1

Surrogacy is a method whereby a woman enters into a contractual agreement

where she has to carry a foetus conceived by assisted reproduction such as in-vitro

fertilisation [IVF] – derived from the genes of a donor or donors – with the obligation

of relinquishing the child at birth to the client or donor couple (Busby & Vun, 2010;

as cited in Pantich 2013, 276). In some cases, the surrogate is paid money for her

services and must terminate her parental rights, so the client may raise the child as

their own (Anderson, 1990). This essay will discuss four aspects: I) How surrogate

women in third world countries are exploited, using India as a case study, II)

Exploring how surrogacy commodifies a women’s body, III) Analysing how being a

surrogate involves self-alienation and distancing her feelings from the foetus she

carries, and finally, IV) Studying egg donation and the health risks associated with it.

2

Firstly, India is considered to be the hub of reproductive tourism and is

marketed towards first world countries as such; especially considering India has built

a $445 million a year business from it, according to an estimate published in Marie

Claire (Haworth, 2009; as cited in Banerjee 2010; Pantich, 2013). Commercial

surrogacy has raised many concerns, as it includes the exploitation of the reproductive

labours of underprivileged women by wealthy clients, along with the utilisation of the

cheaper labour and medical costs in India (Pantich, 2013; Bailey, 2011). Surrogate

women in India are lured by the promise of large payments for nine months of labour,

to carry a foreign or domestic couple’s baby. There is a large difference in the money

earned by the Indian surrogates and the American surrogates. For example, in the

United States surrogates can be paid anywhere between $50,000 to $150,000, yet

Indian surrogates can be paid between $2000 to $10,000 (Busby & Vun 2010, Twine

2011; as cited in Pantich, 2013). Gestational surrogacy is the surrogacy performed in

India, which means a woman is implanted with an embryo created by the egg and

sperm of the contracted parents or the sperm of the client and a bought or donated egg

from another woman (Pantich 2013, 276). Although California holds the destination

of choice for most reproductive tourists seeking gestational surrogates, clinics like the

Akanksha clinic in Anand provide comparable medical services of similar quality for

a portion of the price (RT, 2015; Pantich, 2013). The surrogates are paid by the client

couple and carry their child; they do not have a biological relation to the baby and

therefore are seen as merely a vessel (RT, 2015). In Gene Corea’s The Mother

Machine, the world is forecast to use the wombs of unimportant women as the

breeders for the embryos of important women, which signifies the manipulation of

poor Indian women as a lower caste to wealthy women from first world countries of

higher caste (1985; as cited in Bailey 2011, 716; Munro, 2001). Notably, no laws

regulate surrogacy work in India, and a surrogate is not treated as a person but as a

high-risk pregnancy - due to the high maternal mortality and pregnancy-related

morbidity rates of the country (Bailey 2011, 729). Although it appears as a choice of

the individual surrogate, it is the outcome of clear or subtle coercion whereby legal

surrogacy contracts seem to coerce women into making a choice they do not prefer

yet are unable to refuse due to the high price of rejection (Damelio & Sorensen; as

cited in Banerjee, 2010). Using words such as ‘use’ and ‘control’ projects the

surrogates as passive victims, with the language being worrisome when used in

transnational surrogacy as it reinforces the notion of stereotypical third world women

3

being inherently powerless to the higher forces (Banerjee 2010, 110). Indian

surrogates are paid significantly less than their western counterparts, are not as

educated on the shocking wage differential between them or the controversy of a

wealthy client renting their womb and using their body.

4

Furthermore, putting a dollar value on a women’s body is clear mistreatment

and devalues her as a person, suggesting she is only worth a certain amount that is

dependent on a variety of factors. Exploitation occurs from the profiting of

vulnerability (Goodin, 1986; as cited in Pantich 2013, 280). Commercial surrogacy

involves the sale or rental of a woman’s womb (Pantich, 2013). Commodifying a

woman’s body – specifically her womb – and her reproductive capabilities degrades

her to being seen as a baby factory and a product (Anderson, 1990). For something to

be seen as a commodity is to claim the market is suitable for controlling its

productions, trade and satisfaction (Anderson, 1990). The commodification of a

person can relate to slavery, where they are treated according to market norm in how

