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
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Friday used their legislative majority to push their version of a special defense budget bill to fund the purchase of US military equipment, with the combined spending capped at NT$780 billion (US$24.78 billion). The bill, which fell short of the Executive Yuan’s NT$1.25 trillion request, was passed by a 59-0 margin with 48 abstentions in the 113-seat legislature. KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), who reportedly met with TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) for a private meeting before holding a joint post-vote news conference, was said to have mobilized her
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly widespread in workplaces, some people stand to benefit from the technology while others face lower wages and fewer job opportunities. However, from a longer-term perspective, as AI is applied more extensively to business operations, the personnel issue is not just about changes in job opportunities, but also about a structural mismatch between skills and demand. This is precisely the most pressing issue in the current labor market. Tai Wei-chun (戴偉峻), director-general of the Institute of Artificial Intelligence Innovation at the Institute for Information Industry, said in a recent interview with the Chinese-language Liberty Times