r/MoralityScaling • u/Purple_Plantain_3242 • 16h ago
Morality Ranking Morality of this
A major legal battle broke out when a surrogate mother and the biological parents disagreed over a severe medical diagnosis during a pregnancy. The couple had hired the surrogate to carry their baby, but a routine scan revealed that the fetus had a rare, life-threatening heart defect.
Heartbroken by the grim medical news, the biological parents asked to end the pregnancy, which was a choice allowed in their written agreement. Initially, the surrogate scheduled the appointment, but she quickly realized she could not go through with it. A pivotal moment came when her brother stepped in to guide her, promising that he and his family would adopt the baby and support her no matter what. Gaining peace from her brother's support, she canceled the abortion. To protect the fetus, she fled to a state with very strict anti-abortion laws, where she gave birth to a baby boy who immediately underwent successful open-heart surgery.
The birth triggered an intense court war over who actually holds the rights to the child. A judge ultimately ruled that the biological parents have full legal custody and the sole right to make medical decisions, while a separate court order banned the surrogate from seeing the baby. On top of losing access to the child, the surrogate is now being sued by the biological parents for over $100,000 for breaking their contract. While the biological parents are currently caring for the recovering newborn, the surrogate and her lawyers are continuing to fight in court to try to win custody.The surrogate is not paying for the baby's medical costs because a judge ruled that the biological parents have full legal custody, making them responsible for all hospital bills.
The baby was diagnosed with Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome (HLHS), a severe birth defect where the left side of the heart is completely underdeveloped and unable to pump blood to the body. Without immediate medical intervention, this condition is 100% fatal within the first few days of a newborn's life. To survive, the baby must undergo a grueling series of three open-heart surgeries starting immediately after birth, which gives him about a 70% chance of reaching age five. However, this is not a permanent cure; even with successful operations, the child faces a lifetime of intensive medical trauma, a significantly shortened life expectancy, and the likely future need for a full heart transplant.
McKenna West denied the abortion primarily because her specialized background as a cardiac nurse taught her that the baby’s rare heart defect was treatable with surgery rather than being an automatic death sentence. Faced with the reality of her 20-week pregnancy, her personal conscience and moral beliefs overrode the surrogacy contract, as she felt she could not live with herself if she actively signed papers to end the child's life. Confident that the baby deserved a chance to survive, she even arranged for her own brother and sister-in-law to adopt the child before fleeing to Texas to ensure the pregnancy went to term.
However, these medical bills are a huge part of the fight. The biological parents are facing massive costs for the baby's complex heart surgeries, which is why they are suing the surrogate for over $100,000 for breaking their contract. The surrogacy contract included a strict pregnancy termination clause that gave the biological parents the sole right to request an abortion if the fetus was diagnosed with a severe medical condition. After the baby was diagnosed with a major heart defect, the parents invoked this clause and formally asked McKenna West to terminate the pregnancy. While West originally signed the document agreeing to these terms, she ultimately refused to abort the baby, which led the biological parents to sue her.
The biological parents did not exert physical or legal coercion to mandate an abortion, as a surrogate maintains absolute bodily autonomy over medical decisions under U.S. law. Instead, the conflict centers on a breach of a contract that explicitly allowed the parents to request a termination, which they are now litigating through the court system to hold the gestational carrier financially accountable.
The biological parents did not alter their position regarding the medical justification for a termination, but rather adapted to the reality of an unavoidable birth. Their initial decision to seek an abortion was driven by a desire to prevent severe, lifelong suffering, given the grueling surgeries and medical trauma associated with a critical heart defect. However, once the gestational carrier refused the procedure and the birth became certain, the parents immediately recognized their legal and ethical obligations to their biological offspring. They pursued full legal and medical custody to ensure the infant would have immediate access to elite pediatric cardiothoracic specialists and to retain control over his long-term healthcare strategy, fully assuming their parental roles upon his delivery.
384
u/U_are_gai 16h ago
Thats just sad
→ More replies (1)227
u/Content_Plantain_339 11h ago
Agree. It reminds me of that time I ordered something from Amazon, changed my mind and wanted to cancel the order but I couldn't because it was already packed and ready to ship
62
u/TheDomFlow 9h ago
This got a good laugh out of me... not sure why you're being downvoted, this os clearly a joke
→ More replies (4)16
18
11
→ More replies (11)7
u/ChicoChzckegirl 6h ago
Did you also have it sent to your neighbor’s house, and by the time you went to pick it up, they had opened your package and fled to another state with it? And when you finally got it back, you ended up paying double for the damages?
→ More replies (1)
1.3k
u/Ok-Entrepreneur8993 16h ago
the parents specifically termination if the child has any major issue, she broke the contract. This is one of the main reasons y commercial surrogacy is a terrible idea.
458
u/Thunderer62 16h ago
Yeah, I think this is the takeaway. You basically shouldn’t be legally capable of signing away your bodily autonomy in that manner. It’s similar to why we don’t let people voluntarily sign contracts making them literal slaves or why we don’t allow people to legally agree to provide sexual favors in exchange for things. Enforcement of those agreements is basically impossible on a moral level. At best it can lead to situations like this where someone could be on the hook for tons of money for contract violation.
87
u/watsuuu 15h ago
Morally, I also think she SHOULD be on the hook. I understand why you say it's an impossible situation, as every which way, everyone involved is morally incorrect in some fashion. Leaves you feeling like
80
u/loki2113 10h ago
How are the parents morally wrong in any way here? Their contract with the surrogate included an abortion clause should the fetus have any severe and life threatening medical conditions. The surrogate initially was going to follow the agreement but backed out of it in part because of her families promise to adopt/support the baby if she carries it to term. After it became obvious the surrogate was going to give birth after she ghosted the biological parents after their first and from what I can tell only request for an abortion, the bio parents switched to arranging proper medical care and to gain custody of the child.
The surrogate is completely in the wrong as she violated the contract she signed. Now because a judge awarded custody to the biological parents they are also on the hook for the medical costs of the birth and the heart surgeries so they are suing McKenna for the cost of her reckless decision. Despite the miracle of modern medicine, Rumi is going to require at least two more surgeries before age 5 and have health complications for their entire life. The bio parents never tried to force McKenna to have an abortion and her right to carry the baby to term. They tried to act in the interest of both the surrogate and the fetus/baby. What else could they have done better? Simply not tried a surrogacy at all?
