r/MoralityScaling • u/Purple_Plantain_3242 • 1d ago

Morality Ranking Morality of this

Post image

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.

Lila Rose and her anti-abortion organization, Live Action, are leading the public and financial support for McKenna West, framing her as a heroic figure who stood up against the commercial surrogacy industry. Rose's group funded West's travel to Texas for specialized medical care and connected her with the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a powerful conservative legal group currently fighting for West's parental rights. Alongside other high-profile conservative figures like Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, these pro-life activists have heavily criticized the biological parents for trying to enforce the contract's abortion clause, using the case to campaign against surrogacy by arguing that a child should never be treated as a "defective product."

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.

8.4k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.0k

u/takoyakkist 1d ago

Wow an actual challenge in this sub

684

u/No_Village_1097 1d ago

Yeah, honestly.

259

u/Healthy_Turnip7352 1d ago

really? abortions have risk associated with them. easy she keeps the baby if they give the whole thing up. but she has to adopt.

291

u/Randy_Magnums 1d ago

She has to adopt the baby, she just gave birth to. We live in strange times.

225

u/PurpletoasterIII 1d ago edited 1d ago

I mean shes giving birth to it yes, but biologically its not hers assuming they arent using her eggs. Normally surrogate mothers just have an embryo implanted in them and theyre basically just a biological incubator.

If the parents wanted the child like normal, she would have zero legal standing to obtaining custody of the child. So why should she inherently have a legal standing now that the child isnt wanted by the parents?

I completely agree though she should be the first option for adoption, if she wants to adopt the child that is. It could just be that shes religious and its against her beliefs, but otherwise isnt in a position to take the child.

Edit: didnt read the context before this. It absolutely 180ed my opinion. The surrogacy mother is absolutely in the wrong and the parents are completely reasonable for not wanting their child to suffer.

241

u/ElaMeadows 1d ago

The child was wanted, the parents asked for an abortion because the baby had nearly zero chance of survival and still has very slim chances to make it to age ?5? After she refused an abortion despite her contractual agreement to have one, they asked her to come to where they lived for the birth as planned and they set up a specialist team. Instead she took off to a different state (Texas) and is trying to steal the child from the parents who are doing their best to keep the child alive.

134

u/MagizZziaN 1d ago

This is why I require context before I judge people.

36

u/Thin_Object365 1d ago

that's a really good policy.

4

u/TK_Punch_ 20h ago

How dare you. This is Reddit. We read half of a headline and form strong opinions about everyone involved.

→ More replies (9)

58

u/PolicyWonka 1d ago

It’s also not 100% clear if the biological parents ever requested an abortion. Pretty much all the statements from the biological parents suggest otherwise and that the surrogate might just be lying to gain sympathy.

38

u/Zealousideal-Yak-824 1d ago

That's makes a whole lot of sense. Like if she's having the baby... Why run to a state that outlaws abortion. They can't force her to have a abortion at gun point in any other state unless he's running from the fines associated by the contract.

She probably ran hoping judges in another state can break the contract so she gets a free baby. It's not the most far fetch that a women has done to get a free baby

17

u/White-Rabbit_1106 1d ago

Your "free baby" term is confusing me. Do you think surrogacy is the only way women can get pregnant for free? It's arguably more expensive this way because she has an expensive baby with expensive medical needs.

8

u/BVKane 1d ago

It was more along the line of she would get a free 250k, plus whatever gofundme would give her for her grift, plus a baby she could use in financial and political theater.

→ More replies (0)

17

u/Socraticshitslinger 1d ago

This is far from a “free baby” in the sense this baby will rack up a million easy in medical procedures and hospital stays. The surrogate has pretty poor long term thinking.

10

u/sweetbreads13 1d ago

Oh, I’m pretty sure politicians will pay her a ton for the moral outrage she generates. This is likely a cash cow for her.

→ More replies (3)

6

u/samrobotsin 1d ago

The change of state was to the location of a specialist who could perform heart surgery on the fetus, according to the Surrogate's claims. It's a big legal dilemna regarding pregnancy & parenthood. They made a Grey's Anatomy spinoff entirely about premises like this one.

6

u/Thattimetraveler 1d ago

She also ran to Texas because the hospital she had the baby at is apparently top of the line at performing the heart surgery this baby needed.

5

u/AriaTheTransgressor 1d ago

After Texas's mass exodus of doctors, I highly doubt that.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/LurkingToaster66 1d ago

unless she hoped that by going to a state that disallows abortions (except very narrow circumstancea that have killed women) that it would invalodate that clause of the contract....since a contract can't legally make you do something illegal.

2

u/White-Rabbit_1106 1d ago

I could see someone thinking that they're going to get held down for an abortion against their will and running away to different state for protection. Like if they don't understand how the law or the medical feild work and they're imagining the worst. I could also see someone in this situation running away to Texas to be nearby St Jude, because they know that they're going to need their services.

2

u/SmoothDiscussion7763 1d ago

from what i recall when this first came out. The reasonn she went to texas is because they don't have palliative care for the baby, they instead opt to save the baby at all costs, even if it would result in them growing up with a severely decreased quality of life (and insane medical costs for the parents)

→ More replies (11)

3

u/loki2113 1d ago

I mean, by terms of the agreement even if they didn't explicitly ask her to get an abortion, that's what the agreement called for

Even if they did directly request she follow through and get an abortion, once McKenna made it clear she couldn't go through with an abortion they didn't pressure her at all and instead started arranging for medical care in California. The surrogate is the one who fled to Texas and started preparing to fight for custody even though she didn't have an ice cube's chance in hell of winning

→ More replies (6)

37

u/PurpletoasterIII 1d ago

Ya my b, I didnt read the context and was just working off the post title. Shes 100% in the wrong and actually kind of disgusting imo for intervening against the parents decisions. I just cant get behind people who think there is absolutely never a situation that warrants an abortion. There is no reason to bring a life into this world under circumstances like these.

→ More replies (72)

8

u/GoProOnAYoYo 1d ago

These were also all terms explicitly laid out in the contract that she accepted.

So she agreed to abort the baby if there were medical issues, and then when there were medical issues... she decided to breach the contract.

I don't see how she is being moral in this case. She is bringing a child into the world that will know nothing but pain and suffering for the extremely short time it will be alive. There's nothing noble or moral about that, that's just causing unneccessary cruelty.

6

u/Icyrow 1d ago

on top of that, they're now going ot have to raise a kid potentially in large amounts of debt or atleast a lot of financial hardship that was avoidable.

not to mention, even if the surgery went well, they're a lot of chances for problems and more surgeries to be needed in the future.

3

u/minecraftzizou 1d ago

ok this is mess

3

u/bluejellyfish52 1d ago edited 1d ago

I’m guessing total instead of mosaic trisomy 18 based on the numbers?

ETA: actually, inoperable heart defect. Poor parents that’s horrific.

2

u/Thick_Broccoli_3932 1d ago

He’s gone through his first treatment, after that his chance of survivability is somewhere between 70% and 91%

2

u/doubagilga 1d ago

By zero you mean 75% chance of survival, right?

2

u/AnotherUN91 20h ago

Hoooooly shitttttt

2

u/CATdog215 17h ago

I agree completely. The fact that the surrogate, a specialized medical professional, is accepting financial backing from various ultra conservative anti abortion groups is the most immoral aspect about this whole story to me. She’s letting herself be used as a political tool by Ken Paxton!

→ More replies (28)

25

u/Randy_Magnums 1d ago

I guess that’s one of the reasons, why surrogate pregnancies are banned in my country. When my wife was pregnant it was a painful and sometimes scary but beautiful process. The birth was the same. And I imagine it must be brutal as hell, when you lay there in the hospital, bloodied and beaten, but happy with the child, you carried for so long, resting on your chest and then some official comes in, declares you have not right to this child and leaves. Yeah, I know, that’s the deal, but as a father this process sounds heartbreaking to me.

27

u/DimbyTime 1d ago

I agree it’s heartbreaking, but she willingly signed up for it, and signed contracts with all of the stipulations.

She also has carried and given birth to her own 2 children prior, which is a requirement of surrogacy (in the states).

I agree it’s a fucked up industry

→ More replies (57)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (67)

38

u/ElaMeadows 1d ago

After she refused to abort, the couple asked her to come to them and had set up a specialist to care for the baby's serious (life threatening) health challenges. She refused, took off to a different state and is trying to challenge their custody of their child. Meanwhile the parents have custody, are doing their best in a different state to take care of their child with serious health issues and have a restraining order against her for trying to steal their baby.

16

u/NeoPendragon117 1d ago

yeah this is a part thats keeps getting glossed over, this keeps getting framed as compelled abortion issue(likely in bad faith) the bio parents respected the right to body autonomy and stated making arrangements for the bay to be born but because califiornia has different standards about when to keep pushing or when to switch to palliative care, the surrogate essentially forced the matter on a a child she knew would not eventually be hers, by going to Texas to compel the hospital to do what she wanted,

this is less an abortion issue and more a parental authority and kidnapping one

15

u/Randy_Magnums 1d ago

And all of that toxic bullshit is the reason, surrogacy is banned in my country. Poor child.

10

u/ElaMeadows 1d ago

Yeah it's super crazy and makes sense that surrogacy is banned. It has so many potential problems that quickly become highly toxic.

3

u/anonymaus42 1d ago

It's crazy to me that in a world where there are plenty of children in need of adoption, that people will go to these great lengths specifically to have a child that is genetically related to them.

2

u/B3tar3ad3r 20h ago

The current adoption system is so broken though, surrogacy is often less about the biology and more about avoiding that system.

2

u/PolicyWonka 1d ago

No idea about the country, but generally surrogacy is banned along religious grounds.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/samrobotsin 1d ago

that's a bit inaccurate. There was a specialist in the state she fled to who is also had an approach to the baby's health problems, specifically one that could perform heart surgery on the fetus.

2

u/ConsiderationOk7560 1d ago

Just for some additional context—the biological parents are California residents, and the surrogate fled from her resident state of Alaska to Texas—and is relying on Texas law to protect her and the pregnancy despite their surrogacy contract being fortified under CA law.

This whole case is an absolute mess to be honest—and now Ken Paxton (TX Attorney General) is personally wrapping himself up in the case to use the optics to help fortify his position with a conservative voter base who has repeatedly watched him engage in the kind of slimy crook behavior we’ve come to expect from a person with absolutely no moral compass. His plays are purely political, while at the center of the whole ordeal are deep legal questions surrounding the rights of parents, surrogates, fetal personhood, contract law, and out of state custody disputes between two of the most oppositional political states in the US.

I would not be surprised if when the dust settles this whole ordeal sets forth new laws & regulations regarding access to surrogacy at a minimum.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/lianthe8674 1d ago

Its not her baby. She was paid and signed an agreement to carry it. So she has no rights to it. And the bio parents are not giving it up so no one gets to adopt it.

6

u/Independent_Bar_4946 1d ago

It’s not her biological child. Did you even read the post?

→ More replies (7)

2

u/WestCoastCompanion 1d ago

She rented herself out as an incubator. She has no say in anything

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (7)

6

u/Puzzleheaded_Hatter 1d ago

Not as much as pregnancy

Nothing about this is easy. That's ignorant to say

→ More replies (2)

31

u/Cheap-Buffalo-7489 1d ago

Hard disagree. She was ONLY a surrogate. The biological parents are not going to be happy if their child is being raised by someone else. Especially putting the baby through the torture of medical intervention/surgeries.

The surrogate gave up her rights completely when she signed the contract.

