Lucy couldn’t afford treatment in the U.S., so she flew halfway around the world to a country at war, all so she could finally have children of her own.
Beautiful reporting on a deeply personal journey, and Lucy and Brad’s story deserves empathy…wanting a child, facing infertility, doing everything possible to build a family. That part is clear and human.
But there’s a structural question here that the piece touches but doesn’t fully explore: why is surrogacy illegal in most of the EU, and Switzerland?
There should not be a market for creating human beings.
Switzerland, Germany, France, and much of Northern Europe prohibit commercial surrogacy not because they’re anti-family or morally rigid, but because they’ve decided that treating gestation as a purchasable service crosses a line. The concern isn’t the intended parents’ motives (which are almost always genuine and loving). The concern is what happens when you create a market structure where women’s reproductive capacity becomes a commodity sold under conditions of economic desperation.
Ukraine now has a surrogacy market operating in a warzone. The economic logic is clear: families need income, the medical infrastructure exists, and there’s demand from wealthier countries. But the underlying dynamic is troubling, women in a country under bombardment, facing displacement and economic collapse, gestating children for foreign families because that’s one of the few ways to generate significant income.
Lucy worried “these women were being exploited” when she saw the price difference. That instinct was correct. The price is lower because Ukrainian women have fewer options, less bargaining power, and operate in a country where war has destroyed alternative economic opportunities.
The couple went “above and beyond” the contract and stayed close with their surrogate. That’s genuinely good. But the individual relationship doesn’t address the systemic problem: you’ve created a market incentive for women in desperate circumstances to lease their bodies for nine months.
And then there’s the child. Lucy and Brad have books ready to explain surrogacy “in simple terms” if their daughter asks. But what happens when she’s old enough to understand that her birth involved:
Her biological material shipped frozen across continents
A woman in a warzone carrying her for payment
A country where missile debris later killed seven people at the clinic where she was born
Legal frameworks in her home state (New York) that prohibit the very arrangement that brought her into existence
The reporting mentions “the Family Code of Ukraine leaves the surrogate mother with no possibility of claiming rights to the newborn.” That’s presented as an advantage for intended parents—-clean legal transfer, no custody complications.
But from the child’s perspective years later, it means the woman who carried her had zero legal recognition of that relationship from conception onward.
Switzerland and the EU didn’t ban this arbitrarily. They looked at the long-term ramifications…for surrogates, for children, for what it means to turn gestation into a purchasable service; and decided the ethical costs outweigh the benefits, even for loving families who desperately want children.
None of this is Lucy and Brad’s fault. The US healthcare system’s obscene costs pushed them to look internationally. Their love for their daughter is real. But we can acknowledge their joy while also recognizing that wartime surrogacy markets are a symptom of systems failing at multiple levels: healthcare inaccessibility in the US, economic desperation in Ukraine, and global inequality creating conditions where wombs become export commodities.
The fact that this all happens under the beautiful language of “helping families” and “making dreams come true” doesn’t change the underlying extraction mechanics.
As someone that has contemplated the impact of this, I really don’t know…
Johan, thank you for your comment! This is a really thoughtful and carefully argued reflection, thank you for taking the time to articulate it so clearly.😊
I’m also curious, where do you think the line should be drawn in practice? Is it about banning commercial surrogacy entirely, or is there a version of it that you think could exist without the kind of imbalance you’re describing?
Thank you for asking, this is the kind of conversation worth having carefully.
So, here are my thoughts.
Commercial surrogacy, where gestation becomes a purchasable service in exchange for payment, crosses the ethical line. The Swiss/European framework gets it right: a body carrying a child is not a commodity to be traded on the open market, regardless of consent or contract terms.
This isn’t about being anti-family or morally rigid. It’s about recognizing that when you create market incentives around reproductive capacity, the dynamics shift. Women in economically desperate circumstances will always face pressure (implicit or explicit) to participate. That’s not true consent, that’s constrained choice dressed up as autonomy.
What I think should happen (recognizing it won’t):
From a humanist perspective, adoption should be the first answer.
