@degguBgguB @WombsNotForRent So someone couldn’t be bothered to respond thoughtfully and outsourced their rebuttal to “Grok” (an AI)? Cool. Let’s break down this tired copy-paste defense of commercial surrogacy... 🧵
1. “The ‘3x More Dangerous’ Claim is Misleading” — False.
This stat refers to the significantly elevated maternal risks in surrogacy pregnancies — not just "multiple pregnancies." Peer-reviewed studies (including my own on US gestational mothers) consistently show that gestational surrogates face higher rates of preeclampsia, hypertension, C-section, postpartum hemorrhage, and psychological distress than women carrying their own babies.
A 2021 Canadian study found 3x higher rates of preeclampsia in surrogacy pregnancies compared to standard pregnancies.
Surrogacy often involves hormonal manipulation, embryo transfer complications, and psychological burdens — all unique risks not present in natural conception.
Comparing this to “45-year-old pregnancies” is a strawman. The baseline isn’t high-risk pregnancies — it’s the average healthy woman carrying her own child.
This stat refers to the significantly elevated maternal risks in surrogacy pregnancies — not just "multiple pregnancies." Peer-reviewed studies (including my own on US gestational mothers) consistently show that gestational surrogates face higher rates of preeclampsia, hypertension, C-section, postpartum hemorrhage, and psychological distress than women carrying their own babies.
A 2021 Canadian study found 3x higher rates of preeclampsia in surrogacy pregnancies compared to standard pregnancies.
Surrogacy often involves hormonal manipulation, embryo transfer complications, and psychological burdens — all unique risks not present in natural conception.
Comparing this to “45-year-old pregnancies” is a strawman. The baseline isn’t high-risk pregnancies — it’s the average healthy woman carrying her own child.
2. “It’s Just About Single Embryo Transfer” — Misleading and naive.
Sure, SET (Single Embryo Transfer) is recommended — but rarely enforced. Especially in countries with weak regulation or financial incentives to produce “results” fast, multiple embryo transfers are common.
The Nigerian case cited isn’t an anomaly — it reflects systemic problems. The U.S., India, Ukraine, and others have all documented high twin/triplet rates from surrogacy arrangements. And yes, those do increase risks 3–5x for both surrogate and baby.
Sure, SET (Single Embryo Transfer) is recommended — but rarely enforced. Especially in countries with weak regulation or financial incentives to produce “results” fast, multiple embryo transfers are common.
The Nigerian case cited isn’t an anomaly — it reflects systemic problems. The U.S., India, Ukraine, and others have all documented high twin/triplet rates from surrogacy arrangements. And yes, those do increase risks 3–5x for both surrogate and baby.
3. “Lack of regulation in Nigeria is a local issue” — Conveniently ignores global exploitation.
This is the playbook: isolate “bad practices” to “over there,” while ignoring that many international surrogacy contracts involve cross-border arrangements exploiting legal grey zones.
U.S. agencies recruit lower-income women while offering minimal, or no, legal protections once contracts are signed.
The moment a surrogate signs the contract, her rights often vanish. I just interviewed a woman who can speak personally to this. She loses control over travel, medical decisions, birth plans — even the ability to grieve.
You don’t fix this with better paperwork. You fix it by ending body-renting contracts that commercialize women and treat babies like products.
This is the playbook: isolate “bad practices” to “over there,” while ignoring that many international surrogacy contracts involve cross-border arrangements exploiting legal grey zones.
U.S. agencies recruit lower-income women while offering minimal, or no, legal protections once contracts are signed.
The moment a surrogate signs the contract, her rights often vanish. I just interviewed a woman who can speak personally to this. She loses control over travel, medical decisions, birth plans — even the ability to grieve.
You don’t fix this with better paperwork. You fix it by ending body-renting contracts that commercialize women and treat babies like products.
4. Sure, “Surrogacy is necessary for people with infertility or same-sex couples” — I would argue, no not always, and also at what cost?
This is the emotional heartstring argument. But desire ≠ entitlement. A child is not a right. No one — gay, straight, infertile, or wealthy — has a human right to a biological child at someone else’s expense.
Surrogacy doesn't heal infertility. It transfers the burden to another woman’s body.
That woman often cannot negotiate fairly, is paid far below minimum wage when expenses are factored, and is dropped cold once the baby is delivered.
We don’t allow organ markets for this reason — because human dignity matters. Why should wombs be for rent, but not kidneys?
This is the emotional heartstring argument. But desire ≠ entitlement. A child is not a right. No one — gay, straight, infertile, or wealthy — has a human right to a biological child at someone else’s expense.
Surrogacy doesn't heal infertility. It transfers the burden to another woman’s body.
That woman often cannot negotiate fairly, is paid far below minimum wage when expenses are factored, and is dropped cold once the baby is delivered.
We don’t allow organ markets for this reason — because human dignity matters. Why should wombs be for rent, but not kidneys?
5. “Children do fine in surrogacy” — You’re skipping the actual question.
This cherry-picked claim misuses short-term psychological studies.
What’s never asked:
How do children feel knowing they were conceived from anonymous egg/sperm donors and a paid surrogate? Do they grapple with identity loss, commodification, or confusion over fragmented parenthood? Most long-term studies don’t even follow children past age 10, and many are industry-funded (conflict of interest?). And even if children are well-adjusted — that doesn’t justify the harm to the women used as surrogate mothers.
This cherry-picked claim misuses short-term psychological studies.
What’s never asked:
How do children feel knowing they were conceived from anonymous egg/sperm donors and a paid surrogate? Do they grapple with identity loss, commodification, or confusion over fragmented parenthood? Most long-term studies don’t even follow children past age 10, and many are industry-funded (conflict of interest?). And even if children are well-adjusted — that doesn’t justify the harm to the women used as surrogate mothers.
6. “Let’s regulate it better” — That’s not enough.
This is the neoliberal fantasy: that all systems can be made ethical if you tweak the laws. But surrogacy isn’t broken because of paperwork or contracts or legal systems — it’s broken because it commodifies reproduction and builds entire contracts around the control of another person’s body.
This is the neoliberal fantasy: that all systems can be made ethical if you tweak the laws. But surrogacy isn’t broken because of paperwork or contracts or legal systems — it’s broken because it commodifies reproduction and builds entire contracts around the control of another person’s body.
Finally... This isn’t about being anti-family. It’s about being pro-woman, pro-child, and pro-human dignity. Commercial surrogacy turns the miracle of childbirth into a transactional industry — where the woman doing the hardest part is treated like a disposable middleman.
So no, the “3x risk” isn’t debunked. It’s real. And even if it weren’t, the ethical cost of treating human life like a commodity is far too high.
So no, the “3x risk” isn’t debunked. It’s real. And even if it weren’t, the ethical cost of treating human life like a commodity is far too high.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