the owners, or clients, may use them to satisfy their own interests without regard for

the commodities own interests. This shows evidence that surrogates are seen as

objects of use by clients, and not as real people. In a society that is already profoundly

saturated in high levels of sexual commodification of the female body by advertisers,

pimps, the media and celebrities cashing on their sex appeal, surrogacy is a dangerous

progression down a route that emphasises a woman’s body as a commodity – a

product to be bought and sold at a good price (Munro, 2001). According to Radin

(1987; as cited in Munro 2001, 24), ‘If a capitalist baby industry were to come into

being…how could any of us…avoid subconsciously measuring the dollar value of our

children?’ Markedly, not only is a woman’s womb given a price but also the sperm

and egg used to impregnate her, meaning a child is given a price of how much he/she

is worth. This is not a good example for future surrogate children to learn of, that they

were worth an x amount of dollars, and this can be similarly attributed to surrogate

woman knowing their womb is worth x amount of money. An example of exploitation

via surrogacy is how in India, the gestational surrogates are bound under contract to

live in a surrogate house for the duration of their pregnancy (RT, 2015). They are

provided food, medical check-ups and housing, while also being allowed limited

interactions with her family such as her husband and any children. Also, by providing

differing amounts of payment to women in the United States and in India for their

services provides an insightful effect on what the industry or client thinks of the

women. To pay a western woman $50,000 for her surrogate service, and an Indian

woman $10,000 for the same service is saying the western woman is valued more

than the Indian woman. Current practices suggest that donors and surrogates are

picked based on their caste, skin colour, religion, intelligence and attractiveness

5

(Bailey, 2011). The criteria favours fair skin, lighter hair and light-coloured eyes like

blue or green. These conditions are only for gestational surrogates, meaning the

surrogate mother is not biologically related to the foetus (Bailey, 2011). Surrogacy as

a practice is considered a ‘moral quagmire’ (Pande 2010; as cited in Bailey 2011,

725). Considering the insufficient regulation of surrogacy work and severe social

inequality, it threatens to transform the bodies of women into tools for use by the

more privileged (Beeson & Lippman, 2006).

6

Moreover, a surrogate knows that when she signs a contract – even if she is a

genetic relation - she will have to give up parental rights once the child is born and

from the first month of pregnancy begin to distance herself from the baby she carries.

She will have to distance herself of any maternal feelings that arouse, any love or

bond, essentially self-alienating herself from her own womb and passenger (Munro,

2001). The genetic surrogate agrees to carry the client’s child to term and transfer

custody to the father in return for a labour fee and medical/legal expenses (Anderson,

1990). The surrogate has to do everything possible to effect the transfer of the child to

the intended father, including repressing motherly feelings so she can do her job of

being the vessel for the client. The surrogacy process manipulates and denies

legitimacy to the surrogate mother’s evolving perspective on her own pregnancy,

showing how the industry degrades her. These acts convert women’s labour into a

form of alienated labour (Anderson, 1990). Utilising a women’s womb to do such

labour contributes to a shrinking sense of human personhood, as she is essentially

bought and sold, therefore considered physical property (Holland, 2001). Although

wage labour includes selling an aspect of oneself to a point, it is inapplicable to view

the surrogacy market as equivalent to wage labour, when the disaffection involved in

the latter transaction is of a detrimental nature (Pateman, 1988; as cited in Munro

2001, 21). Commercial surrogacy forces women to suppress all human feelings for the

foetus growing inside and effectively see the child as a product of her labour, for

which she is being paid to take care of. Self-alienation fundamentally ushers away any

core relation between the female surrogate, her body and reproductive capacities,

which results in a level of objectification. Observing the motivations behind becoming

a surrogate, an altruistic surrogate is driven by concern, kindness and friendship

whereas a commercial surrogate may have some of these feelings but is mainly

monetarily motivated (Pantich, 2013). When a woman sells the use of her body, she is

basically selling herself - as she is downgraded to being an ‘incubator’ (Anderson,

1993; as cited in Pantich 2013, 279).