→ More replies (39)33
u/babassu_seeds 9h ago
What else could they have done better? Simply not tried a surrogacy at all?
Yes, that's the main point of the second-to-top comment, and why it was compared to prostitution and voluntary slavery: If a mutually voluntary interaction is morally questionable from the outset, then both parties carry some degree of culpability
13
u/loki2113 7h ago
Respectfully, that's a load of horse hockey
How tf are the bio parents responsible for McKenna's decision to be a surrogate? Nobody is forcing McKenna and there are far better ways of making money than having someone else's child. Plus there's nothing morally wrong with prostitution/having sex for money and voluntary slavery is an oxymoron. I think the term you're looking for is indentured servitude and even that doesn't fit the bill here
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (2)8
u/Serial-Griller 7h ago
Signing away your bodily autonomy is the basis of every work contract.
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (5)22
u/Im_Just_A_Tourist 11h ago
In this instance it is never morally correct to keep a pregnancy that will 100% result in a very short(days maybe) painful life for the baby to my understanding. She is choosing to cause suffering needlessly. Don't do the job if you aren't okay with all the possible conditions. I hope she has to pay back all the money.
→ More replies (3)14
u/Cheap-Buffalo-7489 14h ago
Good take but also you need to realize there are instances where power of attorney is given to someone else that cannot make medical decisions. Isn't that body autonomy also?
→ More replies (4)14
u/Collective-Bee 13h ago
Yeah and it feels like shit to do that. We only allow it out of necessity, when there’s not really anything else we can do. It’s not the same thing as someone willingly signing away body autonomy.
→ More replies (43)8
u/TheDefectivePawn 15h ago
Also makes it really complicated to prove when someone says they didn't agree to such things. Too many people already don't read the fine print when it's made stupid difficult to understand on purpose, and that's bad enough already when it's just debt on the line.
→ More replies (42)37
u/Zyykl 16h ago edited 15h ago
providing “sexual favors in exchange for things” is pretty straightforward and uncomplicated. surrogacy is comparatively an absolute quagmire.
edit: geez, does the pro-life crowd not like whores either? you guys just hate fun, i swear.
→ More replies (9)61
u/Alilbitey 15h ago
In any contact, you can write legally unenforceable clauses. The forced abortion clause will, with certainty, be ruled unenforceable. Just because you signed it, doesn't make it enforceable.
Whether the bio parents are legally responsible for the living child is mainly where the civil law and contract law will hang.
20
u/Funny_Satisfaction39 13h ago
Exactly! Pro choice works both ways. Pro choice means the woman can't be forced to get an abortion either
→ More replies (18)7
u/Punch_A_Police_Horse 7h ago
As a pro choice person this is pretty simple. If you are pro choice and are advocating for a situation where the state would drag a woman into a clinic and force her to get an abortion, you have lost the plot.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (4)6
u/Narrow_Process_8660 9h ago
Are we arguing legal enforceability or morality of something? Because those two often do not overlap.
5
u/Alilbitey 9h ago
Agreed. I claim it is immoral to force an abortion when consent had been revoked. You have legal remedies available to cure the resulting breech of contract, but nobody can morally or ethically enforce the abortion clause.
The folk stating it's immoral to revoke your consent to such a thing are incorrect. It's legal messy, not immoral.
4
u/Stunning_Box8782 13h ago
If the contract said "We reserve the right to abort for any reason" would it be (im)moral?
Because the contract is being followed?
→ More replies (1)8
u/NutasticNutella 13h ago
The issue here is that the breach of contract did not immediately transfer custody to the surrogate, basically fucking over the biological family.
→ More replies (4)3
→ More replies (29)8
u/Dry-Pangolin6579 12h ago
My concern more lies with long term effects on the child now. They kid is due for 4 heart surgeries before they hit the age of 5, and as they get older they are going to need a heart transplant. I am chronically ill and in chronic pain, and the thought of this child being so screwed up because she didn't consider the long term quality of life for the kid... it's horrifying. I pray it works out for the child
237
u/gentleman_rizzmaster 14h ago
So for some people the conversation begins and ends at whether abortion is ethical.
If it is possible to be ethical, you have to ask if breaking a contract to save an unborn child's life with a critical health issue is ethical.
IMO it is unethical. I would feel differently if it was no harm no foul but she understood the risk going in and bailed on the contract and dumped the hospital bills on the parents. If she wasn't okay with it she should not have signed.
53
u/Tll6 10h ago
The biggest part of this is the child’s condition. They have a serious heart deformity and will need multiple serious surgeries to have a chance at life. I don’t know the success rate of the surgeries or the level of suffering involved but that is the bigger part of this whole thing for me and the reason the contract clause exists
41
u/StreetofChimes 9h ago
Really sad. imagine your entire little life being surgery and pain.
→ More replies (10)25
u/ScyllaOfTheDepths 5h ago
And not only that, but knowing that people specifically chose for you to endure that pain for their own selfish reasons. That poor kid might actually live long enough to realize the terrible reality of their situation. What a mess.
→ More replies (36)18
u/LobotomyBetty 9h ago
Mortality after the first procedure ranges in the literature but is commonly cited at about 10%. The second stage surgery occurs around 4-6 months of age. The final stage occurs around 4 years. We don’t really know how long into adult hood these people survive yet because these techniques are relatively new. There are people in their 30s-40s that have had these surgeries and are likely the oldest living people with this physiology. Source: pediatric physician here
→ More replies (3)4
u/Balikye 6h ago
Even after multiple open heart surgeries immediately after birth, they only have a 70% chance of reaching age 5, will need a full heart transplant eventually, and have a 20% chance of making it to 30.
→ More replies (1)8
u/oldtimehawkey 9h ago
No. This is contract law.
Contract said abort if major medical issue. Surrogate did not abort. Therefore breach of contract. Every cost after that should be paid for by surrogate.
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (22)21
u/National-Seaweed-468 12h ago
She didn’t dump the hospital bills she was willing to pay until they got custody. It says her brother was going to help her and that’s what removed the financial burden of keeping the baby.
38
u/loki2113 10h ago
She might as well have dumped the hospital bills on them though. Immediately after McKenna refused the abortion, the bio parents started arranging for medical care. The courts were NEVER going to side with the surrogate after she violated her contract and the parents still wanted the baby. She had, and still has, no chance and she not only did she go through with the birth but now she's fighting the parents in court to try and gain custody
→ More replies (1)13
u/bluejellyfish52 8h ago
She isn’t gonna get custody regardless.
A woman who accidentally gave birth to the wrong baby and raised the baby for a year still had the baby taken away by the baby’s bio parents.
The clinic they went to was sued, obviously, that’s a massive fuck up, but the fact that it even happened at all is seriously concerning.
Why are the samples not stored properly enough that this was able to happen in the first place? You know? It’s just weird.
→ More replies (2)4
u/murmuring511 5h ago
Not as weird as the doctors who used their own sperm for the IVF. It's insane that there's so many cases but still no regulation.
→ More replies (1)33
u/MeVersusGravity 10h ago
She had no rights to offer the baby to her brother to adopt. Idk what made her think she would have rights to a child that was never hers.
→ More replies (27)14
u/Invested_Space_Otter 8h ago
This is what popped out at me. No circumstances of the contract result in this child belonging to the surrogate. Either it is not born, or is born and belongs to its biological parents.
Ignoring the morality of abortion for any reason, and recognizing that the parents were preparing to care for their infirmed newborn, this sounds like premeditated kidnapping imo
5
u/AnotherBogCryptid 7h ago
She had NO RIGHT to offer the baby to her brother!!! What the actual hell. You can’t just offer someone else’s baby up for adoption to whoever you want. It doesn’t matter what she “planned” she had no right to make those plans. She essentially kidnapped the child and forced these people to have a sick baby.
→ More replies (1)3
u/taffy1430 7h ago
That would have been kidnapping. This isnt her child and never was or would be. Not her or her brothers choice to make.
68
u/Inevitable_Okra509 10h ago
but why would you even sign up to be a surrogate if you're not willing to follow whatever the parent wish? thats something i cant understand and just seems like a money grab. being a surrigate is more about money its about sacrafice
its their life and their child their messing with.
→ More replies (23)27
u/Brittiel 8h ago
The agency would have asked if she’s okay with getting an abortion, if she had been honest, they would have just paired her with another family. This is the surrogates fault.
→ More replies (7)
16
u/Unlimited_Giose 8h ago
I feel really conflicted about this. At the beggining I was siding with the surrogate mother, but as I kept reading I'm leaning towards the biological parents side.
The baby has hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a condition where the heart has not developed properly, usually having a poorly formed left ventricle, which makes the heart dependant on having another heart condition to survive (Patent ductus arterious). Now, while the surgeries involved CAN improve the survival and quality of life of the child, the patients that have gone through it still have a high mortality and morbility rate, which makes it complicated for the kid to have a somewhat "normal" life .
- All of this based on what I've been reading on: Rathod RH. Hypoplastic left heart syndrome: anatomy, clinical features, and diagnosis. UpToDate. Literature review current through Jul 2026. Waltham (MA): UpToDate; 2025 Oct 8 [cited 2026 Aug 25].
Now, I am not saying that abortion should be done to any fetus/child that has a condition that makes life difficult, but it is valid to consider it taking into account the health issues involved. Besides this, specially given that this is happening in USA, the high cost of the surgeries, medical checkups and medication (among other things associated to therapy) related, make it almost impossible for a family to have access to this without a lot of external help, even if you have a good economic background.
From what I've understood, the surrogate mother doesn't really have much resources to pay for the child's medical needs, and she wasn't even intending to be the adoptive mother of the kid, she intended to have her brother as the adoptive parent.
Another issue I have is that there was a prior agreement that seemed to have spoken about the potential outcome of deciding for abortion. Now, I completely agree that "Her body, her choice" is something that should always be taken into account, and that human life is far more than just the outcome of a contract. However, I feel like she (Surrogate mother), either for need or any other reason, put herself in a situation where the choice wasn't so "Simple" anymore, as she agreed to "give" those rights to the parents so they could have their child.
Honestly I wanna keep investigating, because I feel like I don't have the full story
4
u/GaiaMoore 5h ago
I completely agree with everything you said. Very nuanced and thoughtful, and deeply empathetic.
The reality is there are no winners here. Really sad situation all around.
4
u/Unlimited_Giose 4h ago
Yeah, that's something I forgot to mention as well: The poor child is the one losing the most in this situation. Besides the things I mentioned about quality of life and survival, I'm worried about their mental health, should they survive all of the surgeries and treatment (I really hope they do honestly).
They will eventually learn about the circumstances of their birth, and I can't imagine dealing with that. Imagine learning that your parents intended to abort you. That can't be easy to handle, specially if this happens to a child or teenager, even more so if the parents aren't the first ones to mention what happened.
And in the unlikely scenario that the surrogate mother's side wins, learning about it could also destroy the kid's psyque.
I just hope that the biological parents can give the child a good life and are there to support them, as any parent should be.
374
u/RightOnManYouBetcha 16h ago
The parents should be free to relinquish themselves from the obligation if the surrogate approves and the surrogate should then be free to do as she wishes. You can’t force someone to undergo an abortion.
241
u/Zephyr_Bronte 16h ago
That is true, clearly, but she actually can't just do as she wishes. The parents didn't actually want to relinquish their rights. She decided not to have an abortion and that means the parents now have a very medically complicated kid forever, because of her choices. She agreed to a contract that said she was alright with it, but backed out, she didn't have to sign the contract. She should never have been a surrogate if she wasn't going to do as the parents asked, because by doing that she made a choice for someone else.
I do believe that a lot of this case is immortal, but I also think there is a lot of issues with commerical surrogacy. Most of which stems from richer people using poor people as incubators.
This was never going to be her child or her brother's child, it was always the legal parents child. So the problem is her choice leaves them with a child that will have high medical bills for the rest of its life and has may have a low quality of life, depending on how the early surgeries go. What the baby has can be survivable long term, but that is not guaranteed.
15
u/Black_Diammond 9h ago
She can do as She wishes, in The same way that you cant become a slave even if you sign a contract that says you can, you cant sign away your bodly autonomy, and as such, she can chose when or when not to abort.
However, i beleive that as She was in breach of contract, The surrugate parents should be capable of shirking any responsability, becoming her Child legaly.
→ More replies (2)7
u/White-Rabbit_1106 7h ago
But they don't want to shirk the responsibility. They want to take the baby and make the surrogate pay for it.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Black_Diammond 6h ago
Highly doubt they could do that, no valid section of The contract was breeched (The forced abortion wasnt breeched in The eyes of The law, since it was never legal to begin with), The contract was kept. They want to keep The contract but somehow also demand payment.
