Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

A horrific example of how badly wrong surrogacy can go

113 replies

everythingcrossed · 19/01/2021 18:34

The Times is reporting on a well-know Chinese actress, Zheng Shuang, who commissioned two women in the States to have babies for her and her boyfriend. When they split up, she was recorded ranting that it was unfair that she couldn't have the babies aborted or put up for adoption. (This recording has led to her losing a Prada contract which was the hook for the story.)

In the recording Zheng allegedly expressed frustration that her two surrogates in the United States could not legally abort their pregnancies in the third trimester. Her parents are said to have told her to give the children up for adoption.

The children, who were born in December 2019 and January 2020 have, according to the report, been left in the States because Zheng won't take responsibility for them.

It's an absolutely horrifying portrait of entitlement and lack of conscience. What struck me in particular was the more general observation in the piece that It is common for wealthy Chinese couples and single people to have children through surrogate mothers in other countries such as Russia and Ukraine. Several US states are also popular. Within China the issue is highly contentious, especially because the black market has led to many disputes between clients and surrogates.

Share token here Sad

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
OhHolyJesus · 21/07/2021 19:37

"I sincerely apologise for the surrogacy incident, am willing to accept criticisms from all sides and consciously reflect on my mistakes," she wrote in Chinese.

https://www.asiaone.com/entertainment/zheng-shuang-breaks-6-month-silence-apologises-surrogacy-scandal-denies-tax-evasion

'Incident' Hmm

SchadenfreudePersonified · 01/05/2021 07:27

Thank you Holy - but I don't think I could bear it.

I honestly can't see any way of closing loopholes in legislation, either. No matter how they draft or re-draft it, unscrupulous people manage to find a way.

All I can see is that children will be abused, poor women will be (as best) encouraged to rent out their wombs to get an even halfway decent standard of living, and at worst will be trafficked into "baby farms" to produce infants for those wealthy enough to demand them, and that children be will be at huge risk.

And all because people have a "right" to a child.

OhHolyJesus · 30/04/2021 17:29

This is something that could easily become a paedophiles' dream-come-true.

I'm afraid to say it already has. I can share examples if you can stomach it but it has already happened, and I'm sure that surprises no one here.

SchadenfreudePersonified · 30/04/2021 17:19

@Arobase

I would ban it completely- in all circumstances. It's the ultimate "gimme, gimme, gimme

Is it? I know someone in more or less the situation suggested above: married woman who can't have a baby for medical reasons, her sister in law is surrogate out of pure altruism using the first woman's egg, no money is changing hands. Everyone who knows the people concerned are delighted for them. I can't see that any gimme, gimme, gimme is involved.

As for the suggestion that it's damaging to the baby: are we saying that every child who is adopted, every child whose mother dies at birth, is inevitably dreadfully damaged? Or shall we acknowledge that in many, many cases, the child grows up fine. Sure, I know that doesn't always lead to happy endings, but then plenty of people who stay with their birth mother end up damaged also.

Infertility is heartbreaking - but no-one has a "right" to a child.

It is, IMO, too open to abuse (the system itself), too near to human trafficking and too easy to abuse women for it to be legally protected. It should be banned.

This is something that could easily become a paedophiles' dream-come-true.

Hotankles · 30/04/2021 16:13

Wanderingstars4238 my friend actually experiences similar. Both her and her Dh never wanted them and folk can just not get their heads around it and some times ask very personal questions including questioning her fertility.

It seems we haven't moved forward at all. women and children are still for sale as they always have been.

Wanderingstars4238 · 30/04/2021 15:39

Exactly, Hotankles. I was just about to say something similar -- the main focus should always be on the child's best interests. It's disturbing how many children are born into bad circumstances, because someone feels they have a right to a child.
There's too much centering on parent's "rights" instead of children's rights. It's pretty extreme here in the US especially with religious people, this belief that everyone SHOULD reproduce. I've been shamed and called "weird" and gotten all kinds of pushing for me to have children, when I explain I don't want kids. Even by people who know nothing about me.

