What if your reproduction plans are derailed?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Most people are for or against abortion. Some say it depends on circumstances, but sometimes it gets complicated.

A Canadian couple discover their fetus was likely to have Down’s Syndrome and decided to abort.

But the fetus was being carried by a surrogate, who doesn't want to abort.

What happens now? What would YOU do?

Under the agreement signed by the couple and the surrogate, this would mean that the parents were not legally responsible for raising the child. But the situation sparked a new debate over the potential need for government intervention and oversight in contracts between parents and the women who carry their children.
Many ethicists feel strongly that the surrogate-parent relationship is too delicate to have contract law applied to it, saying that in such cases, the child becomes a product rather than a person.

How do you not step on the rights of the parents, or the surrogate, before you even get into whether the fetus is a person with rights or not.

The problem is that although parents have the right to decide whether they want to raise a child with birth defects (and I would argue, have the right to abort the fetus when they are carrying their own child), the surrogate’s presence adds the complication of another adult who should be given input over what happens to her body. If the parents feel that they can’t raise the child, they should not be compelled to do so simply because they were having the child with the help of a surrogate – that would, ultimately, be cruel to both the parents and the child.

But if the surrogate is opposed to abortion for any reason, she should not be compelled to have one. The question is whether the surrogate is then compelled to raise the child herself, and what rights the parents have. What if the surrogate wants to give the baby up for adoption? Are the parents obligated to help her do so – and if not, are they obligated to give her monetary support?

Maybe the only way out is the parents, surrogate and fetus become soylent green?
LINK

[glatt]

Very interesting.

I wonder if there is a contract for surrogate arraignments and if so, surely this must be addressed?

Absent a contract, I'd guess that the parents give up their parental rights by demanding an abortion. The surrogate can't be compelled to do anything with her body against her wishes, so she can give birth to the baby. The only real question is who does the baby belong to? The surrogate never had a claim on the baby, and the parents gave up their rights. So I'd imagine the baby becomes a ward of the state and would be put up for adoption.

[Beest]

Originally Posted by glatt

The surrogate never had a claim on the baby, .

?
I don't know the technicalities of surrogacy arrangements, if there is no legal contract, but, if you carry and give birth to the child aren't you legally the parent.

If the agreement was that at birth you would give up the baby for adoption to a specific couple, and they back out, then surely you are left, literally, holding the baby.

[Clodfobble]

Generally the baby has the DNA of at least one parent. Even if completely donated sperm and eggs are used, the surrogate is specifically required NOT to be the egg-donor in most places, because then the contract stipulating she has no claim on the baby is a lot more enforceable, both legally and emotionally.

[glatt]

Yeah, well I don't know either. I'm just making this up. But there have to be contracts involved. I remember hearing about an instance years ago where a surrogate didn't want to hand over the baby to the biological parents after carrying it for 9 months, and the courts getting involved. As a result of that, there have got to be legal contracts now. And any halfway decent lawyer who draws up such a contract has got to predict the possibility of a desired abortion.

Don't make me go googling this stuff.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Seems to me if the husband's sperm was used to impregnate the surrogate, then it's her fetus/baby until she gives it up. But if it's the wife's embryo implanted, then the surrogate becomes a bellhop with responsibility but not ownership.

Unfortunately the law is never that simple, and of course we're not talking about luggage, but a potential human. Plus the remedy is a hot button issue.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by glatt

Yeah, well I don't know either. I'm just making this up. But there have to be contracts involved.

Not if it's some sort of back-room deal.
Seems to me it's easy enough to come to a verbal agreement regarding knocking someone up and promising to take care of them.
And you can sign anything you like without it being legal.

If the child is biologically hers, the situation is surely no different than if she'd had an affair with the husband.
She wants the child, she keeps the child. Dad has to pay (or at least he would in this country.) That may suck gender-wise, but we have a thread which proves that quite a few things do.

If she really is only the oven in which the bun is baked, she has some tough decisions to make. She may not even be allowed to adopt the child, depending on her circumstances.

Bringing up a disabled child alone - any child alone - is tough. Down's varies in severity, but without free healthcare it's going to be even tougher. I don't know the set-up in Canada.

I knew a girl whose mother fostered Down's children, after having one of her own, and there are a host of unseen health complications. Also people tend to categorise Down's children and adults as lovely, cuddly, simple and child-like, but they come in all flavours, believe me. Some can be very difficult to live with.

Just because she doesn't believe in abortion, doesn't mean she is emotionally, temperamentally or financially suitable to raise this child. Of course with a "normal" set-up, none of that is guaranteed anyway. Or adoptions, fostering and children's homes wouldn't exist. It's just been complicated in this case.

I hope for the best for the child, whatever that turns out to be.

What would I do? Personally?
I'd have terminated the pregnancy when the surrogate parents said they were unwilling to take the chance.
If I wanted a child, I'd have had a child, without the whole song and dance of surrogacy. But I'm in a position where I'm barely balancing as it is, so my choices would not reflect hers.
Chances are, if we're hearing about it now, the foetus is already viable (able to survive as a premature baby.) At that point I'd have to go for adoption. I don't think you have to be Pro-Life or Pro-Choice all the way down the line. I see 12 weeks in a different way to 22.

[footfootfoot]

The fetus is a fetus and not a child or person.

Many ethicists feel strongly that the surrogate-parent relationship is too delicate to have contract law applied to it, saying that in such cases, the child becomes a product rather than a person.

The child is a person, the surrogate is performing a service, not delivering a product. Your mechanic might spend nine months working on your car, but it's not his, especially if you've paid him (mechanic's liens aside)


It's not that complicated. If the service provider's services are no longer needed, then that is the end of it, and any payment arrangements should stand if that;s how they were negotiated.

If the surrogate is one of the parents then you were stupid to enter into that faustian arrangement in the first place. The state should take the baby away from all of you and make sure you don't try to pull a stunt like this again. Clearly, one or more of you were not mature enough to being playing this game.

ffs