Gay dads demand surrogate terminate unborn baby at 24 weeks

Surrogate Claims Gay Dads Demanded She Terminate Pregnancy at 24 Weeks After Finding Out She Had Cancer

A woman claims that a gay couple who had hired her to be a surrogate and carry their baby pressured and tried to coerce her to abort the baby after she was diagnosed with cancer and they were concerned about the baby having health problems.

I use the word "baby" because this was at 24 weeks into the pregnancy and it's definitely a baby by then.

The two gay men allegedly opposed offering the child up for adoption, because "they didn't want their DNA out there."

She had been diagnosed with cancer at 22 weeks into the pregnancy at the time. The initial plan had been to minimize the cancer treatment and remove the baby early, at 34 weeks. But then later it was discovered the cancer had advanced too much and more aggressive treatment would be required, which would endanger the health of the baby.

Once the two fathers found out, Pearson says they began using language such as "immediately terminated" and "erased" for the future of the fetus.

The dads threatened everyone they could with a lawsuit, Pearson says, including her and the medical center.

The baby ended up being born on Father's Day (how ironic!) and the woman (the surrogate) got to hold the baby, a boy, but unfortunately due to health complications the child did not survive.

This was the second time Brittney Pearson had acted as a surrogate.
She says she doesn't plan to be a surrogate mom again, because after this experience she now feels like "a rented-out uterus".

Surrogate claims gay dads told her to terminate pregnancy at 24 weeks after cancer diagnosis | Daily Mail Online

 

The real story is how could this kid have two dads?

 

OK. they wanted her to abort and she didn't...shrug...

The baby, a fetus until born then it is a baby, died as expected....

And BTW, she IS a rented out uterus....what a ding bat..

And emotional crap like """"baby ended up being born on Father's Day (how ironic!)"""" has nothing to do with anything in the REAL world....Father's Day is a date on the calendar not a Holy Day.


Was there a point?

 

That's the irrelevant part.

Couples unable to procreate do contract for surrogacy. Singles go that route, too.

And as the example points out, surrogacy can raise a lot of thorny issues.

NONE of those issues involves the reason the couple was unable (or chose not) to procreate without surrogacy.

 

You don't want to know.

That too involves child sacrifice.
See post #8 in this thread: little shop of horrors
They have a new protocol now where they will use artificial insemination and have the surrogate incubate one fetus, only to slaughter and harvest it for its eggs, to now be combined with the other man's sperm. That makes one of the two men the biological grandfather.

 

Well, this is an entirely one sided story that is being apparently being promoted by an anti-surrogacy campaign group with a couple of key details deliberately not revealed, making it impossible for it to be followed up (even though it is in the Daily Mail so that's probably a moot point). There is also, of course, a donation webpage mentioned too.

That isn't to say what was described didn't happen (or at least some of it), but I wouldn't want to rely on all of the details or exact sequence of events reported here alone as the basis for any conclusions, either specific to the case (not that's I'd want to do that anyway) or in any general principle, be that about surrogacy or abortion.

 

they wanted her to abort and she didn't...shrug...

 

exactly, it's her body, her choice

 

I'm sure in other cases the would-have-been parents apply more pressure. Used tactics (legal & not) to coerce and harass her. Make her feel scared of a lawsuit, push her to make a decision she doesn't want through fear.
There could even be some clause in the contract that could force her to abort or have to pay up a large amount of money she cannot afford to part with. Even in the case of just having to give all the money they received back, that would still be a very difficult financial burden on many of these surrogates. They spent the whole last half year being pregnant-for-hire and now have nothing to show for it. Surrogates are typically not upper middle class women.
They may theoretically have the legal "choice", but in many ways the surrogate is very much at the mercy of those who are paying her.

These type of stories are not as uncommon as you might think.

 

She was pushed and pressured to abort. In other cases, women can & do give in to the pressure.

She might fear being stuck with an unhealthy baby with medical issues that no one wants. A baby that might even be biologically partly related to her in some cases, but even if not, it did grow inside her and she formed a sort of bond with it, wants the best for her child. That worry could put her under a lot of pressure to do what the would-have-been parents want.
A lower income woman stuck with big hospital bills and several weeks (or even months) off from work, not getting paid for the great task she undertook.

It's like if I attempt to rob you but don't manage to get any money, and you come out of it unscathed. Would you say it "totally doesn't matter", because I didn't manage to get any money?
Of course not. There's a big issue here.

 

Yes, and how much Anti-Choicers love to pressure women to stay pregnant and accept all the dangers and effects of pregnancy ..!!!!
.......as if they were animals with no purpose but to serve men and gestate!

GREAT REASONS TO GET AN ABORTION !!!!

THE only ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER EVERYONE COMPLIED WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT...nothing ELSE MATTERS...

 

One or both might be step dad/s

 

very true, just like Trump has people sign NDA's because he is rich

 

I mean, I doubt they did this, but they could take an egg from the surrogate, remove the DNA, replace it with one father's haploid DNA, and then fertilize it with the other father's sperm. Then it could have a mother (by mitochondrial dna and birth) and two fathers (by DNA).

I'm sure they've done this with mice. With people I don't think it's widely available yet, but will be.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
OK. they wanted her to abort and she didn't...shrug...

The baby, a fetus until born then it is a baby, died as expected....

And BTW, she IS a rented out uterus....what a ding bat..

And emotional crap like """"baby ended up being born on Father's Day (how ironic!)"""" has nothing to do with anything in the REAL world....Father's Day is a date on the calendar not a Holy Day.


Was there a point?

Why did you post with nothing to say except something you had to make up?

 

Well that was the confusing part for me, only one guy could actually be the dad, but that seemed irrelevant to the story as written, when it seems to me it's one of the biggest parts of the story.

 

When I saw this thread, I thought to myself, "how is @FreshAir going to make this about Trump?"

But by god he did it!

Hat's off to you sir!

 

I don't think that's commercially available yet.

 

I suspect they didn't want to risk humanising the couple in any way since that wouldn't help the narrative they were going for.

 

glad you think about me so much

 

Not really. Sometimes kids who have step parents call them mom or dad.

 

the reality is, they did not think the baby would have a good life if born due to the cancer treatment, the baby was born and died shortly after, so were they right?

it's a sad story, for all involved...

but regardless, in the end, only the women having the potential baby can decide

 

Yeah but this was a surrogate. It's not like they were simply adopting, so one of the "dads" was actually the dad.

 

I think you're thinking too much about it.

 

It seemed an obvious angle to me that apparently no one else is interested in.