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

[nextdrinksonme]

I'm torn on this.

On one hand, it was Kelley's body, she was carrying the baby, and it would be her that would be undergoing the abortion.

On the other hand, it was not her embryo (nor the wife's but the couple did pay for that embryo, and, really, the use of Kelley's womb), and she did sign a contract saying that she would terminate if there were complications. All of the medical issues that the baby has and had in the womb = complications, so she was in breech of contract. She also brought a kid into the world who will have very little quatlity of life, which is something I'm personally against after watching a baby pretty much starve to death from Tay-Sachs.

So yeah, it's a complicated issue.

[wuvvumsoc]

I think it depends though. There are some things that can't hold weight even if they are written in contract. An example is an agreement not to marry, so I guess an agreement to abort may also be unenforceable.

My take on it is.. I really feel like the parents were spiteful. The fact that they wanted to assert guardianship so they could then give the baby away and make it a ward to the state is particularly harsh. Someone could say that the surrogate is making the baby "suffer" by bring her into the world but I feel like what the parents were planning was full of malice and only done to intimidate the surrogate mother. I just don't see why they escalated it this far, since they were planning to make things much worse than being born with complications.

[spiffynamehere]

That last part was fucked up, agreed.

[wuvvumsoc]

I also can't say I'm a fan of their attitudes towards special needs children.

[diosabellissima]

I want to lead with: I don't think anyone-- court or otherwise-- should ever have the right to force a woman to get or not get an abortion. With that said. . .

If this surrogate was so anti abortion, why in heaven's name would she sign a contract agreeing to terminate a pregnancy if abnormalities presented? That makes no sense to me. The other thing in this story that leaves a bad taste in my mouth is the declarations by the surrogate that the parents were trying to play God with regard to the termination. Is "playing God" by aborting all that different than "playing God" by creating a baby in a test tube and having it implanted by a doctor? It's an arbitrary standard to have, i think.

Don't get me wrong- it's pretty clear that the bio parents were trying to bully her at a point there. . . but I can't say I necessarily blame them. It's not justified, but I'm not sure I'd have acted any different in their shoes.

[mythrai]

likely for the same reason the parents thought a contractual clause forcing someone to abort would work - neither of them thought something awful could happen to them

[diosabellissima]

But the termination clause is a pretty standard one in surrogacy cases. If the surrogate was anti-abortion, I can't fathom any logical reason she'd sign a contract agreeing to terminate a pregnancy-- even if the chances are small, the possibility is there.

[mythrai]

but maybe she isn't/wasn't anti-abortion? nothing in the article says anything to that nature, simply that she didn't want to terminate this pregnancy

[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.

[aflaminghalo]

"I told them it wasn't their decision to play God."

Because it was hers.

She didn't want to be a mother to the baby, but she wouldn't abort it, despite it not being hers. How did she think this was going to play out? She'd give birth, they'd see the baby and be overcome with love and everything would just turn out like a disney film?

[mythrai]

or it would turn out how it ended up, which was the baby was adopted by a family who did want it.

[aflaminghalo]

Still not her call to make.

[myswtghst]

Why not, exactly? Her body, her decision not to have an elective medical procedure she didn't want to undergo.

[mythrai]

lol, damn at all these anti-choicers in here

[ljtaylor]

"pro-choice...BUT not if you signed a contract lol"

seriously is nobody who thinks this also thinking of the dodgy precedent it sets?

[mythrai]

apparently not because that's 'moving the goalposts'

[wuvvumsoc]

I know, right? I wasn't expecting this in a feminist community D: