Controversy Over Surrogate Mother

[TheUnknown]

See, when I read the article, then read this thread, the vibe I get isn't "she has the right to choose, but it was wrong" (save for the one response that literally says this).  I think the reason for this reaction isn't because she chose not to abort, but because of the situation in its entirety.  Perhaps if she refused to abort because she had genuine strong ethics concerning pregnancy, she wouldn't be getting as much venom; however, she demanded $15,000 for termination, and when she couldn't get it, said she "changed her mind anyway."  Then, after moving to a state where she would be recognized as the guardian, she gave the baby up for adoption since she was single and already had children of her own.

I don't think it's her refusal to abort that's making people in this thread angry; it's the fact that it comes off like she either a) made the choice in complete ignorance without any preparation for this child, or b) she made the choice motivated by greed.  It's not because she's pro-life, it's because she comes off as a crappy person.  It says something when quite a few Yahoo! commenters are catching on to it, though that hasn't stopped some pro-lifers from excusing her behavior as "tempted by money and having a moment of weakness, but stuck by her ethics."  Someone also asked if she still demanded the initial $22,000 for carrying the pregnancy to term.

And now, I leave you with this pro-life comment:

Just because someone's body has organs out of place does NOT mean that they won't continue to work just fine right where they are.

Yeah, let's just ignore all the other problems she has.

[Sleepy]

The surrogate, while within her rights, should have thought things through beforehand; but that's unfortunate thoughtlessness and naïvete, not rageworthy malice.

I have to disagree, after she demanded extra money from the couple to get the abortion. You should NOT need money as an incentive to abort a child so it will no longer suffer. The fact that she did such a thing makes her a shitty person, to me. In addition, you can't afford to be this thoughtless when it comes to the life of another human being. If you're that thoughtless, you really don't deserve to be a surrogate for anyone, much less a parent.

[JohnE]

The only way for "surrogate's choice" to matter against a contract is if the surrogate has to then reimburse the other people the entire cost of the procedures done to start the pregnancy. We're talking about thousands of dollars in expenses to start a surrogate pregnancy--that should not be able to be flushed down the tube because the surrogate changes her mind and so suddenly the contract doesn't mean anything.

And the money she would have received as payment, unless of course there's contingencies built into the contract where she's still get some of it, still get her health care costs reimbursed, etc. I guess part of the lesson here is to make sure your contract covers all possible contingencies.

What if the wants of the surrogate and the biological parents were reversed - the surrogate wanted to have an abortion, but the biological parents were against it and the contract had decreed that the biological parents have final say? I know I would be defending the surrogate's right to decide on the basis of "my body, my choice", and would insist that any contract to surrender such a fundamental right is invalid.

[...]

With these in mind, I really think such contract should be invalid, and the surrogate's choice respected, even when I think she's making the wrong one. The surrogate, while within her rights, should have thought things through beforehand; but that's unfortunate thoughtlessness and naïvete, not rageworthy malice.

I disagree. If there's a right you don't want to give up, don't sign the contract (I just turned down a job interview yesterday because I didn't like the terms of their contract, among other things). Then again, there are some rights you can't sign away in a contract and this sort of thing is a new enough phenomenon that all the legal ins and outs probably haven't been figured out yet.

But let's say that the surrogate is perfectly healthy, baby is perfectly healthy, and the surrogate turns around and says, "Pay me an extra $15,000 or I'm getting an abortion." Personally, I think that would cross the line into extortion, whether the contract covered it or not. Considering that in this case the surrogate demanded more money, could the same be said? I'm not sure.

[Cataclysm]

The original parents shouldn't have tried to have more kids, especially since the some of the kids they had had developmental issues and needed more attention.

[Auri-El]

If you're going to be a surrogate then you should do what they ask (within reason: nothing potentially dangerous or anything). Example: if the legal parents want their kid to be vegan, then the surrogate should be willing to eat vegan for the duration. And if the legal parents want to abort because of medical issues, then the surrogate should do it. She has no rights to the kid, she's doing them a service for which they are paying her. If she wasn't okay with every possible outcome, then she shouldn't have gone with it.

[Jack Mann]

I'm pretty much in agreement.  A woman has the right to choose.  But effectively, she made the choice when she signed the contract.  "Carry the child to term unless condition X is met."  Condition X was met.  She should have aborted for the child's sake.  She agreed to do so.  If that condition hadn't been met, then she shouldn't have the right to abort.  Not because women shouldn't be allowed to, but because she previously agreed to it.

Somewhat similar.  Someone in the military has their free speech restricted.  It isn't a violation of our first amendment rights because we agree to it when we sign up.

[Feral Dog]

I think surrogacy should be illegal.

Since it is legal, I think those parents shouldn't have been trying to have kids in the first place- genes don't change just because you stick them in a different womb.

The whole situation is heartbreaking, unnecessary, and stupid. The parents were too selfish to just raise the kids they already have, the surrogate was too selfish to do the right thing (whether that be abort, or keep the kid she knew was defective after having it instead of chucking it at the state) and the one who really suffers for it is a little kid who is only capable of suffering some more.

[Witchyjoshy]

I think surrogacy should be illegal.

Any particular reason behind this thread of logic?

[Sleepy]

Yeah, I'd love to know if the parents thought that the kid would somehow turn out okay just because they stuck it in a different womb. That was pretty dumb of them, as well.

[Auri-El]

Well the article says the older kids had problems because they were born prematurely. Is that really a genetic issue? I would've thought a surrogate would help in that situation.

[Sleepy]

True, I overlooked that. Though I think it was kinda crummy for them to have another kid, if two already had medical problems. They need to be focusing on those kids.

[MadCatTLX]

If they wanted another kid there are plenty up for adoption. With that you don't have to go through nine months of hell.

[Sleepy]

Adoption probably would've made sense for them, given that they were willing to pay so much money for it (that'd ensure that they didn't have to go through fostering). Perhaps they were set on having a kid that was biologically theirs.

[Osama bin Bambi]

I think surrogacy should be illegal.

Any particular reason behind this thread of logic?

I'd be interested in your opinion as well.

I think that surrogacy should be legal, but there should definitely be some laws in place to protect the parents, the surrogate, and the child. (Since the fetus in this instance is actually wanted by the parents, it makes sense that it should be considered partially a child for the sake of argument so that the parents can be reimbursed if it is deliberately harmed.)