The Downside of Surrogacy in the Philippines

A Position Paper by Vina Lorraine C Marasigan

Introduction

Nature has given the wonderful capability to create a life within

women, and every women think of the world the experience of
motherhood. Unfortunately, some women not only in the Philippines
but also in the whole world due to certain physiological conditions were
not able to give birth to their own child. The desire for motherhood
leads them search for alternative solutions, and surrogacy presents
itself as the most practical and applicable alternative.

Surrogacy is a new and very different from the usual way of

addressing the problem of infertility, which may be disputable in a
dependent nation like Philippines. The system of surrogacy has given
hope to many infertile couples, who long to have a child of their own.
Advanced Technologies assisted in the reproduction techniques and
even transform the reproductive environment, resulting in “surrogacy”,
as the most desirable option. Taking advantage of the advanced
medical facilities which seeks alternative solutions such as Artificial
Reproductive Technique, in the hope of having a child of their own.

For many infertile men and women being unable to bear and
raise children has severe emotional and psychological consequences.
They often feel guilty and experience a loss of self-worth and
confidence. To many infertile women, their condition affects their most
feelings about who they are and what their role in the family is. It
influences one‘s personal identity and the extent of fulfilment. For that
reason, infertility is regarded a major health problem. Also, it makes it
clear why people who cannot have children in the natural way look for
other ways in order to become a parent.

The First ever commercially transacted case of Surrogacy in the

Philippines took place last October 2008. It was arranged by a foreign
company between a Filipino married woman and a male gay couple
from Malaysia and Denmark.

According to the ARTIFICIAL REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUE

(ART) GUIDELINE, SURROGACY itself is an “arrangement in which a
woman agrees to a pregnancy, achieved through assisted reproductive
technology, in which neither of the gametes belong to her or to her
husband, with the intention of carrying it to term and handing over the
child to the person or persons for whom she is acting as surrogate; and
a ‘surrogate mother’ is a woman who agrees to have an embryo
generated from the sperm of a man who is not her husband, and the
oocyte for another woman implanted in her to carry the pregnancy to
full term and deliver the child to its biological parents(s).”
 The increased legal benefits of gestational surrogacy and
existence of a genetic bond, however, are often strong selling points
for the intended parents and surrogates who choose this route.
However, given the costs of surrogacy in western countries like the
United States and the United Kingdom, intended parents are coming
more and more often to developing countries to find a surrogate
mother. The fee the couples have to pay the surrogate mother – about
a quarter of what mothers in Europe and North-America charge – is
not the only reason for them to come to a country like Philippines.
Hence, Philippines is fast emerging as a popular destination for
childless couples to seek help.

That means a surrogate mother is the replacement for the

genetic-biological mother. In common language, a surrogate mother
is the person who is hired to bear a child, which she hands over to her
employer at birth. In the past, surrogacy arrangements were generally
confined to close relatives, family, or friends, usually as a charitable
deed. But, with the introduction of financial arrangements in the
process, surrogacy has extended its network beyond family,
community, state, and even across the country. The concept of
surrogacy has turned a normal biological function of a woman’s body
into a commercial contract. Surrogate services are advertised.
Surrogates are recruited, and operating agencies make huge profits.
The commercialization of surrogacy has raised fears of a black market
and of baby selling and breeding farms; turning needy women into
baby producers and the possibility of selective breeding at a price.
Surrogacy demean a pregnancy to a service and a baby to a product.

Philippine law currently holds no position with regard to the

legality of the practice of surrogacy and the rights given to the
presumed parents and the surrogate. Existing laws dictate a child born
from a surrogate mother will be treated as her legal child regardless of
the biological mother presumed parent’s child. Considering all these
factors, the issue of the legality of the practice of surrogacy must be
addressed by legislation.

ARGUMENT

Under the Philippine Constitution, as the highest law of the land

and all laws, orders, judicial decisions must adhere to it. It is the
protection against the government. One of the institutions that the
Constitution protects, is the family being regarded as the foundation of
the nation. It States that: The States recognizes the Filipino family as
the foundation of the Nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen solitarily
and actively promote its total development. The State recognizes the
sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a
basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of
the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and
primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic
efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the
support of the Government.

The Philippine Constitution also defends the State’s very basic

institution, the family. Filipinos are recognized as a very adaptive of
the culture of strong family relations. Married couples were anticipated
to have children. However, not all are lucky and be capable of having
their own child. Filipinos are known for having strong ties. Married
couples are expected to have a child or have children. Family members
and the society dictates that a family cannot be called a family without
children.