There’s nothing genetically special about “your own” DNA that makes those children more worthy of love or belonging. Hundreds of thousands of children already exist who need families. Redirecting the resources spent on international surrogacy toward adoption infrastructure would serve more children, more families, and avoid creating markets around gestation.
For people who can’t carry pregnancies themselves but want biological children: altruistic surrogacy (where a friend or family member carries without payment, only covering medical costs) exists in some jurisdictions.
It’s rare, it requires genuine relationship and trust, and it can’t be scaled into an industry…which is exactly why it doesn’t become exploitative.
The personal piece:
I’ve been close to this. Watching someone navigate pregnancy (what it does physically, emotionally, psychologically) has been clarifying.
My partner and I have talked extensively about surrogacy from her perspective as a woman. Her view is that gestation isn’t labor in the economic sense. It’s not a service you can separate from the person performing it. Treating it as such erases the bodily autonomy and relational complexity that makes pregnancy fundamentally different from other forms of work.
We’re also committed humanists. If we couldn’t have biological children, adoption would be our path and not because biology doesn’t matter to people emotionally (it does), but because children who exist matter more than genetics. And we are also committed to pursuing adoption in addition.
But I realize this won’t change.
The incentive structure guarantees that economies will always exist where this is legal. Wealthy countries restrict it; poorer countries permit it; and global inequality ensures demand flows toward supply.
Ukraine, Thailand, India, Georgia—-wherever economic desperation meets medical infrastructure and legal permissiveness.
So practically, I know commercial surrogacy will continue. But that doesn’t mean we should pretend it’s ethically neutral or that individual good intentions resolve the structural problems.
The best version I can imagine (that still falls short)
If commercial surrogacy must exist, the absolute minimum would be:
Surrogates must have independent legal counsel (not paid by intended parents)
Mandatory psychological evaluation and ongoing support
Guaranteed healthcare for life for any pregnancy-related complications
Surrogates retain the right to change their mind up until birth (which most contracts explicitly prohibit)
But even this “best case” still treats gestation as purchasable, which I fundamentally oppose.
Switzerland and the EU made the right call. They looked at the long-term ramifications and decided human dignity includes not creating markets around reproductive capacity. That’s even when that means some families can’t access the biological children they want.
It’s a hard line. But I think it’s the right one.
The vast majority of humanity doesn’t deal with pregnancy and children from an ethical perspective whatsoever. No one chose to be born. So shouldn’t we strive to ensure the best life possible and to apply that to those that already exist…
But we live in a world where markets and incentives say the ones with money and power can choose whatever they want, and the person who didn’t choose to be born and gets a messed-up life? No one cares.
That’s the system. And surrogacy markets are just one more expression of it.
Thank you for engaging seriously with this. These conversations matter and people need to be willing to actually think through what happens.
Agree. I wonder what the surrogate-born daughter will think of this when she comes of age. It might not be the ‘happy ending’ that her parents imagine, and there’s good reason that many countries ban this practice.
Thanks Oleksandra, it seems every day you give me a reason to admire the people of Ukraine. My sincere thanks for sharing your stories. Your pieces also never directly speak about the failings of those that should be doing so much more to help you and your people. But I always feel ashamed anyway.
Thank you so much for your kind words , we really appreciate you taking the time to say this.
There’s no need to feel ashamed. Caring, listening, and acknowledging what people are going through already matters more than you might think. What is it about Oleksandra’s stories that has stayed with you the most?
Thanks Anna. What about Oleksandra’s stories? She projects humanity. She projects hope. She projects the character of her country and her people as they deal with inhumanity every day. She provides insight into how everyday, normal people contend with unimaginable depravity by refusing to relinquish the right to live their lives. For me, she keeps me in touch with my conscience - which is a very good thing. And in the face of all, you still have better health care than my fellow Americans, who don’t know or care to know why that might be. I just try to take the time to say, “Thank you all!” ‘Duzhe Dyakuyu’ !
