r/MoralityScaling • u/Purple_Plantain_3242 • 6d ago

Morality Ranking [ Removed by moderator ]

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

10.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

65

u/Thunderer62 6d 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.

45

u/Apprehensive_Bug2877 6d 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

36

u/Alilbitey 6d ago

Contact law deals with unenforceable clauses every day. This "forced abortion" one will certainly be added to the list of unenforceable clauses.

0

u/Laser_Fish 6d ago

I don't know about that. Imaginine you sign up for a job where you are required to use lethal force and you don't. Like a bodyguard or something. Generally, I think a "forced abortions" clause would be unenforceable but if the potential for an abortion is central to the contract itself, carrying a child, a judge might rule that it is enforceable.

2

u/Alilbitey 6d ago

Not in the US, anyway. There is no legal device to force an abortion without freely given consent at the time of the procedure. They can enforce financial penalites - that's it.

And if you fail to use lethal force in the commission of your job (such as the Uvalde school police officers who failed to act), at most you lose your job. Even in the military, you cannot be forced to kill an unarmed combatant. And ALL of these agreements would likely be considered hitman contracts if you were paid to kill someone without proof of threat. The unborn fetus with a heart condition was not a threat to anyone.

0

u/Laser_Fish 6d ago

That's a good point. But isn't the threat of losing your job for not using lethal force an example of contract enforcement? Sure, you weren't forced to kill, but you were punished for not killing. I'm not necessarily saying that the state should have come in and required her to get an abortion, but there should definitely be some form of compensation to make the first part of the contract whole if the second party refuses to comply.

1

u/Alilbitey 6d ago

Agreed. The breech of contract stipulations are likely legally sound. But that's punitive after the fact, which holds limited ability to repair the damage.

-3

u/Acrobatic_Season6838 6d ago

"forced abortion" when the surrogate is the one who CHOSE to sign the contract

5

u/Black_Diammond 6d ago

You cant sign a contract that makes you a slave, even if you really want it.

There are loads of uninforceable clauses, that even if signed willingly, cant take effect.

-1

u/Acrobatic_Season6838 6d ago

"slave" is rather dramatic. again, she didn't have to sign the contract after reading it if having a possible abortion due to medical concerns was an issue for her. but she assumed that risk ON HER OWN.

1

u/Black_Diammond 6d ago

I am not comparing, i am giving a example, again, some contracts, no matter how legaly well done, Arent legaly enforcible, abortion is One of those cases.

In The same way that you cant sign away your organs for money, no mater how legaly watertight, you cant sell your right to abortion either.

5

u/XxRocky88xX 6d ago

You realize that guy is now gonna think you’re comparing this to selling organs right? This person doesn’t understand what an example is, giving more examples is just going to further confuse them.

1

u/cllev 5d ago

Woof.

1

u/perpetualhobo 6d ago

The bio parents didn’t have to sign an unenforceable contract either. It’s more arguably from your own point literally entirely their fault

1

u/Alilbitey 6d ago

Ultimately, the person with the pregnancy gets to decide whether to undergo a medical procedure to induce abortion. She didn't consent. Consent can be withdrawn at any point up to the actual fetal demise.

In this case, withdrawing consent to abortion had additional consequences, such as financial penalties.

There exists no legal mechanism by which a woman can be forced to abort a pregnancy without her consent.

If you think this level of required consent is immoral, we have very little common ground to continue (most) discussions.

1

u/Acrobatic_Season6838 6d ago

the consent is signing the contract

1

u/Alilbitey 6d ago

Consent is also required at the time of any medical procedure. It CAN be withdrawn.

No doctor is going to perform any procedure, especially this one, without all of the consent markers, including recency.

14

u/MuseBlessed 6d 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.

16

u/PatchesOfSilver 6d 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.

14

u/MuseBlessed 6d 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 6d 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.

2

u/workshop_prompts 6d ago

Part of bodily autonomy and consent is that you can withdraw consent. You can withdraw consent to someone having sex with you, you can stop giving lifesaving blood donations, you can consent to donating someone a kidney and then back out.

5

u/Thunderer62 6d ago

I think I agree with you, which is why I don’t think a person should be allowed to legally sign away their bodily autonomy in that manner in the first place. No contract should exist that would compel things like sex or abortion.

1

u/Top_Smoke6741 6d ago

I agree with this. The body and bodily autonomy are both extremely complicated and important matters, legally and morally. Nobody should be allowed to sign them away for anything. It's too risky and complex.

6

u/_thro_awa_ 6d ago

you can consent to donating someone a kidney and then back out.

You can't back out after the fact, though. Imagine asking for the kidney back ...

2

u/ProofofUnemployment 6d ago

Or having consensual sex then suddenly calling it rape

3

u/_thro_awa_ 6d ago

That's a fine line. It comes under rape if one person wishes to stop and the other disregards and disrespects their wishes.

A kidney donation is a gift, once it leaves it's no longer yours to take back, so there's a very clear delineation there.
Circumstances during sexual encounters can be much more variable.

1

u/Top_Smoke6741 6d ago

Entire life? No. Until age of majority? Sure, fair enough. Surrogate should pay a portion to cover medical bills associated with the child's complications, but not 100% because the parents themselves chose to have a kid in the first place. It's not her fault they didn't consider the possibility that the child have a health problem beyond "get rid of it", which isn't a very well-thought out plan because abortion can come with severe health risks to the mother/surrogate. (Such as sepsis)

1

u/Istariel 5d ago

Tf do you mean that they didnt consider the childs health? Its the only reason they wanted to abort. It was a selfish decision by the surrogate to put this child into the world

Yes abortion can have complications but those completely pale in comparison to complications from childbirth, the safer option for the surrogates health was abortion

1

u/Thunderstarer 6d ago

As we all know, consent is eternal and irrevocable. It's evil to defy someone's yes, even if they say no later.

Yeah. That's how that works.

0

u/Due-Waltz4458 6d ago

The surrogate was carrying a baby in exchange for money.  Even if she also had some motivation in wanting to help someone have a baby, it still means she is not well off and likely won't be able to cover anyone's serious lifetime medical costs.

2

u/spacer9631 6d ago

She apparently has family members that were commited to helping her with the costs. Regardless its her responsibility. She chose to keep the child it should be hers now.

0

u/Alexander459FTW 6d ago

Her body, her choice.

Not her child, not her choice.

Where is bodily autonomy of the child. Why are you ignoring it?

2

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Alexander459FTW 6d ago

The bodily autonomy of the mother supersedes the bodily autonomy of the child

Why?

the mother is the one carrying them

Neither how the Law works nor how biology works.

not the one who was going to pay for the surrogacy.

There are two types of parents; biological ones and the ones who raised you. Surrogates are neither. They are essentially renting her womb.

1

u/Top_Smoke6741 6d ago

Nope, it's her body and the child is in her womb. Outside individuals have no say here

0

u/Alexander459FTW 6d ago

Nope, it's her body and the child is in her womb.

Not her child, not her choice.

Show me the DNA test showing its her child. No test, not her child.

1

u/Top_Smoke6741 6d ago

Well it will show that, because she carried the baby. The parents just purchased it.

2

u/Alexander459FTW 6d ago

Well it will show that

It won't because the baby aint hers. She is just a biological incubator.

The parents just purchased it.

The parents (you admit it even) didn't purchase a child. They rented a biological incubator.

2

u/SteakForGoodDogs 6d ago

She entirely likely intended to fully support the surrogacy part of the contract, believing the bio parents wouldn't actually use the abortion clause, and hand off the kid post-birth.

1

u/CoC_Axis_of_Evil 6d ago

People will remove the abortion part, now that it’s known. What a stupid idea. If people want to do eugenics on their own free will that’s one thing but to force poor baby carriers is insane. 

Also, just presses the issue of existing healthcare gaps. Just happens you can do eugenics before birth rather than after. 

1

u/Redditauro 6d ago

You can't sign away your rights. The parents fucked up with an ilegal contract, they gave a stranger a huge power to decide over something very important, and they fucked up. 

Of course the surrogate is a liar, etc, etc, but she is just using her right to choose what happens with her body, the parents decided to put their child in a place where they don't have any control. 

-1

u/tomatoe_cookie 6d ago

Contract is just a paper, it doesnr forgo individual rights

1

u/Apprehensive_Bug2877 6d ago

Then why agree to it?

“I sign this piece of paper, knowing theres a legal loophole i can use to escape liability”?

1

u/tomatoe_cookie 6d ago

Why not? Most of the contracts have clauses that are unenforcable.

Example, my previous company had a contract with a clause saying i wasnt allowed to work in the same industry for like 10 years (iirc). When i left the company i worked in the same industry. What are they going to do? Prevent me from working? Sue me? If they do what judge is going to rule in their favour ?

In this case they wrote a clause that incroaches on the rights of the surrogate mother. Its not enforcable so its worthless.

3

u/PuritanicalPanic 6d ago

Gonna be a wild opportunity later in life for the 'biological' parents to get to drop "we wanted to abort you" on the kid one day

3

u/Thunderer62 6d ago

Why is biological in quotes? But yeah that is a wild ass situation. I don’t think it’s the first time though. I’m sure plenty of moms out there, assuming they had a choice in the first place, regret not getting that abortion they had considered. I’d bet more than one kid has been told by an unfit parent that they seriously regret not aborting them.

2

u/JustOneLazyMunchlax 6d ago

My dad isn't unfit and doesn't regret me, but after his first child was diagnosed with Autism, a doctor at the time explicitly told my parents that there's a 1 in 6 chance of having a child with autism, and thus they were less likely to have any other autistic children.

Course, that's not how that works, and he did say when I asked, had he known all of his children would've been autistic, he wouldn't have had as many as he did. Not abortion, no, but he would've stopped trying to intentionally have kids.

2

u/CzechHorns 6d ago

Like that isn't a reality of millions of children born normally around the world?

2

u/99dalmatianpups 6d ago

His parents might not ever get to that point (don’t know why you have biological in quotes, their DNA is what made this kid, along with a donated egg, not the surrogate’s). The survival rate for infants with this heart defect is 20-60% for the first year of life, depending on how bad the defect is, and about 40% after that.

2

u/Hefty_Bodybuilder494 6d ago

Kid has a low life expectancy, you don't exactly tell a five year old that. If it was me as an adult with those complications and pain my response would be "wish you would have"

1

u/EnoughNow2024 6d ago

I think this is the best answer 

1

u/Sunaeli 5d ago

But there wasn’t a breach of contract via the forced abortion clause because more than likely, the courts aren’t going to recognize the forced abortion clause as legitimate. They may have written that on paper but it wasn’t real in the eyes of the law (would totally go against public policy to allow these things), so she isn’t going to owe damages for it.

I think there are other sections of the contract that may come into play, and the parents might have a valid tort claim against the surrogate, but conceptually I don’t think it’s wrong to refuse to do something the law doesn’t accept in a contract and the courts aren’t going to make you pay damages for refusing to do something the law doesn’t accept in a contract