Marriage, being a special contract between a man and a woman,

carries with it the obligation of procreation to ensure the continuation
of society. When a husband and wife lacks knowledge on the benefits,
risks and effectiveness of fertility regulation and inability to decide for
the family, then both have failed to comply with what is required to them
as married individuals.

Through reproductive health programs and legislature, married

couples can make quick-witted choices with regard to the life of their
children. They can decide on when to carry a child and also of the
parents especially of the mother.

According to a Senate Bill drafted in the year of 2006 by Senator

Manny Villar, which prohibits surrogacy, it is defined as the process of
infertile woman “agrees to conceive a child naturally or artificially, by
her own lawful husband or otherwise, for the purpose of giving that
child away after birth, or while already conceiving shall agree to give
away the child after birth, to another person with the intention of giving
up permanently all her paternal rights, love, affection over the child”
(Section 2 of Senate Bill No. 2344, 2006 p.1). The concept passed-
down, as it has been represented in the public consciousness through
various Filipino movies, and popularized by local celebrities in the
previous years. Surrogacy pursue to be practiced in the Philippines
with the existence of clinics and agencies that connect Filipinos,
whether as commissioning parents or surrogate mothers, to related
parties. They frequently take a transnational setting, wherein couples
from advanced countries contract out mothers from many developing
countries in Asia, including Philippines, where surrogacy was
considered for resiliency due to the low-costs and limited laws to
govern it.

Surrogacy remains to be underdeveloped in the Philippines

because of the many risks involved in the process. Secrecy shrouds
surrogacy due to its legal predicaments and its nonconformity to the
Catholic belief system that dominates Philippine society. Implications
include demonizing women’s work and the necessity of academic
discourse that addresses surrogacy have been explored.

Surrogate motherhood raises difficult ethical, philosophical and

social issues. With the monetary transaction the matter complicates
even further as one has to look at it from a commercial/ business point
of view, while there is still no legal provision to safeguard the interest
of the surrogate mother, the child or the commissioning parents. The
practice of renting a womb and getting a child is like outsourcing
pregnancy.

The question of legality or illegality of surrogacy arrangements

can be answered by reviewing the country’s priority when it comes to
family, marriage and welfare of children.

First point of view on formal discussion is, surrogacy in the

Philippines is limited. There has been one study ( Pangalangan et al.,
2019) that looks at different positions on surrogacy among Filipinos
involved in the process, disregard the potential parents. It disclosed
that surrogacy as a largely unexplored practice in the Philippines, lay
something on the risks involved, such as emotional attachment among
the mothers, financial scamming on the part of the agent, perception
of risk in the child’s future among the general population, and the strict
rules set in place by the agencies to mitigate to these problems. There
is also a lack of legal parameters when dealing with surrogacy, which
serves as both a reason why many avail of it in the Philippines
compared to other countries, and a deterrent due to the unclear
consequences of doing so (Guidote, 2017; Aguiling- Pangalangan,
2019). All of this gives surrogacy its secretive nature in the Philippines,
further enforced by conservative culture, which may hinder key players
from discussing the issue in public spaces. (Pangalangan et al., 2017)

Second, was the point of view on commissioning parents,

surrogacy is often viewed as a last resort for many infertile couples
because it is perceived as a “difficult” process to engage in (Arvidsson
et al., 2015). It may be framed as an arrangement victimizing both
potential parents and surrogate mothers (Deomampo, 2013), taking
advantage of the parents’ “reproductive vulnerability” (Riggs and Due,
2012). Despite this, commissioning parents and providers of services
are more likely to be regarded in positions of power in the arrangement
(Sandoval, 2010), contributing to the potential of the surrogate mothers
body (Vora, 2013). Even if both are vulnerable, the extent to which they
are affected differs (Pantich, 2013). Macer (2014) points out this gap
is even wider in the case of transnational surrogacy, as additional
factors may contribute to wider disparities among the parties.
Commissioning parents are positioned as agentic citizens with the
power to undertake reproductive travel (Riggs and Due, 2012).
 As a result, Western commissioning parents who have availed of
the service communicate their personal duty for their fertility, situated
within an “individualist rhetoric of choice” (Madsen, 2014). This is in
line with neo- liberal ideological perspective, which promotes the idea
that infertile individuals take “personal responsibility” for their fertility,
consequently making decisions to maximize their chances of
pregnancy and turning particular reproductive matters into
commodities (Krolokke and Pant, 2012, p.234). In effect,
commissioning parents’ discourses involve trying to negotiate the
ambiguous ideas they have about surrogacy by defying the exploitation
discourse, while holding uncertainty if they are also perpetuating it by
engaging in surrogacy (Arvidsson et al., 2015). They may utilize the
rhetoric of “global sisterhood” to emphasize the struggle of the
intended mothers in India; ultimately, the position surrogacy as a
solution to injustice, rather than a symptom of it.

