Who would have thought that one day we would be able to hire a woman to give birth to someone else’s baby? Today, science has transformed the realm of reproductive technology, and now “womb-renting”—otherwise known as surrogacy—is a reality. Whether the couple hires a surrogate because they are infertile, or maybe the woman just doesn’t want to undergo the consequences of pregnancy, the U.S. has legalized this practice that costs anywhere between $40,000-$120,000, according to the Center of Bioethics and Culture. In general, the intention of creating a family is not bad, but rather the process used to achieve it is seeped in ethical, legal, and social complications, including the devaluation of the body and the violation of human dignity.
One of the main problems with the practice is the commercialization of the gestational mothers (surrogates), who, in some cases, think that renting their bodies is their only option for earning a livelihood. In a BBC article, “Problems and Polemics with ‘Wombs for Rent’,” Louisa Ghevaert, a fertility specialist, comments, “[The problem with surrogacy is] the terrible exploitation that it’s doing to women...who see themselves forced into the situation because of the poverty in which they live.” Large companies advertise the surrogate’s services on various media platforms, like any other commercialized product. After a contract between a couple and surrogate is signed, these companies profit the most, while the pregnant woman only earns about $3 per every hour of pregnancy; she is treated as an object, valued only for her reproductive capacities.
The surrogacy debate not only revolves around the exploitation of women, but also the commercialization of the child. Nowadays, infertile couples have many options to still conceive or adopt a child, but, with surrogacy, the child is merely the object of a financial transaction. Ghevaert also adds, “My fear has to do with the dehumanization that comes from the process of getting a child in a free market...because, in the first place, we are making children into consumer goods.” This violation of dignity can have many negative effects on children of surrogacy later on in their lives. In the NBC article, "New Study Tracks Emotional Health of 'Surrogate Kids'," researchers found that surrogate children are at a higher risk for having psychological problems such as depression, anxiety, and antisocial behavior. Children born from a surrogate are denied information about their surrogate mother, and there are currently no efforts to help the children with psychological trauma either.
On the other hand, the desire to have a child is not problematic; in fact, helping someone to have a child is quite beautiful, which is why many people see surrogacy as an act of altruism. Nevertheless, how can we call it generous when, as part of the contract, the woman is paid for her services? Additionally, the U.S. does not have national laws to regulate surrogate contracts. According to the Center for Bioethics: Person and Family, 17 states permit surrogacy, 21 do not have any law about it, five prohibit it, and seven allow it under “special” circumstances. This legislative disparity shows the lack of a national consensus, and it has already been the cause of many court cases regarding the validity of the contract.
With so many other fertility treatment options, such as adoption and reproductive surgery, it is hard to justify the morality of surrogacy. The objectification of the woman and child and the absence of legal unity are only a few of the ethical problems. Most importantly, surrogacy promotes a society that devalues the intrinsic dignity of every human. When we make a surrogacy contract, we are saying that we can use a person as a means to obtain a child. Also, we must think of the financial aspect of it: are we renting out people’s bodies? Are we buying a child? In any case, we are taking advantage of the defenseless (the women who need to earn a living and the children who do not have a say in the matter) and diminishing the value of the human being.
