The menacing rise of commercial surrogacy
This budding baby market begs several questions to the age and to feminisms
In the last 12 years, the worldwide surrogacy market has risen by an astounding 350%. This is due to a very particular emergence which, in most of the advanced world, is prohibited by law. By all accounts, a state of frenzy is well underway in the world of commercial surrogacy. This industry grew to a whooping US$14 billion in 2022 and it is estimated that it will grow to at least US$129 billion within a decade. Over US$345m has been invested into newly established “surrogacy-specific startups” since 2021.1 One of the latest startups to launch (after raising US$4.7m from investors in “women’s health”, might I add) is Nodal. It’s founder Dr Brian Levine wants Nodal to be the “Bumble of Surrogacy”. Based on how successful dating apps have proved for the likes of Match Group and Bumble, we can imagine how much money is going to be made by the small but growing cluster of surrogacy-specific startups intent on “matching” prospective parents with surrogate mothers. If it sounds too good to be true that’s probably because – like the promises of dating apps – it is.
The Bumble-fication of surrogacy begins
The demand for commercial surrogacy is currently concentrated in advanced modern economies. These countries are simultaneously experiencing a radical transformation in the composition and changing mores of the modern family’s make-up and purpose. Accepting the inevitability of change is always a good thing; but, when it comes to commercial surrogacy I can’t help but wonder at what cost? If it isn’t obvious, I’m apprehensive about this rise in, literally, selling one’s womb and maternal health to the highest bidder. Crucially, commercial surrogacy is distinct from traditional surrogacy in that it is gestational, meaning the surrogate is in no way related to the baby. For example, when Kim Kardashian and former husband Kanye West had children Chicago and Psalm, Kim opened up about the couple’s use of a “gestational carrier” for both pregnancies. Instead of using her own eggs, the Kardashian-West’s surrogate(s) acted as a “carrier” of Kim’s eggs.2 This represents a huge leap in IVF technology. It is also a huge and, right now, highly unregulated leap into some rather eerie ethical terrain.
According to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), a UK regulator of surrogacy, 60% of fertility services are paid for privately.3 In this sense, the near universal rules and regulations prohibiting commercial surrogacy in Western Europe and at the US state level are not on par with the surrogacy market that is flourishing beyond its constraints. Many prospective parents in the US have been able to get around state laws by simply finding a surrogate in a different state and paying hefty legal fees. Mexico has also now become one of the fastest growing commercial surrogacy markets as a result. When you consider that the cost of surrogacy can range anywhere from US$120,000 – US$150,000 in the US, it is no wonder that growing demand has set its sights elsewhere. Images of surrogate mothers cramped with babies and nurses in makeshift shelters on the outskirts of Kyiv emerged in March last year. Since the invasion of Ukraine, Georgia has become the world’s largest hub for unregulated and relatively cheap commercial surrogates. “I would recommend surrogacy for anybody,” Kim Kardashian told Elle back in 2018; and it is clear by the figures (and pictures) that her recommendation has been taken up.
A conflict of feminisms?
I sense we are at a rather peculiar place in women’s modern history. On the one hand, women have seemingly been liberated from a reduction to mere body parts. Yet, on the other hand, we are increasingly willing to allow or turn a blind eye to said reduction provided that a profit is being made. This likely stems from the discourse that emerged out of sex positive feminists’ victory over their anti-porn counterparts in the late 1970s. Inevitably, and as is represented by celebrities’ sudden flock to commercial surrogacy en masse, those women with the most money are the least reduced. I don’t think this is inherently malicious on the part of egotistical celebrities: I’ll forgive them venturing into a new domain of family planning that aligns itself seamlessly to a profession obsessed with having the perfect, trending physique and cosmetic surgeries in no way performed with potential childbirth in mind! Although it pains me to admit it, I don’t think it’s malicious on the part of an out of touch and shrinking wealthy class. Rather, I think it is simply the way that the market functions in societies whose moral reckonings are increasingly governed by it.
