Considering how quickly “too posh to push” once took off as a way of rebuking mothers who planned to cheat nature with a caesarean section, reporting about affluent women who, for reasons seemingly unconnected to fertility, outsource entire pregnancies to poorer women is distinguished by a touching delicacy.
So much so that a whole new vocabulary — “welcomed,” “surrogacy journey,” “gestational carrier” — is now helping normalize these womb-saving conveniences. You would hardly know from the tributes to celebrity employers of surrogates, customarily accompanied by zero interest in the laboring women’s journeys, that commercial surrogacy is banned in most of the world, and only occurs within the UK in its expenses-only form. Some would certainly take it as a sign of progress that, even as studies expose the long-term health problems associated with childbirth, no reason now seems too trivial to justify paying a less fortunate woman to risk these complications.
Who are strangers to comment on a would-be parent exercising what is increasingly claimed, even if it requires the bodies of others, to be a right? Or on the choices of a surrogate mother, also assumed to be a free agent? It remains a mystery why the choice to gestate a stranger’s child is almost never, if ever, taken by the richest 1 percent.
Illustration: Mountain People
While the essential service is unchanged, give or take the egg provider, since the sensational arrival of baby Cotton in 1985, the impact of celebrity customers, commercial agencies and proselytizers for fertility equality means a buyer like, say, the heiress Paris Hilton, can now feel confident her various reasons for womb-rental, including teenage trauma, are unlikely to be seriously interrogated. For instance, recently: “My life has been so public.”
With this explanation, even women’s magazines notionally alert to the physical and mental risks of reproductive labor appear fully satisfied. Two babies acquired within the last year have been displayed.
Hilton said that the surrogacy process “was definitely a difficult decision to make.”
If anything, you gather, it is Hilton’s well-being, not that of her child-bearers that should concern us. She would have loved, she said “that experience of growing the baby in your tummy and feeling the kicks and all of those exciting moments.”
Spare a thought, too, for fellow customer Khloe Kardashian, who used a surrogate to avoid, it was reported, a second child putting her body “under more strain.”
She has spoken about the “transactional” difficulties of the transaction, feelings of guilt and of struggling to bond with her son.
“I wish someone was honest about surrogacy and the difference of it,” she said.
The UN special rapporteur has identified most commercial surrogacy as the sale of children.
To be fair, there have been a few attempts, over the years. In fact, while principled objections relating to commodification, to coercion, to alienation from self (for the birth mother), to surrogacy’s shared characteristics with the sale of organs, might have escaped some clients, it would surely be quite difficult to remain ignorant about the entire, international horror story. And if not ignorant, untroubled. Along with occasional scandals, such as the leaving behind in Thailand by the buyers (the father a sex offender) of baby Gammy, a twin born with Down’s syndrome (the other was acceptable), researchers have exposed exploitation, trafficking, grim housing and dehumanizing treatment of surrogate mothers leading, in one country after another, to the trade’s prohibition. Former UN special rapporteur, Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, rejecting the idea of any right to a child, has identified most commercial surrogacy as the sale of children.
However, some countries hold out. With the US so costly, Ukraine was particularly favored until the collision of war with reproductive tourism separated surrogate mothers from their own children and families. To save foreign clients’ pregnancies, some host women were removed by agencies to neighboring countries. Kenya is among the countries stepping up, although buyers have been warned about, among other things, maternal death rates and the use of hostels.
Closer to home, some parents via surrogacy have also helped clarify how shopping for the perfect eggs and carriers can differ not only from unassisted parenthood, but from anything formerly understood as human dignity. A couple of Made in Chelsea alumni recently treated themselves to something special.
“There’s a company in LA and they have a company that basically is, supermodels who are like Ivy League educated,” one explained.
In the Guardian, a revelatory article about a Ukrainian arrangement, published last week, confirmed that surrogacy does not need to be similarly crass and distasteful to seem nonetheless, utterly unimaginable. The very nice-sounding Dorothy and Charlie, although they could not have foreseen a catastrophe that would end with them living on intimate terms with their baby’s Ukrainian surrogate mother and her son, would have presumably been aware, as buyers, the transaction was asymmetrical. They knew — Dorothy has a grown-up child — what they were asking for their initial £43,000 (US$54,428) outlay, a sum that is, you might think, a fairly reasonable price for a human. Even before new figures on the number of women — 40 million annually — who experience lasting health issues from childbirth, anyone interested would know the risks, increased in multiple births. Surrogate mothers have heightened levels of depression, with secrecy and the avoidance of stigma likely, in some cases, to stand in the way of treatment.
That endless evidence of exploitation and harm seems never to discourage prosurrogacy campaigners was again demonstrated last week, when Irish ministers approved what is likely to become regulated international surrogacy. Irish Senator Mary Seery Kearney (whose child was born by surrogacy in India before it prohibited the trade) said the change would bring “much needed certainty and legal protection to intended parents and children.”
If the past is any guide it would also increase the risk of gestational slavery in poorer parts of the world. You wonder what, other than deterrent costs, would ever strike the determined womb-renter as too high a price to pay.
Catherine Bennett is an Observer columnist.
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s