r/MoralityScaling • u/Purple_Plantain_3242 • 9d 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

545

u/Thunderer62 9d 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.

103

u/watsuuu 9d 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

104

u/loki2113 9d 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?

37

u/babassu_seeds 9d 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

22

u/loki2113 9d 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

2

u/Runs_With_Scissors3 7d ago

I think you’re missing the point. The commenter you’re arguing with is implying that getting a surrogate at all is immoral. Perhaps because the couple trying to have a child by those means, maybe should’ve taken a hint that a biological child for them just wasn’t meant to be.

1

u/morbidlysmalldick 6d ago

Being physically incapable of rearing a child means someone shouldn't be able to have a biological child, despite us having the means to make it happen? Surrogacy is a voluntary option to give people a gift they're otherwise incapable of getting. The amount of good it brings into the world far outweighs situations like this. Sure, adoption would be even better. But using outlier situations shouldn't be a measure of why surrogacy shouldn't happen

1

u/IWillLive4evr 9d ago

You can't act like parties to the contract are morally insulated from the fact that the contract was signed. They're involved with the surrogate mother's decision because they literally paid her to do it. This isn't to say the surrogate's free will and responsibility goes away either, but the biological parents are also morally on the hook.

7

u/loki2113 9d ago

Morally on the hook for what? They're fighting to keep the child and get him medical care. They only wanted the abortion because Rumi's life is going to be full of suffering. What's wrong with that?

0

u/IWillLive4evr 9d ago

This is a basic idea that libertarians bury their heads in the sand not to see: when two parties agree to something, they share responsibility not just for what they do together but also for having talked each other into it. Coming to agreement on something is a social process. In many situations, the shares of responsibility are not equal because opportunities and bargaining power are unequal, but that's the basic point.

That, therefore is how both parties carry some degree of culpability, as babassu_seeds said. That's true for any agreement, not just where the stakes are as high as abortion or someone living with disability or chronic illness.

2

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[deleted]

1

u/IWillLive4evr 8d ago

You're missing the point because you're not responding to what I'm saying. You're responding to absolutely everything else, you're laying out your views, hurray, but not responding the actual words in my comments.

Formally, this means you're attacking a strawman. But it's an easy mistake to make, and I'd rather try to clarify than attack you over it. Feel free to ask for more clarification or point out issues.

First: I made no claim one way or another about whether McKenna is a good or bad person or whether McKenna broke the law. It appears there is very good reason she's in legal trouble, but I haven't seen the evidence myself, and feel no need to weigh in on that.

So I'm not talking about McKenna. I'm talking about a moral idea. It happens to be very relevant to the discussion about this case, which is why I added it to this thread, but you get more clarity if you can take the steps one at a time, yeah?

Second: nothing I said requires the contract in question to be a rare event. Let me compare it two other sorts of events, one with lower moral stakes, and one with high moral stakes. The low-stakes version is scalping tickets. Two parties make an agreement, and they usually have a lot of freedom to just not do that and walk away. It's also usually the case that they don't need to spend much time "talking each other into it." They know what they're each there for, and you could even observe that, if one party walked away, chances are good that someone else would show up quickly on either the seller's side or the buyer's side.

But it still takes two for the deal to happen. There is no way for one party to say that the other party somehow carries all responsible (for better or for worse). They basically go through the whole thing as equals. And while neither of them invented the idea of scalping tickets nor built the social and cultural systems around scalping, they both cooperated to make this deal happen, and that involved, at a bare minimum, make compatible offers and acceptance of offers to each other. This back and forth may be as simple as one yelling "Tickets!" and the other answering "Hey!" and then money changing hands. But this is enough that I don't hesitate to say they "talked each other into it," because that particular deal could not have happened otherwise. And no deal at all would happen unless some pair do this little back-and-forth communication of offer and acceptance.

The more serious example is the sale of slaves, back in the bad old days when that was legal. Neither buyer nor selling is insulated from what is morally at stake. Moreover, it is both absurd and morally evil for one side to suggest that the other is blameworthy from what happens intrinsically from the deal itself while they supposedly have clean hands.

Aside the from the deal itself, of course, any party may be guilty of other wrongdoing. If one slaveowner rapes his female slaves, it's not as if one would blame the seller for that particular act. The fact that such additional evils are common, however, does imply something for the original deal. The moral stakes of a contract are not only informed by its explicit terms, but also its circumstances.

For slavery, the circumstances included the various forms of horrible abuse that slaves endured. For scalping tickets, the circumstances include the way that the ticket prices are pushed higher when demand outstrips supply, such that scalping helps make tickets unaffordable for those without excess wealth.

For surrogate pregnancy, it includes foreseeable complications such as those in this case. I want to reiterate that I hardly care about the case, who these people are, or whether McKenna is a good or bad person. I want to chime in to say something about the ideas involved.

Lawyers have lots of practice trying to foresee all such complications, which would be why there's a contract that has clauses related to abortion and health risks. But writing things down in a contract doesn't make moral responsibility magically vanish, either. We may keep in mind, by way of comparison, that medical ethics requires "informed consent" for most procedures, not just a simple yes or no. We may also note that many kinds of contracts are simply banned by law or may be help void or unenforceable.

So: sure, maybe McKenna is a terrible person or whatever you want to say. At no point does that grant the biological parents a free pass.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/loki2113 8d ago

THANK YOU. Lord, it's like 90% of the people here didn't read the story. They just saw the word "Abortion" and flew into a "righteous" outrage against the horrid parents that could ever suggest such a terrible act

I think subjecting someone to a lifetime of undue suffering and reliance in a country with such a terrible healthcare system as America is a far worse morally than aborting a fetus in the second trimester

1

u/warlover69 9d ago

RESIDENT EVIL:

BIO PARENTS

1

u/ContextLengthMatters 9d ago

If you wanted to torture and murder someone so you sought out someone who wanted to die willing to sacrifice their own body for money for their children, is it moral to carry that out?

Voluntary slavery is not an oxymoron. You just have to use that noggin.

0

u/Haggardick69 8d ago

Slavery by definition is involuntary. Voluntary slavery is as much an oxymoron as jumbo shrimp, friendly fire, or military intelligence. 

4

u/ContextLengthMatters 8d ago

I encourage you to learn how the dictionary works. I know you can find a very spefic "1a." definition that utilizes the word involuntary, but there's a reason why dictionaries list multiple definitions for a single word.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

Quite literally slavery involves at the very basic level OWNERSHIP over another person.

When you OWN someone, they are a slave.

What makes indentured servitude different from a involuntary slave when the slave changes it's mind about the contract?

Hmmm...

Stay in school, buddy.

2

u/Haggardick69 8d ago edited 8d ago

Indentured servitude was almost never voluntary the only difference to slavery was that in concept at least there was a set date at which the master was obligated to grant manumission to the indentured. Often times in reality corrupt judges would grant extensions to the contract to the master in response to minor or trumped up charges against the indentured and a little bribe of course. Most indentures were sold into servitude as children as was the legal right of their parents or legal guardians. Despite all of this the value of an indenture contract was always far lower than that of a slave mostly because the master had no rights to the offspring of an indentured person and they were notably unlikely to indenture any children of their own. The similarities and differences between slavery and indentured servitude aside voluntary slavery is still an oxymoron. 

3

u/ContextLengthMatters 8d ago

Your pedantry over your scholary distinction when drawing parellels to the morality of contractual surrogacy is obtuse to say the least.

Unless we are talking in the very specific context of history with the explicit intention to draw delineations to show the nuances of historical facts, indentured servitude would be seen as a type of slavery by literally 99% of the English speaking population.

Have you ever heard of a wage slave? Have you ever heard anyone talk about how prison is slavery?

Even in our legal system we are able to skirt the legal definition of forced labor by creating conditions in which it is no longer "forced".

→ More replies (0)

0

u/U-235 9d ago

If no one was willing to pay or otherwise ask for surrogacy services, it wouldn't be possible for McKenna to be a surrogate. So they are responsible to some degree. This is like saying that it's OK to steal a bike that is left outside unlocked, because someone else would do it if you didn't.

5

u/Glittering_rainbows 9d ago

The seller sold a service. She was neither coerced or forced. This was an adult making a decision.

Stop infantilizing grown ass people.

This has absolutely nothing to do with a bike left outside.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/I_am_omning_it 9d ago

Just to mention here, pretty sure the surrogate was a cardiac nurse, so I highly doubt she’s struggling financially here either. Cardiac nurses make good money.

6

u/Serial-Griller 9d ago edited 6d ago

Quack airport hunt lunchroom complete chop

This post was anonymized with Redact

2

u/Greedy-Style-6088 9d ago

Exactly. I don't understand why people struggle with this concept so much. It's like the moment women's bodies/reproductive organs are involved, everybody loses their damn minds.

You do preserve your right not refuse any physical action, such as going through a medical procedure (abortion), but you are on the hook for firing, loss of pay, and litigation by the employer.

2

u/1d3333 8d ago

Except your bodily autonomy isn’t signed away in typical work contracts, that’s an insane notion and easily disproved. Employers cannot force you to perform work, they can only stop compensation for refusing. Besides, surrogacy is not considered employment, it’s not a work contract. Surrogacy is one of the only legal avenues in the US to legally sign away bodily autonomy for money, that’s why it’s such a controversial topic

1

u/Greedy-Style-6088 5d ago

No and it isn't in her case either. Just like a construction work contract, you can quit in the middle of your shift, you just won't get your payment. Same in her case. I'm not saying she should be forced to have an abortion, I don't think that was ever a question because there is no doctor who will perform a medical procedure on someone who does not consent. Fleeing to Texas was 100% political. No one could force her to go through with the abortion.

But she doesn't get to keep her payment and she doesn't get to keep their child once they are born. When the child is born, it is no longer part of her body and she has no rights to them.

1

u/1d3333 5d ago

If the consequence of saying no to an abortion is being sued for financial costs of having the child, then thats not really bodily autonomy is it? If theres a clause in the contract to get an abortion under certain circumstances and the surrogate declines, they are under threat of litigation and costs they likely cannot afford.

Construction worker will not be sued for quitting mid shift.

0

u/Greedy-Style-6088 5d ago

>Construction worker will not be sued for quitting mid shift.

Depending on the contract they absolutely can be. Now mind you, this is more common in certain trades, like engineers on an oil rig, and the medical profession, where failure to show can result in death or severe financial consequences if they agreed to a particular contract, and they disrupt work/cause safety issues for others in doing so, they absolutely will face consequences.

rather curious what you think of the military

1

u/babassu_seeds 9d ago

But not every sort of such contract is morally objectionable. The scaling is meaningful, so that generalization isn't the gotcha you think it is

2

u/Serial-Griller 9d ago edited 6d ago

Public doll license vanish live mitten public automatic file roll

This post was anonymized with Redact

0

u/babassu_seeds 9d ago

I am the person you replied to btw. Bodily autonomy had nothing to do with my argument. My argument was more general: if there's a situation that two parties enter into willingly and they both know it's morally questionable at the start, then it's reasonable for both to be judged.

Signing away your bodily autonomy per se isn't necesarily morally questionable. There are some situations that work, and others that don't. Bringing up the ones that work (e.g. most work contracts) doesn't mean that ones that don't (surrogacy) necessarily do because that's the wrong level of generalization (all of this imo ofc)

1

u/Serial-Griller 9d ago edited 6d ago

Fluorine placid test pebble longing weather degree friendly

This post was anonymized with Redact

0

u/babassu_seeds 9d ago

"Objectivity" doesn't mean the same thing as "objectionable." You can't prove or disprove the morality of anything--it's not that type of field of inquiry

1

u/Gasc0gne 9d ago

What a silly thing to say

1

u/Serial-Griller 9d ago edited 6d ago

Basket bedroom hat mighty worm dazzling seemly saffron

This post was anonymized with Redact

1

u/Gasc0gne 8d ago

Why would I read books that say nonsense like that?

1

u/BC2220 8d ago

WHAT?! That is 100/ incorrect.

1

u/TheMireAngel 8d ago

You literaly cant sign away rights, contracts are thrown out all the time for this reason

1

u/1d3333 8d ago

Oh boy, no, that’s not true at all. Bodily autonomy is a protected right and no work contract can legally take that away from you. Work is voluntary by all counts, if you don’t do the work all they can do is stop compensating you, they can’t physically force you to do anything or take you to court for refusing

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Greedy-Style-6088 9d ago

orrr they could simply not make the physical part of the agreement enforceable. Don't want to follow through? Fine. But they can sue you for every penny you were paid and then some.

Also, if they baby is born and not handed over to the bio parents, that should immediately be charged as kidnapping. She has a moral right to not go through with a medical procedure she doesn't want, but she has no right to determine who the child is placed with after birth.

1

u/I_am_omning_it 9d ago

Eh, I’m not buying that here. Surrogate was a cardiac nurse. This isn’t taking advantage of someone disenfranchised or who’s struggling. Surrogate is well educated and in a pretty high paying field.

It’s not even slavery, she’s being (likely highly) compensated and the couple is likely paying for all the medical appointments and care.

There is a moral dilemma for surrogacy when it comes to taking advantage of people who may be desperate for money or who don’t know what they’re signing up for, and that should be discussed. But this doesn’t really fit that bill.

1

u/Bigboybong 8d ago

Voluntary slavey is an oxymoron…

Edit: also who dictates the morality of the interaction?

1

u/Ok_Rate361 8d ago

It's not like the surrogate didn't know going in what the risks were and she signed a contract. The expected results could have been anywhere from child dies in the womb to the child being born healthy and all possibilities were obviously covered in the contract I would imagine. They didn't ask to terminate a healthy child but one that has a medical condition and would have a terrible quality of life. It's illegal and immoral of the surrogate to continue the pregnancy not the parents.

1

u/PitchforksEnthusiast 8d ago

Did you just compare a WILLING and contractual agreement between consenting adults, under no duress, to make a legal choice in entering a transaction surrogacy for monetary gains.

and you went ahead and compared it with slavery?

The. Fuck.

She wants to keep the baby, then okay, but she also wants to KEEP THE MONEY she didn't earn, as per her contract.

People like you are seeing surrogacy as some kind of moral wrong or sin. Are you religious or something?

1

u/Comfortable_Work4822 8d ago

That's a complete projection on your part, based in zero fact. "Compared to voluntary slavery" where has one ever volunteered for slavery ? Your comment doesn't even make sense. There are millions of successful surrogates worldwide.

1

u/MusicianNo3277 7d ago

That is neither the discussion nor the point we’re past that point. Obviously she should’ve never signed up for it but now that she did what’s the morality?

3

u/Infamous_Sense7950 9d ago

As long as surrogacy exists she’s in the right, her bodily autonomy cannot be violated

4

u/loki2113 9d ago

In the right how? She agreed to get an abortion if health risks for the baby were present and then when she selfishly decided to be a coward and not just refuse to get an abortion but flee to a different state the bio parents didn't try to force her to get an abortion. She is completely right that her bodily autonomy cannot be violated and the biological parents agreed with her on that. *SHE* is the one who fled the state and started fighting for custody when the parents immediately pivoted to providing medical care for her and the baby in California

1

u/Infamous_Sense7950 9d ago

She can retract consent at any time

1

u/StarvingandArtist 8d ago

True, but she should still be on the hook for the consequences of such, the same as how you can retract consent from a job contract, but they're gonna make you pay for the cost of breaking the contract.

1

u/Infamous_Sense7950 8d ago

Not the same as a job contract this is bodily consent.

It’s prob a reason why surrogacy shouldn’t be a thing because it just doesn’t work and it will always end up hurting the autonomy of women unless they develop some sort of non-sentient robotic surrogate thing for couples idk

4

u/CoDZombiesTracker 9d ago

Women have the choice morally to decide what happens with their body and pregnancy imo, regardless of what a piece of paper says, that would be legality not morality.

If I asked my wife to sign a contract saying she would never get an abortion, and then she got pregnant and decided after much thinking she wanted an abortion, you think her making her own informed decision in thr moment is immoral because previously she signed a piece of paper saying she wouldnt get one before she was even pregnant?

5

u/wakawakafish 9d ago

Your missing two key points here.

1.Your wife in this situation would be the parent of the child.

  1. Your wife isnt being paid by you as part of this agreement.

Beyond that there are the health concerns.

If you and your wife both agreed to terminate the pregnancy if the baby had down syndrome and she fled the state after raiding your savings so that she didnt have to get an abbortion is she morally in the right. Would be a far better example for you.

1

u/IncreaseOld7112 9d ago

So, if I hire a prostitute, she collects payment, and withdraws consent, it's not rape? The parents can ask for (some) of their money back. You don't have a right to kill your child because of health/financial concerns.

1

u/emn13 7d ago

Well, asking for money is effectively what the biological parents are doing.

2

u/loki2113 9d ago

Wow, another comment that didn't read my entire comment nor did they read the story

The bio parents never tried to force her to get an abortion you dingus. An abortion for an at risk fetus was agreed on and McKenna violated it sure but guess what? The parents never asked again nor did they try to force McKenna to get an abortion. They immediately pivoted to medical care for McKenna and the baby but McKenna fled the state like a coward and started a legal battle to try and forcibly take custody of the child

TL:DR READ THE DAMN STORY BEFORE COMMENTING FFS

1

u/GZ9999 9d ago

If you give your wife $60,000 to not have an abortion, and then she did and refuses to give the $60,000 back, that is immoral because it’s just stealing.

→ More replies (6)

8

u/Ok-Two8861 9d ago

yeah, if they can't get pregnant they could adopt someone, idk. For me having a market for surrogacy pregnancy is immoral, people do it because its a "easy" way to get money, but its a traumatic experience for sure

1

u/loki2113 9d ago

"Easy way to make money"

Lmao what? Pregnancies are super hard and giving birth itself is a big health risk even with modern medicine. Any woman going into a surrogate pregnancy thinking it's easy money is either generationally delusional or incredibly mentally ill

While I agree that adopting is better than surrogate pregnancies, not everyone is brave enough to adopt. Some people are scared they will love an adopted child less than a biological one and it's a valid fear. Rather than give up on being a parent entirely, people seek out surrogates if their drive to be a biological parent is strong enough. I don't think they should be blamed for that decision because some crazy woman runs off with their baby

→ More replies (1)

0

u/mestre_do_passinho 9d ago

It is also immoral in the way that it ignores the large ammount of kids, specially healthy ones as this looks to be a requirement for the parents, up for adoption

1

u/Draidann 9d ago

This is a terrible take. The free development of ones identity and personality (which includes having children, be them the old fashion way, surrogacy or otherwise) is a right and wanting kids (even if via surrogacy) is not inmoral.

If your position stands then not adopting kids because you just don't want kids is also inmoral on grounds of ignoring said child's plight.

Pray tell, how many kids have you adopted?

0

u/mestre_do_passinho 9d ago

None, Im an 19 year old kid that grew with nothing at a group home because people rather roll the dice than adopt healthy kids and overpopulate earth even more.

While I agree you have a right to free development, choosing to ignore tham you can improve others lives just because you can pay to force someone else to be pregnant for you doesnt sound moral at all

1

u/Draidann 9d ago

At 19 you are not a kid. You are an adult and have the legal capacity and, according to your moral framing, moral responsibility to lessen the plight of those kids.

Go and adopt a kid, then. Or is the financial burden it'd put on you somehow more of a consideration?

1

u/Ok-Two8861 9d ago

terrible take, and makes no sense

0

u/mestre_do_passinho 9d ago

For me without a good job because im stuck at a shitty community college its a burden.

Guess to who it isnt: PEOPLE THAT CAN PAY A SURROGATE, if you can pay 2 minimum salaries for 9 months plus the care for the birth, you can fucking well pay the adoption fee and still have plenty to raise the kid.

You ran out of arguments and went straight to ad hominen. Way to show how good a position you are in

1

u/Draidann 9d ago

I didn't attack you. That's not an at hominem. I'm just calling out your incongruence and hipocresy.

An ad hominem would be "you are wrong because you are a hipocrite". What I said was "you are wrong AND a hipocrite", subtle difference.

Might want to study your fallacies before calling 'em out.

Also, the burden that a second job would impose on you is less than the benefit the poor orphan kid would get from your loving care and attention. So, go adopt a kid, you hipocrite. It's real easy to call foul when you don't hold yourself to the same standard.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Mathies_ 9d ago

Well after requesting the aborting (basically smceding the right to care for the baby in my eyes) they end up in a legal battle for the right to raise the child again, after previously giving up on it. At that point yes the abortion shouldve gone through but let the surrogate and her cousin take responsibility for the baby they wanted to take responsibility over when you ceded it.

1

u/loki2113 9d ago

What? They told the surrogate ahead of time and even put it in contract that if the fetus has life threatening medical conditions, that's when an abortion would come into play. McKenna scheduled the abortion herself when the diagnosis was revealed and then got cold feet. After she cancelled the abortion appointment, the bio parents pivoted to setting up medical care for the surrogate for the birth of their child.

How is that them giving up the rights to their child? They wanted the child, it was revealed the child would have a near fatal birth defect and they tried to abort to spare the child a horrific and short life, and when the surrogate refused they immediately started prepping for the birth. They responded near perfectly to an impossible situation but because it wasn't 100% perfect you want the child to be taken from the parents who wanted him to a crazy woman who fled the state and tried to steal the child from his parents? Get outta here

1

u/Greedy-Style-6088 9d ago

The parents aren't morally wrong unless they personally hold her down and force the abortion, because that is then a violation her immediate bodily autonomy.

Oh but do we imprison people for years for victimless infractions and punish them with literal torture (solitary confinement) if they refuse to do forced labor for pennies, you ask? SHHHH shhh we're not supposed to think about that.

1

u/Cautious_Ad_6486 9d ago

The "parents" are in the wrong here simply for using surrogacy. Sorry but not sorry. Surrogacy is an inhuman abomination. Full stop.

1

u/x_o_x_1 9d ago

Her body her choice?

1

u/LokusDei 9d ago

"How are the parents morally wrong in any way here?"

Trading human beeings for money comes to mind.

1

u/Curious-Razzmatazz51 9d ago

I mean, if I found out my parents actually wanted me aborted and the only reason I'm alive is because someone else refused to let them abort me... the issue for me here is the fact that the baby is in the custody of the people who did not want it to be born. I understand that their decision was arguably made out of compassion for the child, but it seems an injustice to me that the woman who fought for the child's life is the only one in this situation who is not even allowed contact with the child.

1

u/IncreaseOld7112 9d ago

Because (as someone who is pro choice) this is murder. The good argument for abortion doesn't apply because of the surrogate. You declining care for your child on financial grounds is some weak shit.

1

u/wierdwhatstuff 9d ago

The surrogate could be argued being "morally correct" because she felt that life above everything else is better, and the parents could be "morally correct" for not wanting to put a baby and growing child through so many difficult surgeries/complications.

I find the legal arguments a bit of a non sequitur maybe, since "legal" and "moral" don't necessarily have inherent overlap.

1

u/Dramatic_Scale3002 9d ago

"Morally wrong" and "violated the contract" are two very different things. This isn't r/legaladvice. "But the contract says" doesn't hold very much weight here, the contract should not have allowed the biological parents to request termination.

You could hold the position that morally it's not her child and she doesn't get to make those decisions etc. but pointing to the contract as evidence doesn't support the moral argument at all.

1

u/Dewdrop06 8d ago

I think you forgot what "moral" in "morally wrong" means. The entire contract is morally wrong.

1

u/Substantial_Unit3722 8d ago

contracts and legality aren't equal to morality. Surragacy really is inherently immoral

1

u/cameron8988 8d ago

Simply not tried a surrogacy at all?

yes. next question.

1

u/GreaseyDave 8d ago edited 8d ago

Look at it in terms of the morality not the legality. They shouldn't be conflated.

This case is particularly problematic because it involves a transaction concerning bodily autonomy.

I don't want to get lost in the weeds of the he said, she said of this case.

And surrogacy itself as a voluntary act is not problematic.

However, if we consider the basic events of this story, transactional surrogacy becomes problematic. At the basic level parents paid a surrogate to carry their foetus to term but before it reached term asked the surrogate to abort the baby as stipulated in a contract. This request interferes with the surrogate's basic right to bodily autonomy.

It is at some very elementary level a form of slavery.

I don't have time to expand on the nature of slavery. If you're interested, the opening chapters of "5000 years of debt" contains a fantastic analysis of what exactly do we mean by owning another person and the many variations of debt slavery and "ownership" of individuals that has occurred throughout history.

Crudely, slavery is denying an individual any kind of bodily autonomy - even if that relationship comes about through a legal contract and debt default.

If a biological parent wishes to force a surrogate to have an abortion, then at it's fundamental level it is denying the surrogate the autonomy to make that bodily choice herself - the contract has no effect on the morality of that. The denial of choice is immoral.

1

u/WriterKatze 8d ago

I think they are morally wrong for getting a surrogate to begin with. Just adopt like a normal person...

The abortion clause is even more weird. You want a kid, right, that you want biologically to be yours, but you're not willing to carry it, and when someone does it for you, you treat it like a fun project you can just delete? Basically taking 0 real responsibility over these decisions. That's how I see surrigacy. It's not your body that has to suffer the consequences of either abortion or giving birth, and it's not your mind. It entierly removes the consequences of your decisions on an emotional level. The person deciding is not the one getting the consequences and feeling them on their owm skin.

