A horrific example of how badly wrong surrogacy can go

[everythingcrossed]

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

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.

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.

@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.

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?

@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

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)

Message not measure

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

"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'