Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Couple asks surrogate mother to abort the baby


Babu Bhatt2

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

... Why mess with the natural order of things? ...

How is this any more messing with the natural order of things than you being able to post your thoughts to a larger audience than the tribe around you?
Seriously?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its HER BODY... you cant tell her what to do with her body.

People tell me what to do with my body all the time. For example, my employer insists that I get my body into the office each day.I'm pro-life, so of course I support the surrogate here, but if I was pro-choice I would absolutely be siding with the biological parents if they wished to enforce the terms of the contract that everybody agreed upon. The only reason why I'm not taking that position is because I don't think you can enforce a contract that calls for the killing of an innocent third party (from my POV obviously).
You can't enforce a contract that calls for the application of a perfectly legal procedure?
No reason for you to be deliberately obtuse here. I made it very clear that my statement applied to somebody who happens to hold my priors, and that I knew that sentiment wouldn't be shared by someone who didn't.
But I don't understand what it has to do with sentiment. I can appreciate your beliefs and understand why you wouldn't want to enforce such a contract, but it is a contract based on the laws of the land. I understand your first sentence, but I don't know why you say that you "don't think you can enforce [such] a contract."
It doesn't sound from the OP that they had a clear contract based on all possible "what ifs"...hence the controversy.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow me for a minute. I'm just thinking aloud, if I may.If two people were meant to have children, wouldn't they be able to? I don't know if I agree with the whole surrogate mother thing, and it's not a religion thing either. I just believe that nature takes care of things on its own. Why mess with the natural order of things? If having a child is such a priority, why not adopt? Just because a surrogate birthed baby is 2/3 genetically yours, does that make it better?I guess I just don't get it, and maybe that is because I don't understand it.

Where's the other 1/3 come from?
Of course, how foolish of me. What do you think I meant?When that baby pops out, who is the mother, right then? The egg donor, or the vehicle that carried the child to term? There is a connection between the surrogate and the child that cannot ever be broken. No contract can override that bond.
There is no connection or trace between a baby and it's surrogate. The surrogate is merely a temporary holding device.As for aborting a fetus with a mental problem, I don't see the big deal. I would not want to raise a child like that. I would go so far to argue that every mentally disabled fetus should be aborted.
and then the war began...
Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't sound from the OP that they had a clear contract based on all possible "what ifs"...hence the controversy.

I guess that I inferred from the following that it was fairly clear, but maybe it is not.

Under the agreement the trio signed, the surrogate’s choice would mean absolving the couple of any responsibility for raising the child

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this the other day, and almost came to post it here on the FFA. I was a little scared the topic would devolve into the usual sniping back and forth inherent in religious / political threads.

It's a conundrum for sure. I am "pro-choice" for lack of a better word, but I think that if they in fact had hammered out this eventuality contractually, I think that's how the matter should be resolved.

I think there's a good argument that the contract clause is unenforceable.

When businesses foist oppressive terms on unsophisticated consumers, those terms can be declared unconscionable, meaning the terms cannot be enforced. The surrogate mother is in a similarly vulnerable position, but for different reasons. Presumably the surrogate mother is sophisticated--she knew what she was getting into, and the contract was negotiated--but the physical and emotional demands of surrogacy make her more vulnerable than other sophisticated parties. If I were her lawyer this is what I would be arguing.

This presupposes the contract was entered into while she was already carrying the kid. I don't think this is how it works.
Good point. Perhaps the best thing to do is to legislate against contract terms of this nature.
Link to post
Share on other sites

My sister, who just turned 42 a week ago, found out she was pregnant with her second child just a couple of weeks before her birthday. She and her husband will find out this week the likelihood of their second child having Downs Syndrome. The tests have been done and they are awaiting the results. In the meantime they have had numerous discussions on the subject and have come to the decision that if there is a high likelihood of the child being born with Downs Syndrome they will abort. I am perfectly fine with their decision and fully support them.

Of course, I do not actually hope this will be the result, but they have not come to this decision lightly, so I respect them for making a tough choice.

This story has nothing to do with surrogacy, obviously, but it reflects what I believe to be the underlying tone of this thread......pro-choice vs. pro-life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its HER BODY... you cant tell her what to do with her body.

People tell me what to do with my body all the time. For example, my employer insists that I get my body into the office each day.I'm pro-life, so of course I support the surrogate here, but if I was pro-choice I would absolutely be siding with the biological parents if they wished to enforce the terms of the contract that everybody agreed upon. The only reason why I'm not taking that position is because I don't think you can enforce a contract that calls for the killing of an innocent third party (from my POV obviously).
My reading of the story suggests that the contract addresses the support obligations for the child if the surrogate chooses to deliver against the wishes of the bio-parents, not that it contractually requires her to abort if directed. It is essentially an "opt-out" clause for the biological parents. I could see how enforcement of that clause would be a tricky issue, but otherwise don't really have an opinion right now off the cuff.I read an interesting article recently on a related issue in the in-vitro context - about parents who successfully go through the IVF process and then later abort due to a genetic issue or just because they changed their minds. Its a very difficult issue to opine on just because it is so hard to put yourself in the shoes of the people who are facing these choices.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps this is a bad analogy, but bear with me:

Imagine that before a couple gets married, the couple sign a prenuptial agreement stating in relevant part that "if a child is conceived and [man] wants it to be aborted, any decision by [woman] to keep the child will absolve [man] of any paternal responsibility for the child."

Isn't this the same situation? But this sort of contract term would never be enforced if the woman decided to bear the child.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My post seems to have roused thye passions of some. I was not advocating, I was merely providing one anwer to an open question that seemed to invite general discussion beyond the main topic.

I happen to know some couples who have had very challenged children later in life. One couple had a spina bifida child as their third child. The time, effort, and devotion of resources to that child effects not only those parents, but their other children. They have stated they get much love from the child and they would never have chosen otherwise, yet during hard moments I know for a fact that each one of the parents has waivered in their commitment to their stance.

I know another couple who had grown children and who concieved late in life. They knew early on in the pregnancy that their child would have Down's. They had the child they they discussed their options. The child brought them great joy and still does. The mother is now in a wheel chair from a car accident some years back and the father just had a stroke. The child is 20 and has not been mainstreamed. He lives at home under their care. He does have a part time subsidized job and has gotten another Down's individual pregnant. They wonder and worry what will happen if they are not able to continue caring for their child. Their grown children do not have the desire nor resources to step in. They have shared with me doubts about their decision to have the child, but have always maintained that through their doubts what they did was right and they would do it again.

These experiences and other have made me think about the scenario. These are remrkable parents. I realize that I am far from remarkable. I have heard it said that god provides no burdens too heavy. That might be well if I believed, and if I had not seen persons break under burden. Me, I would choose to abort if my wife presented me with the scenario now, and where the choice mine. It would not be my choice alone, of course, it would ultimately be hers. Either way the decision could be wrong or the path too hard. It is entirely possible the burden of a decision to abort could crush a person or a marriage just as quickly as could the decision to have the child.

I understand that those who have special needs kids, and others too, can be very passionate about this issue. They see it personally, and they rail against those who would discuss the matter. It offends them and they even percieve the discussion as ignorance that threatens their childs future as ignorance allowed to fester can become bigotry against the one they love. I understand as best as one not in the situation might. I do note, however, that if the special need is removed from the equation many will argue that abortion is justified if the time and resources in life are not right (too young, too old, unimployed, whatever). Should the special need then change the equation, and should it change it towards life? I guess the spectre of eugenics and the love for those we know and who are loving and somewhat dependant is a powerful thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My sister, who just turned 42 a week ago, found out she was pregnant with her second child just a couple of weeks before her birthday. She and her husband will find out this week the likelihood of their second child having Downs Syndrome. The tests have been done and they are awaiting the results. In the meantime they have had numerous discussions on the subject and have come to the decision that if there is a high likelihood of the child being born with Downs Syndrome they will abort. I am perfectly fine with their decision and fully support them. Of course, I do not actually hope this will be the result, but they have not come to this decision lightly, so I respect them for making a tough choice. This story has nothing to do with surrogacy, obviously, but it reflects what I believe to be the underlying tone of this thread......pro-choice vs. pro-life.

