>>>It deprives kids of having a bond with the woman who gave them birth, and deprived the so-called “gestational carrier” (demeaning term: what is she, a perambulator?) her bonds with the kids she gave birth to. And, crucially, this is done deliberately, by plan.
Are you opposed to adoption as well?
That's assuming the adopters are coming to the aid of a child whose natural family they did not bust up or prevent from forming in the first place.
Look at it from this angle: adoption is structured as an intervention to serve the needs of kids. Surrogacy is structured to serve the wants of paying adult customers.
Adoption means a couple steps into a pre-existing suboptimal situation in which a child has been sadly deprived of his own natural parents, and they do their level best to supply what he tragically lacks.
That is, they have not deprived him of his natural parents.
In surrogacy, the purchaser-family CAUSES the child to be brought into existence without maternal bonding, and outside of his own natural family. (In fact, it would be considered a undesirable complication if the birth-giving mother formed a strong bond with the child, and the child with her.)
The difference between adoption and surrogacy, then, is the difference between helping a kid who (tragically) has a broken leg, vs breaking the kid's leg and then "helping" him.