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

In this case, she chose to voluntarily forfeit her choice. She didn't lose it, it wasn't taken from her, it wasn't denied to her, she agreed to make the choice belong to someone else in the surrogacy contract. That is also choice. If there's evidence of coercion or that she was forced to sign the contract, or anything that might alter her having been voluntarily choosing this, that might change things. She made choice about her body and in this case, those choices were to let someone else make the choice about abortion in exchange for money.

It's tricky, and I'm not sure I agree with it. I know I wouldn't sign over my right to control my body as she did. Perhaps a better way to handle it would be to let the surrogate choose the outcome for the unwanted fetuses instead of the choice being that of the person(s) renting her uterus, with a stipulation in the contract that the renters not be legally or financially responsible in any way if the surrogate decides not to terminate when requested. This is still new and the laws haven't quite caught up yet.

 

Isn't this also similar to what pro-lifers believe, that a woman has already made her choice and now she's going to have to live with it?

I find it extremely interesting that pro-choicers believe a woman can give up her choice in a formal contract...

In a contract, she has a choice before the pregnancy, and then afterwards, her choice has run out. And then she just has to suffer the consequences of her decision. Isn't that correct?

 

There is very poor people, 33 000 $ is a lot of money. Furthermore, we don't know if this woman was stable in a mental way. That's just human trafficking.
What's the next step ? Allowing organ trafic ? You're poor ? Sell your heart 200 000 $, and we will give the money to your family. Maybe we could allow back slavery if people agree to be sold in slavery ?
Why not allowing murders if people agree to be murdered for some money ?

 

What's this point of this post?
Nobody is questioning the ability to perform select intrauterine abortion when multiple gestation is present.
And your friends weren't surrogates either.
Total irrelevance fail.

 

There is always a risk of multiple babies.

 

Are you saying all surrogates are poor?

 

No ****, really?

 

The surrogate woman already had four children of her own (before the pregnancy). The father was still living with his elderly parents, virtually deaf, and not earning that much money.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...two-year-custody-battle-seen-father-time.html

So let me see, two boys and two daughters of her own, another baby for a same sex couple, and finally triplets.
This woman has given birth to eight children so far.

 

No, but it doesn't change that it's morally disgusting.

 

Then don't do it.

 

That's often (usually) the case.​

 

I will question it.

If a woman has triplets, should that automatically give her the right to terminate one of them? How about twins?
Too much of a strain on her body, better reduce her pregnancy down to one.

I can see some argument being made if she is pregnant with quintuplets, but it just seems kind of messed up to abort just because there are more than one in there.

 

It's obviously taking advantage of people being fragile either on the psychologically or financially level. I suppose that you're for slavery if people agree to be sold into slavery ? Are you for murder if someone is paid to be murdered ?

 

@Margot2 Furthermore, you're forgetting that it's not only about this woman, but her children too.

 

The difference between your pro-life example and a surrogacy is that in the latter, the woman made the direct choice about her pregnancy. Pro-lifers don't want a woman to be able to make that choice, they consider the pregnancy to be the choice. Pro-lifers don't want the woman to have a choice to begin with, whereas here, the surrogate mother made the choice to allow someone else to choose the outcome. Pro-lifers demand that someone else choose the outcome, regardless of the mother's input. There are no parallels here to an anti-abortion position because the outcome(despite being done in non-traditional way) was chosen by the mother, which is the essence of being pro-choice.

 

Stop projecting..... Pick a fight with someone else.

 

No, I'm rather interested to know where you put the line ? If you think it's decent to locate a womb, force a woman to an unwanted operation on her own body, and basically accepting babies to be sold like phones I would love to know where you morality draw the line.

 

He probably didn't want to be stuck with child support for the third one. The guy sounds like a crackpot. Maybe he had a change of heart when he saw all three babies? We can only hope.

 

It sounds like what this is really about is a woman's right to have care-free sex without the consequences, but if she intentionally and explicitly chose to get impregnated, that's a different story.

Either that, or you believe that someone else's right outweighs the pregnancy rights of the woman, which I don't think you do.

 

Has nothing to do with intentionally getting pregnant, it has to do with the formal contract she entered into whereby she agreed to the terms set forth in it. Assuming the abortion part wasn't added later after she signed(and there's no indication that was the case), she agreed to one or more of the fetuses being aborted if the renters so chose. It wasn't a passive agreement or an unspoken one or an implied one like pro-lifers want simply being pregnant at all to be, it was a formal written contract with terms laid out from the start.

Personally, I'd like to see a law that allows a surrogate to keep a one or more of the fetuses that the renters may not want and the renters be absolved of any parental or financial obligations towards it if that's what she chooses. But my pro-choice beliefs are satisfied here. Taking the story at face value, she got to choose. That's what being pro-choice means.

Someone else's rights don't, but the woman has the right to consent to the terms of a binding contract as long as it's voluntary, and there's no reason to believe that isn't the case here. She still chose the outcome, even though the outcome here is one where she consented to let someone else determine it.

 

Perfect. His intentions were not allowed inside her uterus and she was denied visitation as per her contract. Justice and liberty at work.

 

I wonder if any of you believe a man should be able to require a woman to get an abortion in the prenuptial agreement.

 

Doesn't matter, she can always change her mind

 

Only with a substantial financial penalty.

She might lose many of the financial protections of marriage, as a result of defying her husband and asserting her own reproductive decisions. I'm just curious, are pro-choicers okay with that?

 

According to liberal theory, it is 100% hers until delivery, at which point it then becomes 100% the responsibility of the father to pay for... Just another little inconsistency of the left....

In any event, the facts of the case are straight forward. The surrogate has no rights, because she contractually signed them away. End of story. Credit liberals though for creating this mess in the first place, allowing women to rent their bodies to carry the children of others. Giving them then, any rights at all seems entirely questionable.