Stolen Motherhood

Contracting surrogate mothers is no longer marginal. Nor is it secret. Surrogacy is growing rapidly even though no informed debate on the social impacts of its normalization has been conducted. It is even regarded as socially progressive, while those who question it are considered to be opposed to progress. The “surrogacy process”—commissioning a woman to bear and give birth to a child and then surrender it—is vitiated by its contractual nature, be it in its so-called altruistic form (i.e., no exchange of money) or the straight-forward commercial form. It is an attack on the human dignity and equal gender rights of surrogate mothers, but also a denial of the rights of the contracted child to come, who is so often forgotten in the “process.” Current inconsistent or contradictory legislation has led to a fait accompli approach to the question. It’s being done, so let’s just regulate it, say its defenders. Other countries that have followed that logic have seen an increase in both demand for surrogates and recourse to shrewd international brokers. In many cases, international simply means the surrogate mother is from a poor country with lax legislation, while the commissioning parents are from rich countries. By examining the “surrogacy process” and all its implications, Maria De Koninck reaches the conclusion that the best way forward is an international ban on surrogacy.