🙋 You asked about access to health care where readers live - in Aotearoa it has (up til now at least!) been a PUBLIC health system funded out of the taxes collected by the govt - unfortunately not so for dental visits, at least for adults. Unfortunately a few admirers of the US "for profit" health system (ie see an opportunity to make money off of illness & adversity!) have gained influence & private health care facilities are starting to affect the public system by attracting Drs & nurses etc who were trained at taxpayer expense, but only the public system has the ability to deal with more complex emergencies, so if something goes wrong in the private system a patient has to be transferred to a "proper hospital" 🤷 . Surrogacy births are an altruistic arrangement in that the surrogate is NOT paid to carry the child but "reasonable" expenses are paid for and the child legally is considered to be their child with the potential parents having to go through a full adoption process - changes have been proposed but as far as I can tell this is still the case.
I'm glad things went well in this story, but the fact that the hospital was hit afterwards just shows what a kind of gamble it was, and like Johan, do worry that poor women (in ANY country) are open to exploitation by such arrangements being legal, particularly from a "wealthy" country going to a country at war and under stress 🤔 Like to think all prospective parents can have children if they want, but those of us who didn't can have just as fulfilling lives by being available to pursue things having a family would prohibit 🤷 Strange how fast we have gone from women having no choice but to have children until contraception was widely available, to almost designer babies on the horizon due to scientific advances 😱
Thank you so much for your comment Cindy! Do you feel that the altruistic model you have in Aotearoa strikes the right balance, or do you think even that still leaves too much room for pressure or inequality ?
Hard to say as I'm not affected - I know the changes proposed (and dropped) were to identify the parents arranging the surrogacy as the legal parents without going through adoption BUT the adoption process itself involves assessments & background checks etc so in that way I guess unsavoury people "Buying a baby" is less likely, and the surrogate mother being recorded is a plus for the child in the future - PLUS being altruistic rather than for $$ possibly means they are more likely to be a good person in the relationship? Don't know anyone involved, although a relative offered to carry a child for ME when they thought the reason I was childless was that I couldn't 🫂 Possibly true, but I never investigated and just accepted I had a different path, which has worked out really well for me 🤗
Beautiful reporting on a deeply personal journey, and Lucy and Brad’s story deserves empathy…wanting a child, facing infertility, doing everything possible to build a family. That part is clear and human.
But there’s a structural question here that the piece touches but doesn’t fully explore: why is surrogacy illegal in most of the EU, and Switzerland?
There should not be a market for creating human beings.
Switzerland, Germany, France, and much of Northern Europe prohibit commercial surrogacy not because they’re anti-family or morally rigid, but because they’ve decided that treating gestation as a purchasable service crosses a line. The concern isn’t the intended parents’ motives (which are almost always genuine and loving). The concern is what happens when you create a market structure where women’s reproductive capacity becomes a commodity sold under conditions of economic desperation.
Ukraine now has a surrogacy market operating in a warzone. The economic logic is clear: families need income, the medical infrastructure exists, and there’s demand from wealthier countries. But the underlying dynamic is troubling, women in a country under bombardment, facing displacement and economic collapse, gestating children for foreign families because that’s one of the few ways to generate significant income.
Lucy worried “these women were being exploited” when she saw the price difference. That instinct was correct. The price is lower because Ukrainian women have fewer options, less bargaining power, and operate in a country where war has destroyed alternative economic opportunities.
The couple went “above and beyond” the contract and stayed close with their surrogate. That’s genuinely good. But the individual relationship doesn’t address the systemic problem: you’ve created a market incentive for women in desperate circumstances to lease their bodies for nine months.
And then there’s the child. Lucy and Brad have books ready to explain surrogacy “in simple terms” if their daughter asks. But what happens when she’s old enough to understand that her birth involved:
Her biological material shipped frozen across continents
A woman in a warzone carrying her for payment
A country where missile debris later killed seven people at the clinic where she was born
Legal frameworks in her home state (New York) that prohibit the very arrangement that brought her into existence
The reporting mentions “the Family Code of Ukraine leaves the surrogate mother with no possibility of claiming rights to the newborn.” That’s presented as an advantage for intended parents—-clean legal transfer, no custody complications.
But from the child’s perspective years later, it means the woman who carried her had zero legal recognition of that relationship from conception onward.