7

Additionally, egg selling or egg donation consists of a woman attending a

fertility clinic in order to sell off her eggs for money, involving the clinic surgically

removing her eggs from her ovary after she undergoes treatments including the

hyperstimulation of her ovary to produce multiple eggs in one cycle (Almeling, 2007;

Beeson & Lippman, 2006; Robertson, 1988). Egg donation involves IVF, by

hyperstimulating the ovary, removing the multiple oocytes [eggs] after a successful

cycle and fertilising them externally before placement in a uterus – the uterus of a

woman who has not provided the egg, meaning she will use a donated egg to rear a

child she is not biologically related to but can give birth to (Robertson, 1988). Egg

donation provides an unusual twist on parentage, by its split of the female gestational

and genetic role. Being an egg donor is a lucrative deal, but the egg procurement

process is invasive and risky (ABC News, 2015; Almeling, 2007). The egg industry is

competitive, with some donors selling their eggs for $50,000 – although according to

the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, to compensate a donor with sums

totalling more than $10,000 is not appropriate (ABC News, 2015). There are multiple

health risks accompanying egg donation. The harvesting of multiple eggs often

involves taking hormonal drugs that have not been properly studied for their long-

term effects on women despite research providing evidence of significant harm to

women in both short and long term (Beeson & Lippman, 2006). Egg donation is a

two-stage process that requires multiple clinic visits, numerous hormonal injections

and minor surgery, minimum. Ovarian stimulation requires strong hormones to

manipulate a woman’s body into forcefully producing many, often a dozen or more

eggs in one cycle instead of the normal one or two (Beeson & Lippman, 2006). One

drug that was commonly used in the first phase of egg harvesting is called Lupron,

which had not been pre-approved for this purpose – reportedly the US Federal Drug

Agency currently had 6000 complaints on file regarding the drug, including 25 causal

deaths (Lazar 1999; as cited in Beeson & Lippmann 2006, 2). Considering the

multiple health risks related to the selling or donating of eggs, women should be

cautious to educate herself on what she is signing up for and egg clinics should be

bound by the law to do their job of informing the donor of all important information

so she can make an informed decision.

8

In conclusion, surrogacy and egg donation/selling exploits women’s bodies

and portrays the image that a woman’s body is a commodity that can be easily

purchased, rented, sold and used. This reinforces the notion that a woman can be

objectified and viewed as a machine, particularly with her womb as the sole focus.

Surrogacy also clearly exploits underprivileged women in India and the United States,

by offering their bodies for wealthy clients to place their baby into. Surrogacy allows

the mistreatment of Indian women by paying them far less than their western

surrogate counterparts, due to the difference in developed or developing country

status and economic currency. The surrogacy industry largely contributes to the

exploitation of women’s bodies, by allowing a female’s body to be treated as a

product to be traded on the market and sold to the highest paying client.

BibliographyABC News (2015), ‘The Big Business of Egg Donation’, viewed 24 May 2017, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zV8SVLMP1w>.

Anderson, E. S. (1990), ‘Is Women's Labor a Commodity?’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 19(1) 71-92.

Almeling, R. (2007), ‘Selling genes, selling gender: egg agencies, sperm banks, and the medical market in genetic material’, American Sociological Review, 72(3) 319-340.

Bailey, A. (2011), ‘Reconceiving surrogacy: Toward a reproductive justice account of Indian surrogacy’, Hypatia, 26(4) 715-741.

Banerjee, A. (2010), ‘Reorienting the Ethics of Transnational Surrogacy as a Feminist Pragmatist’, The Pluralist, 5(3) 107-127.

Beeson, D. & Lippman, A. (2006), ‘Egg harvesting for stem cell research: medical risks and ethical problems’, Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 13(4) 573-579.

Holland, S. (2001), ‘Contested commodities at both ends of life: buying and selling gametes, embryos, and body tissues’, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 11(3) 263-284.

Munro, V. E. (2001), ‘Surrogacy and the Construction of the Maternal-Foetal Relationship: The Feminist Dilemma Examined’, Res Publica, 7(1) 13-37.

Pantich, V. (2013), ‘Surrogate Tourism and Reproductive Rights’, Hypatia, 28(2) 274-289.

9

Robertson, J.A. (1988), ‘Technology and motherhood: Legal and ethical issues in human egg donation’, Case Western Reserve Law Review, 39(1) 1-40.

RT (2015), ‘Wombs for Rent in India’, viewed 23 May 2017, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSXZSdMmRdg>.

10