There are families out there looking to adopt children with Down's Syndrome. Has she ever thought about adoption?From what I've read, there are various degrees of Down's ... Some children only have a mild case of Down's thus making is no more challenging than raising a teenager. Each kid brings their own challenges but with a Down's baby, it's just a different challenge.And for those who say they can't afford to have a DS baby, I call BS. There are so many government programs out there that help.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post DW, as always.

The scenario presented in this post provides yet another example of the hypocrisy of much (not all) of the "pro-life" contingent, who will criticize parents for aborting a special needs baby, yet support legislation that outlaws abortion except in instances of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is at risk. Those who support such exceptions in their proposed anti-abortion laws are taking an unjustifiable position, having judged a fetus with special needs to have superior rights in their world view than one conceived as a product of rape or incest. On what basis do you make this distinction? The mother's health risk exception is similarly without any rational basis as it sacrifices one human "life" to avoid a mere risk to another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this the other day, and almost came to post it here on the FFA. I was a little scared the topic would devolve into the usual sniping back and forth inherent in religious / political threads.

It's a conundrum for sure. I am "pro-choice" for lack of a better word, but I think that if they in fact had hammered out this eventuality contractually, I think that's how the matter should be resolved.

I think there's a good argument that the contract clause is unenforceable.

When businesses foist oppressive terms on unsophisticated consumers, those terms can be declared unconscionable, meaning the terms cannot be enforced. The surrogate mother is in a similarly vulnerable position, but for different reasons. Presumably the surrogate mother is sophisticated--she knew what she was getting into, and the contract was negotiated--but the physical and emotional demands of surrogacy make her more vulnerable than other sophisticated parties. If I were her lawyer this is what I would be arguing.

This presupposes the contract was entered into while she was already carrying the kid. I don't think this is how it works.
Good point. Perhaps the best thing to do is to legislate against contract terms of this nature.
I think legislating against contract terms like this would put a serious damper on surrogacy in general.

This is a really tough question, I am not sure there is a good answer out there that will satisfy everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow me for a minute. I'm just thinking aloud, if I may.If two people were meant to have children, wouldn't they be able to? I don't know if I agree with the whole surrogate mother thing, and it's not a religion thing either. I just believe that nature takes care of things on its own. Why mess with the natural order of things? If having a child is such a priority, why not adopt? Just because a surrogate birthed baby is 2/3 genetically yours, does that make it better?I guess I just don't get it, and maybe that is because I don't understand it.

What the hell kind of parents would have their baby aborted because it might have Down Syndrome? Pisses me off. :scared:

Older parents with limited resources and obligations to other children.
That's like saying if some terrible accident happened once a healthy child was born to let it die vs taking care of a child in a wheelchair or something simalar ( IMO )

Just adopt. Genetic offspring are overrated anyway.

:thumbdown:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow me for a minute. I'm just thinking aloud, if I may.

If two people were meant to have children, wouldn't they be able to? I don't know if I agree with the whole surrogate mother thing, and it's not a religion thing either. I just believe that nature takes care of things on its own. Why mess with the natural order of things? If having a child is such a priority, why not adopt? Just because a surrogate birthed baby is 2/3 genetically yours, does that make it better?

I guess I just don't get it, and maybe that is because I don't understand it.

Is nature really taking care of this? Or is there something else?

F: Water fluoridation decreases fertility.

L: Water fluoridation lowers IQ and mental function.

U: Fluorides damage DNA, promote undifferentiated cellular growth, and cause cancer.