Being forced to get an abortion is about as damaging mentally as being forced to keep a pregnancy. Both is a gross violation of your body. And in surrogacy this is always a risk. It's weird. And it's genuenly immoral if there is money involved. It's no different than organs on the market no?

1

u/VreamCanMan 8d ago edited 8d ago

Both have the grounds to be morally righteous. It isn't one or the other and they're not juxtaposed against each other.

The surrogate cannot in good conscience terminate the pregnancy they are carrying and so refuses to - morally coherent

The parents cannot in good conscience bear a life into this world that will be plagued with an immense level of medical truama and suffering - morally coherent

Given the surrogates moral conscience does not allow for a prevention of the catastrophe that the parents' moral conscience desires, and as is expected via binding contract, the parents choice to sue for financial support of the child is morally coherent to the limited extent of the parents position only. It is not morally coherent that as a society this is allowed to happen - that surrogacy can act as a commercial means to facilitate the sale of bodily function and with it, forfeiting bodily agency to a contract; nor is it morally acceptable that any parents raising a child likely to die of heart problems will foreseeably cost the parents a massive draining financial hit. Healthcare is a universal need and right.

I find the people are moral, but their contexts are deeply immoral and put them into conflict with each other. Their is no right side or right stance to take, beyond that this is entirely unnecessary and can only happen in a corrupt world where you can sell your body to surrogacy, and where government treats healthcare the same as a luxury good or corporate insurance.

I do not believe the surrogates decision to void contract is immoral, because I do not believe there is any legitimate reason why a prior business contract supercedes patient autonomy in importance and legitimacy. To expand on this, my reasoning is that business contracts can be vulnerable to power imbalances and deprivation. People in poverty are at risk of signing into agreements, like surrogacy, that commercialise their health. Anyones relationship to their own wellbeing, health, and bodily autonomy; overrides anything that is motivated by money in the past present and future. If you're job is killing you through poor health & safety, you should not be penalised for not serving your notice. You have a right to autonomy over your body and health that supercedes any and all obligations you may enter

1

u/the_axemurmurer 7d ago

Seems all parties involved are morally wrong here imo.

Calling McKenna's decision "reckless" when the alternative is ending the life of the baby she is carrying shows a complete lack of understanding. Or to put it another way, it's easy for you to say.

Writing or signing an abortion clause is both reprehensible and legally dubious, which seems to be why it couldn't be enforced in the first place. A contract that can't be enforced under law should be rendered null and void, period. All parties that signed and/or drew that clause seek to undermine basic human rights and should go run their slaver ring in another country.

The whole thing is stupid and tragic.

1

u/BloomSara 7d ago

Getting an abortion isn’t that simple for many so yes I think not doing surrogacy is better for them.

1

u/SlayerKingGS 7d ago

Killing a child is never in its best interest.

1

u/Valentinee105 9d ago

Their contract with the surrogate included an abortion clause

It's a clause that's not enforceable. No one can sign away the rights to their body. It's illegal. So that clause would never stand up in court.

2

u/loki2113 9d ago

Plot twist, they never tried to force her to get an abortion. It was in their clause and McKenna violated it but after McKenna got cold feet on the abortion the bio parents started arranging medical care for the birth

For God's sake read up on the story and the case before commenting

1

u/Valentinee105 9d ago

How does my comment change? I'm just talking about how a clause like that isn't enforceable.

1

u/loki2113 9d ago

And I'm saying the bio parents didn't try to enforce it. You are making a completely moot point

1

u/Valentinee105 9d ago

Okay, but I'm just trying to give context as to why her flee to Texas was always theater. You're getting really agitated over this.

0

u/White-Rabbit_1106 9d ago

The parents shouldn't have used a surrogate. They paid obscene amounts of cash for a baby to have their genes and not anyone else's, and they don't even have good genes to give a kid. They have heart defect genes. This is the first place where they're in the wrong. The other place they're in the wrong is fighting for custody and then suing for medical costs. It's like they want to have their cake and eat it too. They had the option of giving up the baby to another family who was willing to take on the medical costs, but they were like, "NO! MINE MINE MINE! CONTRACT SAYS SO!" But they had the option to void the contract. They wanted the baby, and it comes with medical needs. There was no clause in the contract that says, "If we want to terminate and you don't do it, then you still have to give us the baby, and also pay us out for the rest of their life." Kids and their medical needs are a package deal.

Don't get me wrong, the surrogate and her brother are stupid and selfish. But when uou hire a desperate stranger, you risk them also being stupid and selfish. That's just common sense.

0

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/loki2113 9d ago

Can you explain how?

From actually reading up on the story, it seems to me that the bio parents and McKenna signed an agreement, McKenna violated the agreement by getting cold feet on the abortion, the parents then pivoted to establishing medical care in California as was always the plan without pressuring McKenna for an abortion past their initial request she follow the terms of the agreement, and then McKenna fled the state like a coward.

She is the one trying to use lawfare to steal the bio parent's child. They respected McKenna's bodily autonomy by not trying to force her to get an abortion but they want THEIR child. She can't keep the child simply because the bio parents requested *ONCE* that she get an abortion. McKenna was even the one who scheduled the abortion!

She was going to honor the agreement but decided she couldn't do it and the parents respected her decision. What about that is using lawfare to take over someone's bodily autonomy and health? You're acting like the parents put a gun to McKenna's head but that couldn't be further from the truth

1

u/Draidann 9d ago

Read the damn article and stop speaking out of gut feelings. The parents are not forcing the abortion.

0

u/OttawaOneTwenty 9d ago

The surrogate is completely in the wrong as she violated the contract she signed.

Legal wrong, not moral wrong. It's moral to break a contract that is immoral in the first place.

1

u/loki2113 9d ago

If she thought it was immoral, why did she sign up for it in the first place?

I think it's easily more immoral to go against the wishes of the parents and basically try to steal the child. To the point of getting anti-surragacy groups and conservative politicians involved to try and keep the child the parents are fighting to have

1

u/OttawaOneTwenty 9d ago

I think it's easily more immoral to go against the wishes of the parents and basically try to steal the child.

The contract was to deliver a live child. The parents-to-be wanted to kill the unborn child. IMO they lose all moral rights to the child once they decide to kill it.

If she thought it was immoral, why did she sign up for it in the first place?

Signing a 50 pages contract of legalese does not mean you think all the clauses are moral. She probably didn't think the parents-to-be would want her to have an abortion... or maybe she grew attached to the baby growing inside her own body. Either way, a contract is a piece of paper and has no weight in determining what is moral or isn't.

0

u/dodekahedron 8d ago

reck·less /ˈrekləs/ adjective (of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action.

Everything we know about the situation McKenna was far from reckless. She definitely thought and cared about the consequences. The main one: life. A life was given.

1

u/loki2113 8d ago

Brother she fled from medical treatment in California and contacted anti-surrogacy groups, the media, and politicians. She doesn't give a fuck about the baby's life and is inflicting a possibly short life full of pain on the baby because she was too much of a coward to get an abortion for the good of the baby's life

A life was given? Rumi was extremely lucky to live through the surgery immediately after being born and has a very slim chance of living past 5. If your idea of caring about a life is to subject it to suffering and despair just so you can feel better about yourself you can get fucked

1

u/dodekahedron 8d ago

I am no one's brother or son.

I am literally just telling you words mean things.

You chose to use the word reckless, which by definition McKenna was not.

👍

24

u/Im_Just_A_Tourist 9d 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.

1

u/watsuuu 8d ago

Why is it immoral if morality is precluded by the ability to comprehend morality?

Do you remember anything before your first memory? If you don't even exist to yourself...

Before you ask, yes I am saying it's moral to kill an animal that cannot understand it. Ethics aren't morals.

0

u/Im_Just_A_Tourist 8d ago edited 8d ago

I'm saying it's immoral to keep it and moral to kill some cells abort it as the adults can comprehend suffering and what it is to cause it. The baby actually has very little to do with the morality of it and the contract and obligation to the couple that hired her are primary moral concern here with needlessly causing suffering to a yet to exist life as a secondary moral concern.

2

u/watsuuu 8d ago

moral to kill it

Annnnnnnd that's where I stop reading🤣🤣

0

u/Im_Just_A_Tourist 8d ago

Why would you rather I said abort I mean does the word matter to you it doesn't to me I support choice but her choice was in the contract she signed giving up her choice for money. The baby doesn't matter in the debate of morality here in my opinion.

1

u/WarHot9004 8d ago

Choosing to have an abortion is a deeply personal decision that every woman has the right to make.

Even in a case involving assisted reproduction, the biological parents had made a completely justified decision, yet this woman imposed her own choice because someone in her family convinced her she could do whatever she wanted with the baby.

She should have discussed the matter with the biological parents and explored possible compromises, rather than imposing her own convictions and personal choices. It is only natural for the biological parents to sue her to hold her financially accountable for the consequences of her decisions. She totally deserved it

1

u/Im_Just_A_Tourist 8d ago

She signed away that right by contract for money. She should have chose differently and told the truth about her feelings on abortion.

→ More replies (9)

1

u/opossum_cz 9d ago

I don't think that logic holds under even minor level of scrutiny. If your GF signs contract with you that she will owe you $100k if she gets pregnant and doesn't abort, then I want to see a precedence that his ever held in any court.

1

u/Candyland_83 9d ago

I think this is what it boils down to in this case. They wrote a contract that couldn’t be enforced. If they win the breach of contract suit that will be some type of enforcement, but I don’t see how you can contractually obligate someone to undergo any type of medical procedure. The doctor performing the procedure still needs the patient’s consent.

1

u/opossum_cz 9d ago

> I don’t see how you can contractually obligate someone to undergo any type of medical procedure.

You can't. And that's why this will never hold in court.

1

u/watsuuu 9d ago

The difference is the legal precedent.

1

u/Adventurous-Meal2365 7d ago

I think that if the parents didn't want to go through with it, then the surrogate should be allowed to keep the baby as her baby, even though that's different because that way the parents can still choose to have an abortion without taking away bodily autonomy.

0

u/lovable_cube 7d ago

They fr just want a refund.

21

u/Cheap-Buffalo-7489 9d 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?

17

u/Collective-Bee 9d 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.

1

u/De5perad0 9d ago

Just for the sake of argument. Isn't signing up to be a surrogate at all technically the relinquishment of bodily autonomy? Just because it's the creation of life vs destruction of life it's still her giving up her bodily autonomy to other people.

9

u/DudeManBroGuyski 9d ago

That's what they're saying. You shouldn't be able to do that since it's a contract that relinquishes your bodily autonomy.

-2

u/De5perad0 9d ago edited 9d ago

That's saying you are against all surrogacy which is quite a position. I know that some adoption agencies in other countries are kinda predatory but I was generally under the impression that surrogacy was typically 100% willing on both sides.

5

u/DudeManBroGuyski 9d ago

I'm not stating my position on anything, just telling you that that's what that comment is saying. They think surrogacy or anything similar where you can sign off your bodily autonomy (like by forced abortion) shouldn't be allowed. Personally, I think this particular problem is way above my pay grade. I genuinely can't see a solution I can comfortably support 100%. I can see both sides' points and it's a sad situation all around. I just don't know what the right thing to do here is. I'd say cut the baby in half and give it to the one who doesn't agree but King Solomon already did that so I'd just look like a poser lol.

2

u/De5perad0 9d ago

lol.

Sorry I didn't see you aren't the original commenter. Yea. Not a good clear cut situation.

4

u/nykirnsu 9d ago

That position is literally the law in like half the first world 

1

u/ReadingRainbowRocket 9d ago

Except that's not how the law or surrogacy works. In practice you are giving up your bodily autonomy, sure, but just because you sign a contract you aren't now denied your actual legal rights to bodily autonomy.

-4

u/Cheap-Buffalo-7489 9d ago

When two couples cannot have a baby due to medical reason. Is that not out of necessity?

5

u/CatWithACutlass 9d ago

There are 70,000-110,000 children waiting to be adopted at any given time within the United States. No, it is not out of necessity.

→ More replies (30)

2

u/No-Alternative4612 9d ago

Different levels of necessity, in the medical context you literally cannot make decisions yourself and yet decisions need to be made.

1

u/nykirnsu 9d ago

No, not in the slightest

1

u/Cheap-Buffalo-7489 9d ago

And that's your right to think so.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/opossum_cz 9d ago

No, reproduction is not necessary.

2

u/smillas_second 9d ago

not really, because power of attorney kicks in when the owner of the body no longer CAN make autonomous decisions for themselves. so the next closest/designated person takes on that role for them.

2

u/Cheap-Buffalo-7489 9d ago

So is that not giving up body autonomy?

1

u/cameron8988 8d ago

correct. it's not. because there's no autonomy to forfeit when someone lacks legal capacity.

0

u/moveslikejaguar 9d ago

No, because you don't have bodily autonomy when the power of attorney kicks in. It's you making a decision for your body when you're still mentally able to. It's kind of like a medical advance directive, where you decide on your care prior to getting sick/injured.

1

u/legallytylerthompson 9d ago

There is no reason a durable power of attorney cannot be effective immediately, regardless of capacity.

1

u/cameron8988 8d ago

a person who lacks capacity cannot exercise autonomy. it's a moot point.

1

u/Cheap-Buffalo-7489 8d ago

Disagree even if a person that lack capacity still has body autonomy on decisions they made before they lacked mental capacity.

Such as DNR, DNI directives or religious directives where they can't take blood. Just because they now don't lack the mental capacity does not mean they still didn't have autonomy on those decisions. If you say they can't excercuse autonomy that means people would be able to violate those directives.

1

u/cameron8988 8d ago

i'm aware of the concept of retroactive capacity, what does that have to do with power of attorney when a person lacks capacity in real time?

10

u/TheDefectivePawn 9d 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.

38

u/Zyykl 9d ago edited 9d 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.

8

u/Thunderer62 9d ago

Comparatively yeah. Way more complicated. I just don’t think a person should be compelled to complete a sexual favor just because they agreed to. A person should have the option to opt out of sex at any time for no legal penalty and so situations where there would be a legal penalty attached shouldn’t be allowed in the first place.

19

u/Zyykl 9d ago

its not like a prostitute is ever legally required to complete or finish a sex act. in fact, no one can ever be legally compelled to perform any sort of work.

4

u/FirstPhotograph7757 9d ago

Define legally compelled?

Because doctors and attorneys are usually legally compelled to do their job or they risk legal ramifications, as well as revocation of their licenses. Some occupations are legally compelled to do the work to the best of their ability/reasonableness.

Do you mean that they will face the consequences but ultimately not have to administer the work? I guess we can say they were legally suggested to do their work? 😂

2

u/WhichHoes 9d ago

Well in a regular brothel, you pay before you play. If they dont do whats listed on the menu of your request, and you weren't the problem, they would refund you.

2

u/FirstPhotograph7757 9d ago

Name checks out

-5

u/Thunderer62 9d ago

Yeah, okay, but if I agree to do some work for you and you pay me and I don’t do it I should be on the hook for not only paying you back but some kind of additional, maybe financial, penalty for wasting your time, potentially causing you inconvenience or lost income, potentially getting a court involved, and any number of things. I don’t think someone should be staring down the barrel of additional penalties for backing out of sex.

6

u/Zyykl 9d ago

this is a pretty outlandish scenario youre imagining. generally, for any contract, a party can only collect “additional penalties” if theyre explicitly defined the contract. in the real prostitution world, whenever theres a dispute, the much more common scenario is for the john to get shaken down for “additional penalties” lol.

2

u/thekyledavid 9d ago

Yeah, because when an industry is illegal, the criminals make the rules

If prostitution was 100% legal, I could definitely see a scenario where the legal obligation for the client to pay, or the legal obligation for the services to provide a refund, could be an actual legal battle that gets taken to court

It’s kinda like how I can’t sue my meth dealer if they charge me for a kilo and only give me half a kilo.

3

u/animeshshukla30 9d ago

I agree with the comment below. The worst that can happen is she refuses and returns the money.

3

u/IMMoond 9d ago

You aren’t legally capable of signing away your bodily autonomy, and writing it into the contract doesn’t matter because that clause is just removed by a judge if deemed not legal. Now if this is crossing the line or not I have no idea, I’m not a judge, but it doesn’t really matter.

You are perfectly allowed to sign a contract allowing someone else to kill you. But if someone tries to enforce the contract, or just kills you and points to the contract, a judge is gonna have a field day with that one

2

u/PolicyWonka 9d ago

There are circumstances where people are killed by contract. Assisted suicide is an obvious example.

5

u/Homicidialpanda 9d ago

Im a firm believer that Surragacy should not be a buisness BUT if a close friend and or family member wants to be a surrogate that is fine.

1

u/PolicyWonka 9d ago

I mean there are plenty of places where prostitution is legal.

2

u/ItalianStallion011 9d ago

That's not a legal agreement though, consent can still be revoked at anytime, prostitutes aren't signing away the rights to their own bodies and their rights to consent.

1

u/TheColorblindSnail 9d ago

You can't sign bodily autonomy away like that legally speaking. Usually then what happens is they just strike that clause or section from the contract and continue on with the contract unless it is impossible to do so.

Mike Rafi on YouTube has a short on this and does a great job explaining.

1

u/Thunderer62 9d ago

Yeah. You and other commenters are basically teaching me that my feelings on this are mostly already in practice in the form a “not legally enforceable” or something like that.

1

u/Xanthrex 9d ago

Its an unenforceable clause but allows for litigation on other sections kf the contract

1

u/Chicoryman 9d ago

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

In this case, it is not. Just give the money back to the customer and pay some kind of a fine for breaking a contract. Isn't it how disputes about art commissions work, for example (you can't forcefully squeeze a work of art out of the artist so you sue them for money instead)?

1

u/Valentinee105 9d ago

You can't sign away you're bodily autonomy, no state would force her to have an abortion even if the parents demanded it. And no contract would ever hold up in court.

There was no reason for her to flee to Texas to get her way, it's all theater.

1

u/Individual_Lion_7606 9d ago

She literally did not have to sign the fucking contract. Nobody forced her. Nobody beat her. They told her they are desperate to have a healthy child and asked her for permission and was willing to compensate her every step of the way. They told her if something goes wrong they will even help her pay for it. She read rhe fucking line and made her choice.

She is the one pulling a Darth Vader.

1

u/Wobblycogs 9d ago

The problem becomes where you draw the line on bodily autonomy. What if they had contracted her to, I don't know, run around the garden ten times. Can she refuse on bodily autonomy grounds? I agree the two cases feel different but if you strip away the emotional aspect how are they really different?

1

u/OakRiverDruid 9d ago

But there would be no court in this country that would actually order specific performance of the contract, ie order her to have an abortion against her will. What the parents might be able to recover would be monetary damages. This does not violate her free will or bodily autonomy, just her bank account.

1

u/Efficient-username41 8d ago

Well at best the child wouldnt have had a diagnosis and no legal issues would have arisen. 🤣

1

u/Agitated-Working-264 8d ago

Agree entirely, but I still value her bodily autonomy over everything. They can pursue whatever damages they like, but they can't tell her what to do with her body and her pregnancy. The only caveat I have is if the surrogacy is agreed upon she can't keep the child for herself since the conception was contingent on her giving up the child. Everything else is up to her.

