Feminist perspectives on surrogacy

Recently my best friend and I discussed whether or not we want to have children. We both confessed that one of our greatest concerns is the physical process: carrying the child, the delivery, and the pressure of losing weight afterwards. We talked about adopting, but then you miss the entire experience of passing on your genetics and noticing little pieces of yourself in your child.

Camille Grammer and family

Eventually our discussion turned to surrogacy, but the topic seemed taboo. I have read about a few celebrity couples who paid women to carry and birth their children, but the stories are always accompanied by justifications as to why the genetic mother was unable to carry the children herself.

Sometimes I wonder whether people are truthful about their motivations for choosing surrogacy. For example, Camille Grammer of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills insists that she hired a surrogate mother to carry her children because she has irritable bowel syndrome. Come on Camille, we all know you didn’t want to ruin your hot bod! Not that I blame her; she looks great. Plus, I think a lot of women would do the same thing if they could afford it.

This got me thinking, is surrogacy taboo because it is innately bad? Or is there something more? I think it is helpful to view the practice through the lenses of various schools of feminism.  

While there are different types of surrogacy and surrogacy arrangements, I will focus on gestatory surrogacy or full surrogacy: the commissioning couple's egg and sperm have gone through in vitro fertilization and the surrogate mother is not genetically linked to the child. Moreover, my focus is on commercial surrogacy as opposed to altruistic surrogacy.

From an equality perspective, acting as a surrogate mother can be framed as an economic opportunity. In her book, Birth Power, Carmel Shalev argues that the “reproducing woman” should be treated as an autonomous moral and economic agent. Women who wish to act as surrogates should be free to enter into contracts. While most women would not choose to be a surrogate mother, I think Ruth Bator Ginsburg would argue that some women might. Surrogacy is an economic activity and the decision to participate should be respected. 

Equality feminists also evoke separate spheres ideology. Having children is associated with the private sphere. Surrogacy can be viewed as a way to question this separation and blend the spheres.

A difference perspective recognizes that women’s childbearing capacity is distinct and valuable. Men and women are not similarly situated. The debate over the best way to recognize women’s unique childbearing capacity reflects the divergence of views on women’s caregiving role.  Some argue that surrogacy depreciates women’s special role. Women become merely a means to an end and babies become commodities. Conversely, others argue that women should be able to add economic value to their role.

From a dominance theory perspective, surrogacy is problematic because men will use it to debase and dominate women. Andrea Dworkin compared surrogacy to prostitution: surrogacy sells what prostitution sells without the stigma of prostitution because there is no penile intrusion. Men will inevitably control the surrogacy process and use it to vindicate their own economic interests. See Dworkin, Andrea., Right-wing women: the politics of domesticated females. (The Women's Press, 1983).

Finally, an anti-essentialist perspective evaluates how the practice of surrogacy affects different groups of women. Less privileged women provide physical, menial labor, while privileged (white) women can pursue more fulfilling careers or other passions. See generally Dorothy E. Roberts, Spiritual and Menial Housework, 9 Yale J.L & Feminism 51 (1997). Women abroad should be given special attention as a group because they are especially at risk of exploitation. The high costs or blanket ban of surrogacy in many first world countries, lead couples to turn to poor women in undeveloped nations. Recently there has been a focus on surrogacy in India. The following segment highlight the issues:

Personally, on the question of whether surrogacy is inherently bad, I am drawn to the equality perspective of choice and economic opportunity. I also think that it is an important way to challenge the separation between the public and private sphere. Women like Camille Grammer should be honest and admit she wanted a surrogate because she wants to have it all.

That being said, I find anti-essentialist and dominance perspectives particularly compelling when we look beyond the question of whether surrogacy itself is unethical. There is something more that we are concerned about—the abuse and exploitation of certain groups of women.  While the decision to become a surrogate mother is more easily framed as a choice in the U.S., women’s situations abroad are very different. 

Ultimately, it seems to me that making surrogacy more available here would help to diminish exploitation abroad. Domestic regulation may decrease the outsourcing of surrogacy to countries where we have no control over the process. I am interested in hearing which perspectives you find compelling and any solutions you have to offer.