So any child is a commodity? Or just one conceived in vitro? Even if the mother carries it thereafter?
The second child was as much their child as the first, except for being conceived in vitro (like so many now - all commodities apparently in your view), completely their genetic child, but carried by another woman who had fully consented.
Which is the part that the child cannot consent to? To being conceived? To being born? None of us can consent to that, as so many teenagers have shouted at their parents over so many years.
I'm sure that so many people who have either been born through in vitro fertilisation or have undergone such a pregnancy will be delighted to know that they or their baby are simply a commodity. Do you apply the same logic to those who have carried others' children for love because of similar medical issues, or just to those who used their money to go somewhere where they could legally prevent the gestational mother from retaining their own genetic child, as is possible in the UK? Many women go into such surrogacy in order to help others have a family rather simply purely for the money. You seem to see everything in terms of cold, hard cash.
The child doesn't know it's biologically belonging to someone else, as far as that baby is aware, the woman it has just come out of is it's mother. The child does not concent to being taken away from that mother and sold to another couple.
And how can you say the surrogate has "fully concented" you can't buy concent, you can take advantage of someone in financial harahip though.
It is not the same as IVF, IVF is helping people resolve a medical issue with their own body. Paying someone else to carry your child is more akin to buying organs.
And based on your "genetically yours" example, if I have a baby with donor eggs through IVF - is that not my child, or is it only not my child if someone wants to buy it.
I will say it again, women and children should not be for sale surrogacy is buying babies and renting the use of a woman's body. It is wrong.