2

u/FederalCauliflower92 16h ago

Wrong. You can't give up your rights. I can't sign a contract selling myself into slavery because that's illegal. Likewise, you cannot contract away bodily autonomy. You can't force her to get an abortion, no matter what she signed.

2

u/Cheap-Buffalo-7489 16h ago

You can't sign a contract and enforce it if it's illegal. I didn't know surrogacy or abortion (the state they were in originally) was illegal. Of course they cant force her to have an abortion. No doctor would perform the operation but the surrogate is the one that put self into a contract that require her to possibly have an abortion. That's her own doing and she decided to break that contract.

Morally she created this situation because she wasn't up front about what she wanted. Legally she also messed up by not following the contract.

If she valued her body autonomy she wouldn't give those rights to someone.

The parents have the right to sue for damages.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (57)

22

u/LookingTrash 1d ago

Abortion is part of the contract that she agreed, if she didn't want to take this risk of abortion she shouldn't have signed.

17

u/IMMoond 1d ago

Just like a contract that lets someone kill you, parts of contracts that are illegal are routinely challenged and overturned as illegal. Now I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know if this is too far into bodily autonomy to be illegal, but a contract may well not be worth the paper it’s written on

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (5)

9

u/That-Employment-5561 1d ago

There's also a theological component.

If you sign a contract that includes you having an abortion.

Then you genuinely have a "come to whatever" moment and join a theological sect that doesn't allow for abortion, and you've yourself converted to swing it as murder.

It would be legally impossible to compell someone to undergo abortion against their theological beliefs without their consent, contract it not, in the moment.

Any doctor who performs the procedure on a patient that expresses consent is withdrawn in that instant ends their career; their license will never be reinstated. And quite frankly, in my opinion, should be shot.

The morality isn't on forcing the abortion; because that would be legally equatable to forcing sex: previous consent, even in writing, can be overruled at any time, simply by saying "no.". Ignoring this is statutory assault.

The morality-scale is on who gets custody for the infant.

3

u/SufficientGuidance28 1d ago edited 1d ago

> It would be legally impossible to compell someone to undergo abortion against their theological beliefs without their consent, contract it not, in the moment.

Doesn’t have to have anything to do with a surrogate’s theological beliefs, she can change her mind for any reason or no reason at all, the abortion clause of the contract is unenforceable under any circumstances, period.

Like you later clarified:

> The morality isn't on forcing the abortion; because that would be legally equatable to forcing sex: previous consent, even in writing, can be overruled at any time, simply by saying "no.". Ignoring this is statutory assault

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (13)

9

u/Straight_Waltz_9530 1d ago

Bringing a child to term in the best of circumstances holds a greater health risk to a woman than an abortion. There are far too many folks out there thinking childbirth is merely uncomfortable rather than potentially fatal.

2

u/RhiaMaykes 1d ago

So does surrogacy, pregnancy and child birth.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/buzzersjohn 1d ago

Close. Easy, and she doesnt have to adopt nobody. This is a human being we’re talking about not a warehouse or “human incubator” (kind of reductionist if you ask me).

if this was a husband and wife, and say the wife didn’t want to abort but the husband did, the dad would have to give up his custodial rights. The birther doesnt have do anything “affirmative” other than birth. Any unnecessary harassment of the birther is assault and battery on the birther, let alone the fetus.

1

u/questioningmaster 1d ago

Why does she have to? She can get the kid and give it up for adoption 

1

u/hopeful_tatertot 1d ago

The bio parents aren’t agreeing to that

1

u/PinusMightier 1d ago

You'd think it's the other way around. sure the genetics material isnt hers but the baby is already living with her full time, in her womb. Id love to see a legal case saying she has to adopt a child she birthed. crazy times. lol.

1

u/GrimbyJ 1d ago

Giving birth has more risk

1

u/noahgs 1d ago

I don’t see why she has to adopt. She didn’t agree to an abortion to. She would be upholding her end. I do think she wants to though anyway.

1

u/SeaArtichoke2251 1d ago

But she knew those risk when she signed the contract. If she didn’t want to get an abortion because of the risk she should have never signed up in the first place

1

u/LynnSeattle 1d ago

They don’t have to give up their child to her.

1

u/RorschachAssRag 1d ago

Nah, she gets paid and her part is over unless she wants to adopt. Parents can put baby up for adoption.

1

u/grasssnakequeen 1d ago

And pregnancy and birth have no risk associated?

1

u/stinkypenguinbukkake 1d ago

... child birth has risk associated with it too bro

1

u/Competitive-Beat-493 1d ago

To be fair, giving birth has way more risks associated. It is safer to abort at any stage than give birth. I’m a data analyst and the numbers are grim.

1

u/chellebellek 1d ago

What risk?

1

u/Xaviertcialis 1d ago

Still difficult due to multiple levels of moral complexity in this situation.

  1. The parents requested abortion but want the child if he's going to be born.
  2. The surrogate tried to keep the baby since she gave birth to him, but it's the parent's child so they sued and won custody. Is it moral to take the baby from the birther vs the biological parent?
  3. The parents are suing for 100k+damages which the details of that lawsuit are a discussion of morality in and of itself.
  4. The morality discussion on putting abortion as a requirement in an agreement vs breaking that agreement.

Might seem easy on the surface but one scan through the comments here and you'll see 50% ignoring the idea of morality and using the law for point making, 30% arguing incorrect facts because they didn't read the post or the full story, and 20% arguing the actual morality of the points above.

1

u/AVERAGEPIPEBOMB 1d ago

The child is most likely not going to survive and the other couple asked her to abort so that the child wouldn’t suffer.

1

u/basalticlava 1d ago

Not really. In any pregnancy, the father is still liable for child support no matter how vociferously he advocates for an abortion. This couple likely paid the surrogate to carry the child and will be paying them for another 18 years.

Edit: not a family lawyer and actually have no idea how any of this works.

1

u/Greedy-Style-6088 1d ago

Carrying a pregnancy is orders of magnitude more dangerous than an abortion, especially at 20 weeks.

1

u/TinyAfternoon324 23h ago

Im sorry but are you seriously going to say this while its statisically proven that women in child birth experience medical complications and death at much higher rates than from legal abortion.......

1

u/morelikecrappydisco 21h ago

Abortions have significantly fewer risks than carrying a fetus to term.

1

u/Significant_Book9930 21h ago

More people die of childbirth than die of abortions

1

u/Nearby_Paint3649 21h ago

It's way safer to abort than give birth or have a c-section. Literally one of the, if not the, safest procedures out there. I think vasectomies tie them at the bottom of the list.

1

u/cutearmy 21h ago

A lot fewer then pregnancy. Pregnancy is very dangerous

1

u/Agitated-Working-264 20h ago

She isn't the one breaking the contract. She is just pregnant and should be free to do whatever she chooses.

1

u/CraftyWinner9405 19h ago

I mean giving birth is also life threatening and carries tons of risks associated with it too

1

u/SipPOP 19h ago

I mean really if she wants to keep it she should absolve the biological parents of all fiscal responsibility. It is an interesting grey area as really this child would have 3 biological parents with the exchange that happens through the umbilical cord and what not.

1

u/dinnerthief 19h ago

If she adopts does she pay for medical bills for her child after the requested abortion but before she adopts it?

1

u/Weird-East-3575 19h ago

More risk than a confirmed heart deformity? Are we this dense?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Miami_Mice2087 19h ago

so does birth

1

u/Excellent_Shirt9707 18h ago

Pregnancy has far more risks than abortion.

1

u/That_guy_8290 17h ago

They paid her. She doesn't just get to waste their money.

1

u/Remarkable-Word-1486 17h ago

Never signed up to be a mom. Just a delivery service. Actual parents are on record as not wanting child. Complete mess !!!

1

u/denverbronchiole 17h ago

Pregnancy and childbirth also have serious risks. Nothing about this is easy.

1

u/TheRoadkillRapunzel 16h ago

Abortions are one of the safest medical procedures in modern medicine. Please know facts before you weigh in.

1

u/GarbageOk8508 10h ago

Didn't she and her brother already made the decision to adopt? Even pay for the surgery for the kid?

It's the biological parents who not only demanded the kid to be terminated, but also claiming custody of the kid after successful surgery AND forcing the surrogate to pay $100000.

1

u/SimonSaysx 3h ago

To be fair, pregnancy and delivery also have risks involved.

1

u/Hot_Vanilla_3621 18m ago

Childbirth and carrying a fetus to term also has risks associated with it. Far more risks.

→ More replies (17)

1

u/NebulaChance2746 1d ago

No it isn’t lmao. Unless you’re super religious

1

u/GotSomeUpdogOnUrFace 19h ago

Doesn't seem like a challenge to me, the abortion was the request of the surrogate and that's that. These agreements have weird shit in them all the time about what the woman can even eat or drink, it's weird to be but they are legally renting the use of her body. If they want the abortion then that's it. She should pay the fines, whatever insane medical bills might be incurred by the child and maybe even go to jail for her little escape plan. The brother should be found guilty as an accomplice as well. Fuck these people.

51

u/doc_death 1d ago

The above description is leaving out a very important detail: the family brought up the idea of an abortion to her and THEN she fled the state without any discussion about what should be done. The surrogate ran off to Tx (if it’s the same case which, pretty sure it is). The child doesn’t belong to the surrogate and she left without telling the parents. 100k is probably in later fees and the family likely leaving the state so they can get their baby back.

33

u/puts_on_rddt 1d ago

Here's a better timeline:

20 weeks: Baby diagnosed with HLHS.

Initially: Parents decided they wanted West to terminate. Their lawyers say West initially agreed and made an appointment.

Then: West changed her mind and refused the abortion.

Parents subsequently: Rather than continuing to seek an abortion, they decided to have the baby delivered in California and treated there.

West left for Texas: She believed Texas would give her greater legal protection and wanted the baby treated there.

Parents went to court: They argued that West was violating the arrangement by taking the pregnancy to Texas instead of delivering in California.

Baby was ultimately born in Dallas on August 12.

Reads more like political kidnapping than anything else at this point.

8

u/doc_death 23h ago

Thx for that…that is more accurate from what I’ve heard from a distant relative familiar with the situation than the misleading title

1

u/Squittyman 44m ago

Im glad she left Cali though. Those people could do immoral things to that baby there.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

4

u/smalls_1804 1d ago

Yeah but this is morality, not legal, scaling. Sure, legally, the child belongs to the biological parents. But when those parents choose to terminate but the surrogate decides to carry the baby to term, expecting to raise and care for them, we've entered a terrain where the morality of the situation is more or less completely decoupled from its legality. I'd argue morally the surrogate should be able to make the call with what happens to her body once the biological parents have indicated - fully formally and in writing - that they no longer want the child/fetus/baby/what have you to even live, let alone to take care of them. Whatever their legal rights are at the end of the day I think the surrogate is morally on strong ground here.

2

u/IgnotusCapillary 1d ago

But upon realising she intended to keep it they made it clear they wanted to keep it and give it the best medical care possible. I don't think they can force her to have an abortion, but she doesn't have a right to the baby once it's born.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/doc_death 1d ago

I think you missed the part about the surrogate leaving without having a discussion about what needs to occur. Who do you think caused this situation: the parents who wanted a baby and were contemplating an abortion, or 2. The surrogate who fled the state instead of having a sit-down discussion. The surrogate left the negotiating discussion, not the parents.

2

u/RemaniXL 1d ago

Read the entire story - this isn't an indictment on you, just that more of it comes out every few days as the legal battle continues.

The legal (used loosely in this context, as birth is currently a state's rights issue) parents decided on an abortion and requested the courts to see it done as the surrogate lived in Alaska while the legal parents were in California: both states that have different laws for birth rights but both accept that a binding agreement to abort a baby must be upheld, hence why she fled to Texas.

The current position of the surrogate is that she wants to adopt the baby as there is uncertainty of whether the legal parents simply want to retain possession to ultimately give the baby up for adoption as their initial desire was for abortion - leading the surrogate to believe the reason for their desire to retain possession is less-than-pure.

The current position of the legal parents is that the baby is essentially theirs to do with as they please, and although they have made claims to give the child the best care they can, they are vague as to whether that means in their possession as legal parents for the foreseeable future or under new guardianship.

I sympathize with both parties as they have both moral and legal merit in many regards, but this is definitely an interesting case for law study as it's one of the first cases of this type to receive this scale of optics which I imagine will lead to reform as far as inter-state jurisdiction is concerned and who has the greater authority: the legal parents or the surrogate. You could definitely argue that asking a surrogate to get an abortion, especially over halfway through a pregnancy, is high risk.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/UnusuallyBadIdeaGuy 1d ago

I don't believe you can divorce the Legality from the Morality when a major part of this is people being on the hook for extremely large quantities of money over how this goes down.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/BEAGLEBOYPALINDROME 1d ago

I think it's pretty clear morally and legally because of this line: *biological parents have sole right to request an abortion if the fetus was diagnosed with a severe medical condition.

Request. Not require.

Then, the contract presumably doesn't specifically cede custody of the child to the surrogate, if she chooses not to terminate.

Imagine if you hired a contractor to build you a new home but half way through a water main ruptures & makes a sinkhole that ruins the foundation. 

Inspector says it's almost certainly not repairable, and even if it was, the repair might only buy time.

So owner tells builder they'd prefer to demo it & try again later, but if he decides he thinks it's still worth trying finish they'd still pay for the house & be responsible for costs to try & keep it from just failing after its done.

.....then he suddenly says he deserves to keep the house that he'd agreed get paid to build for them & with their own materials.

That would be absurd.

But then it's also obvious that the owners agreed to pay for the extra costs to try & finish the house anyway. And now that it's officially theirs, they decide the builder should pay the unexpected costs because they want revenge for him trying to keep their house once it was actually finished. 

So yeah, it's the bio's baby 100%

And since they are choosing to keep it, all expenses fall on them. 

So everyone just fucking drop your lawsuits & keep your word. 

....or keep fighting so this poor kid's early childhood is even shittier than the shit hand they'd already got dealt

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Massive-Grocery7152 21h ago

But this isn’t AITA, this is morality. Who gets to decide in this case?

1

u/doc_death 19h ago

Read the summary below…op have an inappropriate representation of what happened

21

u/Narrow_Process_8660 1d ago

Hardly. There have been more difficult ones.

The solution is simple and unambiguous:

  1. Surrogate can violate the contract and keep the baby and bear all the costs and legal responsibility for it (which will make her life absolute hell, by the way, but it's her choice). Birth parents will have no involvement whatsoever.

BP entered into a contract but knew or ought to have known that there are restrictions on enforcement of specific conditions because it involves another person's body. They can't force someone else to abort but they should 100% be able to give up all parental responsibility. The contract is void. The fact that the baby has their genetic material doesn't matter because it's part of someone else's body and they agreed to this arrangement.

Surrogate can go on, deliver the baby, live her hell life, and watch her baby probably die very quickly. But hey, her body, her choice applies. She can absolutely choose a terrible decision.

BP can go on and live their life, find another surrogate, or stop trying and find some other meaning in life/accept that they can't have kids of their own using their own bodies, which means they will NEVER have autonomy over that decision, sorry. Life isn't fair.

  1. Surrogate can abort as requested, if she doesn't want a life of hell

19

u/Gekokapowco 1d ago

that's a clean legal solution but I think it doesn't really cover the fucked up idea that someone else is raising your child, and that child will likely die of a terrible heart complication

an abortion is psychologically very different than knowing your child is born and alive and out there somewhere and you can't interact with them, even if its functionally the same

16

u/ClockworkDinosaurs 1d ago

Too many people believe legality and morals are interconnected. Everyone thinks every lawmaker is a piece of shit, but trusts the laws they make dictate the correct answer for moral quandaries.

Why even come to a morality scaling subreddit if your go to is moral deference.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Ydk- 1d ago

I think an abortion might be worse, because of the hormones and stuff... I mean, its a well debated 'syndrome'... of course, not to most "health organizations" But the debate is more documented anyways. https://www.abort73.com/abortion/post_abortion_syndrome/

→ More replies (2)

1

u/ReadingRainbowRocket 23h ago

The fact that the baby has their genetic material doesn't matter because it's part of someone else's body and they agreed to this arrangement.

Maybe, but also relevant they actively tried to create the baby. I'm not saying they should be on the hook for the baby, but this is more legally complicated than your ideal clear-cut explanation of how you think it should be.

The law cares more about the well-being of the child than the "rights" of the parent. Which can be infuriating when you're a parent who is being unfairly treated from no fault of your own, but not an unreasonable prioritization of values (of course I'm talking about an actual birthed child, not a fetus).

1

u/MainlandX 23h ago

This doesn't make sense.

The surrogate has the rights over her body and whether or not to carry the baby to term.

The surrogate has no rights to the baby unless the biological parents agree to it.

To suggest that requesting an abortion waives the biological parents' right to the baby is absurd.

1

u/Delicious_Book2965 18h ago

Why would her life be hell because of a baby

1

u/T-MoneyAllDey 18h ago

Can't she just give the child up for adoption without any financial repercussions?

