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

Absolutely disgusting however. This should not be legally permitted.

No, no one can sign a contract giving someone else complete power over their body. If that were the case it would be used in practically every rapist’s defence!

That's ridiculous. The child has a lot of challenges ahead, but it's increasingly common that they are living well into adulthood now. 70% reach adulthood now.

I do wonder why surrogacy isn’t classed as slavery.

Are you suggesting that doctors should perform surgery on someone screaming "no, please stop" because they'd previously signed a consent? Consent can be withdrawn

A baby is not a house. A baby is a human being.

You cannot expect the (mostly) poor women who become surrogates to sign away their rights.

Some of the clauses in US surrogacy cases have been completely mental in what they expect to have control over, IIRC there was one where the prospective parents had a DNR clause on the surrogate included in their agreement. Absolutely horrific.

That's not even taking into account the abhorrent human trafficking nature of surrogacy (buying and selling of actual people), or the toll it takes on the baby.

Then there's all the babies who have been born and not collected by the buying parents for various reasons. Ukraine war surrogate babies, babies born the wrong sex or with birth defects etc. Just left behind like unwanted goods.

Human beings are not things to be bought and sold. We as a society should not be encouraging the normalisation of human rights being things that can be bought and sold, or contractually signed away.

Surrogacy should be made illegal.

The issue is not around her agreeing to be a surrogate though - it is about one of the clauses in the contract.

That's not true. The courts intervened.

https://abc13.com/story/mckenna-west-surrogates-fight-parental-rights-dallas-could-discourage-surrogacy-use-texas-lawyers-say/19702274/

As of yesterday, the mother was still seeking custody, unless you have more recent information.

Just to say, the commissioning parents cannot force an abortion. All they can do is sue the surrogate for breach of contract, as seems to be happening here.

It will be interesting to see if the surrogate had legal representation and properly understood the contract or was just told by the agency to "sign here".

Would you believe, some agencies make the surrogate take out life insurance with the commissioning parents as beneficiaries so that if she dies and the baby dies, the commissioning parents have the funds to try again.

No, she was forced to hand over the baby to the purchasers and wasn’t allowed to spend any time with the baby nor even hold it.

Her brother had offered to adopt the baby.

That's not remotely similar to what we are talking about here.

Most contracts are reasonable to both parties.

If someone breaks the contract, they are liable.

What we are talking about here are unreasonable contracts.

The courts would decide.

Anyway, abortion is illegal in Texas, I believe, unless the mother's life is in danger? The surrogate fled to Texas. So how could she have the desired abortion there anyway?

I assume this was the US? I can’t believe European laws would find a contract term obliging a woman to have an abortion lawful or enforceable.

This is incorrect. In the US bodily autonomy is a protected right regardless of any contract. Yes, she will probably incur a financially penalty however she is completely within her rights to decline an abortion fir any reason.

Effectively, yes, if the person concerned then changes their mind. - the surgical team doesn’t say, well, you signed this form last week so we’re going to just forcibly anaesthetise you and go ahead anyway. The previous consent doesn’t override all if the patient has a change of heart, and nor should it. If the surgical team went ahead in the face of an express withdrawal of consent, they can be charged with assault, and it would be highly unethical in any case.

You appear to be giving what you think is an opinion on the law here. What's the basis for that?

It would be as if someone said they were going to donate a kidney and changed their mind. Nobody can force them to do it.

Bloody hell.

Given it's recognised as unethical to use a surrogate who hasn't completed her own family before undertaking surrogate pregnancy, and given surrogates have to be of child bearing age usually, most surrogate mothers have dependent biological children.

This would rule out her own bereavemed children being supported by their mother's life insurance in order to give money to people wealthy enough to buy babies to order.

Absolutely this. No-one has an absolute right to be a parent and they should not be allowed to (a) remove a baby from its mother (the one who has carried it for nine months and whom it recognises as part of itself), nor (b) put another woman's body at risk, especially if that includes removing her bodily autonomy.

It is sad that infertile heterosexual couples and gay couples who would like children are unable to have them. But their sadness is not more important than the needs of a baby and it does not give them the moral right to exploit poorer women.

Surrogacy should be banned everywhere.

I'm going to take that idea that another party can compel a pregnant woman to terminate or carry a pregnancy to term because she signed something beforehand.

That would be OK if it were a rapist (including one within marriage) or a husband/partner who said he'd only agree to her continuing the pregnancy whilst it was appearing totally healthy? Or as long as he didn't change his mind about it? If she didn't tell him that there could be something and she went on to give birth to a child with a cleft palate/limb difference/heart condition, he could sue her for breach of contract as he only agreed to a perfect baby and she knew there was something he would reject the child for? Maybe he would demand to take the child and pass it on to somebody else/sell it to recoup his costs?

It really, really isn't far from a wealthy couple and surrogacy being able to punish a woman for not obeying their wishes to men in general giving permission for terminations and men enforcing terminations.

Tbf I think she could take out other life insurance separately for her own family too. But it just goes to show where the surrogate fits in to the scheme of things with these agencies.

The commissioning parents can dictate what she eats, what she does - this is why they often give the surrogate an apple watch and a Hello Fresh subscription. And they can dictate what pain relief the surrogate can take. What other contracts are like that?

After the couple said they wanted to abort the foetus the surrogate Mum should have custody of the baby if she wanted it.

This. 100%. And not far from pregnancy to sex either.

It’s very dystopian.

No one has the ‘right’ to a baby. It’s not a thing to be bought. Nor is the body of a mother.