Switzerland and the EU didn’t ban this arbitrarily. They looked at the long-term ramifications…for surrogates, for children, for what it means to turn gestation into a purchasable service; and decided the ethical costs outweigh the benefits, even for loving families who desperately want children.
None of this is Lucy and Brad’s fault. The US healthcare system’s obscene costs pushed them to look internationally. Their love for their daughter is real. But we can acknowledge their joy while also recognizing that wartime surrogacy markets are a symptom of systems failing at multiple levels: healthcare inaccessibility in the US, economic desperation in Ukraine, and global inequality creating conditions where wombs become export commodities.
The fact that this all happens under the beautiful language of “helping families” and “making dreams come true” doesn’t change the underlying extraction mechanics.
As someone that has contemplated the impact of this, I really don’t know…
—Johan
Johan, thank you for your comment! This is a really thoughtful and carefully argued reflection, thank you for taking the time to articulate it so clearly.😊
I’m also curious, where do you think the line should be drawn in practice? Is it about banning commercial surrogacy entirely, or is there a version of it that you think could exist without the kind of imbalance you’re describing?
Hi Anna,
Thank you for asking, this is the kind of conversation worth having carefully.
So, here are my thoughts.
Commercial surrogacy, where gestation becomes a purchasable service in exchange for payment, crosses the ethical line. The Swiss/European framework gets it right: a body carrying a child is not a commodity to be traded on the open market, regardless of consent or contract terms.
This isn’t about being anti-family or morally rigid. It’s about recognizing that when you create market incentives around reproductive capacity, the dynamics shift. Women in economically desperate circumstances will always face pressure (implicit or explicit) to participate. That’s not true consent, that’s constrained choice dressed up as autonomy.
What I think should happen (recognizing it won’t):
From a humanist perspective, adoption should be the first answer.
There’s nothing genetically special about “your own” DNA that makes those children more worthy of love or belonging. Hundreds of thousands of children already exist who need families. Redirecting the resources spent on international surrogacy toward adoption infrastructure would serve more children, more families, and avoid creating markets around gestation.
For people who can’t carry pregnancies themselves but want biological children: altruistic surrogacy (where a friend or family member carries without payment, only covering medical costs) exists in some jurisdictions.
It’s rare, it requires genuine relationship and trust, and it can’t be scaled into an industry…which is exactly why it doesn’t become exploitative.
The personal piece:
I’ve been close to this. Watching someone navigate pregnancy (what it does physically, emotionally, psychologically) has been clarifying.
My partner and I have talked extensively about surrogacy from her perspective as a woman. Her view is that gestation isn’t labor in the economic sense. It’s not a service you can separate from the person performing it. Treating it as such erases the bodily autonomy and relational complexity that makes pregnancy fundamentally different from other forms of work.
We’re also committed humanists. If we couldn’t have biological children, adoption would be our path and not because biology doesn’t matter to people emotionally (it does), but because children who exist matter more than genetics. And we are also committed to pursuing adoption in addition.
But I realize this won’t change.
The incentive structure guarantees that economies will always exist where this is legal. Wealthy countries restrict it; poorer countries permit it; and global inequality ensures demand flows toward supply.
Ukraine, Thailand, India, Georgia—-wherever economic desperation meets medical infrastructure and legal permissiveness.
So practically, I know commercial surrogacy will continue. But that doesn’t mean we should pretend it’s ethically neutral or that individual good intentions resolve the structural problems.
The best version I can imagine (that still falls short)
If commercial surrogacy must exist, the absolute minimum would be:
Surrogates must have independent legal counsel (not paid by intended parents)
Mandatory psychological evaluation and ongoing support
Guaranteed healthcare for life for any pregnancy-related complications
Surrogates retain the right to change their mind up until birth (which most contracts explicitly prohibit)
But even this “best case” still treats gestation as purchasable, which I fundamentally oppose.
Switzerland and the EU made the right call. They looked at the long-term ramifications and decided human dignity includes not creating markets around reproductive capacity. That’s even when that means some families can’t access the biological children they want.
