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 Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS