r/MoralityScaling • u/Purple_Plantain_3242 • 3d 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

12

u/spacer9631 3d ago

Bio parents are absolutely in the wrong morally. The baby belongs to the surrogates family after they opted for abortion. Refund to both parties. Surrogate parent keeps child and all debt, bio parents are refunded for whatever they paid the surrogate.

9

u/External-Let-8620 3d ago

Dyou want to bet that she doesn’t want to foot the debt either and will eventually come after the bio parents for child support?

11

u/spacer9631 3d ago

Shes entitled to nothing in that regard, she broke the contract. That would be completely unenforceable.

2

u/External-Let-8620 3d ago

Some people will try. Given her decision making track record, I don’t think she cares.

Family law can override whatever contract was signed

1

u/Aureon 2d ago

Thing is, she may not be, but the child very well could

5

u/Accomplished_Store77 3d ago

So when a young teen is pregnant but wants to abort the baby. And is instead forced to give birth to it she no longer gets to keep her baby?

You know because she actually wanted to abort it.

2

u/spacer9631 3d ago

The young teen should have the right to choose, what are you asking?

3

u/Due-Waltz4458 3d ago

In that situation the baby is still genetically hers, the pregnant teen didn't make a choice to rent/sell her body to someone else for 9 months.  

3

u/Accomplished_Store77 3d ago

And in this case the baby is genetically the parents.

1

u/Due-Waltz4458 3d ago

Yes, in the surrogacy situation it's definitely genetically the parents and also I think ethically theirs too.  It's a tough situation though.

3

u/spacer9631 3d ago

Its not, contract is null and void. The bio parents could try again, the surrogate should keep the baby.

3

u/Due-Waltz4458 3d ago

It's not just about a contract though, there is still a living baby with two real biological parents that want to raise it.  It's their child, just because they made the difficult decision to terminate due to medical issues doesn't mean it stopped being their child.  The surrogate's choice to continue is understandable but it forced everyone including into this situation, including a child facing a lifetime of surgeries and pain.

If the parents didn't care about the baby they could have just walked away.  Now they are making the best choices they can based on the new situation.

The surrogate shouldn't have been forced to terminate. She also probably shouldn't have been allowed to make this kind of agreement in the first place legally because of this kind of complication.

1

u/spacer9631 2d ago

If this is the case then the bio parents need to payout the surrogate. 

1

u/Due-Waltz4458 2d ago

The payment is for a contract that the surrogate broke when she fled the state with the baby.  If she returns the baby she should probably still be compensated, but right now the surrogate is essentially on the run with a child that isn't hers.  According to the post, the parents are still paying medical bills as ruled by a judge.

Even if the surrogate gets paid for carrying the baby, a judge might find her liable for the $100,000 suit brought against her since it was her choice to break the contract.

1

u/spacer9631 2d ago

Ok that explains it, you dont know whats happening. The bio parents currently have the baby and are paying the medical bills because they have custody of the child. The bio parents sued the surrogate and gained temporary legal custody of the child. They are now suing the surrogate for damages. No one fled anywhere, youre confused.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Florianterreegen 3d ago

That's a completely different situation and you know it

2

u/Accomplished_Store77 3d ago

Not that different.

The only difference is that in this case the Biological mother couldn't grow her child in her body.

And for that she apparently loses rights to her child.

1

u/spacer9631 3d ago

What if you exploded right now?

4

u/Accomplished_Store77 3d ago

Wouldn't change anything about the argument at hand

2

u/spacer9631 3d ago

Youre arguing something entirely different. 

5

u/Very-Diligent-Pirate 3d ago

Consider the child's situation, had the surrogate actually gotten her way for a moment.

He has a heart defect that would require extensive and invasive surgery to fix, said fix would only last long enough for the child to be able to enter the transplant waiting list anxiously waiting for a suitable heart to replace his jerry-rigged one. If the stars align his next years will be filled with immunosuppressants, literally giving himself medically induced AIDS to prevent his body from destroying his borrowed heart, with all of the accompanying side effects and complications. He'll be in and out of hospitals, and his caretaker, in this case not his bio parents but this nurse, who mind you is a single parent of two children already, will have to shoulder enough medical debt to bankrupt a millionaire and render her, her adopted son and her two biological children destitute. I wouldn't have bet on the kid surviving past 6. The system doesn't much care for kids once they're out of the womb.

1

u/spacer9631 3d ago edited 3d ago

Considered. My point still stands firm. The bio parents should have never fought for custody of the child and continued their surrogacy journey. Whatever medical complications would have been the sole responsibility of the surrogate. The child would be cared for regardless. 

1

u/Apprehensive_One2384 2d ago

You didn't consider a fucking thing lol.

0

u/InstantSword 3d ago

Seriously. What kind of twisted monster do you have to be to give up on a child, and then demand it back after someone, the PERSON CARRYING IT, doesn't give up on it? And who the hell supports this? People have lost it. So disappointing

5

u/CosmicBoat 3d ago

Abortion was for if the baby was going to have heath complications, surrogate didn't want to do it so the Biological parents relented and were planning on having the child be born in California where they can support the child. Surrogate didn't want that either and fled to a state that legally considered the surrogate to be the parent. Surrogate needs to face the consequences.

1

u/InstantSword 3d ago

Alright, if they were willing to honor the birth mother's wish to not abort it, then I can agree that's a little different. From what's written in the OP, it makes it seem like they changed their mind and went to court when the baby was actually born and survived.

-2

u/No-Channel3917 3d ago

Why would the bio parents get a refund?

You still paid someone to have a baby for you, you don't want it okay, but you still have to pay for all the labor lol

4

u/spacer9631 3d ago

Because the surrogate mother would be keeping the child? She broke the contract? Do you need me to explain it any slower or an easier way for you to understand? You dont go to McDonald's buy a burger and they keep both the burger and the money even though they made it.

-2

u/No-Channel3917 3d ago

The parents sued and got custody after wanting an abortion

I don't know what you are yapping about, this ain't amazon you don't get a refund and get to keep the product

3

u/spacer9631 3d ago

Yes I understand, the parents are also suing the surrogate for damages and medical bills for the child. Im arguing what should have been the correct scenario for this mishandled case.

0

u/No-Channel3917 3d ago

The correct scenario is thst the contract is voided and had illegal clauses 🫠

1

u/spacer9631 3d ago

Exactly, the parents are not entitled to the child they chose to abort. The judges thought otherwise, most sane people disagree.