A typical clause in a surrogacy contract will state that if there is a severe medical issue, and the family requests that the woman abort and she does not, that the family will be off the hook from having to pay the medical expenses, and is not obligated to have to adopt the baby if it has medical issues. For example, the family probably does not want to pay the $27,000 medical bill for three babies to spend a month in the neonatal intensive care unit. The family is probably not the most excited about the prospect of getting three babies, who might have some lifelong developmental issues, when they were originally planning to get only one.
I never said this had anything to do with prison. And just for the record, in many parts of the U.S. you can go to prison for unpaid medical bills. But that is very unlikely in the state this woman lived in. The states that would be more likely to send a person to prison for unpaid medical bills also happen to be the states that would have the most protections for a woman acting as a surrogate and find abortion to be abhorrent, and probably would protect the woman from being coerced into getting an abortion by pushing the medical bill obligations onto the family that hired her. So in either case, such a woman in this situation would be unlikely to face a risk of prison. Although of course she could go to prison if she tries to hide the money she has or is earning to avoid paying the bills.
You have NO respect for human life. I'm totally disgusted. Babies do not always turn out to be perfect. They still deserve full care, love and support. Anyone who contracts for surrogacy has to recognize that there is no guarantee in what THEY will get.
So who do you think should be obligated to pay the bills in the event something goes wrong? The woman who's the surrogate? Or the family who hired her? Do you think there should be some law in place to override the details that were agreed to in any surrogacy contract? You almost seem to be talking like a conservative now, but there are many who would disagree with you. Some people believe the woman SHOULD get an abortion if something goes wrong, and then if she doesn't that the family who hired her, and was going to accept the baby, should be off the hook.
In #12 you said: "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?" Yes, there are 6 states in which a person can go to prison for unpaid bills. But, you weren't talking about prison for debt. You were talking about prison for abortion. Yes, there is a lot said about the problem of laws against abortion. This is the first time I've seen you PROMOTING abortion. What happened to you? Are you OK?
You were arguing that financial pressure did not constitute "forcing" the woman to make a reproductive decision. I wanted you to more carefully consider the exact definition of "forcing", by comparing it to the threat of prison. Either the hypothetical of a woman being threatened with prison if she does not abort, or the real-life example of a woman being threatened with prison if she does abort. I was trying to point out the similarity. You obviously believe she is being "forced" to make a decision if there is a threat of prison, so I was asking why should you not also consider it "being forced" if there is a big financial pressure, that someone is intentionally threatening her with to try to make her abort.
I don't know what their contract says. In my opinion, the contractors need to cover healthcare risks. I'm sure cases such as this have been litigated, as there is nothing unusual about this case. The contractors want an abortion. The woman refuses. Do you think this was the first time that a surrogate doesn't believe in casual abortion?
It's easy to guess. Seems you're just trying to use that as a cop-out to avoid thinking about the issue. States have different laws. Some states, like California, are more "surrogacy-friendly" than others. But "surrogacy-friendly" often means less legal rights for the woman who's the surrogate. i.e. It's easier to pressure her to abort.
I'm tired of discussing surrogacy. We don't know the particular contract, we don't know any law on surrogacy, and in this case the conflict is about abortion - which I believe is fully answered.
"Pro-choice" states are forcing women to get abortions more than conservative states. That's the real reason you don't want to think about it.
Choice implies the absence of force, being Pro-Choice does not mean you want to force anyone into anything. The force is coming from your side.
And therein lies the irony, doesn't it? The issue is, "choice" comes with trade-offs. "Pro-choice" states like California give more "choice" to surrogate parents. But this comes at the expense of the surrogate woman who signs the contract. In the end, a surrogate could end up having less "choice" if she wants to keep the pregnancy, if she is in a so-called "surrogacy-friendly" state. Having an available choice can also open the door to legal obligations under contract. Also, by allowing her to choose abortion, there are various situations which could arise that could "force" her to choose abortion. It's sort of the paradox of choice. It's the same reason they have minimum wage laws, or make prostitution illegal to protect women. There would probably be more legal protections for these women in this situation in pro-life states. Pro-life states accord fewer legal rights to adoptive parents during surrogacy, meaning the woman who is pregnant could have more rights, since those rights can't be signed away.
This is all a statement of the importance of a woman's personal bodily autonomy. You make MAJOR assumptions about surrogacy law, which is an issue mostly solved by ensuring personal bodily autonomy. You have presented NO paradox. Anti-abortion states deny personal bodily autonomy. The result has been show to seriously impact women's health care. If you don't like adoption law, then propose changes.