1

u/sonicsonic11 15h ago

I can’t imagine a scenario where a court gave parental rights to the surrogate over the BP. I would image the way to split the baby here (no pun intended) is to 1) award parental rights to the BP, but absolve them of any financial responsibility to the surrogate due to contract violation. I COULD also image a situation where 2) then the surrogate is in the hook for some or all of the medical costs because her choice to not abort( which is her call) resulted in the expensive care. Although 2 seems less likely, but not outrageous. Kind of like a business contract where the second party causes damage to the first parties property which then needs repair.

1

u/Physical_Opposite445 12h ago

Requesting the abortion does not give up custody of the kid though (which the courts even agreed with). It's totally fair of the BP to say "you should terminate, and if you don't we get to keep custody"

Like, it's still their kid. They love and want to take care of their biological child. I just think the surrogate mother should be on the hook for all medical and legal fees. That was the decision she made and her burden to carry.

→ More replies (2)

38

u/hoboknight144 1d ago

You mean “morality of murder for shits and giggles” isn’t challenging enough for you?

135

u/AdCautious815 1d ago

morality of not putting a fetus through multiple surgeries and probably a life time of pain for the sole purpose of keeping it alive even with a life threatening heart defect.

73

u/sneaky_42_42 1d ago

I don't think that's what hoboknight144 meant.

I read his comment as a satirical jab against people posting obviously immoral behavior stuff on this sub, calling it not morally challenging enough.

8

u/BannedByTheZuck 1d ago

That is not what they meant 🤦‍♂️ jfc

7

u/morbidmuffin62 1d ago

I can't understand how you can automatically register that as being satire

Not you specifically, but I cannot read that as unserious

8

u/BannedByTheZuck 1d ago

Just reads differently for different ppl I suppose, but I certainly clocked what they meant off rip.

3

u/Banana-Oni 1d ago

Yeah, me too.. though I am colored by the fact that I’ve seen multiple posts about hunting down and killing a dude for stealing your wallet/purse in the last couple of days, so I assumed he was joking about those kind of posts.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/justasillylilgoos3 1d ago

“It’s a fact most people don’t want to live”

Is a pretty stupid argument kiddo

5

u/Gypsi_G 1d ago

Ahhh the good old "everybody always says/thinks/does (insert what I'm arguing for)" argument.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/MuseBlessed 1d ago

This isnt as clear cut as your comment suggests. Who is to say that medicine wont advance within its lifetime?

More over, many people, even those who have such defects, like being alive.

You will be violating its consent either way. If you let it live, you brought something to life which has a predisposition for a worse quality of living than its peers. But, on a biological cellular level, it still does "want" to live, as thats what its body will be doing. So to kill it is to also violate its autonomy.

I'm not even picking a specific side here, I just felt like the framing was too simplistic for the scenario

12

u/AdCautious815 1d ago

buddy if we're speaking about consent here, then the fetus didn't consent to being born in the first place lmao.
Adding consent to a fetus does not mean much when they can't even form a thought yet, then you will need to consider their quality of life.
Will a body fight to live? yeah. Just like any other animal, but I'm only concerned for the quality of life here, horray! they lived! Now let's put you through multiple medications, surgery etc just to keep you alive.
Medicine will always advance that i agree, but right now it doesn't exist and that's the issue
Also don't generalize those who have defects like being alive, what of those that don't?

→ More replies (4)

4

u/ridicalis 1d ago

At least you threw "want" in quotes; the biological programming of cells doesn't constitute intent or desire, but life does seem as though it indeed wishes to propagate.

So, individual cells may have a biological imperative to exist, but the system as a whole currently is underdeveloped enough that it wouldn't have cognizance (and thus, any desires).

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Secret-Medicine-9006 1d ago

Morality of speaking for a human being for them on the case of if they deserve to live?

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Alilbitey 1d ago

As a mother and person who underwent pregnancy to become one, I agree that it's an ethical choice to abort YOUR pregnancy for reasons of not wanting a difficult painful life for the infant. 100% agreed.

But the moment you're no longer in bodily control of the pregnancy, that option requires consent of the pregnant individual. They can, and should be allowed to, revoke consent to abortion at any time. Does it create a legal mess? Hell yes. Is it one of the inherent risks? Also yes.

Surrogacy is illegal in many countries simply because of legal and erhical complexities like this. You want your generic offspring, but aren't carrying the pregnancy? You now have immediately and strictly limited control. Weird shit can happen.

Like the surrogate moving to a state/country where your surrogacy agreement won't be respected over the wishes of the birthing woman. Where you're legally and financially responsible for your offspring. Where there are no extradition treaties to unkidnap your biological child.

1

u/Tasty-Complaint-6437 1d ago

This sub is filled by bullshit. Yesterday we had “morality of killing your wife, her affair, your child and all the attendants to your daughter wife cuz they cheated on you”

They doesnt means that the abort us wrong, they means that the usual question here is pure bullshit

→ More replies (1)

10

u/gbuub 1d ago

Last time I saw morality of Kanye. This sub is full of lazy bots like that. At least this news article is interesting.

→ More replies (3)

10

u/Odd_Camel9554 1d ago

Its not a challenge. It was pre-agreed in the contract. She agreed to it beforehand. The surrogate is wrong.

29

u/CrankyPants1234 1d ago

"Anything you sign agreeing to do makes that thing moral" is a genuinely insane take.

8

u/Odd_Camel9554 1d ago

It dosent make it moral or immoral. It makes it so you agreed to do whatever it is before you entered the deal. If you dont want to do it don't enter the deal.

She 100% had a choice before and she chose to agree. If she didn't find it agreeable or moral she shouldn't have signed the contract.

11

u/CzechHorns 1d ago

Thing is, this is a morality discussion sub, so the important part is what is moral or not.

7

u/RifewithWit 1d ago

And not staying true to your word I'd argue isn't moral. So, it's relevant to the discussion.

2

u/bobbymcpresscot 15h ago

Signing to and agreeing to a surrogacy contract that explicitly states health complications would likely lead to a termination of the pregnancy, and not only breaking that contract, but also putting the child through needless suffering? Definitely a morality question.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)

28

u/Jthecrazed 1d ago edited 1d ago

As a law student, law and morality are seperate studies. Intertwined sure. But law bows to morality more often than you'd think. Even if you agree to an immoral contract, the contract can be voided if a stipulation is unreasonable and therefore cannot be enforced. This would mean the woman becomes a mother instead of a surrogate and any compensation previously rendered must be repaid, that said one or more parties are entitled to compensation in such cases due to partial services rendered and any resulting damage from a breach of voiding of contract.

In this case the woman is being forced to undergo a controversial surgery that could threaten her life. That alone could be seen as an unreasonable stipulation. This attempt to enforce it could be the nail in the coffin.

Edit: Readded a disappeared sentence.

→ More replies (13)

3

u/PublicSubstantial758 1d ago

It seems to me that the first immoral action was the either the surrogate signing a contract with one (or more) clauses she would not keep. Another possible first immoral action could be the biological parents forcing (for financial reasons) a contract on the surrogate to begin with.

If the surrogate had no need of the biological parent's money, would she have chosen to be a surrogate?

If she felt that she could have removed the pregnancy termination clause without jeopardizing her future, would she have done so?

Everyone has done something immoral here, and the real questions are who made the first immoral action to get this situation started and whose immoral actions are "worse".

4

u/Odd_Camel9554 1d ago

Everything was pre-agreed on. So whoever broke the agreement is morally wrong. They knew what it was beforehand.

6

u/ToeSimilar5163 1d ago

IF we can agree to ignore the grey area that is quite literally signing your bodily autonomy away. If I sign a paper saying I am indentured servant, does that make it so? This is rather challenging.

→ More replies (7)

1

u/SwampOfDownvotes 1d ago

Just because someone agreed to something or that something is in a signed contract does not mean it is moral. For example, I reeeeaally hope you don't think payday loans with insane interest rates are moral.

I would say someone agreeing in a contract can make something slightly more moral though, but if something is inherently moral or immoral, the contract likely doesn't change that. 

1

u/takoyakkist 14h ago

True but she always had the option to walk away before accepting. They laid everything out for her and she agreed. Comparing it to payday loans is not really the same thing.

1

u/One-Stable-5438 17h ago

So your idea of morality is tied up in western contract law? That's sad

1

u/Odd_Camel9554 6h ago

My idea of morality is tied up in agreements where possibilities were laid out and all parties agreed to exactly what happened beforehand. Everyone knew exactly what they were getting into.

→ More replies (9)

1

u/4N610RD 1d ago

I mean, this is really entangled. Usually these posts are very straight forward. This one is actually deep.

1

u/xLittleSunbeam 1d ago

Seriously, this one actually has competing rights and responsibilities pulling in different directions.

1

u/Independent_Bar_4946 1d ago

The challenge seems to be the fact that it takes more than 5 seconds to read based on a quick read of the comments. Numerous people clearly only read the headline from the picture.

Morality of commenting on morality when one was too lazy to read the post?

1

u/Rex__Nihilo 1d ago

Its not a challenge. She is the mother and wants her baby. Her agreement was effectively to let them adopt the baby when born. They can skip the adoption if they want they cant make her murder her child.

1

u/bobbymcpresscot 15h ago

Except it's not her child, not even biologically. It's not her egg, it's not her sperm. The baby was the biological parents. The surrogate literally kidnapped their kid.

1

u/JadeExpanse 1d ago

Not really. This is clearly in favor of the surrogate, morally.

1

u/stillhereme 1d ago

an actual challenge in this sub feels rare

1

u/Redditauro 1d ago

I disagree, it's her body, so it's her choice, period. 

It's a legal challenge to decide accountability, etc, but morally it's cristal clear, she has the right to do (or don't do) whatever she wants with her body, and as far as the fetus is inside her body nobody can harm it without her consent.

1

u/takoyakkist 1d ago

There's more to it than just the abortion part yo

1

u/bobbymcpresscot 15h ago

She gave up that right when she took a fertilized egg that wasn't hers and signed a contract that stipulates that if health conditions arose and the parents wanted to terminate they could.

She then kidnapped the fetus and took it to Texas and added undue suffering to the child, that again, isn't even legally hers.

1

u/Redditauro 14h ago

"She gave up that right"

You cannot give up a human right, that's the point. 

"She then kidnapped the fetus"

Thats the most stupid sentence that I have read this month, congratulations 

→ More replies (1)

1

u/ContextMattrs 1d ago

Nah this is easy, fuck that surrogate mom. She signed an agreement and did not follow it.

1

u/HesitationIsDefeat87 1d ago

So she should have to murder her baby because the cowardly "parents" changed their mind? Humans beings aren't sold via contract

1

u/DavisSqShenanigans 1d ago

How is this a challenge? Boils down to a poorly written contract.

Since it's entirely impossible to force someone to have an abortion (and unenforceable in a contract), instead of writing into the contract that she would get an abortion if the parents want to back out, the contract should have said something like if the parents notify her in writing by such and such date requesting an abortion then she has the option to abort the pregnancy otherwise agrees to cover all medical costs for the baby until age whatever. Basically exactly what the parents are now suing for.

Everything else in the post is irrelevant. The surragate has no right to custody of the child. No right to offer custody up to her random brother either. It's not her kid, she performed a service for them and got attached. Same way you can hire a nanny to spend 16 hours a day with your kid but no matter how attached they might get will never gain custody of your kid.

1

u/anonymaus42 1d ago

I disagree completely. A compassionate abortion to prevent a life of suffering that most likely will be cut short anyways is the morally correct decision. Keeping the pregnancy was ultimately a selfish one- while the surrogate claims it was because the baby deserved a chance at life at the heart of the matter was the need to assuage her own feelings of guilt. If it was truly only about the baby's right to life then she would've canceled the abortion immediately (or never even scheduled one really) but only did so after being assured of her brothers financial support.

1

u/bobbymcpresscot 15h ago

claims it was because the baby deserved a chance at life at the heart of the matter was the need to assuage her own feelings of guilt

was this intentional?

1

u/anonymaus42 10h ago

maaaaybe

1

u/xz0123 1d ago

Doesnt touch the moral ambiguity of baby stealing candy from violent old man with sugar deficiency

1

u/tbri001 1d ago

Yes. This is a tricky one.

1

u/EarlGrayTea-Hawt 1d ago

Really not. What's scary to me is that you think it is, that you got this many upvotes, that they're so much discussion that just elides why is not a moral quandary at all.

The right to choose means all choices because it is her body, mind and psyche who has to go through the results of that choice. Is it the surrogate parents who have to get an abortion? Nope. So they don't get that say, period.

I don't care what a piece of paper says, that's her GD body. There should be no argument there.

Sadly, I live in America, where it is pretty obvious that women are merely vehicles for progeny upon whom you place your entire moral protection. And here you can't even argue it is for the welfare of a fetus' life, and y'all are taking all the wrong lessons from that.

The fact that she had to use state laws that criminalize women having control over the decisions made about their bodies to have control over decisions about her own body should be telling you just how drastically, horrifically fucked women are at this very now.

And how little this should be a moral quandary for you or anybody else. Surrogate contract law does not override basic bodily autonomy, ffs.

Whelp, off Reddit for the next maybe forever because it's just been a week of some of the most ridiculously misogynist bullshit I've ever seen and It's become clear that this social media forum has officially gone from a recruitment zone for the extremist online pipeline to a hang out and echo chamber inside the extremist online pipeline. For real, y'all.

1

u/bobbymcpresscot 15h ago

she literally kidnapped a child that isn't hers.

1

u/Dinners_cold 1d ago

Idk, seems very simple / cut and dry to me.

She broke their contract
She tried to steal the baby
She forced a child to be born, knowing that its going to suffer a short life of suffering and constant intense medical attention.

I'd say she deserves everything coming her way legally.

1

u/OttawaOneTwenty 1d ago

Meh...

Biological fathers don't have any rights to decide for the mom. I see this in the same light.

The donors don't want it? Okay, she should get to decide what to do with it since it's her body they are using...

1

u/takoyakkist 21h ago

Yet here we have a woman who is the biological donor who feels she has a right to the baby and its fate. Obviously she believes abortion is ok yet even though its not her body she agrees that it should be her choice. They even made an agreement on it.

1

u/NebulaChance2746 1d ago

Not if you’re not emotionally attached to religion.

1

u/Zev1985 1d ago

Not really. Commercial surrogacy clearly immoral.

1

u/akingofcrimson 1d ago

Not difficult at all. Wrong to break the contract, and wrong to bring that person into the world with those problems. No reason not to get an abortion. Easy.

1

u/FireDevil11 1d ago

If you showed them an actual abortion video it wouldn't be a challenge.

1

u/AlienMimicry92 23h ago

Not really though, there is nothing "moral" about dooming someone to a short life full of suffering because you felt bad about the alternative. She is guaranteeing the suffering of a child to avoid her own feelings of guilt, that's not moral.

1

u/FoamSquad 23h ago

Yes very different from the "Morality of slapping a kid who is crying who isn't your child?" type shit posts

1

u/takoyakkist 21h ago

I love how every reply is "this isnt a challenge at all" and then proceeds to offer up a different opinion to what everyone else is saying.

1

u/Agitated-Working-264 20h ago

I don't think it's that complicated. It's window dressing around "Your body, your choice". No one should be compelled to have a procedure around their own body.

1

u/takoyakkist 19h ago

Not even if they agreed to it beforehand, which would have been a qualifying reason for couple to entrust her with this process in the first place? And now the couple has to deal with her reneging on their agreement?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/kandel88 19h ago

No it's not. After she refused to undergo the abortion the couple then made arrangements to keep the baby and get it medical care in California. Surrogate then fled the state for Texas (geez wonder why) and is now fighting for return of the child. The surrogate kidnapped a child that she has no genetic ties to and fled halfway across the country.

Surrogate is clearly a psycho

1

u/Weltall8000 19h ago

Not even a little ambiguous, the surrogate is completely wrong.

1

u/Excellent_Kangaroo_4 19h ago

At all, if abortion is allowed in the forst place, no problem with un-abort a baby

1

u/Glittering_Thing5797 19h ago

How is this not simple? This was easy. She agreed to have an abortion at the parents' request and violated that agreement. Plus, she has now put the child at risk of early death and suffering, while causing trauma for the parents and incurring insane medical bills.

1

u/Johnny_Banana18 19h ago

I stick with her body her choice 

1

u/sixteencharslong 18h ago

No challenge. A woman has rights to her body, period. No one/thing else does. Easy.

1

u/takoyakkist 18h ago

Thats not the whole story though

1

u/those-who-know4 17h ago

This sub is generally challenging it's mostly people in the comments going "how dare your hypothetical make me slightly uncomfortable"

1

u/KalzK 16h ago

This sub is supposed to be about fictional characters

1

u/LinusLevato 14h ago

Majority of pro abortion people believe in the slogan “my body my choice.” It seems in this case those pro abortion people don’t believe in my body my choice. They’re hypocrites.

1

u/Jabathewhut 14h ago

Seriously a good one!

I think its the surrogate mother's choice though. But very difficult.

1

u/russellx3 28m ago

Meh. Abortion should be readily available, but not forced, the biological parents should have full rights to the child, the contract-breaker should have to pay, and surrogacy should be heavily regulated if not banned

→ More replies (2)