In my opinion, if you are offering your uterus up for surrogacy, then you are temporarily giving the decision-making regarding said uterus to someone else. That's kind of what surrogacy is, isn't it?
When the surrogate is also a bio parent, yes... I think there is more of an argument for the surrogate's wishes. In this case, though... I think the surrogate was in the wrong.
It bothers me that the bio parents could force an abortion on their surrogate, because it bothers me that anyone could force an abortion on anyone. But yet it ALSO bothers me that the surrogate could force a birth of a bio child on the parents. That shouldn't happen either.
And just because of the nature of surrogacy (uterus for rent, basically) I feel the people doing the "hiring" should have more say as to what happens to what was to be their child. Sure the surrogate might feel terrible about what happens, but IMO it was what she was agreeing to when she ventured into surrogacy.
Yeah, I'm having a hard time deciding actually. On the one hand, she did sign a contract in which she waived her privacy rights and agreed to an abortion under certain conditions, on the other hand it's her body and nothing should be done to it without her consent. So which consent is paramount? Her consent at the time of signing, or her consent right before the abortion? I don't think she should be forced to have an abortion against her will, even though she signed the contract, even though it's not her child, but if she goes against the wishes of the said parents, then does she forfeit her salary? Should she be required to return her fee?
I don't have the answers, but that's not a big deal. The problem is, our legal society hasn't caught up to the technology, there's no uniform consensus and things like this happen. It's kind of a mess...
In my opinion, if you are offering your uterus up for surrogacy, then you are temporarily giving the decision-making regarding said uterus to someone else. That's kind of what surrogacy is, isn't it?
NO. You can't buy the rights to someone else's body, ever.
But yet it ALSO bothers me that the surrogate could force a birth of a bio child on the parents. That shouldn't happen either.
A baby is always someone else's, how is it different from a woman aborting or not aborting her own fetus against the father's wishes?
I feel the people doing the "hiring" should have more say as to what happens to what was to be their child. Sure the surrogate might feel terrible about what happens, but IMO it was what she was agreeing to when she ventured into surrogacy.
NO. Her body, her choice. Always. Money doesn't trump personal autonomy.
I don't think it's that simple, if she signed a contract that has an abortion clause did she then waive her rights? I don't know...I'm torn but the legal people need to figure that out...
I think it is. Some contracts aren't or shouldn't be legally binding, and this is absolutely one of them. If the law supports the intended parents on this, the law is wrong and immoral.
yup. just because it's written in a contract doesn't mean it's legal. and even if it were legal, it doesn't mean it's morally correct and doesn't violate her human rights.
Yes it is just really messed up all around... I mean it all leaves such a bad taste in my mouth.
At least the surrogate didn't try to force the bio parents into taking the child, I mean she didn't do that really. She did force them to have a biological child they didn't want to be in the world, true... but the surrogate did take on the responsibility of finding an adoptive home herself... so that's something.
She did force them to have a biological child they didn't want to be in the world, true...
But that's true of any pregnancy. You're never pregnant with only your own child, there's always another (or two, in this case) parent who can have thoughts and feelings about your choices.
A man has the choice of whether or not to have penetrative PIV sex with a woman knowing that the result could be a pregnancy that he doesn't have control over.
The bio parents in this case laid out their expectations in a contract that the surrogate broke. It's not the same type of situation.
The bio parents in this case laid out their expectations in a contract that the surrogate broke.
It's definitely a false equivalency.
She SIGNED that contract. If she KNEW that abortion was abhorrent to her and there was a high probability she wouldn't be comfortable having one if the issue arose, then it was wrong and immoral for her to sign it, imo.
"NO. You can't buy the rights to someone else's body, ever."
this is semantics....but she was the one doing the selling. the phrasing of your sentences makes it sound like the woman whos bodily autonomy is coming in to question was not an active participant in the monetary transaction.
she needed money, so she actively sought out selling the use of her body. and she signed a contract explicitly stating she was selling the use of her body for a set amount of money, a specific function, and a set time period. the contract literally placed a monetary value on renting her for a specific purpose. and the couple bought the use of her body.
one can discuss at length buying the rights of someones body...but she certainly put her rights up for sale and then proceeded to sell the use of her body. she knew what she was doing/signing away. this wasnt even her first surrogacy.
When the surrogate is also a bio parent, yes... I think there is more of an argument for the surrogate's wishes. In this case, though... I think the surrogate was in the wrong.
It bothers me that the bio parents could force an abortion on their surrogate, because it bothers me that anyone could force an abortion on anyone. But yet it ALSO bothers me that the surrogate could force a birth of a bio child on the parents. That shouldn't happen either.
And just because of the nature of surrogacy (uterus for rent, basically) I feel the people doing the "hiring" should have more say as to what happens to what was to be their child. Sure the surrogate might feel terrible about what happens, but IMO it was what she was agreeing to when she ventured into surrogacy.
Reply
I don't have the answers, but that's not a big deal. The problem is, our legal society hasn't caught up to the technology, there's no uniform consensus and things like this happen. It's kind of a mess...
Reply
Reply
If a woman signed a contract like that before entering into a relationship, would you support the fathers rights to force her into an abortion?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
NO. You can't buy the rights to someone else's body, ever.
But yet it ALSO bothers me that the surrogate could force a birth of a bio child on the parents. That shouldn't happen either.
A baby is always someone else's, how is it different from a woman aborting or not aborting her own fetus against the father's wishes?
I feel the people doing the "hiring" should have more say as to what happens to what was to be their child. Sure the surrogate might feel terrible about what happens, but IMO it was what she was agreeing to when she ventured into surrogacy.
NO. Her body, her choice. Always. Money doesn't trump personal autonomy.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
At least the surrogate didn't try to force the bio parents into taking the child, I mean she didn't do that really. She did force them to have a biological child they didn't want to be in the world, true... but the surrogate did take on the responsibility of finding an adoptive home herself... so that's something.
Reply
But that's true of any pregnancy. You're never pregnant with only your own child, there's always another (or two, in this case) parent who can have thoughts and feelings about your choices.
Reply
A man has the choice of whether or not to have penetrative PIV sex with a woman knowing that the result could be a pregnancy that he doesn't have control over.
The bio parents in this case laid out their expectations in a contract that the surrogate broke. It's not the same type of situation.
Reply
It's definitely a false equivalency.
She SIGNED that contract. If she KNEW that abortion was abhorrent to her and there was a high probability she wouldn't be comfortable having one if the issue arose, then it was wrong and immoral for her to sign it, imo.
Reply
this is semantics....but she was the one doing the selling. the phrasing of your sentences makes it sound like the woman whos bodily autonomy is coming in to question was not an active participant in the monetary transaction.
she needed money, so she actively sought out selling the use of her body. and she signed a contract explicitly stating she was selling the use of her body for a set amount of money, a specific function, and a set time period. the contract literally placed a monetary value on renting her for a specific purpose. and the couple bought the use of her body.
one can discuss at length buying the rights of someones body...but she certainly put her rights up for sale and then proceeded to sell the use of her body. she knew what she was doing/signing away. this wasnt even her first surrogacy.
Reply
Leave a comment