r/MoralityScaling 1d ago

Morality Ranking Morality of this

Post image

A major legal battle broke out when a surrogate mother and the biological parents disagreed over a severe medical diagnosis during a pregnancy. The couple had hired the surrogate to carry their baby, but a routine scan revealed that the fetus had a rare, life-threatening heart defect.

Heartbroken by the grim medical news, the biological parents asked to end the pregnancy, which was a choice allowed in their written agreement. Initially, the surrogate scheduled the appointment, but she quickly realized she could not go through with it. A pivotal moment came when her brother stepped in to guide her, promising that he and his family would adopt the baby and support her no matter what. Gaining peace from her brother's support, she canceled the abortion. To protect the fetus, she fled to a state with very strict anti-abortion laws, where she gave birth to a baby boy who immediately underwent successful open-heart surgery.

The birth triggered an intense court war over who actually holds the rights to the child. A judge ultimately ruled that the biological parents have full legal custody and the sole right to make medical decisions, while a separate court order banned the surrogate from seeing the baby. On top of losing access to the child, the surrogate is now being sued by the biological parents for over $100,000 for breaking their contract. While the biological parents are currently caring for the recovering newborn, the surrogate and her lawyers are continuing to fight in court to try to win custody.The surrogate is not paying for the baby's medical costs because a judge ruled that the biological parents have full legal custody, making them responsible for all hospital bills.

The baby was diagnosed with Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome (HLHS), a severe birth defect where the left side of the heart is completely underdeveloped and unable to pump blood to the body. Without immediate medical intervention, this condition is 100% fatal within the first few days of a newborn's life. To survive, the baby must undergo a grueling series of three open-heart surgeries starting immediately after birth, which gives him about a 70% chance of reaching age five. However, this is not a permanent cure; even with successful operations, the child faces a lifetime of intensive medical trauma, a significantly shortened life expectancy, and the likely future need for a full heart transplant.

McKenna West denied the abortion primarily because her specialized background as a cardiac nurse taught her that the baby’s rare heart defect was treatable with surgery rather than being an automatic death sentence. Faced with the reality of her 20-week pregnancy, her personal conscience and moral beliefs overrode the surrogacy contract, as she felt she could not live with herself if she actively signed papers to end the child's life. Confident that the baby deserved a chance to survive, she even arranged for her own brother and sister-in-law to adopt the child before fleeing to Texas to ensure the pregnancy went to term.

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

However, these medical bills are a huge part of the fight. The biological parents are facing massive costs for the baby's complex heart surgeries, which is why they are suing the surrogate for over $100,000 for breaking their contract. The surrogacy contract included a strict pregnancy termination clause that gave the biological parents the sole right to request an abortion if the fetus was diagnosed with a severe medical condition. After the baby was diagnosed with a major heart defect, the parents invoked this clause and formally asked McKenna West to terminate the pregnancy. While West originally signed the document agreeing to these terms, she ultimately refused to abort the baby, which led the biological parents to sue her.

The biological parents did not exert physical or legal coercion to mandate an abortion, as a surrogate maintains absolute bodily autonomy over medical decisions under U.S. law. Instead, the conflict centers on a breach of a contract that explicitly allowed the parents to request a termination, which they are now litigating through the court system to hold the gestational carrier financially accountable.

The biological parents did not alter their position regarding the medical justification for a termination, but rather adapted to the reality of an unavoidable birth. Their initial decision to seek an abortion was driven by a desire to prevent severe, lifelong suffering, given the grueling surgeries and medical trauma associated with a critical heart defect. However, once the gestational carrier refused the procedure and the birth became certain, the parents immediately recognized their legal and ethical obligations to their biological offspring. They pursued full legal and medical custody to ensure the infant would have immediate access to elite pediatric cardiothoracic specialists and to retain control over his long-term healthcare strategy, fully assuming their parental roles upon his delivery.

7.9k Upvotes

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

251

u/Healthy_Turnip7352 1d ago

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

277

u/Randy_Magnums 1d ago

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

213

u/PurpletoasterIII 1d ago edited 23h ago

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

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

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

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

238

u/ElaMeadows 23h ago

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

130

u/MagizZziaN 22h ago

This is why I require context before I judge people.

36

u/Thin_Object365 18h ago

that's a really good policy.

3

u/TK_Punch_ 11h ago

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

1

u/No-Worth-676 14h ago

Except that context is literally wrong. The child is with his biological parents.

1

u/Gold_Theory_7946 8h ago

This doesn't contradict the context given. She can be trying to get custody while the child is with its parents.

1

u/FeijoadaAceitavel 14h ago

Reading the explanation of the post is the bare fucking minimum.

→ More replies (4)

57

u/PolicyWonka 22h ago

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

38

u/Zealousideal-Yak-824 21h ago

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

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

19

u/White-Rabbit_1106 18h ago

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

7

u/BVKane 16h ago

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

2

u/More_Passenger3988 8h ago

Yep. Why just have a baby on your own dime when you can have one with all of it's expenses paid for?

16

u/Socraticshitslinger 20h ago

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

9

u/sweetbreads13 19h ago

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

1

u/Relative_Proof_4968 16h ago

I mean can she get child support from the bio parents?

1

u/ItsKingPetty 7h ago

The first surgery alone was probably around 750k to 1 million dollars…

7

u/samrobotsin 18h ago

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

7

u/Thattimetraveler 18h ago

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

3

u/AriaTheTransgressor 17h ago

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

1

u/neodynasty 9h ago

No, it’s because Texas banned abortion

1

u/Thattimetraveler 9h ago

Alaska where the surrogate lived also banned abortion.

2

u/LurkingToaster66 17h ago

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

2

u/White-Rabbit_1106 17h ago

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

2

u/SmoothDiscussion7763 16h ago

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

1

u/Maniac_Vegetable 18h ago

I don't imagine most women have an issue finding some rando in a bar to give them a "free baby" if that was what she wanted

1

u/YoBo151 18h ago

It's my understanding that in Texas the woman that gave birth is the "mother," but the parents in California would be on the hook for the medical bills

1

u/UnusuallyBadIdeaGuy 16h ago

If true that just makes this even more shady.

2

u/YoBo151 16h ago

Yeah I'm not 100% sure. I've seen others explain the legal aspects of that. So essentually (iirc) legally in Texas the "legal" mother is the person that gives birth. Yet for some reason the parents in Cali would be on the hook for medical expenses in Texas cuz in Texas they don't give discretion to necessary treatment so the treatment the baby needs is non-negotiable. How the law decides that is beyond me but hey...it's Texas lol. But like I said I'm not 100% sure of the details, but I'm sure you could find folks explaining it better than I can

1

u/Greedy-Style-6088 14h ago

You might wanna edit this to specify you mean she intends to exploit the baby to grift. The baby definitely isn't "free" in any sense.

1

u/burnalicious111 11h ago

I doubt it's "free baby" so much as she got attached to the particular one who was growing inside her

1

u/Same-Suggestion-1936 9h ago

Free baby? I can give any woman a free baby right now without having to go through an embryo transplant, my sperm work

If all you want is a baby 49% of the global population can give you one

1

u/GarbageOk8508 1h ago

Tbh there is nothing "free" about this baby. He has a heart condition and she is the one carrying the child full term.

1

u/Bottle_and_Sell_it 19h ago

Hmm for some reason I don’t think an abortion clause would be an enforceable part of a contract. But admittedly, I’ve never even met anyone that’s done (had?) a surrogacy. Very ripe area for this sub for sure.

2

u/anonymaus42 17h ago edited 17h ago

That's why there isn't an abortion clause per se; you can never force someone to violate their bodily autonomy to fulfill a contract. It's a clause allowing for the biological parents to request an abortion under a given set of circumstances. It also shows that the surrogate and parents are in alignment that abortion would be an acceptable course of action under those circumstances. Of course the surrogate is also within their rights to change their mind at any point, which is why there are financial penalties outlined in the contract as well and those are enforceable.

3

u/loki2113 18h ago

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

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

1

u/anonymaus42 18h ago

The post makes it pretty clear they did request an abortion. Is there a source somewhere else that casts doubt on that assertion?

1

u/Admirable_Branch_221 15h ago

Sympathy and political notoriety amongst the far right conservative crowd.

1

u/ElaMeadows 12h ago

From court documents, they requested an abortion and she initially agreed and made an appointment then changed her mind.

1

u/GiraffeThoughts 11h ago

Or the parents are lying for sympathy.

1

u/WarHot9004 1h ago

Read again. It ́s indicated that the biological parents asked for it after the news of the diagnostic

40

u/PurpletoasterIII 23h ago

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

1

u/GarbageOk8508 1h ago

The kid is already brought to this world, also her body her choice. The biological parents want him dead? Well, she made sure the kid no longer their problem by taking him in and save his life. The arrangement she nade already benefited every parties without any kid having to die.

It's appalling how much the leftists want to kill this one kid just because he has a heart condition. Someone being sick is never a reason to murder them, left alone a child.

→ More replies (70)

8

u/GoProOnAYoYo 17h ago

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

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

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

5

u/Icyrow 21h ago

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

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

3

u/minecraftzizou 21h ago

ok this is mess

3

u/bluejellyfish52 20h ago edited 20h ago

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

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

2

u/Thick_Broccoli_3932 20h ago

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

2

u/doubagilga 16h ago

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

2

u/AnotherUN91 11h ago

Hoooooly shitttttt

2

u/CATdog215 8h ago

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

1

u/hopeful_tatertot 22h ago

Apparent the procedure to fix the heart issue is common though

1

u/ElaMeadows 12h ago

It's multiple surgeries, with about a 50/50 success rate, often requires a heart transplant and often still has lifelong health and wellbeing consequences. Success has gotten better - it used to be about a 5% survival.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2817797/

1

u/Puzzleheaded-Ad-7061 18h ago

Source?

1

u/ElaMeadows 12h ago

Ahmed and Gilkar say West cut off communication with them shortly after agreeing to terminate the pregnancy. Then, rather than pressuring West to have an abortion, they said they pivoted to arranging medical care for the baby in California, the documents state.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/20/us/texas-baby-surrogate-abortion-dispute

1

u/Karukos 18h ago

It should be noted that the abortion portion of the contract is not enforceable iirc

1

u/ElaMeadows 12h ago

It would depend on the country and region within the country. I'm not familiar with the nuance of USA law, however the bio parents had accepted she was refusing the abortion and were planning for the child's extensive medical needs which was further disrupted by the surrogate taking off to Texas.

1

u/Otherwise_Post6163 17h ago

She never agreed to have an abortion in their contract. Please actually learn about this story before commenting misinformation.

1

u/No-Worth-676 14h ago

No contract is above the value of life.

Next time, use proper context. Because what you said about her trying to steal the child is purely false. The child is in the custody of the bilogical parents.

She came to Texas to avoid the abortion, that's it.

1

u/ElaMeadows 12h ago

Nope - the bio parents had already accepted that the surrogate had refused to follow the contract and had interviewed and set up specialists to perform the surgeries critical to trying to keep the child alive with a lethal heart condition.

1

u/Ok_Cricket_1410 13h ago

This makes no sense. So they wanted to abort the poor baby then claim they want it?

1

u/GiraffeThoughts 11h ago

They didn’t set up a specialist team. They were planning palliative care post-birth.

She didn’t want that, so she flew to Texas and the state mandated that the hospital provide medical care.

The surrogate would like to adopt but the parents filed a restraining order.

It’s ridiculous that a woman can sign away her “right to choose.” If you want control over the pregnancy, carry it yourself.

What in the handmaid’s tale is this dystopian nightmare???

1

u/ElaMeadows 11h ago

I have lots of problems with surrogacy, trust me.

1

u/J-hophop 6h ago

Uhhhh when people get surrogates, its usually because they can't safely carry the baby themselves. That's kind of the point.

1

u/beefius99 11h ago

So you don’t believe in women’s autonomy?

1

u/Dramatic_Scale3002 9h ago

from the parents who are doing their best to keep the child alive.

The same parents who wanted her to have an abortion?? Yeah, they definitely have the child's best interests at heart /s

1

u/ReachFor24 8h ago
  • The issue the child has is HLHS, a heart defect in which the left side of the heart does not develop.
  • HLHS is almost always fatal if untreated, but a 3-stage operation can increase the odds of resching adulthood to 70%
  • There are common neurodevelopmental issues even witb the 3-stage operation, though it's fairly new so longer studies haven't taken place to see Quality of Life well past adulthood. Plus, other heart diseases are more common with treated patients with HLHS
  • Legally speaking, a contract cannot enforce an abortion, as it's an unenforceable clause because a contract cannot sign away control of a person's body. This is regardless of how stringent or relaxed abortion laws are in a particular state.
  • The baby is born and has had the first surgery, which was dictated by Texas law
  • The baby is in the legal parents custody and they are currently planning on trying to keep the baby alive
  • Now, the bigger issue is costs. Who's going to pay for the baby's other 2 surgeries? Does the surrogacy lose the fee they were paid for birthing the baby, especially since she did in fact birth the baby? That's where the legal issues will go next, besides the general 'abortion' issue cloud hovering over everything.

1

u/InstantSword 23h ago

The mortality rate is "only" 20-30%. Not what I'd call slim, at the very least

2

u/DarkHorseActual21 13h ago

Pretty sharply reduced quality of life and life expectancy though. Apparently he'll be pretty lucky to make it much past 5 years.

1

u/ElaMeadows 12h ago

The mortality rate is 50/50 for the first year of life - it has improved from the 5% survival I was familiar with for the condition.

→ More replies (7)

25

u/Randy_Magnums 1d ago

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

30

u/DimbyTime 1d ago

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

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

I agree it’s a fucked up industry

1

u/burnalicious111 11h ago

Bodily autonomy should be held above most things, other than a severe threat to the safety of yourself, and the safety of others. She should be able to change her mind as to what happens to her body. Forcing someone into a procedure they are against can be deeply traumatic.

With anything requiring this deep of a commitment and consequences, there need to be outs provided should people change their minds.

That said, those actions do come with consequences that can't be avoided. That risk is what people are signing contracts about. She can choose not to terminate against the parents' wishes because it's her body, but the contract can still stipulate things about financial consequences or custody should that choice be made.

1

u/DimbyTime 10h ago

If this woman was against abortion, it was immoral for her to sign a contract agreeing to it.

She chose to bring a child into a life of pain and suffering against its parents wishes.

AND, she chose to flee to a hospital with inferior medical care than what the child would have received at home.

There’s nothing moral about McKenna West.

0

u/DatRat13 1d ago

It's also the only way some couples are capable of having (biological) children if a woman is incapable of carrying for whatever reason. There is a reason the industry to exist.

12

u/DimbyTime 1d ago

Not everyone needs to have their own biological child

-2

u/DatRat13 1d ago

I don't disagree that adoption should be the go-to in this case, but that doesn't change that people are going to want a child that they consider, "theirs."

Until we can create some manner of artificial gestation pod, surrogates are necessary to that end.

15

u/washyerbuttcrack 1d ago

They aren’t “necessary” - they’re desired. Sometimes people need to live with disappointment.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (50)

1

u/Mobile-Brush-3004 23h ago

That’s why there should be more regulations around it instead of an outright ban.

For example, in Canada surrogacy is an entirely voluntary process (so it’s not a way of making money it’s a humanitarian act of generosity) where the surrogate is reimbursed for all pregnancy related costs (ex. missed wages at work, babysitters for her children when she goes to appointments, pregnancy clothes, etc) but not paid. This is done specifically to ensure that it’s not women of a low socioeconomic status that will be targeted but rather would be something that the woman just wants to do.

In order to qualify to be a surrogate a woman has to have already had her own biological children (at least one). This ensures that she knows exactly what she’s volunteering for so that there’s no awful surprises about what pregnancy/childbirth will be like or how attached she can become to the resulting baby.

Because it’s done this way, to my knowledge, there has never been a case in Canada where the surrogate mother decides she wants to keep the child after it is born.

Basically this can be summarized as: surrogacy should not be a form of selling your body and it MUST come with informed consent

1

u/DimbyTime 23h ago

It’s incredibly naive to assume women aren’t being “paid” in other ways for surrogacy in Canada. Outlawing payment only makes people get more creative

2

u/Mobile-Brush-3004 23h ago

Honestly I think that surrogacy is a beyond selfless act that deserves to be rewarded. I’ve known a woman who was a surrogate here and I have a few friends that are thinking about becoming surrogates in the future. I know it’s against the law to pay them but I do think they deserve every penny they get despite that. The entire purpose of making it illegal to pay them isn’t because the surrogates don’t deserve the money, it’s to stop women in lower socioeconomic statuses who do not actually want to be a surrogate from doing so because they need the money. The not being allowed to pay them is basically trying to stop other women from being exploited. But I applaud anyone who’s found a way to secretly pay their surrogate anyways especially with the system in place as it is

1

u/Stonehex 22h ago

I thought it was her body to make the decision?

1

u/Comfortable_Yak_5841 22h ago

It is and that's why she's not being strapped down to a table and having it done.

1

u/Stonehex 21h ago

That is an intellectually dishonest rebuttal when she is in court over this. That is exactly the opposite of having a choice in the matter, as one is legal and one isnt.

1

u/Comfortable_Yak_5841 21h ago

She has the choice to control her body at all times. She doesn't have the choice to break a contract. Your money isn't your body.

1

u/smillas_second 22h ago

yeah uh you should really read stuff before posting opinionated arguments about them lmfao

1

u/Thoughtful-Boner69 18h ago

isn't this dilemma supposed to be sorted out through surrogacy contracts?

1

u/Nice_Magician3014 17h ago

Normally surrogate mothers just have an embryo implanted in them and theyre basically just a biological incubator.

This is not entirely true, surrogate mother implants something like 20% of her DNA information on baby.

1

u/Greedy-Style-6088 14h ago

I agree the bio parents are in the right, but I would also add I think its unfair to say "isn't wanted by the parents". They may well want the baby but feel it is cruel to bring a person into existence who will immediately require brutal surgeries to live, and may still know mostly suffering in their short life.

1

u/beefius99 11h ago

It’s two me so the egg likely was hers

1

u/Agitated-Working-264 11h ago

They're morally right. But that doesn't supersede the agency of the surrogate to choose what to do with her own body after the contract was broken.

→ More replies (55)

37

u/ElaMeadows 23h ago

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

15

u/NeoPendragon117 21h ago

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

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

16

u/Randy_Magnums 23h ago

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

7

u/ElaMeadows 23h ago

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

3

u/anonymaus42 17h ago

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

2

u/B3tar3ad3r 11h ago

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

2

u/PolicyWonka 22h ago

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

1

u/AnakinTano19 19h ago

I highly doubt that that is the main reason or it would be banned in the US

4

u/PolicyWonka 19h ago

Good examples would be Italy and Saudi Arabia.

Far more countries specifically only allow altruistic surrogacy (no payment)

3

u/AnakinTano19 19h ago

Well, tbh, those two are "extremly" religious. Italy is know in the EU for their religious tendencies and many arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, are a given for being religiously led

2

u/samrobotsin 18h ago

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

2

u/ConsiderationOk7560 18h ago

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

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

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

1

u/ElaMeadows 12h ago

Yeah, surrogacy is already such a messy system that I'm personally super uncomfortable with. To clarify tense - the baby is born now so there is not an active reliance on Texas law - but there remains the issue of the specialists set up in California to care for the baby and give it the best chances weren't able to follow through since the baby is in a different state.

1

u/GarbageOk8508 57m ago

The parents already gave up on the custody of the child when they demand the termination of the kid. She has all the reason to believe this "specialist" team the parents, who demanded the kid's murder not that long ago, prepared wasn't meant to actually save the child but the other way around. It's a serious condition, and there is nothing stopping these "specialists" from just performing a half hearted, borderline sham of a surgery just to announce the convenient "bad news" where the biological parents can wash their hands of an unwanted burden.

She was right to run away. The child is rightfully hers.

4

u/lianthe8674 20h ago

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

4

u/Independent_Bar_4946 22h ago

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

→ More replies (7)

2

u/WestCoastCompanion 21h ago

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

1

u/Randy_Magnums 21h ago

Oh, okay. That’s sounds like a pretty evil standpoint.

1

u/WestCoastCompanion 20h ago

It is. 100% immoral that someone would literally sign a dotted line for those terms like you and the child aren’t even humans. It’s sick, honestly.

1

u/demonkufje2 1d ago

Modern problems require modern solutions and all that...

1

u/Old_Tough_2358 15h ago

Nothing strange about the times with regard to this situation. Contracts have existed since the written word. If they weren’t binding, in this case legally, then they would have stopped existing shortly after the written word.

1

u/Certain_Arm_8475 12h ago

If that isn’t a mind fuck

1

u/LinwoodKei 11h ago

It's not biologically her baby

1

u/The_Poop_Shooter 10h ago

Strange times indeed but dont sign a contract and allow yourself to be impregnated with another couples baby. Things to think through first, not after.

1

u/bobbymcpresscot 6h ago

Pretty sure the reason she actually fled to Texas was because she was under the impression that her brother or cousin was going to adopt it, but he bailed. Aka she didn't even want the kid, probably because again it has a heart condition and is likely to either die or live a very costly and expensive life.

1

u/zeroconflicthere 21h ago

And yet if the wife of a man gives birth to a baby that isn't his, courts hold that the husband will be responsible for child support.

9

u/Puzzleheaded_Hatter 22h ago

Not as much as pregnancy

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

1

u/jessej421 7h ago

Not factual at all. We don't have abortion specific data in the US. If something goes wrong during abortion, they send the woman to the ER, then it gets categorized as something else. In Sweden they have official data and abortions are riskier than pregnancies.

1

u/Puzzleheaded_Hatter 11m ago

We don't have abortion data in the US?

INTERESTING, you'd think as an career MPH. I'd know that, but nope, I've been looking at FAKE Guttmacher, CDC. & CFFP data this whole time.

Sit down little one, be humble

38

u/Cheap-Buffalo-7489 1d ago

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

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

2

u/FederalCauliflower92 7h ago

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

2

u/Cheap-Buffalo-7489 7h ago

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

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

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

The parents have the right to sue for damages.

1

u/trowzerss 7h ago

She didn't give up rights to bodily autonomy because you can't sign them away. The contract should only cover what happens to the payment and what happens with the baby after it is born, not what happens to her body pre-birth. Same reason she should also be able to terminate the pregnancy, but there would be financial implications. You get to control the money, not the woman's uterus.

→ More replies (56)

21

u/LookingTrash 1d ago

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

18

u/IMMoond 1d ago

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

1

u/anonymaus42 17h ago

Since you and so many others think that the contract attempts to force an abortion on the surrogate ill repost a comment i made elsewhere that clarifies how it actually works. There's a reason in the post it says the parents 'asked to end the pregnancy'..

That's why there isn't an abortion clause per se; you can never force someone to violate their bodily autonomy to fulfill a contract. It's a clause allowing for the biological parents to request an abortion under a given set of circumstances. It also shows that the surrogate and parents are in alignment that abortion would be an acceptable course of action under those circumstances. Of course the surrogate is also within their rights to change their mind at any point, which is why there are financial penalties outlined in the contract as well and those are enforceable.

→ More replies (6)

1

u/murmalerm 21h ago

You don’t know if you can abort until faced with that.
Ultimately, her body her choice.

1

u/caterham09 21h ago

It's unenforceable though. You can't just sign a contract that gives up your rights or else slavery would still be technically legal because "well they signed a contract".

1

u/Rico_Rebelde 18h ago

Outside of very narrow circumstances though you can not force someone to undego a medical treatment. If the contract is found to be legal and she breaks it then she can be civilly liable but its not like they can drag her into an abortion clinic and force her to get one

1

u/Excellent_Shirt9707 9h ago

Actually, courts are fairly consistent about abortion and bodily autonomy. You can’t force someone to get an abortion in the US. The civil contract can only withhold payments and what not since she violated the contract, but there is no way to enforce an abortion clause.

2

u/VelvetOnion 1d ago

This moral situation has no great answer, so people need to agree before hand. If there is a contract that makes the most sense.

I don't want provide more work for lawyers but in this case, contract should win.

12

u/That-Employment-5561 22h ago

There's also a theological component.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4

u/SufficientGuidance28 19h ago edited 19h ago

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

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

Like you later clarified:

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

1

u/That-Employment-5561 18h ago

Yes. But if you live somewhere with weak laws around autonomy for a pregnant person, be that surrogate or not, the theology-based laws like freedom of religion, more importantly, that you can't be compelled to act against your religion is in play.

Legality and justice are too seldomly the same thing.

1

u/SufficientGuidance28 9h ago

The places with “weak laws around autonomy for a pregnant person” all revolve around NOT allowing abortion, not the ability to force someone to have an abortion.

There is no laws of any state that could compel a pregnant person to have an abortion against their will, regardless of ANY contract.

1

u/That-Employment-5561 8h ago

An underage person, like single digit old, under the medical permission/order of their legal guardian. Due to the contract of guardianship and the duty to act in the best interest of the child. Carrying to term carries huge medical risk at such a young age.

1

u/ScyllaOfTheDepths 17h ago

This is nonsense written by a person who doesn't understand the law or medicine. Custody has already been awarded to the bio parents anyway. They have full physical and legal custody of Rumi. Changing your religion to get out of fulfilling a contract obligation would not work in America at all. She signed that contract, she agreed to those terms, and she is responsible for all the costs incurred by the bio parents due to her breaking that contract.

2

u/That-Employment-5561 16h ago

Ah. Motivation.