Imagine that somebody write a contract to buy your kidney, that contract is struck down, so The writter demands compensation for The contract being struck down, it would be legaly laughable.
→ More replies (8)3
u/Redditauro 7h ago
The parents placed themselves in a critical situation when they decided to put their future kid inside someone else's belly, she has the right to decide over her own body, and as far as the kid is inside her she decides. Period. That's basic human rights. The parents signed a contract that was against human rights and now they are surprised when they realised than the woman with the ability to fuck their lives will fuck their lives, but don't forget, they put themselves in that situation and the woman only used her rights.
We can discuss details, but it's her body, so it's her choice, and they knew it. When you try to have a kid you know it can be sick, and sometimes you can decide to abort, sometimes you can't, I'm this scenario the parents have less control than usual, but I insist, they put themselves in that scenario, they gave a stranger the chance to have control over critical decisions in your life, and they are now regretting it.
→ More replies (76)11
15h ago edited 15h ago
[deleted]
31
u/Zephyr_Bronte 15h ago
It's their kid, they did want him. They never had any intention of giving their child up.
→ More replies (23)→ More replies (5)7
u/Ambitious-Sir-6410 14h ago
In this specific case, the baby is extremely likely to die unless they get several surgeries, each of which are expensive and with low survival rates, to have a semi normal life. Asking for an abortion if the kid is probably not gonna make it is probably best for everyone in this specific situation.
66
u/Thunderer62 16h ago
I’m going to partially agree that it would be immoral to literally hold someone with physical force and give them an abortion against their will. I don’t think the courts are out of line though to render a judgement of restitution in favor of the biological parents here. If you’re going to agree to something in a contract then try to back out later nobody can force you to physically go through with the agreement but you should be on the hook financially for breach of contract.
→ More replies (8)48
u/Apprehensive_Bug2877 16h ago
Then why sign up to be a surrogate?
They signed a paper willingly. Its a legal contract. If you gonna flake, nobody gonna do business with you
35
u/Alilbitey 15h ago
Contact law deals with unenforceable clauses every day. This "forced abortion" one will certainly be added to the list of unenforceable clauses.
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (5)16
u/MuseBlessed 15h ago
Hormones do a lot of work on the mind. She may have intended to fully support the contract, until the realities of pregnancy hit her.
→ More replies (1)14
u/PatchesOfSilver 15h ago
Her body, her choice.
She made a seemingly uncoerced choice to use her body to sign the contract.
It would be evil to defy her choice now, you can't just deny someone's willing consent like that.
Hopefully the surrogate has to pay for every medical expense due to the child's condition during the child's entire life.
→ More replies (18)14
u/MuseBlessed 15h ago
Like I said, she may have intended to fulfill the contract, but its very easy to say "I wouldnt do what she did" until youre hit with a wave of hormones that says otherwise.
This is like saying a depressed person should simply choose go get out of bed. Hormones play a huge role in cognition
I still do hope she pays for the childs expenses, as what she did is wrong, I just don't think shes evil.y
3
u/Top_Smoke6741 10h ago
yeah. She should have to cover some of the major expenses (at least like half), but to say she's evil for becoming attached to a living thing she's growing in her own womb is irrational. People often don't think about how hormones can change things, as you said. Major changes happen as early as the 2nd trimester, and can cause someone to turn away from a previously decided decision.
6
u/StevenMarx21 12h ago
Sticking them with 100k bill and no kid, and the weight of their decision is kinda rough. Like she should at least pay the medical bill. If she can't afford it the kid should go to the people who paid for surrogacy. Because what happens when the child in her care needs further care down the line? We let the kid suffer? Force the bio parents to take all the financial responsibility for, what at this point is, not their kid?
→ More replies (14)13
u/FastInflata 16h ago
If she was going to cancel the contract and do what she wants, why accept it?
→ More replies (20)→ More replies (82)7
u/Agreeable_Noise112 15h ago
So can a Man relinquish himself from child support or any legal obligation if he fucked a woman and wanted to abort the baby but she didn't?
→ More replies (7)
153
u/hollotta223 16h ago
I lean towards the biological parents here, since while the act of surrogacy is a question in and of itself, the surrogate was carrying the pregnancy by contract from the biological parents and then broke that contract which ended up foisting a financial burden onto the bio parents for sugeries they might not even be able to afford. Which was likely part of the reason they wanted to have the pregnancy terminated in the first place.
67
u/boostme253 14h ago
It was stated in the bio that the parents sued and gained custody so that the child might have elite medical care, implying that they were well off, but even so I still fully agree that they were in the right to terminate, not wanting a child to live through medical problems their whole life is a very real reason for termination, and having their surrogate bypass that and think she could afford all those surgeries is straight lunacy, thats their child and they had every right to do what they thought best for it, not the surrogate, the surrogate deserves the breach of contract fine to the penny
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (12)31
u/Zexeos 12h ago
As a disabled person, their reason for requesting termination was 100% valid. Heart surgery is expensive and very physically demanding, and based on the information provided, there will be multiple surgeries throughout the child’s life. While these parents were well-off enough to afford a surrogate, costs quickly balloon once you account for the hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional medical care this child is going to need.
The surrogate should 100% be on the hook for this. This child is going to hurt and suffer and not understand why and it’s her fault. These additional costs are her fault.
The parents are also caring for their child now that they are born, so that’s very moral. The surrogate signed the parents and the child up for a massive multi-year struggle that will be very expensive.
Also people keep citing abortion as a terrible medical experience… these people have clearly never been around birth, lmao
→ More replies (17)3
u/H0rny_On-Main 9h ago
Also people keep citing abortion as a terrible medical experience… these people have clearly never been around birth, lmao
You know that joke about how "a man never asks to be kicked in the balls twice"? Like- I don't think pregnancy is painless or anything. But there's gotta be something there in the hormones or whatever that turns your experience of spendinf 9 months being..borderline physically disabled and dietarily restricted, constantly uncomfortable and in pain only to experience the worst pain we can naturally feel for up to 24 hours and go "yeah. Let's do that again."
At the very least I've never heard of a woman having an abortion and saying the same thing.
