Views on the surrogate who refused termination after foetal heart defect

[Soubriquet]

I did look for a thread but I couldn’t find one.

what are we thinking about the surrogate who refused to terminate because the baby had a heart defect, despite the “parents” insisting on a termination.

The baby has now been born, and she didn’t even get a chance to hold him, before he was taken away.

I don’t agree with surrogacy, and I feel very sorry for this baby

link

Awful all round. It appears the baby is very, very sick. Surrogacy is such a minefield, especially in the US - it should be illegal.

Surrogacy is completely unethical, especially commercial surrogacy.

Tge "intended parents" should not have final say of anything that could affect the health of the mother, including abortion.

Surrogacy is wrong. The mother, however many contracts she'd signed, did in my view have the absolute right to refuse an abortion she didn't want. I hope the baby buyers don't get to keep the baby they wanted her to abort, but I'm not sure any great outcome is possible for either the mother or the child. It's all a terrible mess and shows some of the practical problems with surrogacy, never mind the ethical ones.
Edited for SPAG

Horrifically sad. The mother is totally in the wrong here - she doesn’t have the means to pay for the care and surgery the child needs. He’s had one surgery of at least three required and now she’s given it up to the intended parents who have no intentions of raising it.

I think the baby has been given to the ‘parents’ and not the surrogate, who I believe is wanting to keep the baby (but I may have that wrong) .

I think the person carrying the baby has the final say on abortion or not, because it’s her body carrying the baby.

interesting situation though.

It's all an absolute mess, and exactly why surrogacy should be illegal.

Edited because I did not read it properly.

Poor baby, in any case.

Her body, her choice. Works both ways. If the people buying a baby wanted complete control over the body gestating the baby one of them should have done it!

Legally incorrect.

She signed a contract vowing to give control to the IPs.

I think, from the articles, the baby now named Rumi is with the men who bought him. I hope he survives, thrives and, if the men keep him, he never discovers they wanted him aborted.

She broke the terms of the contract she signed. If that clause is even legal she could be in deep trouble. I don't think surrogacy contracts that give another party controls over someone else's body are at all ethical. Where would it stop? Would surrogates have their diet controlled, who they mix with, where they go, if they exercise? It's all a bit Talibanesque. This is completely ignoring the ethics of the trade in human beings.

Are they a same sex couple?

Does that matter? Surrogacy is a messy business anyway, but focusing on that is a neither here nor there.
Mixed sex couples have the same attitude to surrogacy.

I don't know what US law says on the matter but the idea that you could contract away your rights over your own body is monstrous. Commercial surrogacy should be illegal everywhere.

There is a concept of unreasonable contract. I don't know if it applies in the US, but here there is an understanding that the powerful party to a contract can make it very one sided.

I wonder if the US courts will take this view even if she did agree to abort in the case of significant disability.

Some people disagree with surrogacy/egg/sperm donation because they see it as using other people's bodies to have a baby, but as a married heterosexual woman who had no infertility issues, I'm in a privileged position and should I have the right to criticise gay/infertile couples desperate for a child? Adoption isn't always easy, and just because it was easy for me to have my two, do I have any more right to be a parent than anyone who doesn't need to use donor eggs/sperm from someone who isn't their partner, or surrogacy?
In this case, the people involved should have discussed their opinions on abortion and made sure they were on the same page before moving forwards.

As a PP said, it’s a perfect example of why it should be illegal

I don't care if she did something legally wrong, it was definitely morally right, and the purchasers are scum for not even letting her keep the baby.

And it's Exhibit 3641 as to why surrogacy is awful and should be banned.

I think the purchasers are a man and a woman, not that it changes anything in my opinion (I'm just all the more appalled when a woman finds it appropriate to pay for surrogacy).

Surrogacy should be banned. The sooner the better.

I don’t care if this baby is a contract signed surrogate child, no one should be forced to terminate if they do not want to, and this includes this situation.

a quick Google tells me that Nausheen is a woman’s name, so this is a hetero couple

The child should be thought of first and foremost in these circumstances not the person hoping to be a parent. No child should be treated as a commodity, with no regard of their birth circumstances, genetics etc. Then the birth parent. Surrogacy has it the wrong way round, no thought for child or birth mother

I agree it’s why it shouldn’t be legal.

I also don’t see how signing a contact can mean you are forced to have an abortion you don’t want. Because that would be coerced consent..

I read about this somewhere a few weeks ago. I don't know where I got the idea it was a same sex couple, but you're right it is irrelevant.

I think this just highlights why renting out women's bodies is not ok.

Of course she should have autonomy over her own body, but the best way of ensuring this is not to act as a surrogate in the first place.

It should be up to the pregnant woman until the point the baby is adopted by their prospective parents(s).,

I don’t think it’s deemed as unreasonable when the woman is a) being paid a large sum of money and b) not keeping the child. She signed a contract that gave away her autonomy for the nine months of pregnancy, willingly and being compensated for that.