A case in point would be actress Lucy Liu who was recently featured as The Cut’s March cover star. The feature and interview focused on Liu’s rather bougie life as a multidimensional artist worth US$20m. Liu also detailed deciding to become a single mother in her late forties via gestational surrogacy. The language Liu used to describe the process sounds bizarrely like listening to someone impulsively shopping for a new holiday home:
It [gestational surrogacy] just seemed like the right option for me because I was working and I didn’t know when I was going to be able to stop…I decided that was probably the best solution for me, and it turned out to be great… I didn’t have a plan. I just thought, I want to change the conversation a little bit. I didn’t want to talk about the next project. I felt like I was reading the same script. I got tired of it. I didn’t want the same dialogue. I’d heard myself say the same things many, many times and just thought, Well, this can’t be what’s next. It wasn’t enough. I didn’t mull it over too much. I didn’t do a lot of research, I just pulled the trigger. I can think myself out of something easily; if I think too much I won’t do it. It’s better for me to feel something and just go for it. A lot of people read books about parenting. I didn’t do any of that. I was like, When the child is here, I’m just going to figure it out.4
The Cut feature is a perfect example of how fourth-wave feminism finds itself in an existential and moral quagmire similar to that of the general liberal feminist. Both appear to be in a never-ending rut of contradictions that represent an inherent issue: Since c.1970, modern feminisms have substituted philosophy for commercial principles in pursuit of physical and existential liberation. There is a belief that women’s existential liberation can be guaranteed via market-based principles as seen in discourse around the ‘right to sex’ and the boom in virtual sex work on sites such as Only Fans. If money is exchanged and profit is made, liberty is achieved even if by omission. Commercial surrogacy offers poor women an opportunity to make money and profit from selling what has ominously become their most valuable commodity. On the other hand, commercial surrogacy offers those women who can afford it an opportunity to physically liberate themselves from the female condition itself. It’s like a sisterhood of exploitation that is dead set on convincing itself otherwise, reducing women to an essential body part and role as primary consumer of baby-as-product; ironically, two of the things feminism initially set out to alleviate women from! There is no philosophical or moral reckoning, and, crucially, there is no limit if money and science permit you such exemption.
“Brangelina” babies are out; commercial babies are in
Younger, liberal generations are overall having less children. It is also these generations who are at the root of growing demand for commercial surrogates. As the West becomes more socially atheistic and the diversity of family types beyond the modern nuclear family take hold, the demand for biological babies that can’t — or won’t — be had naturally is already apparent. Work and products have become our religion and finding a “work-life balance” will, no doubt, include some finding a commercial surrogate to complement that desired harmony every modern woman is meant to strive for. Celebrities and influencers are, of course, at the helm in normalising commercial surrogacy. Paris Hilton didn’t just miraculously bounce back from pregnancy! Kim Kardashian, Rebel Wilson, Amber Heard and Lucy Liu are just a handful of celebrities who’ve invested in commercial surrogacy. I would argue that the broadly successful rebranding of celebrities as social media influencers means that this new means of pregnancy, presented in aesthetic Instagram posts, is not seen as a particularly bad thing by many in my generation. I would also argue that this inevitably leads to a commercial trend in which babies turn into commodities suited to a pop culture’s zeitgeist.
It is curious how, online, the adoption of ethnic babies — popularised by ‘Brangelina’ and Madonna — has fallen out of favour since influencers and “mommy vloggers” tainted the market. International adoption has been increasingly tied to family content online and not in a good way. For instance, several vlogging duos have openly stated that they chose not to adopt from Thailand due to laws prohibiting adoptive parents uploading images and videos of their adopted child onto social media for the first year. And without that all appealing biological factor, adoption and traditional surrogacy are seemingly out. Commercial surrogacy is in. I think the appeal is most definitely furthered by a declining birth rate: It isn’t that people don’t want to have children but rather a current socio-economy making it a far less traditionally accessible path. Imagine being able to start a family without having to take unpaid maternity leave or battling your way through perinatal depression? Suddenly — although I believe only theoretically — having a baby in this day and age becomes that little less daunting. Its parallels to the “quick fixes” of the marketplace or the desire for a seamless customer experience are striking.
As consumers, we are all told that we deserve everything we want as conveniently as we want. The best of both worlds is possible if only you’d spend more! If only you’d detach yourself from the constraints of your mortal, physical being! I strongly believe that as philosophers, we learn to temper our desires, to appreciate constraints bestowed by the human condition, and to seek genuine liberation throughout our lives in ourselves and via loved ones. It isn’t terribly interesting or new that brands and companies perceive us as consumers before human beings. What is interesting is that these brands, companies, markets, and “surrogacy-specific startups” have very successfully convinced us that being a consumer and a human being is one and the same thing. With no viable alternatives in the way of generating meaning, stability and purpose, it is no wonder that young people invest considerable time and consideration into converting their ethical faculties into their consumer activities. Babies are seemingly going to be the next must-have commodity, and with declining birth rates the demand will be exponential.
Here’s an exclusive look at the pitch deck Nodal used to raise $4.7 million from investors like Amplo and a slew of women’s health founders to transform the surrogacy world by Samantha Stokes, published in Business Insider (September 21st, 2022)
Kim Kardashian had been advised by doctors not to become pregnant again after suffering placenta accrete during her last two pregnancies.
Why Britain is updating its laws on surrogacy and gamete donation, published in The Economist (May 8th, 2023)
Lucy Liu Is the Least-Bothered Person You Know by Mary H.K Choi, published in The Cut (March 23rd, 2023)
Last bit was my favorite part. I like how it felt like an indictment.
I don't really see feminism as necessarily contradictory to what's being described here, I mean if you see it as just equality to man, well men have always used poorer men to handle what isn't seen as worth the time of those of higher status, but for parallels to prostitution are both hilarious and kind of horrifying, I'm not even sure if I can raise much of a moral objection to surrogacy other than the fact that it feels kind of gross.