In some instances, surrogacy occurs in ways that protect,

respect and uphold, the human rights of children born through
surrogacy. However, currently, international human rights law does not
provides safeguards specifically focusing on domestic surrogacy and
International Surrogacy Arrangements (ISAs), which place children
born through surrogacy at risk. Moreover, very few States have
domestic legal and policy frameworks that provide safeguards for the
rights of children in ISAs and, in some instances, domestic surrogacy.
The Concluding Observations and Recommendations of the CRC
Committee , the thematic reports on children and surrogacy of the UN
Special Rapporteur on sale and sexual exploitation of children, as well
as the Verona Principles, provide guidance on protecting the rights of
children born through surrogacy.

Third, children born through surrogacy, are at risk of multiple

human rights violation- particularly, their right to an identity, including
name, nationality, family relations and access to origins; the right to
the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, and the right
to not be sold the latter also stated in the Optional Protocol to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child
prostitution and child pornography (OPSC) decisions may be made by
adults in surrogacy situations which are discriminatory based on the
child’s disability and/ or gender, and which are contrary to the child’s
best interests as the paramount consideration.

According to the Article published by the UNICEF entitled as

“Key Considerations: Children’s Rights and Surrogacy (p.2), during a
surrogacy arrangement, the rights of the children are at risk in the
following ways:

(1) Establishing and preserving identity can be difficult or

impossible for children born through surrogacy, child’s right under
Articles 7 and 8 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child- which protect the child’s rights to be registered at birth, to
preserve their identity, and to re-establish their identity if they have
been illegally deprived of some or all of its elements- can be negatively
impacted by decisions made about the child in surrogacy situations.
Decisions about whether to preserve information relevant to a child’s
identity can have a lifetime impact on the child, and future generations,
in several ways. Knowing one’s origins is fundamental to the child’s
physical, psychological, cultural and spiritual development. Having
one’s own identity is also a gateway to the enjoyment of the child’s
other fundamental rights, such as those related to protection, health,
education, and the maintenance of family ties.

Persons and organizations facilitating and/or undertaking

surrogacy are not always aware of the importance of collecting, storing,
and preserving identity information of children born through surrogacy,
so the child can know their origins. In the absence of systems to
preserve the child’s identity rights, restoration of the child’s identity may
be impossible; particularly in circumstances where there is donor
and/or surrogate anonymity. This also leads to challenges in birth
registration and certification, as only a few civil registration systems are
set up to record identity information related to family relations in
surrogacy and other forms of assisted reproductive technology.

(2) Legal parentage in surrogacy raises challenges to the child’s

rights. Although it is in the best interests of children to have legal
parentage established as soon as possible after birth, the integrity of a
child’s legal parentage in surrogacy needs to be protected through
minimum standards. These include, for example, pre-surrogacy
safeguards, best interest determinations, consents of all parties to the
arrangement, and protecting the child’s right to access their origins.
Establishment or transfer of legal parentage cannot be linked to
remuneration or other considerations, and the rights of the child should
not be sacrificed to create legal certainty in parentage prior to birth,
including in the event of unforeseen developments in a surrogacy
arrangement. Such developments may include those related to
uncertainty created by emergency situations and/or changes in the
circumstances, or wishes, of the parties to the surrogacy arrangement.

(3) Children are at greater risk of being sold in commercial

surrogacy arrangements. Sale and trafficking of children born through
surrogacy is occurring, especially in ISAs, due to a lack of protective
safeguards being implemented by States. A legally binding contractual
relationship between the surrogate mother and the intending parent(s)
established pre-birth, in which the transfer of the child would be made
conditional upon payment, would constitute the sale of a child. It can
also lead to incorrect information being included in civil registration
systems and falsification of identity information. The financial aspects
of surrogacy arrangements often lack clarity, suggesting that they go
beyond mere compensation for surrogacy-related expenses, including
in purported “altruistic” surrogacy arrangements, amounting to the sale
of children under Article 2 of the OPSC. The identity and family
relations of a child cannot be for sale.

