Views on the surrogate who refused termination after foetal heart defect

If it was up to me I'd outright ban it for a variety of reasons.

It just concerns me how much the other side will downplay the harms to the women doing this because there are so many women that do it for the love of having babies. It baffles me how they claim to believe that yet expect them to be completely chill with a mandated abortion because they signed a contract.

But also, even the most commercially minded surrogate is cognisant that this is her own, living child we are talking about here. It probably wouldn’t be easy for any surrogate to abort on demand. Which takes us back to the core point that children should not be bought, sold, or lives subject to legal contracts such as these.

Some surrogates have serious issues, is another thing to consider.

I also think that if we accept that at least some surrogates are motivated by the love of pregnancy and the desire to gift children to others rather than their economic circumstances then they could well be less likely to accept a TFMR especially later on in pregnancy.

Thank you for posting this Cake. This really does make it clear that these commissioning parents really do view this child as a transaction. A consumer purchase.

Their decision was never about the child, it was always about their consumer purchase of an accessory.

However, this situation could also just as equally been the same if it was what some people call an ‘altruistic’ surrogacy. Because ultimately, it is a scenario of who controls the end product of the transaction. In surrogacy, despite many people’s attempt to dismiss the bluntness of the term, the child is always transacted.

I think that once the intended parents demanded the mother terminate, they should have lost all rights and the contract should have been ended.
Demanding a termination is very clearly saying we do not want this baby

I dont really understand why they forced the removal of the child from her when they didnt want the pregnancy to continue? Is it because they paid for it?

Seems like punishment to me. They’re punishing the woman for not obeying their instruction to abort the baby. They’re punishing her for her care and love. To this end, they deprived their baby of time with his birth mother after birth, stopped her even holding him, and now have a court order to stop her ever seeing him. None of this is for the baby’s sake - a baby they were quite happy to dispose of.

Mary Wakefield in the Spectator

https://archive.ph/vVkSr

https://spectator.com/article/baby-gabriel-rumi-is-the-latest-victim-of-the-global-surrogacy-business/

I hope the commissioning 'parents', who unsuccessfully tried to kill their son, read every word.

Yes, it says the surrogate should have an abortion if the commissioning parents say so, but no one can force someone to have an abortion - instead it becomes a breach of contract and the commissioning parents can sue.

Perhaps they think it's like renting a holiday flat - as long as they don't exceed the agreed occupancy or rental period, don't bring their pet foetuses unless by prior agreement, and empty the bins they have the right to leave early if they want, but no refund...

Back in the world where people have a moral compass and ethics we might be dimly aware that human uteruses are not actually rental accommodation, but perhaps in the world where calling someone "commissioning parents" instead of "buyers" and pregnant mothers "gestational carriers" makes buying a baby perfectly fine, that distinction might seem irrelevant...

There is so much moral disconnect involved in an industry which defines a woman pregnant with an embryo/ foetus conceived using a donor egg as the baby's mother under some circumstances, and yet if money has been promised or paid she's just an incubator with no connection to the baby...

I can't see how a contract can be written that protects the mother, the commissioning parents and the child, because there'll be inevitable conflict in many cases.

When money changes hands, its always going to be within the reach of the commissioning parents, but almost life changing for the mother. Therefore the risk of being sued and consequences in general isn't balanced.

Theres a millions reasons why surrogacy isnt good, but the idea that lawyers can write contracts to make it ethical is crazy.

Forgive my ignorance here, or if anyone has already mentioned it, but this ‘contract’ that was signed, did it not state what would happen in the event of the baby being diagnosed with any life limiting conditions in utero?

It’s another reason why this practise should be illegal. If they have rented your womb does that not mean they get the right to decide what to do with it? I’m not agreeing with it, I’m simply pointing out that this is the ridiculous logic that is applied so why get on your moral high horse all of a sudden when the entire thing is wholly immoral.
On the other hand, it’s her body and her choice and no one has the right to tell her to abort by force.

Surrogacy is fucking wrong full stop. This situation should never have happened

I thought consent could be withdrawn at any point.

Maybe I should have been clearer: it's morally right to let the mother decide not to abort the baby.

Whether it's morally right to not abort the baby at all is a whole different question, and a far reaching one (should society compel the abortion of all fetuses diagnosed in utero with Down syndrome ?), but has nothing to do per se with surrogacy. Especially as the baby would not have been given up to an orphanage and the mother had offered to have custody (her brother was ready to adopt him).

Who is going to enforce that contract and hold her down to abort the child?
You obviously are up for that, and the disgusting misogynistic men who obviously felt entitled to such Gilead levels of control over women’s bodies.

Presumably she was under tremendous pressure from all concerned to have an abortion in a very asymmetric relationship. It’s pretty obvious they would have sought an enforcement order and got told No>> who’s legally incorrect?

Dreadful.

That's true of surrogacy generally.

So many people just bought and sold, but at the heart of it a baby living and growing up with the consequences of human trafficking. Of course all sorts of risks to the (sometimes two different) women paid for ovum and to hire their bodies - egg retrieval is risky, gestating an unrelated foetus is more dangerous than your own.

The baby is is a human being who grows up either not knowing their history (potentially including genetic background if a donor or purchased egg) or knowing they are bought. There are also attachment issues possible when a baby is removed from the mother who carries the baby - exacerbated obviously when there's an interval during which the newborn is removed but not handed over to the buyers (as in the Ukrainian mass abandonment scandal and the hundreds of babies not collected during the pandemic).

I don't care if she did something legally wrong, it was definitely morally right.

I'm not so sure. It's the child that has to live with the consequences.

I dont know how anyone rationalises it. Taking a baby from its mother!

Surrogacy contracts appear to be a form of slavery. The body is being used by the purchasing parents. The baby is a slave/commodity too. This all needs to end.

In a civilized country one should not need to pay up front for heart surgery on a baby. What a crap country. Is this the USA? So anyone poor who has a baby with a heart problem should abort it? You are totally in the wrong here.

How can it be legal to sign a contract to give away her autonomy? You're saying that she signed a contract to agree to be a slave. This can't possibly be legal, can it?

It's really the fake mother in Solomon's Trial in the Old Testament.They won't have it but they won't let anyone else have it either.

Compare to the real mother, who wants the child to live above all.

Agreed.

The double standards are breathtaking.

So quick to see the faults of previous generations, but so blind to the faults of our own.

This. There's really not much more to say on the matter.

Babies aren't commodities.

All this slavery reparation on one hand, on the other, treating women like breeding incubating units and babies like a lifestyle purchase on the other. It's obscene. In fact, and I think this might be the first time I've used this word in about thirty years - it's evil.

I dont really understand why they forced the removal of the child from her when they didnt want the pregnancy to continue? Is it because they paid for it?

Whose sperm and egg was this baby formed from?

Why did she continue to want the care of the child when the original plan was for her to hand the baby over? They appear to now want to care for the baby and have provided treatment for him, so why is she now wanting custody?

Its a mess and I dont agree with surrogacy like this. I can see an argument occasaionally where for example one sister agrees to have a baby for another even thought I still dont really understand it.

Im not even keen on IVF type interventions. I think people see having children as a right and I dont agree with this.