Surrogate offered $10,000 to abort baby

[myswtghst]

I'm not sure about trigger warnings, but the article discusses abortion (with a dash of anti-choice rhetoric), reproductive coercion, disability & aborting due to birth defects, custody laws / adoption, and surrogacy / pregnancy. Please let me know if there is anything else I should include here (and Mods - let me know if you'd like this edited

Comments

[mythrai]

bodily autonomy > all, sorry. contract or not, the parents' reactions and the attitude of their lawyer is despicable.

if the situation were reversed and the surrogate tried to get an abortion in breach of a contract she'd signed, i would think people would strongly be in favour to her reproductive rights.

[wuvvumsoc]

I'm in favor. I don't know, contract or not forcing a woman to get an abortion skeeves me out. I also feel like it's terrible to insinuate that someone is worse off not being born because of their development. Some people are going to physically suffer more than others but I feel like it borders ableism once we determine who should or shouldn't be born for bodily reasons. I'd only let the mother make that call because of autonomy, but an outside party shouldn't get to make the say.

[spyral_path]

I wouldn't be in this case, because it was not her baby. It was two other people's embryo that she agreed to carry in her uterus for $22,000.

[wuvvumsoc]

I think they can sue for "damages" (that is the monetary loss) but I don't think they can force her to abort because it violates bodily autonomy. Unfortunately she can't really afford to give them a monetary compensation.

[spyral_path]

I think you've already given up your bodily autonomy once you've agreed to take $22,000 to have someone else's embryo implanted in your uterus.

[wuvvumsoc]

I don't think the magnitude of the deal should trump someone's choice whether or not to have abortion.

[mythrai]

please think about how an argument like this could affect bodily autonomy and reproductive rights, because it's appalling.

[spyral_path]

She signed a contract to perform a service for a set fee with certain conditions attached. No-one forced her to sign that contract.

[mythrai]

how on earth do you propose it be enforced, then

[spyral_path]

I couldn't edit my previous comment because you'd already replied. I wanted to add that this has nothing to do with the surrogate's reproductive rights because it was not her baby. She was not the one reproducing.

As to how a contract like this would be enforced, I have no idea, but I don't think anyone should enter any sort of contract with anyone unless they are certain they can fulfill every aspect of that contract.

[mythrai]

do you think a woman (say an escort) who signs a contract to perform sex for a fee signs away her right to withdraw her consent?

genetics aside, that fetus was implanted in the surrogates womb. her body experiencing pregnancy, her body going into labour. how is that "not the one reproducing". shit, that is the most legalistic reading of something i've ever heard. the embryo didn't have any genetic material from the mother, does that mean it wasn't her baby either?

[spyral_path]

Apples and oranges, different situation, false equivalency, you keep moving the goal posts, however you want to put it.

[mythrai]

not sure how they are different, if you'd be willing to explain.

alternately, we're not going to agree and thankfully (so far) the state can't force someone to give birth when they don't want to or abort when they don't want to, so w/e

[koshkabegemot]

Well, good to know your assholery is consistent, I guess.

[spyral_path]

Exactly. No-one was holding a gun to her head.