O: Fluoridation leads to osteoporosis and increased fractures. Regions with high levels of fluoride in the drinking water have 220% more fractures, and the rate of hip fractures in elderly men and women doubles. [35]

R: Fluoride accumulates in the thyroid gland and produces hypothyroidism. [36]

I: High levels of fluoride lead to premature aging, infirmity, and early death. [37]

D: 66% of the children who grow up in fluoridated communities have at least one tooth with dental fluorosis. [38]

E: Fluoride attacks DNA, disrupts the endocrine system, testosterone levels fall, sperm mobility decreases, and the incidence of Down's syndrome doubles. [39]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the FFA should at least get to the 5th level of hell in this one.

Not if we all pray to Santa Clause and beg for forgiveness so when he rises from the dead to take on his true shapeshifter form "Zombie Clause" and brings us all presents to celebrate!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the FFA should at least get to the 5th level of hell in this one.

Not if we all pray to Santa Clause and beg for forgiveness so when he rises from the dead to take on his true shapeshifter form "Zombie Clause" and brings us all presents to celebrate!
Did you take the Brown Acid that's been sitting around since Woodstock? I thought we had a talk about that and you were going to flush that stash.
Link to post
Share on other sites

But I don't understand what it has to do with sentiment. I can appreciate your beliefs and understand why you wouldn't want to enforce such a contract, but it is a contract based on the laws of the land. I understand your first sentence, but I don't know why you say that you "don't think you can enforce [such] a contract."

Yes you do. You know perfectly well that I'm making a statement about what the law should be as opposed to what the law is. I have absolutely no qualifications to comment on the latter topic, but I'm as well-placed as anybody to talk about the former.
"I don't think you should be able to enforce such a contract" is a different statement than "I don't think you can enforce such a contract."
Thanks, but you and I both know that in everyday English, people commonly use the word "can't" to mean "shouldn't." For example, when a person says "You can't punt from your opponent's 30 yard line," they don't mean that it's against the rules or physically impossible to punt from that point of the field; they mean that you shouldn't punt in that situation.

These threads would go a lot better if people would quit being obtuse and stop playing dumb semantic games. You knew exactly what I was saying, so why quibble over the proper use of the word "can't?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

But I don't understand what it has to do with sentiment. I can appreciate your beliefs and understand why you wouldn't want to enforce such a contract, but it is a contract based on the laws of the land. I understand your first sentence, but I don't know why you say that you "don't think you can enforce [such] a contract."

Yes you do. You know perfectly well that I'm making a statement about what the law should be as opposed to what the law is. I have absolutely no qualifications to comment on the latter topic, but I'm as well-placed as anybody to talk about the former.
"I don't think you should be able to enforce such a contract" is a different statement than "I don't think you can enforce such a contract."
Thanks, but you and I both know that in everyday English, people commonly use the word "can't" to mean "shouldn't." For example, when a person says "You can't punt at from your opponent's 30 yard line," they don't mean that it's against the rules or physically impossible to punt from that point of the field; they mean that you shouldn't punt in that situation.

These threads would go a lot better if people would quit being obtuse and stop playing dumb semantic games. You knew exactly what I was saying, so why quibble over the proper use of the word "can't?"

Huh? This has to be one of the most pathetic back peddling attempts in the FFA ever.
Link to post
Share on other sites

My sister, who just turned 42 a week ago, found out she was pregnant with her second child just a couple of weeks before her birthday. She and her husband will find out this week the likelihood of their second child having Downs Syndrome. The tests have been done and they are awaiting the results. In the meantime they have had numerous discussions on the subject and have come to the decision that if there is a high likelihood of the child being born with Downs Syndrome they will abort. I am perfectly fine with their decision and fully support them. Of course, I do not actually hope this will be the result, but they have not come to this decision lightly, so I respect them for making a tough choice. This story has nothing to do with surrogacy, obviously, but it reflects what I believe to be the underlying tone of this thread......pro-choice vs. pro-life.

