair wage. Humbyrd agrees with this current statement and this is why a regulation model is so important. However, to gain perspective on the exploitation claim, to contract a surrogate in the USA it will cost the commissioning parents around US$15 000 plus endless legal problems, whereas the same service in India costs around US $4000 (Humbyrd 2009 pp. 111). The fact that women in India are paid less than their equivalent in the United States does not equate to exploitation, it rather illustrates the difference between nominal wage and real wage rates. 'Surrogate mothers in India can earn in 9 months what might otherwise take them 15 years to accumulate' (Parks 2010 pp. 334). This real wage comparison means that the Indian surrogates earn a vast sum more than their American counterparts. This comparison shows that this agreement between two parties is not different from any other commercial enterprise that involves outsourcing abroad.