I'd argue it exploits babies and not women. Women are choosing to use their bodies as a commodity, so they aren't being exploited.

Because it commoditizes procreation. It's no longer a miracle of life, it's a transaction.

something something women's rights something something.

If a woman is capable of seeing her unborn child as something that can be aborted on a whim, that same woman is totally capable of seeing her unborn child as something that can be sold, or her reproductive system as a service that can be provided.

Like everything in the femocracy isn't it because that's what women want? It's not like we live in the handmaids tale where men are forcing women to make babies to raise as they see fit. (unless they are gay men) Women who can't have kids get kids, and women who can get paid.

It seems exploitative of women especially though, how was it allowed to happen?

Surrogacy primarily benefits women, not men:

1. It allows women to have their 'own' children without becoming pregnant. This benefits women who unwilling or unable to become pregnant. In a sense, this allows women to emulate being men, who obviously have no choice but to have someone else carry their children.
2. In countries where surrogates are allowed to be compensated financially, it allows the surrogates to rent out their wombs, much like prostitution thus benefiting financial.

Note that women generally support prostitution becomes it allows them to directly sell their sexuality (which many women consider their primary asset). Also, a characteristic modern women, especially in Western societies, is their rejection of their biological roles as the ones to carry and bear children as evidenced by strong support of contraception and of abortion, which is perplexing to me as this is one of God's great gifts to women.

Big Pharma and the medical industry in general have the money and power to make whatever they want happen, The Narrative be damned. And there's a lot of money to be made trying to normalize this detestable practice. Bonus points for it supporting the fag agenda, too.

That said, I'm skeptical that surrogacy is considered as "acceptable" as OP claims. There actually is feminist backlash to surrogacy, plus one of the Kardashians of all people started publicly speaking out against it (I hate that I know this).

1. Older mothers lead to IVF being generally accepted. That's effectively self surrogacy and it's a pretty tiny step* to changing where the implanted materials came from.
2. The feminist push for "reproductive rights" came to mean "the moment pregnancy is mentioned, anything goes."
3. Women can profit from it.
4. The medical industry can profit from it and have significant sway.

* Maybe not in moral terms, but medically.

Try from the other side. How would you argue against surrogacy without stepping on feminist ideals? You end up with the same ideological split as sex work. If the profit makes it "empowering" or if the use of her body makes it "exploitation." With that stalemate in place, refer to #4.

It's probably accepted because (in the US at least) you need to financially compensate a surrogate a LOT of money, and even then not many women are willing to go through the inconvenience and health risks. A brief search engine checks indicates only a couple thousand babies are born from surrogates each year. In comparison, that's less than 1/10th of the number of sperm donor babies born each year so in the field of genetic dead ends going against God and reproducing anyway, people using surrogate mothers are low on the incident list.

It's not "feminism", it's something else wearing a bunch of different masks.

Because it normalizes pregnancy out of wedlock.

Now it's open season on baby parts, whether alive or vacuum scooped.

Women want surrogacy to be available. Powerful women want surrogacy to be available.

the 'enlightenment'

People are greedy, lustful, and retarded

The poor are subhuman remember. Exploiting them is a moral good to the elites. Exploiting lower forms of life is always a moral good.

If something benefits rich women at the expense of poor women it's moral good. If something benefits poor women at the expense of men it's also morally good.

This is the meaning of the "progressive stack" its obvious in the term, but questions like this make me wonder if people actually get it mechanically.

What's wrong with surrogacy?