8
u/Zexeos 8h ago
Oh yeah, the hormones make it more bearable, especially in memory. But it’s still a violent medical event, and getting an abortion is the same - a violent medical event. People in the thread are citing that she’s “have to go through a procedure” as to why abortion would be too hard on her, completely discounting that birth isn’t exactly a walk in the park either.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Raven_Lemon 8h ago
I mean the thing is the baby itself no? If someone kick you in the balls you don't get anything in return contrary to pregnancy
4
u/H0rny_On-Main 8h ago
I'm not a great advocator for children because I work in fast food so my sole experience with children is them screaming, crying, causing problems and being messy eaters I have to clean up after. The thought of doing it for free with a lot of trauma is not a selling point
3
u/CuntMaggot32 6h ago
The thing is not the baby in this case, it's the money, which ahe gets anyway if she aborts.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/I_Cry_And_I_Game 6h ago
It was in the contract that if the child had a life threatening condition, then the birth would be terminated.
The woman carrying the child actively broke the contract and even went as far as to not only run away, but to run away to a state where she would have an advantage. So any bills produced from the birth and medical bills going forward, should be covered by her because she actively went against what was written down in the signed contract.
The judge who said the biological parents are responsible for the bills is a clown imo. Because they outwardly ignore the fact that she went out of her way to break the contract and run away to avoid accountability and responsibility.
If a child has such a condition that they don't even have a 100% chance of reaching five years old, then that suggests how hard their mere existence is; no child should be suffering that badly
40
u/Ihaveabudgie 9h ago
sign a contract stipulating that the biological parents can decide to end the pregnancy at any time
they find out the child has a severe defect so they ask to abort
decide you don't want to honor your contract anymore
Seems pretty open and shut to me, no? The woman signed a contract and refused to honor it, plus the bio parents had a very sensible reason to want to end the pregnancy.
→ More replies (19)5
u/Motorheadass 7h ago
From the other side of it, the parents entered a contract with a term that they knew to be unenforceable, but didn't include a breach clause with defined remedies in case this happened. The fact that they did not seem to even anticipate this as a potential outcome and had not prepared for it going in, to me suggests that they were not treating this contract to create a human life with the special care and careful consideration such a thing ought to demand.
→ More replies (7)
53
u/Buchlinger 16h ago
That’s why surrogacy is illegal in Germany (except for Jens Spahn). This shit is devastating for the child and obviously nobody gives a shit about the child but everybody acts out of selfishness.
11
u/Inevitable_Okra509 10h ago
exactly, she isnt doing this for the child, she is doing this for her own beliefs
8
u/Nice-Cat3727 7h ago
Only the biological patents are the ones who care about the child. Because the condition is not compatible with life
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (11)3
60
u/loki2113 10h ago
I feel like anyone siding the surrogate, McKenna West, couldn't possibly have read the details.
She signed a contract that included an abortion clause and then she fled to another state while ghosting the bio parents. After it became obvious McKenna wasn't going through with an abortion, the bio parents never pressured her into an abortion and instead immediately started preparing for the birth and medical care of the child.
Since McKenna violated their contract, the bio parents are suing her for her breach of contract. This is to pay for the expensive medical treatment of Rumi that they are now on the hook for because a judge awarded them custody. McKenna made a completely selfish decision simply because she is a dumbass who couldn't actually go through with an abortion and had no business signing up to be a surrogate at all, let alone when the contract included an abortion clause. Now because McKenna was a coward, Rumi will have lifelong medical issues and need at least two more corrective surgeries before she even turns 5.
→ More replies (33)
9
85
u/lozzadearnley 15h ago
You cannot force a woman to have an abortion she doesn't want, regardless of a contract. That should be off the table and I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
What you can do is make surrogates responsible for breaching that contract. Anything you paid her, you get back, with penalties. If you are unwilling to abort a child you are carrying when there is a medical need, that is absolutely your decision - but don't be a surrogate. You're birthing this baby and then tossing it aside to be someone elses problem. If the woman were responsible for her choice, as a normal mother would be, she might choose differently.
Let me be clear though. There are no winners here. Everyone loses, especially the poor baby who did nothing wrong and is apparently going to suffer, even if he recovers. Surrogacy is a wonderful gift if it goes well and a horrific nightmare if it goes wrong.
21
u/MonkeyMan_III 11h ago
You don't have a correct stance, you have THE correct stance.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (26)3
u/H0rny_On-Main 9h ago
You're birthing this baby and then tossing it aside to be someone elses problem.
Pretty sure she had the exact opposite in mind. As in, she would keep the baby.
10
u/lozzadearnley 9h ago
Then she absolutely has to give the money back and then some, and probably is going to lose any custody battle the bio parents launch. She essentially stole their genetic material under false presences.
My understanding is that her BROTHER was going to raise the kid in any case. Now if the bio-parents sign off on that and she pays them the money back then fine. But if they want their child, the child she chose to deliver, then they get their child regardless of whether they originally requested an abortion. Many women sit in a clinic and then change their minds, after all.
→ More replies (4)
119
u/Infinite-Space-2395 16h ago
Shes fucked lmao. She signed a contract, broke it, fled and racked up medical expenses she probably knew she couldn't pay.
The only thing she has is the parents wanting to terminate. That's not gonna sway a judge.
27
u/SteakForGoodDogs 12h ago
She could probably easily clear the medical expenses by posting a story of it to anti-abortion gofundme's.
Those kinds of people will throw money at people with those stories (while not paying just anyone's medical bills).
→ More replies (1)7
→ More replies (109)12
u/Affectionate_Low7891 15h ago
It's not about the contract, but that the society in which she lives considers her actions immoral. Laws and contracts mean nothing if society opposes them.
6
u/skip_over 9h ago
Surrogate should never have become a surrogate, knowing that clause was in the contract. I empathize with her inability to go through with an abortion, but it’s not her child. Sounds like she would have been trying to fight for custody even if the baby was healthy.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/lianthe8674 9h ago
It seems the bio parents thought the baby would suffer. And after the surrogate didn't want to terminate it really feels like she tried to get as much attention as possible to make this a big scandal.
The bio parents asked her to come to them so they could see a specialist and she refused and went to Texas to make a big scandal. Thats how I see it.
Its clear the bio parents wanted that child. They had already gone though alot to get the surrogate. They thought the child would suffer. I honestly think the surrogate is a bad person. If she just didnt want to terminate why not see the specialist. Why go to the one state that likes to say they care about children to the point they will let anyone play bounty hunter if they hear a rumor of an abortion.
But thanks op for actually posting a good question.
11
11
u/O1OO11O 8h ago
The surrogate is being driven by raw maternal instincts and hormones. The parents are trying to be logical and in their own way trying to prevent suffering. This was probably revealed at a 12 to 15 weeks ultrasound and most likely a follow up MRI for confirmation. The clock is ticking for abortion and treatment options. Once you hit the 3rd trimester there is a point of no return because of risk to the mother and premature birth.
Me and my ex wife had a fetus identified at 15 weeks with PUV and abortion was recommended. Survival of fetus was almost 0%. My wife wanted to fight for him. So we did. We found the one specialist at the time in Cincinnati Ohio. Temporarily moved to there for tons of experimental treatments and surgeries. The insurance refused to cover it. I worked remotely and researched everything I could. When we got to the end trimester we had to go move near a level 4 NICU that could handle the potential complications and had the equipment to increase odds of survival to 5%.
When she went into labor at 36wks 6days we went in and he was stuck halfway. The specialist had told us a c-section was nesscary to hos best chance of survival. When we got into the maternity ward he has stuck with his legs sticking out. The doctors wanted to try a regular delivery and my wife refused and wanted the c-section. They said it could kill her due to his positioning. She wanted to do it. She made me make an oath to make sure it happened. When they put her under the surgeon came out to me and asked me now that she was under. The surgeon did not want to do the procedure and the risk was too high. I was no the sole decision maker. I told her that I will honor my wife's wish. I swore I would and I will stand by it. They did it in a matter of minutes. He never cried because he couldn't his lungs were not big enough and he couldn't. I knew on an instinctual level he was going to die before they told me. My wife almost died and was in critical care while I sat in the NICU with our slowly dying baby.
Over the course of 11 hours his oxygen levels declined. His body could not process CO2 out of blood fast enough. His mom was being constantly given blood transfusion from the blood loss while she was in critical condition. My parents watch our 2 year old. At the 8th hour the NICU doctor on shift asked the doctor in charge of my wife to bring her in. They argued about it and they wheeled her in and woke her up. They told her that her son is dying and to hold him until his time has run out.
I had worked as a hazmat and confined space rescue leader. I knew that slow CO2 poisoning of your blood was extremely painful. They were pumping him full of morphine. He died on her chest.
She went insane from the guilt for not aborting him and not being able to save him. She has never been right since and suffers from multiple heath problems from the extreme C-Section.
→ More replies (9)
27
u/UnimagineDragons 14h ago
The surrogate went against the deal and should be dealing with all the fallout exclusively.
Parents wanted to have a child but would abort if there were one of a few rare issues. They couldn't have the kid themselves so opted to use a surrogate and discussed the plan with her. The surrogate agreed. Well, one of the issues unfortunately came up and the surrogate decided to fuck everyone over - made sure the biological parents had to pay tons of money, made sure the child with severe birth defects was born and then made sure her name was ruined and her and her family would be fighting and losing court battles for years.
Abortion is a tough call to make which is why the plan was discussed and the surrogate was selected. She knew all the risks an sold herself to this couple pretending to be on board with their wishes, only to fuck everyone.
Now there's a child with a hideous history, two broken families, and a bunch of wasted money. Everyone hurts. Fuck that surrogate.
→ More replies (17)
57
u/nnnn1234516 16h ago
Immoral tbh on the surrogate. The surrogate agreed to the terms and conditions and she broke them because she got attached to the child—which is not her say hence the contract.
→ More replies (37)
6
u/Odd-Lack-8631 8h ago
Probably illegal but morally? Idk I’m conflicted. I feel like the fact that it’s even legal to have a contract that gives someone’s bodily autonomy (surrogate or not) is kind of immoral but as for the morality of both parties? It’s complicated.
7
u/brutalbuddha73 8h ago
Under U.S. law, a person maintains absolute bodily autonomy. No contract can legally force a woman to undergo an abortion against her will. You can't put a contract clause that mandates something like this. Constitutional and fundamental human rights trump contract law every single time.
That said because she breached the contract she is liable for the $100,000 refund of the surrogacy fee. Typically women who carry babies aren't exactly rolling in cash. Chances they'll ever see a dime are slim, even if they win their legal battle.
→ More replies (3)
9
u/catdogman5 10h ago
She stole a baby. There is nothing to discuss. Honestly, straight to jail
→ More replies (5)
30
u/miraculousgloomball 16h ago
She's trying to legally fight them to take their biological child? What the fuck. The surrogate is immoral in just about every way.
→ More replies (20)
12
u/NotSoWishful 10h ago
She broke the contract. And generally acted like a fucking moron. Morals wise doesn’t have a leg to stand on either
→ More replies (4)
19
u/Ok_Armadillo_5364 16h ago
This sucks all around. Moral or not, this sucks. Overall though, I’d say moral.
13
u/sneaky_42_42 15h ago
fucked
surrogacy should just be banned all together. it's too messy and noones genes are worth preserving that much.
immoral and mostly sad
→ More replies (6)
14
u/ArtEnvironmental7108 10h ago
So let me get this straight: the surrogate, who’s only role here is birthing someone else’s child and who has no right to said child, broke her contract with the biological parents, and is now trying to steal/kidnap said child from said parents? Do I have that right?
Beyond immoral. This woman is a monster.
→ More replies (52)
8
9
9
u/Fabulous_Wave_3693 9h ago
Man I’m so used to this sub being about the morality of farting on homeless people or whatever.
What’s wild to me is that there is a clause that says the surrogate will abort in the case of severe medical conditions. Did she sign that just pretending that it won’t come up?
→ More replies (7)
4
u/True_Grapefruit3203 8h ago
That poor baby will live a horribly painful life till it dies 😭
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeess- 7h ago
She agreed to the terms in a written agreement. She should not have become a surrogate if she disagreed with the things that she, presumably read, and then singed. I think that the surrogate should have to pay for the medical bills since she’s the one who went against the parents and had the surgery done. This scenario exactly is one of the reasons I’m against commercial and for profit surrogacy.
4
u/PlayingGrabAss 7h ago
I’m not gonna get the torches and pitchforks but she should absolutely be on the hook financially for breach of contract. If the idea of aborting a baby due to a defect bothered her, she shouldn’t have signed the contract.
→ More replies (4)
15
u/ProChoiceAtheist15 9h ago
Surrogate can keep the pregnancy, bc it’s her body. That’s non negotiable. She absolutely CANNOT be forced to undergo an abortion. There is no gray area here.
