Surrogate mother forced to get abortion. This is why we should not use human beings as commodities. Surrogate mom with triplets fights biological parents' abortion request, CBS Mornings The surrogate mother's name is Brittneyrose Torres. Although, as the video explains, the law cannot actually physically force her to abort, the law is effectively forcing her to get abortion through monetary pressures. The surrogate was implanted with two embryos (based on the probability that one of the embryos may likely not take) but then what happened was one of those embryos ended up splitting and becoming two babies. So now there was a total of three fetuses growing in there. Which was more than the paying would-be parents had bargained for.
I think the implications of the story are obvious. With the issue of surrogacy, women are entering a situation where it is possible they could later come under immense pressure and practically be forced to abort, even though they do not want to. What sort of government protections should be in place to try to help make sure a surrogate mother will not be forced to abort, if an unexpected situation arises? Pro-choicers talk about wanting to do anything to support a woman's choice, yet seem oddly apathetic when it comes to the issue of a surrogate's choice. When you look at what can happen to her if she goes against the wishes of the people that are paying her, you can see that she is essentially being forced to abort. Or is the issue that pro-choicers are okay with the woman not having reproductive choice if she previously agreed to sign away that choice in a contract? The majority of pro-choice abortion supporters are on the Left, so doesn't this seem like a form of economic exploitation? A poor woman having to do what rich people tell her to do, and abort her baby. If she doesn't, she will be left with huge amounts of medical bills, months she had to take off of work without ever being paid for that, and even being stuck in debt slavery and possible homelessness. Some of these surrogacy contracts can even impose punitive financial damages on her for not aborting, in a situation the woman was not planning for or expecting.
The issue was the LEGAL rights and obligations in the case of a SURROGACY contract written specifically for the two parties. It doesn't even represent all surrogacy contracts, Remember that the reason that the contracting couple wanted one of the triplets to be aborted was the health risk that fetus posed to the other fetuses. If the issue was ABORTION, the pregnant woman could well have had one of the fetuses aborted due to that health risk IF SHE WANTED. If you want to complain about contracting for surrogacy, then go do that. There are myriad issues with surrogacy. I think you are trolling the internet for issues that you can try to use for your own purposes. But, you aren't thinking them through.
I doubt that was the real reason. I don't think a woman being punished financially for her choice concerning abortion, because she signed a contract, is all that different from a woman being punished legally for her choice concerning abortion. Would pro-choicers feel differently if the woman was being forced to continue to KEEP the pregnancy, because of the contract, despite unexpected and unforeseen health issues?
It is still the case that your objection is due to the contract. There are all sorts of complications and numerous contract options we do not know. Some contracts limit what the woman may eat as well as other behaviors. My view on surrogacy is that it is the woman's body. If the woman is behaving well concerning good diet, not abusing substances, etc., she gets to rule her pregnancy. If the contract says she can be demanded to abort, that part must be disregarded on the constitutional grounds that it is an illegal demand on her person. Maybe some of the genetic material came from the couple who contracted the surrogacy, but that's just tough.
It is still the case that your objection is due to the contract. There are all sorts of complications and numerous contract options we do not know. Some contracts limit what the woman may eat as well as other behaviors. My view on surrogacy is that it is the woman's body. If the woman is behaving well concerning good diet, not abusing substances, etc., she gets to rule her pregnancy. If the contract says she can be demanded to abort, that part must be disregarded on the constitutional grounds that it is an illegal demand on her person. Maybe some of the genetic material came from the couple who contracted the surrogacy, but that's just tough. Remember that the surrogate could contract other health problems. It's her body.
I do not think the contract can anticipate every type of situation, and usually does not. Some situations end up being unanticipated outcomes of a contract. I mean, it is probably not as if the woman realized or thought about that specific situation and then agreed to it. Even if the woman hypothetically agreed, some might still find it disgusting that someone else is paying the woman to get an abortion. I thought pro-choicers were at least willing to recognize that abortion is intrinsically bad but only support it due to believing women should have choice over their own body. Well, what about when that "choice" is entirely about someone else paying her to do it, or someone else intentionally creating financial pressures to force her to abort? That is not exactly the same situation as a woman choosing for herself.
That doesn't really make any sense at all. I don't think you really put much thought into that one. A standard surrogacy contract does demand that she not abort, or she gets financially punished and has to pay back the money paid to her. That is totally reasonable and understandable. Or were you saying that there are constitutional grounds to require her to not get abortion, but requiring her to get an abortion is different?
It's not about payment. You're just getting distracted by the nonsense issues. In your story it is asserted that there existed a possible risk due to the status of one of the three fetuses. The only real question is who gets to decide if there is an abortion to remove the one fetus to ensure the health of the woman and the other two fetuses. And, I claim that is CLEAR - that decision must be the decision of the woman who is carrying the fetuses - it is her body. I don't believe a surrogacy contract can be allowed to take away the woman's right to her own body.
