As the practice of surrogacy thrives across the globe, many have debated the ethics behind it. Can renting a woman’s body ever truly be ethical? One article for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) delved into the ethics of surrogacy, sharing arguments both for and against the practice. But the comparisons made in favor of surrogacy were shocking.
Margaret Somerville, professor of bioethics and law at the University of Notre Dame, told ABC that surrogacy inherently objectifies women. “What we’re essentially doing is exploiting almost all of the surrogate mothers who do it because they’re poor,” she said. “They get a very small percentage of what it costs to have a surrogate, and you’ve got a huge commercial enterprise making massive profits.” As noted by ABC, surrogacy is a billion-dollar business, and while surrogates are often paid, they don’t receive anywhere near the amount of money surrogacy agencies rake in.
Yet Grace Kao, professor of ethics at Claremont School of Theology in California, was a surrogate for friends of hers — and she told ABC that a woman choosing to be a surrogate is no different than a woman choosing to work as a janitor.
READ: Home from prison, Bevelyn Williams urges pro-life movement to ‘start banding together’
“Yes, there have absolutely been abusive cases … but in some studies, the women are saying they actually prefer being a surrogate than other ways of earning a living. For some women, it’s not difficult being pregnant, or perhaps it’s less difficult being pregnant than it is working long hours in a garment factory,” she said, adding, “Can they consent to janitorial services? Can they consent to work in meat packing farms? Can they consent to work in the garment industry? Why do we treat pregnancy as something that’s categorically different than other ways some women might choose to earn money?”
It’s a ludicrous comparison; gestating a human being is markedly different from working as a janitor or a seamstress. It’s a well-known fact by now, shown by multiple studies, that removing children from their mother at birth (whether that mother was biologically related or a surrogate), can cause trauma, potentially for the child’s entire life. The baby bonds in utero with her — hears her voice, her heartbeat, her movements, and is likely even affected by her emotions.
Though this same issue arises in the case of adoption, most women do not become pregnant with the intent and goal of relinquishing their baby to an adoptive family. Yet in surrogacy, that is exactly the arrangement made.
Surrogate mothers are also at higher risk of various complications, such as gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and bleeding complications after birth. Babies conceived by IVF are additionally at risk of numerous complications.
Additionally, when a woman works in a meat packing farm or as a factory laborer, her entire body is not owned by her employer. Yet in surrogacy, surrogates and the children they carry are treated like products by the would-be parents to be used and then either treated as if they don’t exist, or mistreated when she or the baby fails to live up to expectations. Because the would-be parents pay for the use of the surrogate’s body, the mindset is often one of full control over that surrogate’s body as well as the baby’s body. This is inherently exploitative, and far too little concern is paid to the effect it will have on the woman or the child.