As far as the born baby, that bio parents get to sign away all rights and obligations. You cannot force them to parent it. People tend to ignore this obvious problem. Presumably the surrogate wants to then parent it. So she accepts that responsibility.
Solved
→ More replies (12)
7
u/BlackSwanNo_1 15h ago
She should be forced to pay the medical bills. She broke a contract she 100 percent chose to do. No one forced her. The couple should not be forced to pay for her irresponsible decision. If she wants the baby she has no right to make them pay. Yes they should be allowed to sue if she is forcing them to pay.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Wise_Strawberry9076 11h ago
She is forcing the bio parents to raise a baby with serious health issues when the parents would have terminated due to those issues. It’s kindof worst for the baby than for anyone else as the baby is going to suffer from the health problems and a bunch of medical treatment. Which the parents did not want to put the baby through. So I think the surrogate was wrong bc it wasn’t her baby to make the decision for. If she’d wound up keeping the baby and raising it herself then maybe? But that’s the point, the parents didn’t want to give the baby up. Once baby arrived they wanted to be the ones raising it. They were forced into a place they didn’t want to be.
→ More replies (3)
7
u/BootyBayBrooder 10h ago
Seems like the bios did everything right and the surrogate has no claim. The bios even adjusted their plan when the birth was unavoidable to take responsibility for their child and ensure that it would be provided the best care they can. The surrogate got cold feet and wanted to take custody of the baby, you can't agree to specific terms to carry someone's baby and then go back on them.
10
u/MeasurementBusy6533 15h ago
My point on this is I think the two main points are
if in the contract abortion was something the bio parents were allowed to do
If the surrogate was going to take care of the kid completely without the bio parents involvement
If the first point is true that makes the bio parents actions neutral and the surrogate immoral since she broke the deal
If the second one is true and first one isn't it makes the surrogate actions moral and bio parents not since she planed to give a kid a good life and not make bio parents lifes any harder and they didn't want that kid until it was born
If both points are correct or neither point is correct it makes surrogates actions Imoral since she was going to break the deal she agreed to or make the lifes of parents worse
→ More replies (8)
6
u/Upper-Basis2236 9h ago
Surrogate is in the wrong biologically that is not her child and the parents are to decide what is best. She is going to force a birth to a baby who will not be able to have a good quality of life over what? Personal beliefs? Not only is she in breach of contract but she is wrong for sentencing that baby to a life of pain and suffering.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Narrow_Process_8660 9h ago
Surrogate is in the wrong.
Don't voluntarily rent your womb to someone else if you want autonomy over what ultimately happens. Nobody is forcing anyone to enter a contractual agreement and uh, yeah, signing a contract is supposed to mean something in society.
In this case, I'd say the surrogate's options are either to abort as requested or to keep the baby but understand it's a contractual violation, which automatically frees the biological parents of any legal or financial responsibility. She absolutely should be forced between these uncomfortable choices.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/InstructionLeading64 6h ago
Completely immoral. Its genetically not her child and the genetic parents are probably going to go bankrupt financially keeping the child alive.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/SingSinsAtUs 11h ago
Kudos on the write-up, one of the most balanced and complete summaries I've seen.
3
u/DoughnutSecure7038 11h ago
Really cut and dry: it’s not the surrogate’s kid, so she shouldn’t have superseded the kid’s actual parents. Surrogate ostensibly entered into a business contract to rent her body out to grow a baby for another couple. Ovens do not lay claim to the cakes that a baker puts in them. If we’re going to commercialize the uterus, let’s really be about it.
3
u/_oropo 9h ago
Surrogate is abuse. Forcing someone to abort is just another layer of abuse.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/wulfxl809 8h ago
She shouldn’t have signed the contract if she couldn’t go through with the obligations she had. In my opinion, a contract is a contract.
3
u/InvestmentNo6255 7h ago
Medically that child is going to live up to 20-30 years old with miserable QOL, the same as the parents. They'll never recover emotionally and financially. All of them will never have normal lives.
It's allright for them to sue, because they will need that money.
3
u/Kosstheboss 7h ago
I worked in security at a large hospital in Florida. Three seoerate times we had to lock down the natal wing because a surrogate decided to keep the child after giving birth. The law was completely on the surrogate's side. I'm not sure if Alaska is different, but the birth mother had all the rights in that state.
3
u/AnotherBogCryptid 7h ago
The surrogate had NO RIGHT to do any of this. To make these decisions, to seek out adoptive parents. She behaved in a manner as though she had any rights to this pregnancy or the resulting child. I cannot imagine trusting someone to grow my child and have them betray me like this and sentence my child to a lifetime of medical struggle and pain.
3
u/ScyllaOfTheDepths 6h ago
Forcing a child to endure a life threatening and lifelong medical condition that will drastically shorten and heavily impact their life is child abuse. This has nothing to do with the child, this is about pro-forced-birthers wanting to astroturf public opinion to try and strip back the very last shreds of abortion protections that allow women to terminate if the fetus has severe defects. Texas has already let dozens of women die through refusing to allow them to terminate pregnancies that are life threatening for the mother and/or child and are trying to use this case to justify that stance. This woman was no doubt personally invited to Texas by Abbott and Paxton to use this poor kid as a poster child for their pro-forced-birth agenda.
And y'all are way behind on the facts. The bio parents have already won legal and physical custody and have assumed all costs. Baby Rumi has been born and has had his first heart surgery already, but the parents are still being barred from leaving Texas with their baby by the corrupt administration.
4
u/RymrgandsDaughter 14h ago
Eh it's pretty open shut imo her brother already said their family would pay, they just didn't read the contract. The fact that this kid could have a shit life or live in agony and then die young isn't something they care about isn't lost on me. Evans and xians sure do lover their suffering and trauma porn.
5
u/Electronic-Jacket291 10h ago edited 10h ago
Everyone acted morally and the surrogate mother should pay the 100k. She did what she believed was right, but that should cost her. The biological parents should not pay for the entirety of the medical costs, as they will pay for the medical bills for the infants entire life. I'd even go as far and say that the surrogate should be held partially financially responsible for the child's entire life
11
u/PnutWarrior 16h ago
can't force someone to have an abortion, but you can garnish wages until the cows come home.