It’s a hard line. But I think it’s the right one.
The vast majority of humanity doesn’t deal with pregnancy and children from an ethical perspective whatsoever. No one chose to be born. So shouldn’t we strive to ensure the best life possible and to apply that to those that already exist…
But we live in a world where markets and incentives say the ones with money and power can choose whatever they want, and the person who didn’t choose to be born and gets a messed-up life? No one cares.
That’s the system. And surrogacy markets are just one more expression of it.
Thank you for engaging seriously with this. These conversations matter and people need to be willing to actually think through what happens.
—Johan
👍💯 - I feel for the couple who want a child, while also totally in agreement with the issues you raise.
Agree. I wonder what the surrogate-born daughter will think of this when she comes of age. It might not be the ‘happy ending’ that her parents imagine, and there’s good reason that many countries ban this practice.
Do you think there’s a way to make a progress like this more transparent and child-centred, or does the uncertainty itself make it too problematic?🤔
Thanks Oleksandra, it seems every day you give me a reason to admire the people of Ukraine. My sincere thanks for sharing your stories. Your pieces also never directly speak about the failings of those that should be doing so much more to help you and your people. But I always feel ashamed anyway.
Thank you so much for your kind words , we really appreciate you taking the time to say this.
There’s no need to feel ashamed. Caring, listening, and acknowledging what people are going through already matters more than you might think. What is it about Oleksandra’s stories that has stayed with you the most?
Thanks Anna. What about Oleksandra’s stories? She projects humanity. She projects hope. She projects the character of her country and her people as they deal with inhumanity every day. She provides insight into how everyday, normal people contend with unimaginable depravity by refusing to relinquish the right to live their lives. For me, she keeps me in touch with my conscience - which is a very good thing. And in the face of all, you still have better health care than my fellow Americans, who don’t know or care to know why that might be. I just try to take the time to say, “Thank you all!” ‘Duzhe Dyakuyu’ !
Thank you! I really appreciate your support!
🙋 You asked about access to health care where readers live - in Aotearoa it has (up til now at least!) been a PUBLIC health system funded out of the taxes collected by the govt - unfortunately not so for dental visits, at least for adults. Unfortunately a few admirers of the US "for profit" health system (ie see an opportunity to make money off of illness & adversity!) have gained influence & private health care facilities are starting to affect the public system by attracting Drs & nurses etc who were trained at taxpayer expense, but only the public system has the ability to deal with more complex emergencies, so if something goes wrong in the private system a patient has to be transferred to a "proper hospital" 🤷 . Surrogacy births are an altruistic arrangement in that the surrogate is NOT paid to carry the child but "reasonable" expenses are paid for and the child legally is considered to be their child with the potential parents having to go through a full adoption process - changes have been proposed but as far as I can tell this is still the case.
I'm glad things went well in this story, but the fact that the hospital was hit afterwards just shows what a kind of gamble it was, and like Johan, do worry that poor women (in ANY country) are open to exploitation by such arrangements being legal, particularly from a "wealthy" country going to a country at war and under stress 🤔 Like to think all prospective parents can have children if they want, but those of us who didn't can have just as fulfilling lives by being available to pursue things having a family would prohibit 🤷 Strange how fast we have gone from women having no choice but to have children until contraception was widely available, to almost designer babies on the horizon due to scientific advances 😱
Thank you so much for your comment Cindy! Do you feel that the altruistic model you have in Aotearoa strikes the right balance, or do you think even that still leaves too much room for pressure or inequality ?
Hard to say as I'm not affected - I know the changes proposed (and dropped) were to identify the parents arranging the surrogacy as the legal parents without going through adoption BUT the adoption process itself involves assessments & background checks etc so in that way I guess unsavoury people "Buying a baby" is less likely, and the surrogate mother being recorded is a plus for the child in the future - PLUS being altruistic rather than for $$ possibly means they are more likely to be a good person in the relationship? Don't know anyone involved, although a relative offered to carry a child for ME when they thought the reason I was childless was that I couldn't 🫂 Possibly true, but I never investigated and just accepted I had a different path, which has worked out really well for me 🤗