This section briefly introduces the main arguments against surrogacy in feminist circles.

It should not be considered an exhaustive summary of all existing commentaries.

Feminist criticism of surrogacy arrangements is generally divided into two groups:

The first focuses on the very idea of surrogacy. Such criticisms relate, for example, to
the treatment of the female body by others in a manner that objectifies the surrogate and
violates her dignity and autonomy. Such criticism does not focus on clauses of different
surrogacy agreements and looks at the broader picture of the treatment of women in
society. Surrogacy reflects gender stereotypes and social conventions that affect the
basic dignity of women, in that it views their bodies, and particularly their reproductive
organs, as an object for the use of others (either with or without receiving compensation).
These stereotypes work against women’s struggle for dignity and equality in various
fields. Such criticism might compare, at times, surrogacy arrangements to prostitution
services – in that they both utilize the female body in a manner that could be perceived
as offensive, humiliating and dehumanizing. Arguments against such criticism compare
surrogacy to any other use of the human body in the workforce (such as the work of
porters) or to other occupations that are considered legitimate despite relying heavily
on the use of the body (such as sports or athletics). Some of the arguments against
altruistic surrogacy also stem from this viewpoint, claiming that women’s willingness to
participate in such processes is affected by traditional concepts about the role of women
in childbirth, the importance attributed to motherhood and parenthood, and the pressure
women might be put under to participate in such arrangements.

Another critical point of view refers to the concrete aspects of surrogacy, not only from
the moral and theoretical viewpoint, but in relation to the conditions in which surrogacy
is currently being conducted around the world. Such criticism would address, for
example, the disparities in power between the intended parents and the surrogate, which
are particularly relevant when the intended parents come from middle-to-high classes in
first world countries (even if they do belong to a minority group that is discriminated in
other ways, such as gay men), and the surrogate is a woman from a third world country,
which is often poor, uneducated and devoid of critical support circles. According to this
view, when the differences in power are so large and poverty plays a major role in
decision-making, it is impossible to reach an agreement that would be really fair and not
exploitative. This approach claims that the terms “free will” and “agreed-upon contract”
have no real meaning when one side of the agreement is highly limited. This criticism
also refers to the effects of the procedure on the surrogate: medical and physical effecTs
(due to risks involved in taking hormones, fertilization and the pregnancy and childbirth
themselves); effects on the surrogate’s family; and emotional effects. Some studies
show, for example, negative experiences and feelings of alienation of some surrogates
towards their own bodies during pregnancy.

Another aspect of this line of criticism concerns the wages and compensation received
by the surrogate, which may not always be adequate for the dedication and demands
expected from her and for the risks she is exposed to. This puts surrogacy in the larger
scope of exploitation of women in the third world by people from richer parts of the globe.
This also reflects the differences in power between the parties, in that, for example,
surrogates are not necessarily aware of the range of risks to which they are exposed,
and therefore can not assess the appropriate compensation for them. In this context, this
line of criticism also suggests that the surrogate’s decision making is not always based
on full information about the process. Another aspect of this criticism concerns the
cultural gap regarding surrogacy in different countries and its impact on the status of
women who become pregnant from a person that they are not acquainted with, or give
a child to others after birth. If the surrogate does not enjoy adequate support circuits that
help her during the process, this problem worsens. A response to the criticism about
payments to the surrogate may claim that relatively high amounts are paid in different
cases, and that intended parents can choose any agreed-upon amount that they see as
fair, reflecting the requirements of the surrogate.

Some of the issues raised with surrogacy can be improved based on the advice provided
by this site (issues such as exploitative and unfair clauses in the contract, restriction on
the surrogate’s rights for termination, demands that endanger her health, etc.). Others
can be overcome by combining some efforts, good will and moral commitment to the
decent treatment of the surrogate, considering her as a partner in giving life to the
intended parent’s child. It is also worth noting that different approaches, even within the
feminist discourse, attribute importance to the surrogate’s choice and her decision to
play that role, even if other women see it as a process that violates her freedom and
dignity. Some see the process as a way for professional and economic empowerment of
the surrogate, granting her a sense of control and the ability to improve her situation and
ensure better living conditions for her and her family. However, it should be noted that
even measures aimed at improving the surrogacy arrangement and making it as fair and
respectful as possible, can not ignore the limitations of reality, the considerable power
gaps between the intended parents and the surrogate and the significant economic
necessity that drives women to agree to serve as surrogates despite the fact that
they would not necessarily choose this option if they were of higher socioeconomic
status

Celebrities who snap back into shape days after giving birth are often the envy of mothers
who wonder just how they managed to do it.
Now a fertility doctor has shed a controversial new light on the subject by suggesting
they may not have been pregnant in the first place.
Los Angeles-based Dr Vicken Sahakian, who works at the Pacific Fertility Center, said
an increasing number of rich and famous celebrities are coming to him asking to have
their babies via a surrogate in order to preserve their own figures.

Known as 'social surrogacy', the practice involves perfectly healthy women choosing to
pay another to carry and give birth to their child to spare themselves the ordeal, and to
avoid having to take a career break if their work depends on them having a flawless look.
'Typically these are women who prefer not to get pregnant and not to go though the
process of pregnancy for many different reasons. For instance if you are a model or an
actress and your income is based on performing and how you look and pregnancy will
ruin that for year, if not more,' Dr Sahakian told presenter Jodie Marsh for her latest TLC
documentary Making Babies.
Dr Sahakian, who has performed over 6,000 IVF procedures and is responsible for the
birth of more than 3,000 babies over the world, said he has had a number of 'well-known'
clients over the years who have opted for a social surrogacy.