(4) Children born through surrogacy can be at risk of

statelessness. This is especially prevalent in ISAs when children are
born in States that do not recognise the child as a national, nor do any
other States. This may occur in situations where the intending parents
are nationals of, or reside in, States that prohibit surrogacy and travel
to a State that allows surrogacy arrangements. This contravenes State
obligations under Articles 7 and 8 of the CRC and the State’s duty to
prevent statelessness. It follows that States that permit surrogacy
should limit access to surrogacy solely to intending parents from other
States which also permit surrogacy.

Based on Section 1 of the Bill of Rights states that No person

shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor shall be denied the equal protection of law. This right includes
everyone; may be a child, a mother, a person with disability, insane or
incapacitated persons. It is one of the consequences why the
Philippines has distinct viewpoint on the topics of abortion, death
penalty, and other circumstance which involves taking another’s life.
However, the right to life is also raised on certain instances wherein a
person has his own preference as what to have children for the
purpose of providing sufficiently for the children’s future.

Thus, surrogacy arrangement involved in this position is

gestational surrogacy wherein a married couple contracts a surrogate
mother to bear their child. The embryo is created by using both the
biological father’s sperm and the biological mother’s egg through a
process called a vitro fertilization. The embryo then is transferred to
the uterus of the surrogate and the surrogate will carry the embryo
through the pregnancy until its birth. With this, the surrogate’s egg was
not used, therefore, the child will not be related to the surrogate
biologically. However, our laws do not necessarily apply in gestational
surrogacy arrangements.

In entering into surrogacy arrangements, the parties involved are

vulnerable to great risks. During the interval between the transfer of
embryo to the birth of the child, various situations may occur which will
put all parties at risk. The surrogate mother may refuse to uphold the
agreement and intend to keep the child. There exists a likelihood that
the best interests of the child will not be protected because of the
agreement in which he took no part in the first place. The Family Code
only determines paternity and filtration and not the determination of
maternity. This void in our laws must be filled to determine the legality
of surrogacy.

In addition, right to information and education also matters

wherein it includes access to full information on the benefits, risks, and
success and usefulness of all methods of fertility regulation, for the
sake of the decisions taken which are made on the basis of full, free
and informed consent. Married couples face essential marital
obligations embraced in the provisions of the Family Code., In the case
of Azcueta v Republic the essential marital obligations must be those
embraced by Articles 68- 71 of the Family Code. It is also discussed
that one who is unable to support himself, much less a wife; one who
is not free from outside control or influence in making decisions
regarding even the most basic matters that spouses face in a daily
basis. And one who cannot provide to the material, physical and
emotional well-being of his spouse is psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the marital obligations.

The right to Information and education helps married couple to

their own accord and responsibly decide the number and spacing of
their children. This will guarantee the future of not only the children
they plan to bring in this world but also their future as family.

For instance, in India, most women who go for surrogacy insist

on anonymity for fear of social stigma. Some men, particularly the
husbands of surrogate mothers, react to this encroachment on their
rights. Women who participate in surrogacy programmes report that
their partners, initially agreeing to their undertaking the responsibility,
often change their attitude after they take on their new role. The same
goes for one (1) American woman told of how her fiancée left her for
another woman. The husband of another surrogate mother would not
look at her after she was inseminated.

As a result, surrogacy turns a normal biological function into a

commercial contract. Surrogacy services are advertised and
surrogates are recruited and operating agencies make large profits.
The commercialisation of surrogacy raises fears of black market and
baby selling, breeding farms, and turns impoverished women into baby
producers, with the possibility of selective breeding at a price. Even the
supposed benefits of surrogacy are created by a capitalist patriarchal
society. It is assumed that there is an equal exchange - money paid for
the service rendered. In reality the contract between the parties in
surrogacy would not exist if the parties were equal. The woman must
give more than her egg in order to gestate a child - an important gender
difference. Within this framework the contract is always biased in favor
of the financially secure male. The freedom of the surrogate mother is
an illusion. The arbitration of rights hides central social and class
issues which makes surrogacy contracts possible.

