Surrogate Mothers Refuse Abortion Despite Contract

[La Femme Fatale]

I thought this story was really quite interesting and was wondering what you all thought. I was going to sum it all up for you but it's a bit of a complicated story so I'll just let you guys watch it instead.

IMO, you obviously can't physically force someone to get an abortion. It's wrong and barbaric and would set a dangerous precedent for future cases similar to this one. So, by all means, have the baby. I wouldn't want the decision to abort a child hanging on their conscience. However, that's not to say that there shouldn't be any consequences for reneging on a contract you knowingly and willingly signed. I think it's only fair that the parents refuse to pay her further - or that they be compensated in whatever way the contract stipulates, which I assume would be a re-imbursement of the full amount. At the end of the day, she's not just making a decision for herself - she's making a decision for the couple she agreed to have the baby for, so she should have some responsibility for that decision.

Anyway, that's what I think. What about you?

 

[Angel]

Honestly? This is insane. And one of the many reasons I am personally against surrogacy and assisted pregnancies. Do not mistake my stance for judgment over others who are all for it, by the way, I'm just stating my personal opinion on the subject.

As for this issue, I find a "reduction clause" to be barbaric. Pretty words attempting to hide an ugly deed - so many unknowns to consider too. How in the hell do you safely abort one baby when there are others there? What if the one ruled to be aborted was the only healthy baby and the others came to term with severe defects and problems? When the remaining children born are older, do they have the right to know that they have unborn siblings who their parents ordered to be terminated?

With pregnancy, there is always the chance of multiples, however slim that is, and if the woman using a surrogate had this happen to her personally, would she be all for getting the "extras" aborted? Or would she balk at such an idea? This woman does not have the bond nor hormones a pregnant woman has, so she cannot possibly fathom the effect this is happening on the surrogate.

Babies are not business decisions. This comes dangerously close to setting a precedent for government to go all China on people because of contracts. These are human beings - and as everyone should know, by 12 weeks a baby is fully formed in the womb and can hear and feel. It's just not physically mature enough to survive for another 12 weeks or so. At what point do you have the right to determine when a life is a life? For someone carrying a baby, the vast majority would say that the unborn child is already alive - others would say it is just a cluster of cells and chromosomes until further notice. Then there are others still who deem an unborn child to be completely the property of outside opinion until 24 weeks. I find all this very very disturbing.

On the flip side, these surrogate DID sign a contract in full and competent knowledge of the clauses and stipulations. I don't know how one goes about acquiring surrogates and the like, but I would presume you would vet them thoroughly, ensure that they are of sound mind and also that they agree fully to your terms and conditions. If they renege on the deal then they need to compensate the parents accordingly - if a business deal has been set up and money has been exchanged, those who back out are usually subject to financial penalties. Should a surrogacy contract be viewed in this manner, then the surrogate owes and should not request further payment for healthcare provision from the moment of the severance.

If the surrogate is using the eggs and sperm of the prospective parents, this then raises what I would presume is a common question of who do the babies belong to? The genetic providers or the woman who birthed them? I do not believe this to be a black and white matter - although it may appear to be so.

Still thinking on this one - may expound further if the notion takes me.

 

[Spikeyroxas]

First of, American news reporters really like to joke around heh.

Anyway I think this is really horrible for all those who can't have kids.
If the contract is "breached" then they should have the right to pay less but not tell someone to have an abortion (I'm against abortions)
Child birth is considored a miracle and have multiples is special in its own right.
The statement the 47yr old gave was short but I can't fault her on it.

I say the following very borderline:
If they can't afford to have triplets then arrange an adoption. I feel really bad for the kid(s) who are put up for adoption but maybe it will make two couples happy then.

Or in hindsight, perhaps the couple should have considored trying to adopt instead of trying to force nature.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

If you hire someone to get pregnant, you're going to get a baby. Any problems or unforseen consequences shouldn't put the surrogate in that position. If you aren't using a surrogate and you find out you're having twins, CONGRATULATIONS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TWINS!

Just because it's someone else's body doesn't mean it should be any more common. They usually only abort a twin if it's not healthy and could impact the health of the other twin.