You are not entitled to a child.

The ethical and moral dilemmas surrounding the creation of a person via surrogacy are not negated by a strong desire for a child. You cannot be entitled to a human person — no matter how good your intentions are.

Surrogacy disaster writ large by abortion demand

A horrific news story has been doing the rounds recently, regarding a surrogate who is fighting for the life of the unborn child within her — after the couple who hired her are pushing for the child to be killed via abortion.

McKenna West, a nurse and single mother of two from Alaska, decided to pursue being a surrogate in an attempt to earn some extra money for her household. Soon after she was accepted by a couple to be their surrogate, she became pregnant through IVF.

All was going according to plan until her anatomy scan at 20 weeks gestation, where it was discovered that the baby boy she was carrying had a rare condition known as hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS).

Despite assurances from specialists involved regarding the good chance of survival for the unborn child once the necessary surgeries are performed after birth, the commissioning couple have insisted on abortion.

McKenna is now 35 weeks pregnant and fighting for custody of the baby boy in an attempt to save his life. She is also being sued by the couple who hired her as a surrogate for not aborting the child they paid to create — as there was an “abort on demand” clause within the contract she signed. The life of this poor, innocent unborn child may now be in the hands of a California court.

The entire situation is nightmarish. The reader may find themselves, like me, remarking on how this couple does not deserve this child. But, the reality is, no one “deserves” a child. No one is entitled to another human being, ever. No matter how bad their heart aches for one, no matter how much they paid, no matter how pure and good their intentions seemingly are. Surrogacy treats human beings like a commodity; it treats women like cattle and babies like products to be bought and sold.

The couple who hired McKenna West are two individuals with no respect for human life — proven by their relentless push for aborting the baby they paid to create. But they are not even the main issue here.

The entire contrived, dystopian and morally repugnant area of surrogacy is the problem. It is glorified human trafficking. 

Why do we think we can buy a human?

The belief that surrogacy is ethically permissible stems from the falsehood that the unborn human child is devoid of innate rights, such as the right to be treated as a human being and not as a commodity or livestock. Stripping the unborn of these rights in the context of surrogacy reduces them to little more than objects. The truth is that surrogacy, particularly the commercial kind, is exploitative by its very nature and degrades the human person — both born and unborn.

When a woman enters a legally binding contract which requires certain commitments of her that, when met, result in her financial gain, she is doing so for that exact purpose: financial gain. In the context of surrogacy, this results in pregnancy being viewed as a paid service. This usually happens between a couple who have the means to provide a substantial payment, and an individual woman who is in such a financially disadvantaged position that she will rent out her own womb. What is this, except exploitation?

A woman in the United States going by the pseudonym Carole-Anne Kelly, agreed to be a ‘host’ for what she was led to believe was an infertile couple, as per the profile provided to her by the surrogacy agency she was registered with. Kelly later discovered that the entire story was a lie from start to finish: there was no ‘infertile couple’, and the baby she carried had actually been sold to a couple in the United Kingdom for $100,000. The entire experience left Kelly utterly traumatised. She said: 

The surrogacy industry preys on vulnerable women, it grooms them and uses their bodies for money, yet you’re not allowed to talk about it. I know I’m not the only woman to have something like this happen and I want to speak out to show others that they’re not alone.”

What about ‘altruistic’ surrogacy?

The notion of “altruistic surrogacy”, or non-commercial surrogacy, where there is no financial compensation sought by the woman for being impregnated and carrying the baby to term, initially seems to correct a lot of the issues with commercial surrogacy. This form of surrogacy often takes place between close friends, but it can also be agreed between family members: a sister may be a surrogate for another sister, a brother, her daughter, her son, her own mother, etc. The ‘family tree’ can start to get confusing.

The can of worms that non-commercial surrogacy opens are partly different but not any less problematic to commercial surrogacy. In some ways, it can be worse.

Marie-Anne Isabelle is a woman based in the UK who shared her ‘altruistic’ surrogacy experience, which left her with PTSD. Despite being promised that she’d have involvement in the child’s life, even to the extent of being the child’s godmother, she was completely shut out within a month of giving birth. She proceeded to receive threatening phone calls and letters, demanding she hand over any and all rights to the child — or she’ll be taken to court.

It’s hard to imagine which is worse: a child having no contact with their surrogate mother, or some strange, blurred-boundary relationship where a friend of your parents is actually the woman who carried you in her womb for nine months.

It seems that initially the notion of the surrogate mother having a personal relationship with the child was fine, even desirable. But after the birth the couple felt it was no longer appropriate. It’s hard to imagine which is worse: a child having no contact with their surrogate mother, or some strange, blurred-boundary relationship where a friend of your parents is actually the woman who carried you in her womb for nine months.

As for the effects on the child in this equation, the research is inconclusive. Many researchers claim that there is no harm done to children who were a product of surrogacy — but the studies relied on the mother’s own assessment of the child’s well-being.

However, a 2024 article in the Daily Mail shared the experience of Olivia Maurel, a woman who was born via surrogate and claimed to never have bonded with her mother, and as a result, suffered an unhappy childhood. After having a child herself, she claimed her view on surrogacy was only crystallised further, stating that “the sacred bond between mother and baby is, I feel, something that should never be tampered with”. Olivia now campaigns for the universal abolition of surrogacy. 

Research has found that surrogates, compared to mothers birthing their own children, have a greater risk of being diagnosed with a mental illness during and after pregnancy. Surrogacy for no monetary gain, simply as a way to do something nice for someone you love, is rife with emotional and psychological ticking time-bombs. 

It would seem that “altruistic surrogacy” retains almost every ethical issue of commercial surrogacy — it simply removes the profit-making element and direct exploitation of financially-disadvantaged women, while adding its own vast array of unique issues.

Hard truth

Surrogacy is often pursued as a result of a sense of entitlement towards becoming a parent, or having more children. It is important to accept the reality that no one is entitled to a child. Statements like these can be harsh and are not intended to add to the pain of couples who are struggling with infertility. Nevertheless, a child is a human being, and therefore never something someone could be entitled to, or owed. The ethical and moral dilemmas surrounding the creation of a person via surrogacy are not negated by a strong desire for a child. You are entitled to basic respect, peace, freedom, to name a few. Not a human person.