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

I agree- I don't see how it wouldn't break international laws around modern slavery. No contract should give another complete control over someone's body I including forced operations??

No one can sign a contract giving someone else complete power over their body. Hence, why she refused to have an abortion.

Of course you have the right to criticise if you think it’s wrong. If a couple can’t have a baby, that’s sad, but it doesn’t give them the moral right to do things that harm others.

This is the sort of argument that was used to justify forced adoption in Ireland

How very feminist, this concept of "consent in advance".

" It wasn't a rape Your Honor, she had consented to sex one hour before when I said I'd like to hook up with her, so how is it relevant that she changed her mind ? "

I think when you've outsourced a pregnancy to someone else you can't enforce an abortion on them. Only the pregnant woman can consent to an abortion.

That doesn't make sense.

If you feel like a parent who would terminate a baby with a cardiac issue doesn't really want a baby all that much, that has nothing to do with bodily autonomy.

The mum you speak of isn't terminating due to the pregnancy's toll on her body, she is terminating because she envisages a lack of quality of life and/or a level of need she cannot safely meet. That is likely the same reason these prospective parents wanted to terminate the pregnancy.

I don't think they should be able to make that choice because it's her body but I don't think they are any worse than any biological mother who chooses a medical termination when they think a baby will have a less than ideal life.

Again, an extreme extrapolation that shows either an inability to understand the subject at hand, or an unwillingness to engage in good faith.

They can and she did.

It’s not as if she refused in order to raise the child and pay for the surgeries herself, is it? She refused just to be on the moral high ground and now the child is living in pain. What sort of person does that?

Who do you think you are, @autumnleavesonthefloor, to be awarding comprehension degrees?

Do explain how it is different. If a consent can be given irrevocably to undergo a major bodily intervention that you refuse and that will bring you no benefit, why can it not be given for intercourse? If the difference lies in the existence of a payment, my example does not hold, but you're basically arguing that so-called "sex workers" cannot change their minds and refuse a customer once he's paid. It's abhorrent.

ETA: this having been said, the purchasers should not be forced to raise the child themselves (just like I don't think a man who fathers a child "by chance" should not have to pay alimony if he has been clear he does not want a child and forfeits his parental rights) . But none of them would be in this horrible situation were it not for surrogacy.

@autumnleavesonthefloor this particular woman may have acted wrongly in this particular case- I don’t know her motivation or what I would do in her position. As a principle though, you can’t override someone’s no because they said yes (and even signed a contract) ahead of time.
A surgeon would not operate on a patient who had signed the consent form if they said no at their last rational moment.
A kidney donor could not be held to the donation if they wanted to withdraw at the last minute.
No ethical surgeon would do such a thing.

Again, no - you’re extrapolating a point.

In this scenario the woman would have agreed, freely and being generously compensated for it, to abort in a certainty of circumstances. The fact she didn’t then volunteer to raise the baby is testament to her intentions.

Out of interest, @autumnleavesonthefloor , what’s your skin in this game? I’m a woman who has had children, haven’t had infertility or a termination. That probably colours my perspective. What’s influencing yours?

I’m looking at this from a purely legal perspective.

The surrogate very much agreed to sacrifice her bodily autonomy when she agreed to carry another’s child. Surrogates often consent to whatever is necessary to bring about a healthy birth - including interventions during pregnancy and childbirth.

I find it particularly abhorrent that she refused this, just to birth a baby with a poor prognosis who will live their entire life in pain.

I don’t know if anyone else has noticed this on SM, but every comment I’ve seen has been how dare she/sue her ass/make her pay.

Not one single comment about the poor sick child. Not one.

I don’t agree with the mothers choice personally either but at the end of the day it’s her body and it is really wrong that such a contract exists in the first place.

This is such a collection of straw men, but if we're engaging in whataboutery - why have wealthy people got the right to buy a baby? Shouldn't infertile or same sex attracted working people on minimum wage be bought babies? Indeed who are you to decide that those on benefits don't get bought babies if they want them and can't have their own?

No, you as one individual don't have the right to decide that. Neither does one individual gay man or infertile woman.

One individual hungry homeless person also doesn't have the right to legalise taking basic groceries for personal consumption from branches of large supermarket chains - arguably as victimless, or indeed on a systematic level not victimless, as surrogacy...

Society or entire cultures decide what is ethical through debate which doesn't disbar those not directly involved from discussion - you don't have to be a criminal nor a victim of crime to have an opinion on crime, and the same goes for all ethical dilemmas.

From what I read, she offered repeatedly to raise the child, but offered to still give him/her to the intended parents as long as they promised he'd have the necessary treatment once born. They didn't consent of that but it seems he was taken at birth anyway.

I'm not getting where your suggested abandonment comes from.

the surrogate willingly entered into a contract and agreed to abort.

As someone said upthread, at least in the UK there are clauses that you simply can't write into a contract and expect them to be upheld. They're intrinsically unreasonable demands to make on anyone. An agreement to abort should be one of them.

Ideally the baby's medical expenses should be borne by everyone who has profited from the deal except the carrying mother. Whoever was paid to write the contract, whatever agency put the parents in touch, they all need to be insured against outcomes like this or pay up themselves. That'll cost. And in America that's often an effective way to end the practice - cutting the profits shuts down the profiteers.

One. Of the problems I have with scenarios like this is because I’m so used to the NHS and of course a child who needs surgery will have surgery , the fact that the woman who gave birth can’t afford the surgery is a pertinent issue is an extra Jeezy peeps to the whole sorry sceenario

i also think surrogacy is abhorrent

A lesbian couple using a sperm donor via a clinic is fine. A male gay couple buying a woman’s egg and a woman’s body as an incubator? That’s immoral - men buying women for their wants. Surrogacy should be banned regardless of the buyer’s sexuality.

As long as the baby is in her body, all choices should be hers and hers alone. No contract can supersede her right to control her own body. The intended parents have to accept the consequences of their choice to pursue surrogacy.

Every time I see anything about surrogacy in the news, it just provides more evidence that it should not be legal. It is too dangerous for the woman and too complicated legally.

The child will live a horrible life, if it lives. She simply didn’t care.

What a ridiculous proposal. This wouldn’t just affect surrogacy contracts.

That’s like suggesting that if a house sale falls through both sets of solicitors should be made to pay.

At the end of the day, she agreed, entered into a contract, was paid and then unilaterally rescinded that contract.

I agree. As pp have said, this situation is one example of how horribly wrong surrogacy can go. Nobody should be forced to have an abortion, or sign a contract agreeing in advance to an abortion which they may not want when the time comes.

If a house sale falls through because of malpractice by the solicitors....