Elizabeth Anderson believes that surrogacy, in any form, should not be legal because it does not take into account a woman's emotional stability after the surrogacy process has been completed. Not only is commercial surrogacy considered alienated labor, but it also humiliates and exploits women no matter what contract or rules are enforced. She also believes that surrogacy does not give women the reverence they deserve. These three points all stem from the idea that others fail to acknowledge the surrogate mother's commitment with her labor and the emotions behind it all. All of Anderson's points concerning the legality of commercial surrogacy due to the idea that it creates alienated labor, humiliation, and exploitation are all valid arguments, in my opinion, though some may object because surrogacy alleviates infertility.
Anderson's first objection to surrogacy stems from her idea that surrogacy can become alienated labor if not gone about in the correct way. She states, "by requiring the surrogate mother to repress whatever parental love she feels for the child, these norms convert women's labor into a form of alienated labor." The social standards behind pregnancy encourage parental love for the child but the surrogate industry encourages just the opposite. They require the mother to engage in a form of emotional labor where the surrogate mother agrees not to form a parent to child relationship with her offspring. Ideally, gestation is a time for a mother to bond with her child where the mother and father prepare to become parents to this child, but commercial surrogacy destroys this notion. It requires that the surrogate mother create no special ties to the baby even after she carries he/she for nine months. To require such labor from a surrogate mother is not only unfair to the child being born, but also to the surrogate mother who has to cope with her suppressed emotions once she gives the child back to the mother.