Proponents of legalizing surrogacy often cloak the system in the language of reproductive rights and bodily autonomy, arguing that as long as all parties consent, a woman’s body might legitimately become subject to a contract.
Such arguments deliberately overlook a harsh reality — within unequal economic and gendered power structures, ostensible “voluntariness” is often a choice made under conditions of poverty and oppression, while “informed contractual consent” often serves as a legal and moral refuge for the commissioning parties.
The Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology has formally prohibited its members from participating in surrogacy since 2003 — demonstrating a baseline of respect for the value of women’s bodies. Pregnancy and childbirth have never been neutral forms of labor — they are medical processes riddled with serious risks. Gestational hypertension, postpartum hemorrhage, postpartum depression and even death are all very real possibilities. To institutionalize the transfer of such risks onto another woman merely to satisfy one’s desire for a child of their own genetic lineage is, in essence, exchanging money for women’s health and lives.
Supporters say that as long as commercialized surrogacy is prohibited and only an altruistic model is adopted, the issue of objectifying women’s bodies can be avoided entirely. In reality, the boundary between altruism and commerce is extremely fragile. “Unpaid altruism” typically operates on a cost-reimbursement basis, covering only living expenses, legal fees and intermediary fees — but in practice, disguised forms of compensation frequently emerge. Once a system is in place, markets and brokers inevitably become involved, repackaging women’s reproductive capacity as a commodity. History has repeatedly proven that once women’s bodies are subjected to market logic, safeguards ultimately succumb to profit incentives.
A surrogacy system requires women, after about 10 months of pregnancy and the formation of physical and psychological bonds, to deliver the infant, or face liability for breach of contract. This is not merely a forced severing of emotional ties, but a denial of women’s dignity as mothers.
Surrogacy systems tend to target society’s most vulnerable women. Cases in Asia and the West have shown that surrogate mothers often come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, single-parent households or migrant communities. They are not making a truly “free” choice, but are compelled — by the pressure of rent, medical expenses and their children’s education costs — to relinquish the use of their bodies for nine months. This is structural exploitation.
Some say that rejecting surrogacy amounts to denying the rights of the infertile. Yet no one’s right to become a parent can be founded on inflicting harm on another individual’s body. If society truly wishes to respond to the aspirations of families facing infertility, it should invest far more resources in reforming adoption systems, expanding support for child-rearing and promoting policies that destigmatize diverse families — not create a new class of women whose role is defined by sacrifice.
Last year, Japan’s parliament introduced legislation on assisted reproduction that includes an explicit ban on surrogacy. In July, a UN report said that the practice of surrogacy is characterized by “the exploitation and violence against women and children, including girls” and “reinforces patriarchal norms by commodifying and objectifying women’s bodies and exposing both surrogate mothers and children to serious human rights violations.”
The report recommended that measures be taken at the international level to eradicate all forms of surrogacy. It further urges countries, pending a comprehensive ban, to take action to “prevent further harm and strengthen the protection of the rights of women and children involved in surrogacy arrangements.”
Taiwan should not legalize surrogacy, as doing so would only serve to further entrench one of the patriarchy’s oldest forms of oppression — the imperative of carrying on the family bloodline.
Huang Sue-ying is the founder of Taiwan Women’s Link.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS