V. Causes and consequences
A. Reinforcement of sexist stereotypes and commodification of female bodies
19. Unlike other forms of labour, surrogacy entails the direct and exploitative use of a woman’s bodily and reproductive functions for the benefit of others, 53 often resulting in long-lasting harm and in exploitative circumstances. Furthermore, surrogacy does not distinguish between working time and personal life, as surrogate mothers cannot take leave from pregnancy. 54 Commercial surrogacy arrangements place monetary value on women’s capacity to bear and give birth to healthy children, 55 reinforcing harmful power imbalances in which individuals and entities with greater financial means exert control over the ability of females to become pregnant and give birth.56
20. In contexts where women and girls face structural barriers to exercising basic rights and accessing essential services, surrogacy can further devaluate them, reduce them to solely their reproductive roles57 and perpetuate the idea that female biology and reproductive capacity are delegable and marketable. 58 Such a view is embedded in the language on surrogacy, referring to women in disembodied terms such as “womb”, 59 “a guesthouse” and an “incubator developing their cells”. 60 Surrogate mothers also report being infantilized as “good girls” when complying with surrogacy requirements.61
B. Increased demand
21. The high rise in infertility partly accounts for the demand for surrogacy. 62 However, an increased number of individuals and couples who do not experience infertility in the clinical sense, such as same-sex couples, single men and prospective parents beyond reproductive age, are turning to surrogacy. Some women have resorted to surrogacy when they do not want to be pregnant themselves for personal reasons.63 Surrogacy also offers the opportunity to be involved from the earliest stages of life and – compared with adoption – the possibility of a genetic connection to the child.64 Demand is also shaped by the largely positive coverage of surrogacy in the media 65 and its visibility among celebrities, 66 as well as broader social narratives framing the desire for a child as a legitimate dimension of the right to family life, including for men in same-sex relationships, for whom surrogacy and adoption remain the main pathway to parenthood. 67
22. Globalization and advances in medical reproductive technology have further enabled surrogacy, facilitating access to surrogate mothers in other countries. 68 In international arrangements, surrogate mothers are typically nationals of low-income or developing countries, while commissioning parents tend to be wealthier individuals from Western States – a dynamic that risks reinforcing colonial and discriminatory patterns.69 If current trends continue, surrogacy will continue to be further normalized. For example, in the United States, large companies reportedly offer financial contributions towards the surrogacy arrangements of their employees.70 There are also ongoing debates on extending insurance schemes to cover surrogacy costs for commissioning parents with infertility issues. 71
C. Increased marginalization and vulnerability
23. Many surrogate mothers have experienced multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination and poverty long before entering surrogacy arrangements. 72 Surrogacy arrangements serve to capitalize on these stark inequalities, sharpened by globalization, whereby everything is for sale. Surrogate mothers are often trapped in unequal power dynamics with doctors and agency personnel 73 and have described feeling powerless and being treated “like a cow”. 74 Many lack access to independent legal advice and representation and may not receive information in a language that they understand75 – making it difficult to challenge exploitative contracts or unethical practices.76
24. Poverty and conflict can further contribute to women’s decisions about becoming surrogates and amplify associated risks. 77 In Ukraine, the surrogacy agency reportedly pressured surrogate mothers to leave, as the safe delivery of the child overrode the woman’s desire to remain. 78
53 Submission by Nordic Model Now.
54 Joint submission by E. Bilotti, V. Calderai, S. Niccolai, I. Pretelli, N. Rueda.
55 Submission by Melissa Farley.
56 Submission by Feminist Legal Clinic Inc.
57 Submission by Slovenia.
58 Submission by Feministas Radicales.
59 Submission by Natalia Rueda.
60 Elly Teman, “My bun, her oven”, Anthropology Now, vol. 2, No. 2 (September 2010).
61 Consultations with surrogate mothers.
62 See https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/surrogacy-market.
63 See https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/25/having-a-child-doesnt-fit-womensschedule-the-future-of-surrogacy.
64 Claire Fenton-Glynn, “International surrogacy arrangements: a survey”, Cambridge Family Law,
April 2022.
65 Consultations with surrogate mothers.
66 Elizabeth Logan, “22 celebrities who’ve used surrogacy to welcome children – and want to talk
about it”, Glamour, 1 February 2025.
67 Submission by Rainbow Families Australia.
68 Submission by Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII.
69 Submission by Swedish Women Lobby.
70 Submission by AFRA Mujeres.
71 Melissa Goodman, “California’s SB 729: expanding access to IVF and family building for all”,
UCLA School of Law, October 2024.
72 See United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization-International Bioethics
Committee, document SHS/IBC-26/19/2 REV, para. 155.
73 Malene Tanderup and others, ”Reproductive ethics in commercial surrogacy: decision-making in
IVF clinics in New Delhi, India”, vol. 12 (2015).
74 See https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/9/8/surrogacy-human-right-or-just-wrong.
75 Submission by PFAC and CIAMS.
76 Submission by the Centre for Bioethics and Culture.
77 Submission by Maria Dmytrieva.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.