There are families out there looking to adopt children with Down's Syndrome. Has she ever thought about adoption?From what I've read, there are various degrees of Down's ... Some children only have a mild case of Down's thus making is no more challenging than raising a teenager. Each kid brings their own challenges but with a Down's baby, it's just a different challenge.And for those who say they can't afford to have a DS baby, I call BS. There are so many government programs out there that help.
Some Down Syndrome kids have heart problems and severe gag reflex...those would certainly be additional medical expenses. If someone is able to pay a surrogate for a pregnancy, they should also be able to cover a childs medical expenses. There are HUGE variances in the abilities of each different DS child. Some are very teachable in all areas where some only absorb the things that interest them...just like every other child. Of the two men I care/cared for, one is a neat freak, always cleaning, folding, tidying. He likes routine and structure and in my opinion would have had no problem being employed as he follows instruction to the letter on the first time told. The other was very athletic but wouldn't even use the bathroom without prompting.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post DW, as always.The scenario presented in this post provides yet another example of the hypocrisy of much (not all) of the "pro-life" contingent, who will criticize parents for aborting a special needs baby, yet support legislation that outlaws abortion except in instances of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is at risk. Those who support such exceptions in their proposed anti-abortion laws are taking an unjustifiable position, having judged a fetus with special needs to have superior rights in their world view than one conceived as a product of rape or incest. On what basis do you make this distinction? The mother's health risk exception is similarly without any rational basis as it sacrifices one human "life" to avoid a mere risk to another.

:confused: The distinction is in the mother getting pregnant by choice or by force. There are arguements for your example but that shouldn't be one of them.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post DW, as always.The scenario presented in this post provides yet another example of the hypocrisy of much (not all) of the "pro-life" contingent, who will criticize parents for aborting a special needs baby, yet support legislation that outlaws abortion except in instances of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is at risk. Those who support such exceptions in their proposed anti-abortion laws are taking an unjustifiable position, having judged a fetus with special needs to have superior rights in their world view than one conceived as a product of rape or incest. On what basis do you make this distinction? The mother's health risk exception is similarly without any rational basis as it sacrifices one human "life" to avoid a mere risk to another.

:) The distinction is in the mother getting pregnant by choice or by force. There are arguements for your example but that shouldn't be one of them.
If one truly believes that life begins at conception, and that abortion=murder, what difference does it make how the mother got pregnant?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the judgemental christians have started to arrive.

Not a Christian, but thanks for the pigeonhole.These people supposedly wanted to have a child so desperately that they probably spent all kinds of money going to fertility clinics and so on before deciding on a surrogate mother. They go through all that, and the second it becomes known that the child might - *MIGHT* - have Down Syndrome, they want to abort?This is not the supermarket, where you can pick up a piece of fruit, find that it's not perfect and put it back and get another one. It's veering a little too close to genetic engineering for my tastes. And that's not even taking into account the personal responsibility aspect of it, both to the child that they supposedly wanted and to the body of the surrogate mother.My wife and I would love to have kids but for medical reasons, we are unable to, and we don't have the kind of money to adopt or do surrogacy. I can't imagine finally getting pregnant and then just getting rid of the child because it *MIGHT* be less than perfect.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the FFA should at least get to the 5th level of hell in this one.

Not if we all pray to Santa Clause and beg for forgiveness so when he rises from the dead to take on his true shapeshifter form "Zombie Clause" and brings us all presents to celebrate!
Isn't it Claus?
Not my version, the extra e is for awesome.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the judgemental christians have started to arrive.

Not a Christian, but thanks for the pigeonhole.These people supposedly wanted to have a child so desperately that they probably spent all kinds of money going to fertility clinics and so on before deciding on a surrogate mother. They go through all that, and the second it becomes known that the child might - *MIGHT* - have Down Syndrome, they want to abort?This is not the supermarket, where you can pick up a piece of fruit, find that it's not perfect and put it back and get another one. It's veering a little too close to genetic engineering for my tastes. And that's not even taking into account the personal responsibility aspect of it, both to the child that they supposedly wanted and to the body of the surrogate mother.My wife and I would love to have kids but for medical reasons, we are unable to, and we don't have the kind of money to adopt or do surrogacy. I can't imagine finally getting pregnant and then just getting rid of the child because it *MIGHT* be less than perfect.
Here in the FFA no one cares what is right - only what's politically correct. It's pretty sad, really.Sorry to hear about your situation. I sincerely hope that you guys get your wish.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the FFA should at least get to the 5th level of hell in this one.