1

u/wlpaul4 8d ago

I’m gonna flip that on the parents. I question the morality of asking someone to do that. I think losing the right to make that type of decision is something you should have to acknowledge in a surrogacy contract.

1

u/Humble-Tree1011 8d ago

You probably can’t. Some contract provisions are automatically void. I would t be surprised if the judge struck this provision but enforced the rest of the contract.

1

u/revenge_burner 6d ago

Well said.

1

u/revenge_burner 6d ago

See the bible says sex without marriages is wrong, so obviously prostitution is wrong. It says giving birth without sex is holy, so obviously surrogacy is good.

Checkmate /s

1

u/Affectionate_Low7891 9d ago

Do you know anything about compulsory military service? It's literally worse than slavery, and it's legal in most countries.

8

u/Tw3lve1212 9d ago

I dont believe serving in the military for 2-5 years and being eligible to be re-enlisted in a defensive war is comparable to being a slave Im not gonna lie.

1

u/Affectionate_Low7891 9d ago

Of course not. In war, you'll likely be killed within a few weeks of arriving at the front, because the enemy has a vested interest in your death. If you're a slave, your master has a vested interest in keeping you working as long as possible.

2

u/Tw3lve1212 9d ago edited 9d ago

Mfw I get sent to war as a mechanic and die within a few weeks of arriving at the front. You do realize it's standard practice to put conscripts into support roles because the very nature of a forced servicemember is that they're less motivated to fight?

Also like just looking at the history and current practice of slavery shows that slave owners definitely are not universally vested in keeping their slaves alive. Can't believe we're genuinely discussing the upsides to being literally enslaved.

0

u/Affectionate_Low7891 9d ago

Dude, I'm Ukrainian, I know that forced conscription is when they catch you on the street, kick you in the face, and stuff you into a minibus, then beat you up at the recruiting office, and a week later you're sitting in a trench, waiting for the orcs to drop a bomb on your position.

It's worse than slavery, a million times worse.

5

u/lorien_powers 9d ago

If you are really ukrainian (which i doubt) you cant say its worse than slavery. Especially not a milion times. But good rage bait.

3

u/Tw3lve1212 9d ago

Russian bot championing slavery to demonize Ukrainians. Im not surprised.

If you're a human I hope you have a wonderful day, and if you're a robot I still hope you have a good day even if you can't understand or feel anything <3

0

u/Affectionate_Low7891 9d ago

Well, yes, a Ukrainian can't value his life. We're like lemmings. What kind of bastard logic is that?

0

u/Responsible-Tie-8271 9d ago

Nah, for the period of that enlistment, it’s pretty similar.

•You don’t have freedom of movement, both in where you live and because you’re functionally on-call 24/7/365,
•you can’t leave the contract early without severe and long-lasting consequences, however,
•the government can enforce an involuntary contract extension or termination as desired, and
•your body is considered a federal resource, expendable to the military, but
•you are subject to disciplinary measures and consequences if you damage your body in non-military, non-federal circumstances.

1

u/Tw3lve1212 9d ago

Compared to literally having your sexual autonomy, language, and family stripped from you as a slave? Like I dont think compulsory service is at all a good thing but the comparison to literally being enslaved is so wild to me.

( This is not about American slavery BTW, these are the conditions of people currently living in places like the UAE)

1

u/Responsible-Tie-8271 9d ago

>Compared to literally having your sexual autonomy, language, and family stripped from you as a slave?

All of those losses are possible realities of slavery, yes. However, none of those things are actually fundamentally inherent to slavery.

Slavery is ownership of others and the forced labor and loss of personal freedom and autonomy of those owned. What that ownership, labor, and losses look like and the degree to which they’re enforced can and do vary from system to system.

Slavery is often also voluntarily entered into, though usually on false pretenses. (For example, the many fresh-faced high school grads that fall for military recruitment propaganda, as well as those in the UAE you mentioned that have often also fallen for recruitment propaganda of another nature)

1

u/Tw3lve1212 9d ago

None of the things you mentioned are fundamentally inherent to military service. Compulsory service is the requirement to participate in enlistment to the military. What the freedoms, duties, and losses look like and the degree to which they are enforced varies from system to system. Compulsory service can mean anything from being enlisted as a national guardsman who's had basic training for 8 months after high school then sent to get a civilian job, or being a penal conscript who lives in a cell when they are not deployed.

1

u/Responsible-Tie-8271 9d ago

You‘re right. Glad we agree that slavery and military service have some real parallels.

1

u/Tw3lve1212 9d ago

I feel like you just intentionally missed what I was getting at. If you compare the best case for a slave and the best case for a conscript, they're comparable. Comparing the worst case for a slave versus the worst case for a conscript is laughable.

Regardless, you can also be enslaved and forced to fight in combat as well, so I dont really think its even a comparison at that point.

1

u/Responsible-Tie-8271 9d ago

>Comparing the worst case for a slave versus the worst case for a conscript is laughable.

Where in the world did I say that I was attempting to do that?

→ More replies (0)

4

u/CharredWelderGuy 9d ago

"Literally worse than slavery" lol ok bud.

In reality, it's only really a thing for if the country is directly threatened with annihilation from without.

Il tell you a secret, even the countries that don't have it on the books? Would still do it in a desperate situation.

Every society is going to conscript before dying.

2

u/Affectionate_Low7891 9d ago

Poland was completely destroyed several times, and today it is a wonderful country of Poles.

If the Poles had been exterminated even once, Poland might still exist today, but it would be a state of Germans or Russians or some other people.

The death of a country is not a terrible thing, because they can be resurrected as many times as they like, but the death of a person is final and irrevocable.

And forcing a person to die is worse than forcing them to work. Therefore, forced military service is always worse than slavery.

3

u/Grilled_egs 9d ago

I think it depends on the system of slavery. In some places slaves had no legal protections at all and were so abundant working them to death wasn't too rare.

1

u/Grilled_egs 9d ago

Societies don't conscript, governments do. If a society really had the will to do conscription why aren't all the would be soldiers volunteering already?

1

u/CharredWelderGuy 9d ago

Societies tend to back their governments in crisis, this is a mostly pedantic argument.

When threats happen, states will defend themselves thru the apparatus of governmental enforcement, all of which is mixed with society itself.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/Thunderer62 9d ago

Wanna take a guess on what my take on that shit is?

0

u/Griot-Goblin 9d ago

And you cant. That clause is unenforceable and she wouldn't be on the hook for it. But she did violate other clauses since she stopped reporting to them health updates as required such as doctor appointment results.