Surrogate offered $10,000 to abort baby

skinnybearlyndsay

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/health/surrogacy-kelley-legal-battle/index.html?fb_action_ids=10151570900844575&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={"10151570900844575":350965388353877}&action_type_map={"10151570900844575":"og.recommends"}&action_ref_map=[]

Feel free to discuss.

Now, I believe in a woman's right to choose (it is her body after all), but I am disgusted at the parents in this story. Asking the surrogate, who is your only link to that additional family member you so desperately want, to abort your daughter because she has birth defects and you don't want to deal with them makes me mad. You are a parent the moment you decide to have children...end of story. The surrogate is a brave woman.

Koldnomore

This is what happens when we choose to commodify things that shouldn't be sold. When someone sells themselves, their eggs or sperm etc.. for money why are we surprised that things like this happen?

As consumers, when someone contracts to bring us a product we expect that the product will be free of defects and in good working order. If the production method of the product is found to be introducing defects then it is up to the manufacturer to correct this or provide us another product that meets the standards. We would never willingly pay for a product that we know will be defective. Why then would anyone expect them to want this baby?

By breaking the contract that she entered into, she should have to return any fee that she was paid, just like any other service. Right or wrong plays no part in this. These are the risks with doing something like this.. There are millions of children already alive that need good homes. She did not have to 'help' anyone - she did it for the money, plain and simple.

castadiva

Ignoring everything else for the moment, because I'm short on time, why on earth would anyone who had strong objections to abortion for "moral and religious reasons" ever sign a contract which stipulated "abortion in case of severe fetus abnormality." ?!?!?!

vim_n_vigor

I guess my whole problem with this is that I don't think that any contracts should stipulate that someone has to get a medical treatment done to them. That just doesn't seem like that should be legal to add to any contract. The parents also knew that they were using a fetus that had a fairly high risk of birth defects. It just seems all around like a totally incompetent way to handle the birth of a child. I am happy that child has found a good, loving home for however long of a life she has.

Brunner26_2

Ignoring everything else for the moment, because I'm short on time, why on earth would anyone who had strong objections to abortion for "moral and religious reasons" ever sign a contract which stipulated "abortion in case of severe fetus abnormality." ?!?!?!

I agree with this 100%. She signed a contract, so she should have to stick with it or deal with the consequences. And the whole thing is made even stranger that the surrogate claimed abortion was against her religious beliefs, therefore she would need $15,000 to have the abortion. If it's against your beliefs, then why does the money matter?

I think women have a right to an abortion, and also think it's ok to terminate a pregnancy rather than bring a child with defects into the world, so that's influencing how I feel about this whole situation.

edit: punctuation

LoraF83

I have very, very mixed feelings on this issue.

First, why did the parents decide to bring another child into this world when they already had 2 or 3 (the article wasn't very clear) disabled/special needs children at home? Their genetic combination produced these children - which should have made them realize that their chances of another special needs child was much higher than most. It seems irresponsible to me.

Second, the surrogate signed a contract. She should have realized that it might mean abortion if the parents chose not to keep the baby.

Third, the surrogate gave the child up for adoption. She recognized that she was incapable of caring for the child - yet she expected someone else (the genetic parents, then an adoptive family) to do so? That's a little bent, in my opinion.

Brunner26_2

I have very, very mixed feelings on this issue.

First, why did the parents decide to bring another child into this world when they already had 2 or 3 (the article wasn't very clear) disabled/special needs children at home? Their genetic combination produced these children - which should have made them realize that their chances of another special needs child was much higher than most. It seems irresponsible to me.

Second, the surrogate signed a contract. She should have realized that it might mean abortion if the parents chose not to keep the baby.

Third, the surrogate gave the child up for adoption. She recognized that she was incapable of caring for the child - yet she expected someone else (the genetic parents, then an adoptive family) to do so? That's a little bent, in my opinion.

The article specifically says they have three children already, and that they wanted a fourth. I also didn't see anywhere it said that their three children are disabled or special needs. They were all born prematurely and two still have medical issued because of premature birth. They decided to go with a surrogate to avoid the same complications. It likely has nothing to do with their genetic combination and more to do with the mother's ability to carry to full term.

LoraF83

I have very, very mixed feelings on this issue.

First, why did the parents decide to bring another child into this world when they already had 2 or 3 (the article wasn't very clear) disabled/special needs children at home? Their genetic combination produced these children - which should have made them realize that their chances of another special needs child was much higher than most. It seems irresponsible to me.

Second, the surrogate signed a contract. She should have realized that it might mean abortion if the parents chose not to keep the baby.

Third, the surrogate gave the child up for adoption. She recognized that she was incapable of caring for the child - yet she expected someone else (the genetic parents, then an adoptive family) to do so? That's a little bent, in my opinion.

The article specifically says they have three children already, and that they wanted a fourth. I also didn't see anywhere it said that their three children are disabled or special needs. They were all born prematurely and two still have medical issued because of premature birth. They decided to go with a surrogate to avoid the same complications. It likely has nothing to do with their genetic combination and more to do with the mother's ability to carry to full term.

Ok, I should have read that closer. You're correct - they have had 3 children, 2 of which have medical issues due to premature births. Still, there is something there medically/genetically that is causing this problem (speaking of the 3 premature births and the fourth child with major medical problems). Whether it's the mother's issue or the father's - they are dealing with higher risk pregnancies due to some sort of medical problem/issue in the family. That creates an interesting dynamic - do you attempt to have more children knowing that there are risks present? Or do you accept that the risks might be too great? I'm guessing this is what lead them to include the abortion clause in their contract.....which is my problem #2. She signed the contract. That should have been the end of the story. I feel sad for everyone involved - no one wins in this situation.

LuckyLeprechaun

She violated the terms of the contract she signed. Her emotions don't nullify the contract. That she should never have entered into it in the first place is her fault, but that also doesn't nullify the contract.

escloflowneCHANGED

When they offered her 10K she said she wanted 15K and they said no. She later "regret even asking that and she would have never done it" Yeaaaaahhhh

Sqeekyjojo

Looking at it another way, the bill could have read;

Insemination, implantation, gestation and successful childbirth - $5,000

Abandonment of religious beliefs, previously denied to secure contract - $5,000



At least they were open from the start that they did not wish to have a child with abnormalities.

I do wonder if she thought that she would be able to up the price by waiting a bit longer, but they refused? Or hoped that they would change their mind by the time of birth?