Hotankles · 30/04/2021 14:47

I think this article is sickening. Most arguments centre around if its the woman right to rent her womb out or if a woman should have a much longed for baby when in reality the argument should be centred around the child and the impact that it will have on the childs immediate life and later life.

The woman in this article bought two babies then wanted them killed whilst in the womb because they didn't fit her lifestyle anymore. This is surrogacy, the sale of human beings.

StillFemale · 30/04/2021 14:00

Message not measure Blush

StillFemale · 30/04/2021 13:59

@merrymouse

Nobody dies if altruistic surrogacy is banned

I agree with the kidney transplant analogy re: financial reward, but it would be pretty difficult to ban informal altruistic surrogacy arrangements.

Making something legal because you can’t stop people doing it means you’d make nothing illegal Hmm

The purpose of making it illegal means you send a measure it’s not allowed and there will be penalties for doing it anyway. It’s how we stop the buying and selling of people who aren’t babies (otherwise called slavery & people trafficking)

OhHolyJesus · 30/04/2021 13:34

Not directly relevant to the surrogacy but this actress is under a tax investigation.

www.globaltimes.cn/page/202104/1222453.shtml

As commercial surrogacy is a service would you pay VAT?

NotFabulousDarling · 04/02/2021 20:36

@ChakaDakotaRegina

Frighteningly cold. If she thinks you can the terminate at 7 months she’s obviously never bothered to even look at what pregnancy entails. Not even glanced at it. And she’s just dropped the idea. Like an abandoned lockdown puppy. Those poor women and poor babies.
I know the discussion has moved on a bit but actually you can terminate in the third trimester in China. When I lived there and was pregnant, when I went for my checkups at the maternity hospital there were big screens with bright happy adverts selling abortions up to 7 months alongside adverts showing the doctors' expertise in the delivery suite. All those forced abortions in China at 7+ months were legal from a termination point of view (but horrific). Those poor babies. I hope someone, somewhere, raises them and loves them. There was a similar story about an Indian surrogate for a Japanese couple. Thankfully, the father managed to get the baby brought home. edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/02/india.baby/ Women getting surrogates need to stop commoditising babies and understand they are still living things. There need to be clear international laws established (just like there are trade treaties, but obviously not reducing babies to "trade") about who has rights and responsibilities to these babies.
merrymouse · 04/02/2021 20:24

Nobody dies if altruistic surrogacy is banned

I agree with the kidney transplant analogy re: financial reward, but it would be pretty difficult to ban informal altruistic surrogacy arrangements.

Delphinium20 · 04/02/2021 20:08

Just excellent point about kidneys. We shouldn't allow the selling of body parts to help economic disadvantaged people - there are far better ways to create sustainable economic justice than giving a green light for impoverished women to sell their organs or rent their uteruses.

Also, a kidney transplant is necessary for the recipient to live, which is why altruistic live kidney donation is allowed.

Nobody dies if altruistic surrogacy is banned.

JustTurtlesAllTheWayDown · 04/02/2021 14:13

It occurred to me that you could make the same argument for poor people to be able to legally sell their kidneys.
It could be a life changing amount of money for them, involves medical risk on their part and some people do it voluntarily for their loved ones.
And you could even argue that, unlike surrogacy, the recipient's life might be saved.
I think (hope!) we can all agree that this would be morally wrong but I'm genuinely curious to know from pro surrogacy people why they think that would be wrong while surrogacy is fine.

merrymouse · 04/02/2021 13:25

I think the vociferously anti surrogacy theme on here is driven by a complete lack of understanding as to how 20k, say, can be a life changing amount of money for some people

To be economically viable, this only works in a world without ethics, where a life changing sum for one person is the cost of a couple of holidays for another. I'm realistic. Perhaps that is unavoidable when you are selling and buying goods. People, however, are not goods.

merrymouse · 04/02/2021 13:21

Someone whose entire life was turned around by the money received from surrogacy would equally passionately say that it was a their human right to willingly help someone have a much wanted child in return for a life changing amount of money.

