If you believe the woman should be able to choose abortion, and not be "held responsible" for her prior choices and decision, then shouldn't you also believe that a surrogate should be able to choose not to have an abortion, and not be held responsible for her prior choices and decision (choosing to get pregnant and signing the contract)? I think a valid comparison can be made between those two situations. She will be made to suffer consequences and have punishment imposed on her if she does not make a decision about abortion which she does not want to make. Tell us why you seem to have an inconsistency on this.
You know what's interesting? In the story that this thread is about, the woman had triplets and did NOT want to get an abortion, even though she was being pressured and coerced to, because it was triplets. Whereas in the other example I provided, the woman has triplets and even though she intentionally chose to get pregnant in an artificial way and knew there was a big risk of that happening, she wants an abortion because it is triplets. You don't think those two scenarios are comparable, like opposite sides of a coin? Why does it seem you only support the woman who wants to get an abortion? But the woman who doesn't want it, too bad for her, she'll have to agree to the consequences because you say she should have known the risks she was getting into.
She had a choice. Have you forgotten that is what is important? She was NOT ordered by the laws of the state and its prosecutors to take a specific action. She got personal medical advice and made her decision against that advice. From there, she continued to get the best health care possible. That is EXACTLY what I want. Her choice. Good healthcare care. NO PROSECUTORS. You lose.
We're just going around in circles. Women who choose to terminate even when it is illegal still have "choice". I don't think there's anything more worth discussing with you. As I've repeatedly explained to you, there will be consequences imposed on her through the law, although these consequences will be financial (albeit may have very real physical effects). It would not be an easy decision for her to decide the choice she actually wants. In both cases an outside choice is being artificially imposed on her. She will face consequences and difficulties if she defies what she is being told to do. If you want an analogy, it would be kind of like if abortion were illegal but instead of prison time she faces a very large fine, more money than she earns in a year.
That is absolute BS. When a medical procedure is illegal, practitioners will not provide that procedure. To do so means that prosecutors can end the careers of doctors who worked for MANY YEARS to acquire the necessary knowledge. You could claim that people had "choice" in the various religious inquisitions, too. They didn't have to change their religion. They could have chosen to be burned at the stake. Choice in this nation means that you are free to make the decision, not that you can make the decision, but you will be prosecuted.
As it is absolute BS when you claim that this surrogate had a choice. The status of whether it is considered "legal" or not only matters because of the legally-imposed consequences. But they still have that "choice", don't they? When a low income woman is under contract, she's still going to undergo that procedure even if she really does not want to. Because of the legally-imposed financial consequences if she does not.
I said the disagreement is over the contract and I don't even know what the contract says or whether it is even a legal contract. For example, you don't know if the "consequences" are legal. It could well be that the contract can be challenged, or that some other resolution can be found.
Is it fair to say there's going to be some severe financial repercussions for this surrogate if she doesn't choose to go along with what the gay parents want? They would very likely not be legal in a Pro-Life state. But probably legal in "surrogacy-friendly" progressive states like California.
Similar story about another surrogate pressured into abortion: Gay dads demand surrogate terminate unborn baby at 24 weeks
You know, if some woman had signed a contract NOT to get an abortion, and some unexpected situation came up, and she'd be financially ruined if she chose to get the abortion, I bet "Pro-Choicers" would be a lot more sympathetic to that woman and complain about how it would be wrong. That just goes to show where the "Pro-Choice" mindset actually is.
Nope. The woman has personal bodily autonomy. And, I'm even more concerned about contracts for surrogacy than I have been in the past.
??? OK, I'll repeat myself ONE more time: I don't know the full contract. Also, a contract may not be enforceable. There are requirements. This is about contract law. Get over it.
You don't need to to be able to know this is an issue. If not this particular woman, then for other surrogates. "Surrogacy friendly" states have laws that are more beneficial to the people paying the surrogate, but this could sometimes give more preferential treatment to them rather than the surrogate. You don't have any reason to believe a contract like this would not be enforceable, do you? Common sense tells us that a judge in a very Pro-Life (anti-abortion) area might be likely to be more sympathetic to the surrogate who feels pressured to get an abortion.
I suppose it's kinda like the Trump NDA's against Stormy, he could not stop her from using her first Amendment rights, but he could financially punish her for it
You just love to find any excuse to bring Trump into the picture, don't you, FreshAir? In this case, however, you are correct. The difference though is that in the case of Stormy, I think she knew exactly what she was agreeing to when she signed that contract and accepted the money. It's not like some new unforeseen situation arose where there was some desperate need newly unfolded to do (or not do) what she had agreed to. Women like that are just trying to milk men for all the money they are worth.