You still avoid the issue. How does "woman's bodily autonomy" relate to strong coercive and intentional financial pressures? And are those strong financial pressures really so different from threat of prison time when it comes to upholding the independence of her choice? Again, how do you think "bodily autonomy" applies in the context of great financial pressure under contract? You certainly go out of your way not to see it. I think I explained it pretty clearly. What part don't you get? As I previously stated, it would probably not be possible to coerce a woman into an abortion in states that are less "surrogacy friendly" (which also typically happen to be the more pro-life states). In those states a woman can't sign away as many rights like that, and those parts of such a contract would be considered legally null and void.
This is a general problem, not an abortion problem. We don't solve international pressure on trade by making trade illegal. etc. More BS. Contracts can't deny bodily autonomy as you pointed to with your surrogacy arguments. This is not about surrogacy.
I also pointed out that, if you want to view things that way, prison doesn't deny the choice of bodily autonomy either. So your logic seems a little inconsistent. She is being forced to make the decision to abort. Or threatened and coerced, if you want to get more technically accurate. Think what will happen if she says "No, I am not going to get an abortion." Think about it. If you read through this thread, I've already explained what can and likely would happen.
Yes, think about it. This is a total red herring. As I've said, I don't believe a legal contract could require a woman to have an abortion. And, you have not addressed that. Think about it with a different body part. Can a contract state that if you don't pay up, you have to cut off a hand? Obviously, not.
We are just going around in circles in this dialogue. Like I have repeatedly told you, it depends on what meaning of the word "require" or "force" we are using. Like I already told you, some might say that even making abortion illegal does not absolutely "require" the woman not to abort. But there will be consequences imposed from the outside if she chooses to do that. So pressure and coercion does exist, just like pressure and coercion does exist in this situation with the surrogate. I have very clearly addressed that, and clarified it multiple times in this discussion. Even in the opening post. All you have to do is consider what will happen to her, and what she will be required to do, if she does not get an abortion. In that situation, with the medical bills piling up on her, her having been out of work for several months dealing with the pregnancy, and being under the contract, which will likely require her to return a large amount of money she probably does not have anymore and can't afford. She could potentially end up homeless (some might argue that's better than prison, I suppose) in this type of situation. This is not like an ordinary unwanted pregnancy. In this situation, she specifically chose to get pregnant, with the understanding that there would be a big payoff of money to her, and expecting that the baby would be taken by another family who very much wanted and was preparing for it.
Most of it. Not quite all of it. If a woman is being required to pay back large amounts of money she has already spent, and is not going to be reimbursed for large expenses she took on with the expectation of being able to get money, then in a certain sense she is being "forced", or at least "coerced" into making a certain decision. Especially when we are talking about a likely lower income woman, and she worries about the possibility of homelessness. I don't think the majority of women are going to be able to stick to their principles in that sort of situation.
That is a contract issue. If a woman enters a surrogacy contract, I would suggest they get a serious review of the contract, as it could include stuff that is illegal, is surprising, is untenable for the surrogate, etc. There are serious risks on the part of the contractors, too, as they may need to put up a whole lot of money without knowing the outcome. And, the outcome might be surprising, such as in this case.
I believe that is kind of a red herring to this issue. Lots of situations that develop out of a contract can be unforeseen. It's highly doubtful that this woman thought to herself about the possibility of this situation happening before she signed that contract, even if she carefully read all of the words in the contract. This isn't simply just a case of the woman realizing that this type of situation was going to happen and then she agreed to it.
Yes, there are risks to surrogacy, risks to normal pregnancy too, even risks to sexual activity that could lead to pregnancy. What you are basically trying to say is she knew there could be risks to entering into this situation and still decided to do it anyway, so too bad for her. She'll just have to suck it up and abort now. Either that or go homeless. But I suspect you won't apply the same logic to other situations, when you think the woman should be able to choose abortion. (Could you be holding some double standards and logical inconsistency there? (one example of such a situation can be found in this thread: Killing a baby to have a baby... , where the woman decided to undergo fertility treatment to get pregnant even though she knew there was a high risk it might result in getting pregnant with three babies simultaneously, and now pro-choicers do not believe she should have to deal with the consequences)
The contract IS a primary factor in this case. You have never shown the contract. There are all sorts of legal questions concerning whether this or any other contract is enforceable. You don't know the major facts in this case. You're blowing smoke.
Yes. The woman should be able to choose abortion. Once more, your example here is nonsense. You can be against IVF. After all, it ALWAYS results in fertilized eggs becoming medical waste. but, if a woman has triplets and that is a health risk, then that is an issue that must be resolved, right? You aren't demanding that she DIE are you?
