Surrogacy is supposed to help people build the families they’ve always wanted, not come with a money-back guarantee based on what’s between their legs. But a British court has been confronted with a deeply unsettling case involving two gay men who allegedly negotiated a partial refund if their surrogate delivered a girl.
RELATED: Gay Dads Targeted Over Their Baby Get a Break in Court
The gay couple, identified in court documents as D and C, have been granted legal parenthood of a 20-month-old boy born through a commercial surrogacy arrangement in China. The catch? The arrangement involved sex selection, a substantial payment, and a financial condition that makes the whole situation even more uncomfortable.
D, a British citizen born in China, and his partner currently live abroad but plan to return to the UK. They reportedly paid nearly £93,000 to a woman in a rural Chinese village to carry their child. Genetic testing was used to prioritize the implantation of male embryos, with the couple requesting a “partial refund if a male child was not born”.
Apparently, even the baby’s sex came with contractual terms.
RELATED: LGBTQ+ Youth Identification Is Falling Among Younger Teens. But Why?
A Court Order Doesn’t Mean a Free Pass
Commercial surrogacy is illegal in China, while UK law restricts payments to surrogates to reasonable expenses. Despite the circumstances, a British family court decided that granting the couple a parental order was in the 20-month-old boy’s “best interests”.
That decision did not mean the judge approved of how the child was conceived.
Mr Justice MacDonald “strongly” criticized D and C’s actions, making clear that authorizing the commercial surrogacy payments should not be interpreted as “a license to engage in unlawful commercial surrogacy arrangements abroad”.
The case has also prompted criticism from those concerned about the commercialization of surrogacy.
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, Lexi Ellingworth of Stop Surrogacy Now said the case “raises profoundly troubling questions of surrogacy here in the UK.
“It is difficult to think of anything more regressive than turning the creation of a child into a transaction in which the child’s sex can determine whether money is refunded or not. Yet these are precisely the kinds of practices that people can access abroad despite being prohibited here.”
And that’s the uncomfortable heart of the matter: a child shouldn’t be treated like a product that can be exchanged, discounted, or refunded because they weren’t delivered according to a buyer’s specifications.
When Surrogacy Becomes a Business
This isn’t the first time international commercial surrogacy has attracted attention for particularly disturbing reasons.
Earlier this year, reports emerged that Chinese video game developer Xu Bo had allegedly fathered hundreds of children through surrogacy. Xu is said to have more than 100 children, although an ex-girlfriend claimed the number was closer to 300.
One surrogate mother reportedly said she had been told that Xu was using more than 20 surrogates simultaneously.
The figures are staggering, but they also highlight broader questions about the business of having children, particularly when wealthy intended parents can access arrangements in countries with different legal protections.
In the UK, commercial surrogacy remains prohibited, although intended parents can pursue surrogacy arrangements overseas. Between 2014 and 2023, more than half of intended parents using surrogacy travelled abroad to have a child.
The Child Isn’t a Refund Policy
Surrogacy can be an important route to parenthood for gay couples and others who cannot carry a pregnancy themselves. There’s nothing inherently wrong with wanting to build a family, and the desire to become a parent deserves understanding rather than ridicule.
But there’s a significant difference between pursuing parenthood through surrogacy and treating the process like a customized purchase.
The court’s decision ultimately prioritized the welfare of a child who already exists and needs legal parents. That doesn’t erase the judge’s criticism or make the circumstances surrounding his birth any less troubling.
And if there’s one thing worth taking away from this case, it’s that a baby’s worth should never come with conditions attached. Boy or girl, a child is not a faulty order that comes with a partial refund.
Source: Christian Institute