Not if we all pray to Santa Clause and beg for forgiveness so when he rises from the dead to take on his true shapeshifter form "Zombie Clause" and brings us all presents to celebrate!
Isn't it Claus?
Not my version, the extra e is for awesome.
For some reason I read your version with Arnold Schwarzenegger's voice. It's quite amusing, really.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear about your situation. I sincerely hope that you guys get your wish.

Thanks. Wasn't trying to play the sympathy card, I just thought it was relevant to the situation.
I think it's perfectly relevant. I'm not a super religious person by any means. I do, however, believe that we should not be able to pull the plug on a life we decided to create. I just don't think that's a good personal responsibility model for a society. Sure, no one wants to have a DS child, but it happens. Millions of people have dealt with it admirably.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I don't post here very often anymore, but I'll chime in on this one.

In the situation of the original post, the surrogate never should have gotten into an agreement that put her in this situation, in fact, anyone that would be willing to kill a child because they may have Downs, should not have a child, but that's not the situation at hand. She did sign a contract, and she did agree to those terms. Now the theoretical terms have come to fruition, and she should be the one responsible for the child, unfortunately, she is no more ethical than the 'biological' parents, and has decided to kill someone. Nobody wins.

I'm obviously anti-abortion, pro-life, I'm also Atheists, and yes, I don't think there is ever a reason to abort, not incest, rape, or threat to the mother. If you wouldn't kill a born child, you shouldn't even consider it legal to kill an unborn one.

I do have a child now, and another on the way. Our first child, developed severe fetal hydrops while in the womb, and died at 20 weeks, his name was Alex. We found out later that he also had downs. This puts us at risk for any other children we have. With both following pregnancies, we have been confronted with situations that arrive from this, and have always considered it a none factor in what we would do. Our current child (that she's pregnant with) has a few minor marks for downs, and we have decided against have intrusive testing, because all it would do is say whether or not she does, and that information wouldn't change anything for us, so it's not worth the risk.

Back to the OP. The law in these situations needs to be changed so any surrogacy contract should always include that the biological parents are responsible for the child, and can never request an abortion, or to be released of responsibilities, no matter the health of the child, along with clauses for whom is responsible if the couple splits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I don't post here very often anymore, but I'll chime in on this one.

In the situation of the original post, the surrogate never should have gotten into an agreement that put her in this situation, in fact, anyone that would be willing to kill a child because they may have Downs, should not have a child, but that's not the situation at hand. She did sign a contract, and she did agree to those terms. Now the theoretical terms have come to fruition, and she should be the one responsible for the child, unfortunately, she is no more ethical than the 'biological' parents, and has decided to kill someone. Nobody wins.

I'm obviously anti-abortion, pro-life, I'm also Atheists, and yes, I don't think there is ever a reason to abort, not incest, rape, or threat to the mother. If you wouldn't kill a born child, you shouldn't even consider it legal to kill an unborn one.

I do have a child now, and another on the way. Our first child, developed severe fetal hydrops while in the womb, and died at 20 weeks, his name was Alex. We found out later that he also had downs. This puts us at risk for any other children we have. With both following pregnancies, we have been confronted with situations that arrive from this, and have always considered it a none factor in what we would do. Our current child has a few minor marks for downs, and we have decided against have intrusive testing, because all it would do is say whether or not she does, and that information wouldn't change anything for us, so it's not worth the risk.

Back to the OP. The law in these situations needs to be changed so any surrogacy contract should always include that the biological parents are responsible for the child, and can never request an abortion, or to be released of responsibilities, no matter the health of the child, along with clauses for whom is responsible if the couple splits.

:hot:

It's sad that the bolded doesn't stand a chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... The law in these situations needs to be changed so any surrogacy contract should always include that the biological parents are responsible for the child, and can never request an abortion, or to be released of responsibilities, no matter the health of the child, along with clauses for whom is responsible if the couple splits.

:X

It's sad that the bolded doesn't stand a chance.