Further, the surrogate may be forced to terminate the pregnancy

if so desired by the contracting couple and she will not be able to
terminate it if it is against the desire of the couple. There have been
instances where the contracting individual has specified the sex of the
baby, refused to take the baby if it was not born normal and filed a suit
against the surrogate saying she had broken the contract. In surrogacy
the rights of the child are almost never considered. Transferring the
duties of parenthood from the birthing mother to a contracting couple
is denying the child its claim to both the mother and the father. Early
handover of the child hampers breastfeeding. It could affect the
psycho-social wellbeing of children born as a result of surrogacy.

Furthermore, bio-ethicists are concerned that surrogates are

being badly paid and working as surrogates in a country with a
comparatively high maternal mortality rate. Surrogacy poses a series
of social, ethical and legal issues which remain unanswered, like: Is it
legal to become a surrogate mother in Philippines? Will the child born
to a Filipino surrogate mother be a citizen of this country? Who
arranges for the birth certificate and passport that will be required by
the foreign couple at the time of immigration? Whose name will appear
on the birth certificate? How will the commissioning parents claim
parenthood? What happens if the surrogate mother changes her mind
and refuses to hand over the baby or blackmails for custody? Who will
take the responsibility of the child if the commissioning parents refuse
to take the child? What would happen if the child is born disabled?
What would happen if the sex of the child is not to the liking of the
commissioning parents? All these need to be analysed thoroughly
before designing any policy relating to surrogacy and making legal
provisions. There is a big possibility that this might happen in the
Philippines as well.

Moreover, this revelation highlights the need for studies on

surrogacy to provide a base for formulation of laws and regulations on
surrogacy arrangements.

As a consequence, Filipinos are left with no idea of their rights

and liabilities which may or may not arise upon agreeing to a surrogacy
arrangement. For the time being, the Civil Code only provides for the
legitimacy status of children conceived through artificial insemination
of a wife with the sperm of the husband or that of a donor provided that
both of them authorized or ratified such insemination in a written
instrument. It does not cover the legality, boundaries, and limitations of
the act and the corresponding rights due to the presumed parents, the
child and the surrogate. The Philippines has laws protecting the rights
and interest are left ignored due to the absence of surrogacy laws.

Under Philippine laws and jurisprudence as to the legality or

illegality of the practice of surrogacy. The Civil Code states that No
judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of silence,
obscurity or insufficiency of laws. Hence, when the law is silent, the
court should render a decision based on justice. “In case of doubt in
the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the law
making body intended right and justice to prevail.

CONCLUSION

Morals and public policy helps the legislation on the formulation

of laws. It shows that the actions of the government in funding priorities
and the regulations in given positions, cultural ideals or accepted rules.

The Philippines is a conservative Catholic country. The thought

that Philippines was the only country in the world that didn’t recognize
divorce. This shows the conservative nature of the country as a
Catholic country. And when one looks at that, one then makes sense
of some of the issues with what the law do with surrogacy.

Philippine laws and jurisprudence provide other options to have

a child. Adoption is one of the most common alternatives to surrogacy.
Although, raising a child is always the happiest moment for parents,
but both pros and cons are comparable between surrogacy and
adoption. Adoption laws both domestic and inter-country have been in
place for married couples who are facing hardships in biologically
conceiving a child. There is a strong need to modify and make the
adoption procedure simple for all. This will bring down the rates of
surrogacy. Altruistic and not commercial surrogacy should be
promoted. Laws should be framed and implemented to cover the
middle grounds of society, and to protect the rights of women and
children. The financial cost of adoption and surrogacy involves huge
expenses because of service charges of the agency and legal
involvement. However, in the case of surrogacy medical expenses and
compensation to surrogates are an additional burden, though medical
expenses can be deducted by insurance coverage and tax deduction
services. It is necessary to mention that many countries like the federal
government charge tax for adoption. The mutual matching process in
surrogacy makes it more compatible for both intended parents and
surrogates. Whereas in adoption, the birth mother has the ultimate
right to choose the family where she wants to place her child. Although
in the adoption process, the selection criteria like medical history, race,
substance exposure, and post-placement contact can be selected by
intended parents. In surrogacy, the stringent screening process is
followed to select surrogates and intended parents have more control
over prenatal care. Such possibilities are negligible in adoption. The
information on the social and medical history of the mother of the
adopted child is completely dependent upon the intention of the self-
disclosure of the mother.

