Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Couple asks surrogate mother to abort the baby


Babu Bhatt2

Recommended Posts

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?
Well, in most pro-lifers case, it is at conception.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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?
And they are just made up of cells, which are only many atoms, which are subatomic particles, which all came from the big bang, which was from the singularity, which started with Sheldon.

Sheldon is life.

Life begins with Sheldon.

Or the little chromosomes are just a set of instructions until squiggly thing penetrates round thing and the magic happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Well, in most pro-lifers case, it is at conception.
Right, but most pro-lifers are religious and think on some level that an embryo becomes imbued with personhood at conception. Like it gets a soul or something akin to that. I don't agree with that but it gets into elements of faith which are pretty difficult to argue about.I'm interested in PatsFan72's thoughts because he said he's an atheist. There just aren't that many atheist pro-lifers around.
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?
And they are just made up of cells, which are only many atoms, which are subatomic particles, which all came from the big bang, which was from the singularity, which started with Sheldon.

Sheldon is life.

Life begins with Sheldon.

Or the little chromosomes are just a set of instructions until squiggly thing penetrates round thing and the magic happens.

To be fair, I never thought the thread would stay on topic as long as it did.
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Well, in most pro-lifers case, it is at conception.
Right, but most pro-lifers are religious and think on some level that an embryo becomes imbued with personhood at conception. Like it gets a soul or something akin to that. I don't agree with that but it gets into elements of faith which are pretty difficult to argue about.I'm interested in PatsFan72's thoughts because he said he's an atheist. There just aren't that many atheist pro-lifers around.
It is interesting to hear an athiest pro-lifers take, and I am curious myself.I am pro-life myself...also religious. I realize that life at conception has a religious take on it, but I personally have a hard time just picking a time during a pregnancy and deciding the baby is now a living thing when there are so many moments that represent life throughout the course starting very early.This particular case is disturbing to me because although I am pro-life, I also work in the developmental disability field working with many folks with down syndrome. I have a hard time when someone else passes judgment as to the quality of life they think this person will have. The folks I work with have a zest for life and a positive attitude towards their life. It is actually the borderline individuals that seem to have the most difficulties with their condition.Although, we have a different stance on this issue, I appreciate your approach to the discussion.
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, I never thought the thread would stay on topic as long as it did.

Sorry if I started the hijacking.
No worries. I think it's mostly relevant and I understand your curiosity, but I believe this issue is different than whether you believe in abortion or not or why. And the abortion topic leads to so many partisan or religious roadblocks around here it just ruins the discussion.
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, I never thought the thread would stay on topic as long as it did.

Sorry if I started the hijacking.
No worries. I think it's mostly relevant and I understand your curiosity, but I believe this issue is different than whether you believe in abortion or not or why. And the abortion topic leads to so many partisan or religious roadblocks around here it just ruins the discussion.
It's pretty difficult to separate your feelings about abortion generally from your feelings about this situation. I believe that if a couple wants to get an abortion (at least in the earlier stages of pregnancy), they should be able to get one. So I feel like it's a real injustice that the surrogate can prevent them from doing so. Those posters that are pro-life would likely be more sympathetic to the surrogate, who is being pressured to get an abortion even though she doesn't want one.
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, I never thought the thread would stay on topic as long as it did.

Sorry if I started the hijacking.
No worries. I think it's mostly relevant and I understand your curiosity, but I believe this issue is different than whether you believe in abortion or not or why. And the abortion topic leads to so many partisan or religious roadblocks around here it just ruins the discussion.
It's pretty difficult to separate your feelings about abortion generally from your feelings about this situation. I believe that if a couple wants to get an abortion (at least in the earlier stages of pregnancy), they should be able to get one. So I feel like it's a real injustice that the surrogate can prevent them from doing so. Those posters that are pro-life would likely be more sympathetic to the surrogate, who is being pressured to get an abortion even though she doesn't want one.
I'll agree with that. It just seems like such an elitest thing to do. To pull the plug on a child you created because it didn't fit into your worldview seems so completely inhumane and selfish to me. What do these people do when they find out their 8 year old has Leukemia?
Link to post
Share on other sites

To pull the plug on a child you created because it didn't fit into your worldview seems so completely inhumane and selfish to me.