Thanks, EasyMorningRebel, I like what you wrote above too.

Also, I'm hopeful that it is possible. Surrogacy situations are very different, and should be held to different standards than a 'regular' pregnancy. These people have decided to purposefully impregnate someone else, that needs to hold more responsibilities for the outcome of those actions, and would hopefully deter the people that only want a perfect kid from choosing this route all together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... The law in these situations needs to be changed so any surrogacy contract should always include that the biological parents are responsible for the child, and can never request an abortion, or to be released of responsibilities, no matter the health of the child, along with clauses for whom is responsible if the couple splits.

:hophead:

It's sad that the bolded doesn't stand a chance.

Thanks, EasyMorningRebel, I like what you wrote above too.

Also, I'm hopeful that it is possible. Surrogacy situations are very different, and should be held to different standards than a 'regular' pregnancy. These people have decided to purposefully impregnate someone else, that needs to hold more responsibilities for the outcome of those actions, and would hopefully deter the people that only want a perfect kid from choosing this route all together.

I think everyone really would prefer a "perfect kid" as you say, but where (for me at least) the morals come into question is the idea that if one doesn't there's some sort of magical reset button. Some call it fate. Still others call it destiny and/or faith. It's much easier to accept your fate as a parent of a DS child, if you believe it is what you are supposed to be doing. It's about the most selfish thing I can think of to decide a DS kid doesn't deserve to live because the lifestyle inconveniences you. (Not you, Patsfan72).
Link to post
Share on other sites

A bioethicist who has studied the issue extensively argues that contract law should not apply to the transaction, unless human life is to be treated like widgets in a factory.“Should the rules of commerce apply to the creation of children? No, because children get hurt,” said Juliet Guichon of the University of Calgary. “It’s kind of like stopping the production line: ‘Oh, oh, there’s a flaw.’ It makes sense in a production scenario, but in reproduction it’s a lot more problematic.”Prof. Guichon speculated that courts likely would not honour a surrogacy contract, drawing instead on family law that would require the biological parents to support the child.

While these types of concerns would probably lead to government regulating terms of such contracts, I think courts ignoring and rejecting such terms of such contracts no matter how unethical opens up a much bigger can of worms.
Government should recognize the mistake then, give this woman $500,000 and free health care for her kid for life, then change the laws so this doesn't happen again. Contract for something like this should read, if the person trying to get the woman pregnant, backs out of raising the child, they should pay child support just like a man would if he did the same thing the old fashion way.
Link to post
Share on other sites

... Why mess with the natural order of things? ...

How is this any more messing with the natural order of things than you being able to post your thoughts to a larger audience than the tribe around you?
Seriously?
I'm not going to pretend that I know why your birth threatened your mother's life and presented your parents with such a rough choice a short lifetime ago, but for sake of argument I am going to assume that your successful birth and your mother's survival (not to mention the original diagnosis) all were accomplished using technology that messed with the natural order of things. Even if they didn't if you assume that they did, how is using technology for your mother's labor to give birth to you any different than you and your wife exploring a technological means to conceive a child of your own?

I hope that using personal information that you have shared over the years is not "not being excellent to you", but seriously I don't see how using technology for the creation of offspring (Polecat's point) is any different than my using technology to ask you this question, or technology to keep you alive and healthy. Maybe I'm biased from my interaction with children conceived by the assistance of technology, including my routine absence from this forum to watch my two godsons, but I don't see how this usage of God given gifts of knowledge is any more different than any. Certainly more moral than utilizing weapons that kill, including those that kill legally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bioethicist who has studied the issue extensively argues that contract law should not apply to the transaction, unless human life is to be treated like widgets in a factory.“Should the rules of commerce apply to the creation of children? No, because children get hurt,” said Juliet Guichon of the University of Calgary. “It’s kind of like stopping the production line: ‘Oh, oh, there’s a flaw.’ It makes sense in a production scenario, but in reproduction it’s a lot more problematic.”Prof. Guichon speculated that courts likely would not honour a surrogacy contract, drawing instead on family law that would require the biological parents to support the child.