He refused to give any names but said some have even faked their own pregnancies
whilst secretly using a surrogate.
Former glamour model Jodie was shocked when she heard this asking: 'So some have
used a surrogate then stuffed a pillow up their jumper?'
'We are talking about well-known women,' Dr Sahakian confirmed. 'It would be taboo for
them to admit they used a social surrogate. I have had a couple of patients who
pretended they were pregnant, yes.'

he added: 'I have had some very famous clients but I am not giving any names.'
A number of A-list celebrities, such as Nicole Kidman and Sarah Jessica Parker, have
been vocal about their use of surrogates in their 40s because they were not medically
able to carry their own child.
The Sex And The City actress and her actor husband Matthew Broderick had
twins Marion and Tabitha in 2009 through a surrogate when Sarah Jessica was 44-
years-old. They already had a son together, James, now 13.
In an interview before the twins arrived, Sarah Jessica admitted it was not a route she
would have taken if she had a choice.
She said: 'We've been trying to expand our family for a number of years and we actually
have explored a variety of ways of doing so.

Dr Sahakian said his 'social surrogate' clients are typically younger and know from an
early age that they want to be mothers. They don't want to delay motherhood till their
late thirties and early forties in case it means they have left it too late. But they also don't
want to 'ruin' their bodies in their twenties when their career could be at its peak.
If you want to climb the career ladder, you can outsource your stretch marks
He said in this scenario, social surrogacy is a sensible choice - if you can afford it.
He said: 'If your looks have something to do with your income and if you wait till your late
thirties you may have a harder time getting pregnant.
'If you want to be a parent than you are better off using a surrogate and being a mother
and a career women at the same time.'
Jodie said she was stunned to hear that this is happening in the U.S, where commercial
surrogacy is legal, unlike in the UK. In Britain, a surrogate can not to paid for their
services, although they will be given expenses to cover some associated costs.
Jodie said: 'I would never chose to let someone carry my baby if I was capable of doing
it myself.
'Once again it proves money can but anything, if you want to climb the career ladder,
you can outsource your stretch marks.
'l feel uneasy about it., Perfectly healthy woman are farming out their pregnancies to
social surrogates.'
But Dr Sahakian said he is more open-minded and can understand why some women
see it as an attractive option.
'Who cares what people think? Do what is best for you,' he said.

Traditional surrogacy[
Traditional surrogacy (also known as partial, genetic, or straight surrogacy[3]) involves
natural[4] or artificial insemination of a surrogate. If the intended father's sperm is used in
the insemination, then the resulting child is genetically related to the intended father and
genetically related to the surrogate. If donor sperm is used, the resulting child is not
genetically related to either intended parent(s) but is genetically related to the surrogate.
In some cases, an insemination may be performed privately by the parties without the
intervention of a doctor or physician. In some jurisdictions, the 'commissioning parents'
using donor sperms need to go through an adoption process in order to have legal rights
in respect to the resulting child. Many fertility centers which provide for surrogacy assist
the parties through the process.
Gestational surrogacy[edit]
Gestational surrogacy (also known as host or full surrogacy[3]) was first achieved in April
1986.[5] It takes place when an embryo created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology is
implanted in a surrogate, sometimes called a gestational carrier. Gestational surrogacy
may take a number of forms, but in each form the resulting child is genetically unrelated
to the surrogate:

 the embryo is created using the intended father's sperm and the intended mother's
eggs. The resulting child is genetically related to both intended parents.
 the embryo is created using the intended father's sperm and a donor egg where the
donor is not the surrogate. The resulting child is genetically related to the intended
father.
 the embryo is created using the intended mother's egg and donor sperm. The
resulting child is genetically related to the intended mother.
 a donor embryo is implanted in a surrogate. Such an embryo may be available when
others undergoing IVF have embryos left over, which they donate to others. The
resulting child is genetically unrelated to the intended parent(s).

Psychological concerns
Surrogate
A study by the Family and Child Psychology Research Centre at City University London in
2002 concluded that surrogate mothers rarely had difficulty relinquishing rights to a
surrogate child and that the intended mothers showed greater warmth to the child than
mothers conceiving naturally.[36][37][38]
Anthropological studies of surrogates have shown that surrogates engage in various
distancing techniques throughout the surrogate pregnancy so as to ensure that they do not
become emotionally attached to the baby.[39][40] Many surrogates intentionally try to foster the
development of emotional attachment between the intended mother and the surrogate
child.[41]
Surrogates are generally encouraged by the agency they go through to become
emotionally detached from the fetus prior to giving birth.[42]
Instead of the popular expectation that surrogates feel traumatized after relinquishment, an
overwhelming majority describe feeling empowered by their surrogacy experience.[40][43]
Although surrogate mothers generally report being satisfied with their experience as
surrogates, there are cases in which they are not. Unmet expectations are associated with
dissatisfaction. Some women did not feel a certain level of closeness with the couple and
others did not feel respected by the couple.[44]
Some women experience emotional distress when participating as a surrogate mother. This
could be due to a lack of therapy and emotional support through the surrogate process.[44]
Some women have psychological reactions when being surrogate mothers. These include
depression when surrendering the child, grief, and even refusal to release the child.[45]
A 2011 study from the Centre for Family Research at the University of Cambridge found
that surrogacy does not have a negative impact on the surrogate's own children.[46]