Sperm donor sues to force surrogate mother to abort one of her triplets

https://www.mercatornet.com/article...ate-mother-to-abort-one-of-her-triplets/17409

A man paid $33,000 to a woman to bear for him a child conceived from his sperm and the eggs donated from a different woman.

Rather than having one child, as expected, the woman became pregnant with triplets.

The man then sought to force the woman to abort one of the triplets through a lawsuit.
He only wanted one baby, he didn't want three of them.
And even if she took custody of the other two, he'd still be liable for child support, as the biological father.

The triplets, in this case, are not actually biologically related to the surrogate mother.


What ended up happening is the man got custody of all three triplets, and the surrogate mother lost her appeals in court.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/03...cy-case-mother-pressured-abort-extra-triplet/

Under California law, women acting as surrogates carrying a baby created with another woman’s eggs may have their parental rights terminated prior to birth based on the surrogacy contract. The state's law also allows the court to name the purchaser of the child the legal parent prior to birth and without any consideration of the best interests of the child.

Kathleen Sloan, who filed an argument in favor of the surrogate mother's petition to the Supreme Court, argues the laws surrounding surrogacy are "creating a breeder class of marginalized women. Both are being transformed into commodities for sale on the global marketplace."

When the surrogate mother went into labor two months early, her parental rights had already been terminated and the father was legally declared the sole parent of the three tiny babies. The newborn preemies were quickly rushed to intensive care unit, where they remained for three months without mother or father at their sides. The hospital refused the mother's requests to see the babies or even learn of their condition. The father, who lived in a different state, reportedly visited for only a short time.

 

that is the women's choice, it's her body, not his, he is basically saying he paid her to have one child, she could keep the other two and he pay child support or she pay him child support if he gets to keep them

if republicans get their way, the government would decide when to abort or have a baby

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/16/melissa-cook-seeks-parental-rights-to-triplets-she/

I do find it not a little bit ironic that at first the father attempts to make her abort one of the triplets, and then right before she's about to give birth he wants to take full legal custody of all three.

Was this a spiteful act just to "get back" and punish her for not getting an abortion? Or did it have more to do with his potential obligations for child support under state law?

And what do you think about parents using surrogacy to have children when they cannot really afford to be having children? (Which was the case in this situation)

"I can't really afford to have twins so why don't you abort one of them"

 

It's also interesting that the court decided even before the kids were born that they didn't belong to her, yet many pro-choicers seem to claim an unborn child inside of a woman is part of her body and her property.

What if a woman signed a surrogacy contract promising not to get an abortion?

 

Makes sense to me.. She entered into a contract and had no parental rights as a surrogate.

 

Wasn't her eggs or her sperm.

 

So if it was her eggs, does that mean the fetus inside of her would be 50% hers?

 

Do you think if she entered a contract she could potentially lose her rights to be able to get an abortion?

Or possibly lose her right not to get an abortion, if there was such a clause in the contract?
She might be on the hook for some substantial punitive damages that could bankrupt her.

 

He was not successful in getting her to have a termination was he?

 

I have no idea what was in the contract. Typically with these invitro inseminations there is the possibility of multiple babies. My boss's wife had FIVE.. They aborted four of them early in the pregnancy.. and they were observant Catholics.

 

Depends on the contract.. He may have paid upwards of $40,000 for the procedures involved.

 

good point, so she could not keep the babies, she is not related to the babies, I missed that

 

Parental rights isn't a matter of ownership of the children, before of after birth. The rights of a pregnant woman isn't about ownership in that context either, more a matter of bodily integrity. It's not that they own the fetus but that it has an unavoidable and significant impact upon them.

The main issue here seems to be poorly managed surrogacy laws and processes plus one or more of the individuals involved being dicks. I suspect the taboo of the field, which will be compounded by the excessive political rhetoric surrounding abortion, will have played a role in those laws and processes not being as good as they should be.

 

Why don't you think that man should have been able to make her have an abortion?

Are you saying there are some aspects about abortion that causes more impact on a woman's body than childbirth? (Even when they're not her kids?)

 

Her body
No he cannot force her to undergo a medical procedure against her will

 

Why not? Wouldn't you argue that it is easier in every way (except perhaps psychologically) for her to have an abortion rather than continue to go through gestation with triplets in her womb and then childbirth?

If it's not ending up carrying any net cost to the woman, why should she have the right?

Do you think the woman should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body, like hit her pregnant belly with a hammer? Alcohol? Drug-fueled partying and orgies? Seek employment inside a nuclear reactor?

 

I wasn't saying that, I was just pointing out some of the fundamental errors (or misrepresentations) in the logic of your post. There'd be no point discussing conclusions without agreement on the predicates.

 

A tricky situation indeed.

It sounds like the mother entered into a voluntarily signed contract regarding the outcome of her pregnancy, and with no evidence or indication that she was under duress or coercion to do so. I am satisfied that her right to choose was honored, even if in this case she chose to give up some control as a surrogate.

 

It's a woman not a cow, and it's children, not some dolls you buy at the supermarket.

 

This prick shouldn't be allowed to have children.

 

Does that also include choice about abortion in your view?

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/02/surrogacy-contract-melissa-cook/463323/

Can a woman sign away her choice to get abortion in a contract?
(Or sign away her choice not to get an abortion?)

Does a woman lose her choice after she signs a contract?
Does she lose choice over her own body?

 

If the person who paid for the pregnancy is not related to the fetus (i.e. the eggs and sperm came from completely separate anonymous donors) does that change anything?​

 

She agreed to carry a child not her own.

 

Then why doesn't he put one up for adoption rather than kill it? What a scumbag!

 

That is originally what the surrogate mother proposed, that he would take two of the triplets and the other one would be put up for adoption, or that she was willing to take care of the third one.
For some reason that idea didn't appeal to him and he wanted her to abort one of them.

Then, when she finally was close to giving birth, he wanted to take all three.
By that time, she learned more information and believed he would be an unfit father, and there was a legal custody battle. But he won the custody battle, and took all three. She appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but they declined to take up the case.