No, what I said is that it has to be HER decision. Also, any legitimate surrogacy contract would surely require the two parties to share in the risk that a pregnancy isn't successful. Pregnancies fail. That is a normal outcome.
You're beating around the bush. I have made it very clear what the issue is in this thread. It could be said that a woman who chooses abortion and then is sent to prison for it still had "her decision", couldn't it? The point is, a woman could face consequences and retribution for her decision, whether legal, or severe and disastrous financial consequences, in the case of a surrogacy agreement.
No. When YOUR law says she will lose her freedom, you can't then claim it's her decision. Beyond that, if she needs an abortion, and YOU make it illegal, she's in serious trouble, because doctors will lose their careers if they help her with her problem.
Let's actually think about this. It is your claim that if she will lose her freedom then it's not her decision. But if a court forces her to pay a large amount of money back, which she has been living on, and she has to pay back large hospital bills that she had expected her customer to pay and was an expense that was part of the job, and it causes her to end up homeless on the streets, then you claim that it is her decision. Am I correct? If she is threatened with some time in prison, she has no choice. But if she is threatened with having $50,000 taken from her that she doesn't have anymore, and she gets stuck being the one to have to pay the hospital bill ($3000 to $9000), then you say that even in those circumstances, she has choice. Never mind that she's probably a low income woman and can't afford to lose that money. (Remember, she didn't want the baby and wasn't going to keep it. She was only doing this for the money. She expected to get money by intentionally getting pregnant) Once again you seem to be trying to change the topic. How about we actually focus on the issue in this thread?
No, I'm not changing the topic. She has every right to total control of her person. What a contract says doesn't change that. The woman could get sued, lose money, go broke, or whatever, but it is still her decision.
She signed a lease renting out her body. The lessors have a right to whatever the agreement gives them a right to.
I don't agree with that. There absolutely are edges to the legality of such contracts. It's quite possible that the woman opposes abortion. And, that IS what the contractors are attempting to force on her by their reading of the contract. In fact, it is not an easy abortion - it requires a delicate surgery to extract one living fetus while leaving the other two intact. In all cases of pregnancy, it is the woman who makes the healthcare decisions for HER body.
She signed away the right to make her own healthcare decisions. I wouldn't support a surrogate deciding to have an abortion against the wishes of the parents 3 months into the surrogacy either.
You might hate that decision. You might even try to sue the woman. I don't believe you would win, regardless of what the contract says. No state is going to prosecute a woman (or support a lawsuit) for NOT having an abortion.
Like I said, you seem to be beating around the bush. What does "right to total control of her person" mean, exactly? Sure, she has the physical freedom to abort, but what will happen to her if she does? What will the law do to her in response? Are you claiming that if the woman chooses not to get the abortion and balks out of the contract, that she should not be liable for all those medical bills and should not be obligated to pay all that money back that she's probably been living off of and doesn't have anymore?
She's not going to be prosecuted. She will be severely financially penalized, in a way that could likely financially ruin her, make her life for the next several years very tough, she could even wind up homeless. That's what happens when you get into debt or breach a contract. Not to even mention that she was not planning to pay all those medical bills for a baby she assumed was going off to a good family, a family that she expected would cover all the bills. This woman was expecting one baby, possibly two at the most. She wound up with three. Now the other family is telling her they're not going to take the babies, that she's in violation of the contract. They pretty much have her over a barrel.
Why do you say it's not her decision if they will put her in prison for 2 years, but that it is her decision if they will financially ruin her, likely for longer than that? A lot of women are really not just going to want to give the babies that have been growing inside of them up for adoption to some strangers they have never met. This woman was deciding to have that baby for a specific couple, to whom that baby was related to, and to whom were going to be good parents and take good care of the child. This situation is kind of analogous to threatening to take away a woman's child and give it to some stranger. I'd say the woman is being forced.
I've stated this in pretty much every response to you on this subject. Humans have bodily autonomy as a fundamental right. I'm sure there are various contract issues. But, we don't even have the contract. I seriously doubt ANY court would uphold the notion that the woman can be forced to have an abortion. Remember that the contract was for the two fetuses - NOT for an abortion. All personal service contracts can contain horrible, unfair, and even illegal clauses. That's one of the problems with surrogacy.
And what does this really have to do with the issue in this thread? It depends on the exact meaning of the word "forced", doesn't it? What type of threat or what type of terrible situation constitutes being "forced"?
No court is going to put her in prison. You are getting silly. You don't even know what's in the contract. Plus, NO court is going to put her in prison for FAILING TO GET AN ABORTION ON DEMAND!