While these types of concerns would probably lead to government regulating terms of such contracts, I think courts ignoring and rejecting such terms of such contracts no matter how unethical opens up a much bigger can of worms.
Government should recognize the mistake then, give this woman $500,000 and free health care for her kid for life, then change the laws so this doesn't happen again. Contract for something like this should read, if the person trying to get the woman pregnant, backs out of raising the child, they should pay child support just like a man would if he did the same thing the old fashion way.
I think that would be government regulating these contracts. I think your point would fall in line with the professors saying that "family law" should apply. I think that is entire point of these clauses in the contracts to begin with, to skirt around the normal scenario. Whether that should be allowed needs to be clear. That is all I was saying, though I could probably have said it better. I don't think your point really disagrees.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the OP. The law in these situations needs to be changed so any surrogacy contract should always include that the biological parents are responsible for the child, and can never request an abortion, or to be released of responsibilities, no matter the health of the child, along with clauses for whom is responsible if the couple splits.

:goodposting:

It's sad that the bolded doesn't stand a chance.

If this didn't stand a chance then there would not be this thread.
Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell kind of parents would have their baby aborted because it might have Down Syndrome? Pisses me off. :own3d:

Older parents with limited resources and obligations to other children.
Sounds like those parents shouldn't be having kids at all.We were told our son had a high probability of Downs. We had him and he is perfectly normal. My wife's mother and brother wanted her to have an abortion.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm obviously anti-abortion, pro-life, I'm also Atheists, and yes, I don't think there is ever a reason to abort, not incest, rape, or threat to the mother.

This is pretty rare. When you say you're pro-life, does that mean that you consider the moment of conception to be the exact point where something becomes a baby?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the OP. The law in these situations needs to be changed so any surrogacy contract should always include that the biological parents are responsible for the child, and can never request an abortion, or to be released of responsibilities, no matter the health of the child, along with clauses for whom is responsible if the couple splits.

:unsure:

It's sad that the bolded doesn't stand a chance.

If this didn't stand a chance then there would not be this thread.
Not sure I follow...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps this is a bad analogy, but bear with me:Imagine that before a couple gets married, the couple sign a prenuptial agreement stating in relevant part that "if a child is conceived and [man] wants it to be aborted, any decision by [woman] to keep the child will absolve [man] of any paternal responsibility for the child."Isn't this the same situation? But this sort of contract term would never be enforced if the woman decided to bear the child.

Maybe it should be.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow me for a minute. I'm just thinking aloud, if I may.If two people were meant to have children, wouldn't they be able to? I don't know if I agree with the whole surrogate mother thing, and it's not a religion thing either. I just believe that nature takes care of things on its own. Why mess with the natural order of things? If having a child is such a priority, why not adopt? Just because a surrogate birthed baby is 2/3 genetically yours, does that make it better?I guess I just don't get it, and maybe that is because I don't understand it.

Do you feel the same way about other illnesses and conditions? If nature takes care of things on its own, why should we be trying to cure cancer or AIDS?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm obviously anti-abortion, pro-life, I'm also Atheists, and yes, I don't think there is ever a reason to abort, not incest, rape, or threat to the mother.

This is pretty rare. When you say you're pro-life, does that mean that you consider the moment of conception to be the exact point where something becomes a baby?
By pro-life, I mean I'm in favor of not killing people.I have no idea where 'life' actually begins, it usually boils down to if I was once there, it's a human.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm obviously anti-abortion, pro-life, I'm also Atheists, and yes, I don't think there is ever a reason to abort, not incest, rape, or threat to the mother.

This is pretty rare. When you say you're pro-life, does that mean that you consider the moment of conception to be the exact point where something becomes a baby?
By pro-life, I mean I'm in favor of not killing people.I have no idea where 'life' actually begins, it usually boils down to if I was once there, it's a human.
You were once a sperm and an egg that hadn't combined yet. Do you think that a sperm and an egg next to each other should count as a baby? What if they're just in the same general area, like a crowded subway?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...