I'm not sure what you mean by "worldview." Do you think aborting a fetus because it has Down Syndrome is worse than aborting a fetus for other reasons or less bad or equally bad?
Link to post
Share on other sites

To pull the plug on a child you created because it didn't fit into your worldview seems so completely inhumane and selfish to me.

I'm not sure what you mean by "worldview." Do you think aborting a fetus because it has Down Syndrome is worse than aborting a fetus for other reasons or less bad or equally bad?
I'm not a fan of abortion at all, really. I prefer personal responsibility. I understand that it happens and I understand there are plenty of situations where the pregnancy was out of the woman's control. I don't agree with abortion as birth control.
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, I never thought the thread would stay on topic as long as it did.

Sorry if I started the hijacking.
No worries. I think it's mostly relevant and I understand your curiosity, but I believe this issue is different than whether you believe in abortion or not or why. And the abortion topic leads to so many partisan or religious roadblocks around here it just ruins the discussion.
It's pretty difficult to separate your feelings about abortion generally from your feelings about this situation. I believe that if a couple wants to get an abortion (at least in the earlier stages of pregnancy), they should be able to get one. So I feel like it's a real injustice that the surrogate can prevent them from doing so. Those posters that are pro-life would likely be more sympathetic to the surrogate, who is being pressured to get an abortion even though she doesn't want one.
I'm not sure I get this totally. You think the biological parents should be able to force the surrogate to undergo a procedure she doesn't want? Or are you just saying that they should be able disclaim responsibility if the child is carried to term?
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.
Maybe, although I doubt such a prenuptial agreement would ever be enforced. If such a term were enforced, there would be a public outcry. For the sake of consistency, I don't think the similar term in this case should be enforced (pretending for a moment that the situation occurs in the U.S.).
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty difficult to separate your feelings about abortion generally from your feelings about this situation. I believe that if a couple wants to get an abortion (at least in the earlier stages of pregnancy), they should be able to get one. So I feel like it's a real injustice that the surrogate can prevent them from doing so. Those posters that are pro-life would likely be more sympathetic to the surrogate, who is being pressured to get an abortion even though she doesn't want one.

I'm not sure I get this totally. You think the biological parents should be able to force the surrogate to undergo a procedure she doesn't want? Or are you just saying that they should be able disclaim responsibility if the child is carried to term?
Yeah, you can't really force someone to get an abortion if they refuse. I guess just the second one.
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, I never thought the thread would stay on topic as long as it did.

Sorry if I started the hijacking.
No worries. I think it's mostly relevant and I understand your curiosity, but I believe this issue is different than whether you believe in abortion or not or why. And the abortion topic leads to so many partisan or religious roadblocks around here it just ruins the discussion.
It's pretty difficult to separate your feelings about abortion generally from your feelings about this situation. I believe that if a couple wants to get an abortion (at least in the earlier stages of pregnancy), they should be able to get one. So I feel like it's a real injustice that the surrogate can prevent them from doing so. Those posters that are pro-life would likely be more sympathetic to the surrogate, who is being pressured to get an abortion even though she doesn't want one.
More than difficult, I find it almost impossible to separate my feelings on abortion from this topic. My role as parent has more to do with my stance on abortion than religion.
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.

:sleep:

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...
You are asserting that surrogacy contract will always allow the biological parents to place in them "out clauses". That laws that would prevent this, or at least heavily regulate this "doesn't stand a chance". My point is they have a chance coming into existence in the region of Canada in the original article simply depending on whether the courts state that "family law" trumps "contract law" in that particular case. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty certain that such a thing as contract clauses being struck down because they contradict other laws is at least relatively common. I'd guess that surrogate contracts have clause(s) that say that if one clause of the contract is voided by courts that the rest of the contract is still valid to anticipate these unsettled questions have a chance of happening.

Elsewhere, I think hearing about cases like this is exactly what leads to new legislation with broad support. Maybe not quite a simplistically worded as the "bolded", but I'd guess that if the electorate forced legislators to deal with this it would lean in the direction of the bolded.

The reason that this probably doesn't have a chance of happening is because no enough people will know enough to care about the possibility.

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...