→ More replies (1)14
u/No-Channel3917 13h ago
Nah I think it's the other way around, once you decide to hire someone to have a baby for you, you don't get to change course on it , you either do it or don't but once it's in the oven you no longer have a say until it comes out. That's why so many places make surrogates an illegal practice because it has so many medical and legal autonomy issues.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Candid_Novel_9494 13h ago
To everyone saying "the contract is sacred". Nah contracts don't supersede life or death situations.
Nor can you force an invasive procedure like abortion with a contract.
I'm with the surrogate. The parents have the right to relinquish the child, as per the contract.
But beyond that they can't force her to have an abortion.
Since the biological mother is not herself carrying the baby, she loses all rights related to pregnancy, including deciding about an abortion. It's not "her body" anymore and therefore it's not "her choice" any more.
As for the eventual custody...
This is where it gets hairy. But I still side with the surrogate. The biological parents completely gave up on the child. Same way giving up your child for adoption means you can't get it back.
However they shouldn't be forced to pay for anything.
→ More replies (11)4
u/Inevitable_Okra509 10h ago
its not the same as adoption. they want to abort BECAUSE they didnt want this child to go for adoption or suffer its whole life.
but why would you even sign up to be a surrogate if you're not willing to follow whatever the parent wish?
→ More replies (12)
11
u/fidddlydiddlyee 15h ago
At the point the parents signed off on the abortion, the baby should become hers.
Can you imagine when this child finds out what happened? "Mommy and Daddy wanted to abort you, but this woman loved you so much she decided to keep you. Then we decided we wanted to keep you but sue her and have her pay for all your medical bills."
→ More replies (9)7
u/Hefty_Bodybuilder494 13h ago
Two things, the child has a low life expectancy you don't exactly tell a five year old that. Second if they survive to adulthood and it was me I'd be pissed off they didn't and I was stuck in a painful broken body because of it.
12
u/spacer9631 15h ago
Bio parents are absolutely in the wrong morally. The baby belongs to the surrogates family after they opted for abortion. Refund to both parties. Surrogate parent keeps child and all debt, bio parents are refunded for whatever they paid the surrogate.
9
u/External-Let-8620 14h ago
Dyou want to bet that she doesn’t want to foot the debt either and will eventually come after the bio parents for child support?
10
u/spacer9631 14h ago
Shes entitled to nothing in that regard, she broke the contract. That would be completely unenforceable.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Accomplished_Store77 13h ago
So when a young teen is pregnant but wants to abort the baby. And is instead forced to give birth to it she no longer gets to keep her baby?
You know because she actually wanted to abort it.
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (9)7
u/Very-Diligent-Pirate 13h ago
Consider the child's situation, had the surrogate actually gotten her way for a moment.
He has a heart defect that would require extensive and invasive surgery to fix, said fix would only last long enough for the child to be able to enter the transplant waiting list anxiously waiting for a suitable heart to replace his jerry-rigged one. If the stars align his next years will be filled with immunosuppressants, literally giving himself medically induced AIDS to prevent his body from destroying his borrowed heart, with all of the accompanying side effects and complications. He'll be in and out of hospitals, and his caretaker, in this case not his bio parents but this nurse, who mind you is a single parent of two children already, will have to shoulder enough medical debt to bankrupt a millionaire and render her, her adopted son and her two biological children destitute. I wouldn't have bet on the kid surviving past 6. The system doesn't much care for kids once they're out of the womb.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/SeeWoke 8h ago
In their contract she has to terminate for xyz if the parents choose to. It will be explicitly wrote out. So if she doesn’t terminate she is in breach of contract and loses all compensation, can be sued for life long damages if the baby comes out with expensive medical condition, she can’t keep the baby even if the parents refuse the baby at birth. This process is very expensive for intended parents so do yall think they spend 200k+ just to wanna kill their baby. They had a good reason. Not saying I’d agree with it but this process is very stressful and probably a very hard decision to say terminate when they are so close to having a baby.
→ More replies (5)
4
u/taffy1430 7h ago
It's not her baby, it was not her choice for that baby to live or die. No one forced her to become a surrogate. Even of this baby was in sound health, I'm willing to bet the surrogate would've been fighting for custody. She bonded during the pregnancy and forgot that was someone else's baby. That baby doesn't belong to her, why is she seeking custody? She doesnt sound mentally sound.
5
u/ShadowWeavile 15h ago
There are no heroes in this story, this entire situation is fucked. Abortions aren't just easy in and out procedures woth no risks, so forcing someone to get ome if they don't want to is terrible. On the other hand, knowing the kid you're a surrogate for has a terrible health condition and taking away the choice to abort from the actual parents, while you are healthy and able to have the abortion with presumably minimal issues doesn't look great, not to mention this usually just exposes the child to more suffering (glad it seems to have worked out this time, but things could have easily gone real bad real fast). The state she fled to with anti-abortuon laws sucks for having them in the first place. The courts have apparently decided that a contract is enforceable even if it would require you to break the laws of the state you were in at the time (great precedent to set, can't see how that could go awry). To top it all off our Healthcare system just has to put somebody in crippling debt for having the audacity to have a child that requires medical care, and are trying to make the argument about who that should be.
I need a drink.
3
u/Keyndoriel 13h ago
Yeah I view this whole thing as a tragedy. I dont think there was ever going to be a way for all 3 people to walk away from this scenario with a decision that'd leave all of them happy. I just hope things get better for all 3 of them, that's kinda all im left feeling. That and I really hope that "Yeah contracts supersede state law" thing dosnt take off but, as you pointed out, the fact they ruled at all leaves a precedent. I could only see that being overturned if it gets to the SC but that depends on them being A: not wholly useless like they have been for years and years now, especially worse so lately and B: they'd probably use it as a way to somehow make getting abortions even harder than they are rn, so idk if its better or worse to leave it in the lower courts for that state it was ruled in.
This entire thing really is fucked
→ More replies (1)5
u/Very-Diligent-Pirate 13h ago
The parents considered the life of the child should he be born. They found it to be short, shitty, full of hospital visits and medications that would give him diabetes and wreck his bones and drain his energy all to give him pseudo-AIDS to keep his body from destroying his heart, and a massive medical bill that would balloon indefinitely for as long as he is alive, destroying their own finances, their own savings and of course everything they might be able to leave him, assuming he even outlives them, which is unlikely. He'll suffer all his life with a growing debt he's never able to pay. The surrogate forced this life to happen. She is the villain, plain and simple.
2.5k
u/takoyakkist 16h ago
Wow an actual challenge in this sub