As the Philippines recognizes the family as the basic social

institution, it is imperative that the creation of children as part of the
family and the society is addressed. The current framework of our
country when it comes to the practice of surrogacy does great danger
because there no laws existing to regulate the same.

In order to protect the sanctity of marriage and the family, laws

must be passed declaring the illegality of the practice of surrogacy in
the Philippines. The Constitution itself protects the Filipino family and
considers marriage as the foundation of the family.

Therefore, there is no law that governs and protects the

surrogacy in the Philippines and upon agreeing to surrogacy
arrangements, the family may be put at risks in ways that could lead to
the destruction of the same.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1987 Philippine Constitution

Phil. Const. Art. XV Sec. 1

Phil. Const. Art. II Sec 12
Phil. Const. Art. III Sec. 1
Phil. Const. Art. XV Sec. 12

Legislative Bills

An Act Prohibiting Surrogate Motherhood Including Infant Selling and

Providing Penalties, Senate Bill No. 2344, Sec 2 of 2006, p.1

International Treaties

Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Philippine Statutes

An Act to Ordain and Institute the Civil Code of the Philippines,

Republic Act No. 386, Art. 9 and 10
Philippine Jurisprudence

Azcueta v Republic of the Philippines and CA, G.R. No. 180668, May
26, 2009

Journals and Other Articles

Pangalangan B.M.S.C., Dawana G.J.B., Kibanoff K.A.D., Ramos S.M.

(2017, May). Different perspectives on surrogacy in the
Philippines. Paper presented at 30th Association for Psychological
Science Convention, San Francisco, CA.
Aguiling-Pangalangan E. H. (2019, March). Parents and children:
When law and technology unbundle traditional identities. Paper
presented at the Foundation for Liberty and Prosperity Professorial
Chair, University of the Philippines, Quezon City.
Arvidsson A., Vauquline P., Johnsdotter S., Essén B. (2017).
Surrogate mother-praiseworthy or stigmatized: A qualitative study on
perceptions of surrogacy in Assam, India. Global Health Action, 10(1),
1328890.
Deomampo D. (2013). Transnational surrogacy in India: Interrogating
power and women’s agency. Frontiers: A Journal of Women’s Studies,
34(3), 167–188.
Riggs D., Due C. (2012). Representations of surrogacy in submissions
to a parliamentary inquiry in New South Wales. Techné: Research in
Philosophy and Technology, 16(1), 71–84
Sandoval J.A. (2010). Labor pains: An exploration of the complex roles
of identity, the body, and policy in surrogacy discourses in India
[Unpublished doctoral thesis]. University of New Mexico.
Pantich V. (2013). Global surrogacy: Exploitation to
empowerment. Journal of Global Ethics, 9(3), 329–343.
Vora K. (2013). Potential, risk, and return in transnational Indian
gestational surrogacy. Current Anthropology, 54, S97–S106
Macer D. (2014). Ethical conditions for transnational gestational
surrogacy in Asia. American Journal of Bioethics, 14(5), 1–2.
Riggs D., Due C. (2012). Representations of surrogacy in submissions
to a parliamentary inquiry in New South Wales. Techné: Research in
Philosophy and Technology, 16(1), 71–84.
Madsen K.H. (2014). A baby “made in India”: Intended motherhood
and transnational surrogacy.
Kroløkke C.H., Pant S. (2012) I only need her uterus: Neo-liberal
discourses on transnational surrogacy. Nordic Journal of Feminist and
Gender Research, 20(4), 233–248
Arvidsson A., Johnsdotter S., Essén B. (2015). Views of Swedish
commissioning parents relating to the exploitation discourse in using
transnational surrogacy. PLOS ONE, 10(5), e0126518.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS: CHILDREN’S RIGHTS & SURROGACY

Internet Sources
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1834490921997933?icid=i
nt.sj-full-text.similar-articles.2#bibr2-1834490921997933
https://www.unicef.org/media/115331/file
http://www.arsvi.com/2010/1403mk.htm
https://doi.org/10.5840/techne20121617
https://doi.org/10.5840/techne20121617
https://www.surrogacycentregeorgia.com/surrogacy/is-there-any-
alternativeofsurrogacy/#:~:text=Adoption%20and%20its%20consequ
ences&text=Adoption%20is%20one%20of%20the,comparable%20be
tween%20surrogacy%20and%20adoption.