How much is the fair value of what they give - £1,000,000? £10,000,000,000?

If you let the market decide, how little is the value of surrogacy? £200?

What is the cost of a surrogacy gone wrong? An unwanted life brought into the world £10,000,000? £1,000,000,000? The cost of the paperwork?

Some things shouldn't be quantified in monetary terms in a civilised country, because the potential harm is too great.

OhHolyJesus · 04/02/2021 13:14

Or even her mother or step-sister Lysis.

If women are only reproductive organs there is no shortage of uteri in the family.

She also has multiple female friends she could ask to do it 'altruistically' so it's odd isn't it that she went the paid route...

Lysistratathereindeer · 04/02/2021 11:36

I wonder why none of Kim Kardashian's four sisters wanted to be a surrogate for her, if it's such a wonderful, altruistic practice? When the likes of the Kardashians become surrogates instead of paying other women to use their bodies, then I might change my mind about how exploitative it is.

OhHolyJesus · 04/02/2021 10:04

If a life changing amount is £20k (which it isn't in the Ukraine) it indicates the level of income that woman has.

If wealthy women did it £20k wouldn't be life changing.

OhHolyJesus · 04/02/2021 09:55

Was that Ukraine Frank?

A surrogacy agency there 'doxxed' the women as the fled the country to return to their families before travel restrictions from their own countries (I think it was mainly Greece?)

They published their details as they left before signing fully signing off everything with birth certificates, making it extremely difficult for the abandoned babies to leave the country (even if the commissioning parents had managed to enter during the covid travel bans).

They haven't been paid so that 'life changing' amount of money hasn't even been transferred and they have done it all for nothing and to their detriment and to the detriment of their families.

JustTurtlesAllTheWayDown · 04/02/2021 09:35

@FrankButchersDickieBow

I think the vociferously anti surrogacy theme on here is driven by a complete lack of understanding as to how 20k, say, can be a life changing amount of money for some people

Can you not see from this that exploitation can and has occurred to vulnerable women?

Did you hear about the surrogacy farm in an eastern block country (cant remember which one), where surrogates who were given 'life changing amounts of money's, had babies, then they were all left stranded in an orphanage because of the pandemic.

Can you imagine the impact on the women and babies.

What do you think they thought of their life changing amounts of money then?

Quite! 20k is an enormous amount of money and life changing for a lot of people. That doesn't make it morally justified to use that money to exploit people who wouldn't risk their health if they weren't desperate.
FrankButchersDickieBow · 04/02/2021 08:56

I think the vociferously anti surrogacy theme on here is driven by a complete lack of understanding as to how 20k, say, can be a life changing amount of money for some people

Can you not see from this that exploitation can and has occurred to vulnerable women?

Did you hear about the surrogacy farm in an eastern block country (cant remember which one), where surrogates who were given 'life changing amounts of money's, had babies, then they were all left stranded in an orphanage because of the pandemic.

Can you imagine the impact on the women and babies.

What do you think they thought of their life changing amounts of money then?

OhHolyJesus · 04/02/2021 08:23

This actress has had awards revoked and is being blacklisted and essentially losing her career.

This is a very extreme move but it is an example of how surrogacy is seen in China.

A horrific example of how badly wrong surrogacy can go
A horrific example of how badly wrong surrogacy can go
OhHolyJesus · 26/01/2021 17:02

The comments are becoming quite interesting if anyone has a subscription to read them, more dissenting voices, facts and examples being shared and the writer's mate Sophie Berensiner has stepped in to help with the naysayers!

Also a surrogate mother who has had 5 surrogate babies and volunteers with Surrogacy U.K. has been commenting, it's the same agency the couple in the story used so it makes me wonder...

FannyCann · 22/01/2021 21:56

Thanks for posting that link Igneococcus

The comments from enthusiastic supporters are sickening, but it's late and I'm very tired, I really don't have the energy to do battle. Sad