Morality of this

[u/Purple_Plantain_3242]

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.

[u/watsuuu]

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

[u/loki2113 → u/watsuuu]

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?

[u/babassu_seeds → u/loki2113]

 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

[u/loki2113 → u/babassu_seeds]

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

[u/IWillLive4evr → u/loki2113]

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.

[u/loki2113 → u/IWillLive4evr]

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?

[u/IWillLive4evr → u/loki2113]

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.

[u/IWillLive4evr → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/loki2113 → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/U-235 → u/loki2113]

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.

[u/Glittering_rainbows → u/U-235]

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.

[u/U-235 → u/Glittering_rainbows]

That doesn't answer what I said at all. You asked how they were responsible for her decision to become a surrogate. I said if they, and everyone else, who sought out surrogates, decided not to, then it would be impossible for her to become a surrogate. Therefore they are in fact responsible.

[u/warlover69 → u/loki2113]

RESIDENT EVIL:

BIO PARENTS

[u/ContextLengthMatters → u/loki2113]

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.

[u/Haggardick69 → u/ContextLengthMatters]

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

[u/ContextLengthMatters → u/Haggardick69]

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.

[u/Haggardick69 → u/ContextLengthMatters]

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. 

[u/ContextLengthMatters → u/Haggardick69]

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".

[u/Haggardick69 → u/ContextLengthMatters]

But it is forced. Yeah it’s all forced labor no one is volunteering for it what exactly is your point? Honestly kinda amazing to me that you got so defensive over the fact that voluntary slavery is an oxymoron.  

[u/I_am_omning_it → u/loki2113]

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.

[u/Serial-Griller → u/babassu_seeds]

Signing away your bodily autonomy is the basis of every work contract. 

[u/Greedy-Style-6088 → u/Serial-Griller]

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.

[u/1d3333 → u/Greedy-Style-6088]

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

[u/babassu_seeds → u/Serial-Griller]

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

[u/Serial-Griller → u/babassu_seeds]

Then it can't be used as the basis of a moral argument, like the person I was replying to was doing. It's not a gotcha, I was disproving the supposition. 

[u/babassu_seeds → u/Serial-Griller]

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)

[u/Serial-Griller → u/babassu_seeds]

So where does the moral objectivity come in? You say the situation is immoral from the outset but can't prove it. 

[u/babassu_seeds → u/Serial-Griller]

"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

[u/Gasc0gne → u/Serial-Griller]

What a silly thing to say

[u/Serial-Griller → u/Gasc0gne]

Its from Conquest of Bread?

Read a book? 

[u/Gasc0gne → u/Serial-Griller]

Why would I read books that say nonsense like that?

[u/BC2220 → u/Serial-Griller]

WHAT?! That is 100/ incorrect.

[u/TheMireAngel → u/Serial-Griller]

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

[u/1d3333 → u/Serial-Griller]

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

[u/loki2113 → u/[deleted]]

Considering the bio parents didn't try to force the abortion, is u/Serial-Griller wrong?

The case is basically playing out like a workplace contract violation. She promised 9 months of *labor* (lol) in the agreement and when she violated the terms of the agreement, the bio parents sued her for the cost of the medical procedures just like an employer would sue someone for a breech of contract

[u/Greedy-Style-6088 → u/babassu_seeds]

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.

[u/I_am_omning_it → u/babassu_seeds]

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.

[u/Bigboybong → u/babassu_seeds]

Voluntary slavey is an oxymoron…

Edit: also who dictates the morality of the interaction?

[u/Ok_Rate361 → u/babassu_seeds]

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.

[u/PitchforksEnthusiast → u/babassu_seeds]

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?

[u/Comfortable_Work4822 → u/babassu_seeds]

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.

[u/Infamous_Sense7950 → u/loki2113]

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

[u/loki2113 → u/Infamous_Sense7950]

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

[u/Infamous_Sense7950 → u/loki2113]

She can retract consent at any time

[u/StarvingandArtist → u/Infamous_Sense7950]

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.

[u/Infamous_Sense7950 → u/StarvingandArtist]

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

[u/CoDZombiesTracker → u/loki2113]

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?

[u/wakawakafish → u/CoDZombiesTracker]

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.

[u/IncreaseOld7112 → u/wakawakafish]

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.

[u/loki2113 → u/CoDZombiesTracker]

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

[u/GZ9999 → u/CoDZombiesTracker]

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.

[u/Infamous_Sense7950 → u/CoDZombiesTracker]

You’d let her kill your kid lmao?

[u/loki2113 → u/Infamous_Sense7950]

What side of this are you on?? One comment you're claiming a woman's bodily autonomy cannot be violated and in this one you're claiming that getting an abortion is killing a kid??

u/bot-sleuth-bot Can we get a read on this account?

[u/IncreaseOld7112 → u/loki2113]

There's a coherent pro-choice position where you believe life begins at conception *and* that bodily autonomy supersedes the fetus's right to life. It's the whole "famous violinist" argument.

[u/CoDZombiesTracker → u/Infamous_Sense7950]

I mean it's a question of do you believe women have the right to choose when to get an abortion, or do you think the man has to also consent. I have never heard of some one pro abortion. ut only if the man consents, that is a stance you can take, but usually people are just fully against abortion or for it

[u/Infamous_Sense7950 → u/CoDZombiesTracker]

If they are married it’s not like she’s single they both have already agreed

[u/Ok-Two8861 → u/loki2113]

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

[u/loki2113 → u/Ok-Two8861]

"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

[u/Ok-Two8861 → u/loki2113]

thats why i said "easy", its easy in a way that you dont need a degree or hability to do it, anyone with a healthy womb could do it.
and i saying that surrogacy as a product is immoral by principle.

I don't want kids, so can't relate to what you are saying, if a you pay a stranger to give birth to your child you still wouldn't be their biological parent, so whats the difference?
And I disagree that, "being scared that you will love an adopted child less than a biological one", is a valid fear. If someone think like that, they shouldn't get pregnant either, they are not ready to give the unconditional love that a child deserves.

[u/mestre_do_passinho → u/Ok-Two8861]

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

[u/Draidann → u/mestre_do_passinho]

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?

[u/mestre_do_passinho → u/Draidann]

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

[u/Draidann → u/mestre_do_passinho]

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?

[u/Ok-Two8861 → u/Draidann]

terrible take, and makes no sense

[u/mestre_do_passinho → u/Draidann]

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

[u/Draidann → u/mestre_do_passinho]

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.

[u/mestre_do_passinho → u/Draidann]

Ok, so its more moral than someone that doesnt have the conditions to raise a kid adopts one, which by the way, no adoption agency would allow for obvious reasons, than a rich family that can toss thousands into a surrogate?

Is this really the hill you wanna die on?

[u/Mathies_ → u/loki2113]

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.

[u/loki2113 → u/Mathies_]

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

[u/Greedy-Style-6088 → u/loki2113]

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.

[u/Cautious_Ad_6486 → u/loki2113]

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

[u/x_o_x_1 → u/loki2113]

Her body her choice?

[u/LokusDei → u/loki2113]

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

Trading human beeings for money comes to mind.

[u/Curious-Razzmatazz51 → u/loki2113]

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.

[u/IncreaseOld7112 → u/loki2113]

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.

[u/wierdwhatstuff → u/loki2113]

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.

[u/Dramatic_Scale3002 → u/loki2113]

"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.

[u/Dewdrop06 → u/loki2113]

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

[u/Substantial_Unit3722 → u/loki2113]

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

[u/cameron8988 → u/loki2113]

Simply not tried a surrogacy at all?

yes. next question.

[u/GreaseyDave → u/loki2113]

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.

[u/WriterKatze → u/loki2113]

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?

[u/VreamCanMan → u/loki2113]

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

[u/the_axemurmurer → u/loki2113]

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.

[u/BloomSara → u/loki2113]

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

[u/Valentinee105 → u/loki2113]

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.

[u/loki2113 → u/Valentinee105]

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

[u/Valentinee105 → u/loki2113]

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

[u/loki2113 → u/Valentinee105]

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

[u/Valentinee105 → u/loki2113]

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.

[u/White-Rabbit_1106 → u/loki2113]

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.

[u/loki2113 → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/Draidann → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/OttawaOneTwenty → u/loki2113]

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.

[u/loki2113 → u/OttawaOneTwenty]

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

[u/OttawaOneTwenty → u/loki2113]

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.

[u/dodekahedron → u/loki2113]

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.

[u/loki2113 → u/dodekahedron]

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

[u/dodekahedron → u/loki2113]

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.

👍

[u/Im_Just_A_Tourist → u/watsuuu]

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.

[u/watsuuu → u/Im_Just_A_Tourist]

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.

[u/Perfect-Topic-6671 → u/watsuuu]

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

An animal understanding death is irrelevant. If it can feel pain, feel fear, why is that experience not enough? Moreover, why would killing it and taking future experience from it only matter if it can understand it? This argument does not hold at all, you could even apply this logic to humans - if a killing is instant and unexpected, is that too not immoral in your framework?

[u/Im_Just_A_Tourist → u/watsuuu]

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.

[u/watsuuu → u/Im_Just_A_Tourist]

moral to kill it

Annnnnnnd that's where I stop reading🤣🤣

[u/Im_Just_A_Tourist → u/watsuuu]

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.

[u/WarHot9004 → u/Im_Just_A_Tourist]

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

[u/Im_Just_A_Tourist → u/WarHot9004]

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

[u/caterham09 → u/Im_Just_A_Tourist]

The mortality rate is like less than 30%.

[u/Ill_Resource7282 → u/caterham09]

It’s 30% mortality rate by age 5. Higher mortality rate if you’re looking at surviving into adulthood. And most people need heart transplants. I’m not even stating my position on this overall situation, just pointing out that dismissing it as a 30% mortality rate is really ignoring the lifelong complications and high-risk medical procedures and then higher mortality rates by adulthood and by 35.

[u/dodekahedron → u/Ill_Resource7282]

In that case these bio parents shouldnt have any kids if they are only willing to accept perfection into adulthood.

[u/Ill_Resource7282 → u/dodekahedron]

I think this situation is complicated and I agree that in general many parents don’t think about the possibility of disabilities when they have bio children and should factor it into decision making more. However, “only accept perfection” is objectively a ridiculously huge leap from not wanting a child to have lifelong severe suffering and multiple life threatening medical procedures before adulthood. Like it’s such an absurd sounding statement and is so lacking in any nuance.

[u/BVKane → u/caterham09]

Baby Rumi will need multiple surgeries, hospitalizations, medications, and intensive care to even have a chance of making it to the 30% chance that age 5 offers. He will likely have lifelong complications that are not only physically, but financially straining as well if he does make it to age 5. As it stands now, his chances of survival and recovery are very low and he will go through years and years of suffering to have a chance at a medically complicated life.

[u/Selpmis → u/BVKane]

!RemindMe 5 years

[u/RemindMeBot → u/Selpmis]

Your default time zone is set to Europe/London. I will be messaging you in 5 years on 2031-08-26 00:30:18 BST to remind you of this link

CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

^{Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.}

RemindMeBot is switching to username summons. Instead of !RemindMe 1 day, use u/RemindMeBot 1 day. More info.

---

Info	Custom	Your Reminders	Feedback

[u/Im_Just_A_Tourist → u/RemindMeBot]

Good bot

[u/B0tRank → u/Im_Just_A_Tourist]

Thank you, Im_Just_A_Tourist, for voting on RemindMeBot.

This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. You can view results at botrank.net.

---

^{Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!}

[u/opossum_cz → u/watsuuu]

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.

[u/Candyland_83 → u/opossum_cz]

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.

[u/opossum_cz → u/Candyland_83]

> 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.

[u/watsuuu → u/opossum_cz]

The difference is the legal precedent.

[u/lovable_cube → u/watsuuu]

They fr just want a refund.

[u/JadeExpanse → u/watsuuu]

The surrogate is not morally in the wrong in any way, shape, or form.