If you get another person pregnant, that person may or may not abort and there's nothing you can do about it except talk to them and try to bring them around to your point of view. That's the risk you take when you make someone pregnant.
This is exactly why I'm against surrogacy. You can't buy or sell women's bodies like this, and you can't buy and sell children, it's wrong and immoral. The right to decide about abortion always has to lie with the person who is actually pregnant, regardless of what agreements have been made. You cannot sign away your bodily autonomy, and if you try to force someone else into it (having to choose between paying your rent or having/not having an abortion is duress) you are a piece of shit.
I don't understand why people are so willing to take control away from women when it comes to reproductive rights as soon as money is involved.
I don't understand why people are so willing to take control away from women when it comes to reproductive rights as soon as money is involved.
I figure it's because they're so used to thinking of women's bodies- especially the reproductive parts- as objects that if they're being used to make money, then that pretty much solidifies that view.
You can't really waive your rights to not have other people do things like forcing an abortion on you. And in this case she clearly needs the money, and she's in a position where these people have power over her, the issue of consent is really iffy.
And in this case she clearly needs the money, and she's in a position where these people have power over her, the issue of consent is really iffy.
Because she totes didn't seek them out; no, they found her and held a gun to her head and forced her to be their surrogate!
If she was so morally opposed to abortion, she should've found parents who were as opposed as she was and would agree to a NO ABORTION EVER clause in the contract. I bet she could've found some.
She'd always been against abortion for religious and moral reasons, but she really needed the money.
This is the point where my admittedly already skeptical opinion of her actions really took a nosedive.
I CANNOT get past the fact that she entered into the surrogacy agreement dishonestly and fraudulently. She LIED, and I'm supposed to think that's okay, because a woman's bodily autonomy trumps her obligation to be honest and forthcoming? No, sorry. Not buying any.
I almost wonder if something like this was her intent all along... if maybe she figured she'd tell the parents she was keeping the baby after it was born, but then she'd agree to give it up for the right price.
I don't understand why people are so willing to take control away from women when it comes to reproductive rights as soon as money is involved.
because god forbid there ever be a situation where human welfare and dignity ranks more important than our "right" to buy and sell and own whatever the miraculous free market allows, and god forbid a woman in a tough financial situation "allow" herself to be taken advantage of.
people dissing the surrogate in this post need to think real hard about where their virulence for her is coming from.
This is exactly why I'm against surrogacy. You can't buy or sell women's bodies like this, and you can't buy and sell children, it's wrong and immoral. The right to decide about abortion always has to lie with the person who is actually pregnant, regardless of what agreements have been made. You cannot sign away your bodily autonomy, and if you try to force someone else into it (having to choose between paying your rent or having/not having an abortion is duress) you are a piece of shit.
I don't understand why people are so willing to take control away from women when it comes to reproductive rights as soon as money is involved.
Reply
I figure it's because they're so used to thinking of women's bodies- especially the reproductive parts- as objects that if they're being used to make money, then that pretty much solidifies that view.
Reply
Ugh there are so many problems with surrogacy...
Reply
That's the question that I wonder about too. And, if she is waiving her rights, at what point does that become clearly established?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
And in this case she clearly needs the money, and she's in a position where these people have power over her, the issue of consent is really iffy.
Because she totes didn't seek them out; no, they found her and held a gun to her head and forced her to be their surrogate!
If she was so morally opposed to abortion, she should've found parents who were as opposed as she was and would agree to a NO ABORTION EVER clause in the contract. I bet she could've found some.
Reply
She'd always been against abortion for religious and moral reasons, but she really needed the money.
This is the point where my admittedly already skeptical opinion of her actions really took a nosedive.
I CANNOT get past the fact that she entered into the surrogacy agreement dishonestly and fraudulently. She LIED, and I'm supposed to think that's okay, because a woman's bodily autonomy trumps her obligation to be honest and forthcoming? No, sorry. Not buying any.
Reply
I almost wonder if something like this was her intent all along... if maybe she figured she'd tell the parents she was keeping the baby after it was born, but then she'd agree to give it up for the right price.
KWIM?
Reply
It's amazing terrifying how this is being treated as a controversial statement
Reply
because god forbid there ever be a situation where human welfare and dignity ranks more important than our "right" to buy and sell and own whatever the miraculous free market allows, and god forbid a woman in a tough financial situation "allow" herself to be taken advantage of.
people dissing the surrogate in this post need to think real hard about where their virulence for her is coming from.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
No one who keeps screeching about OMG HER RIGHTS! seems to want to answer this.
And FTR, no, I don't think she should've been "forced" to have an abortion.
Reply
Leave a comment