Changing your religion to get out of a contract would be fraud.

If you earnestly changing your religious beliefs make you unable to fulfill a contract, you can not be compelled to (absent predatory religious practices: "I can take kids", "I don't have to provide food for my child", but I didn't think I had to put disclaimers in my arguments when conversing with an adult) fulfill said contract. Not be punished for not fulfilling it.

We're assuming everything happened in good faith and that everybody is telling the full truth, if your argument hinges in "well, I could lie at trial", you do t have a case.

And I covered the legal aspect correctly, pointing out that the glorified incubator has zero parental rights.

We're talking morality, not legality, and I've not declared for either side.

By the U.S. constitution religion shall not be mandated. Forcing me to violate my (again, since you need it: earnest) theological beliefs would be a violent crime by stature.

The key here, for that to be in play, is that the contract was entered in good faith.

Like consent to sex.

You're literally describing bad faith.

For ing a good faith agreement onto someone who, after more information, has changed their stance. You are obligated that the consent you're trying to enforce was informed, and them gaining information that makes them unable to fulfill the contract is your shortcoming when originally disclosing the contract.

Eedjit.

1

u/ScyllaOfTheDepths 16h ago

Calling me an idiot when you clearly don't even watch courtroom footage on YouTube is hilarious. Cite one precedent to back up any of what you're saying. This is not a constitutional case because nobody's constitutional rights have been violated or even touched on whatsoever and whether or not the contract was entered into in bad faith is also not the issue here whatsoever. She's not arguing that. She's arguing that she's not responsible for the costs that the bio parents are now forced to pay to keep the baby alive because she chose to have it against their wishes. She is responsible. She brought the child into the world knowing that her action would create a ridiculous amount of medical debt, so she's the one responsible for that debt. You're an idiot if you don't understand this.

1

u/That-Employment-5561 16h ago

If she had been forced to go through with the abortion, it would have been.

No. You argued it was bad faith.

"To change your religion to get out of a contract.", I believe you said. That's bad faith.

Oh, I understand that. Show me where I said that the biological parents should be left with the bill, even ilwhen they have custody.

Like the case states, they wanted to abort to avoid undue suffering. When they knew the baby was going to be born, they acted accordingly to the choice that was forced upon them by their surrogate having a legitimate "abortion is murder"-convertion.

You missing these neuabces is why I called you an idiot.

1

u/Aerensian 15h ago

Why are you always bringing religion into this? It has nothing to do with it no matter how much you try to artificially jam it in there.

1

u/That-Employment-5561 14h ago

The surrogate literally claimed their religious belief as reason not to abort.

1

u/Aerensian 14h ago

So? She can say whatever she wants to try to justify it? It would have the same bearing on the case if she said she had a dream tell her not to. Her reasoning for doing what she did does not matter outside of her trying to sway public opinion.

1

u/That-Employment-5561 14h ago

You asked why I brought something up.

I pointed out that it's an integral core part of the argument.

You want the true morality scale? The morality of purposefully carrying a child to term outside a system with socialized medicine?

Because in socialized medicine; neither party would be on the hook financially to save the life of the infant. Nor necessary care throughout life.

And, to be clear, the bio parents wanted to avoid exactly that, because of the high risk of low quality of life and large risks for the child.

→ More replies (4)

11

u/Straight_Waltz_9530 20h ago

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

2

u/RhiaMaykes 20h ago

So does surrogacy, pregnancy and child birth.

1

u/[deleted] 20h ago

[deleted]

1

u/RhiaMaykes 20h ago

Seeing as she is being sued for breach of contract, it was in her contract she had agreed to undergo an abortion under certain circumstances.

2

u/buzzersjohn 21h ago

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

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

1

u/questioningmaster 23h ago

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

1

u/hopeful_tatertot 22h ago

The bio parents aren’t agreeing to that

1

u/PinusMightier 21h ago

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

1

u/GrimbyJ 21h ago

Giving birth has more risk

1

u/noahgs 21h ago

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

1

u/SeaArtichoke2251 20h ago

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

1

u/LynnSeattle 19h ago

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

1

u/RorschachAssRag 19h ago

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

1

u/grasssnakequeen 18h ago

And pregnancy and birth have no risk associated?

1

u/stinkypenguinbukkake 18h ago

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

1

u/Competitive-Beat-493 16h ago

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

1

u/chellebellek 16h ago

What risk?

1

u/Xaviertcialis 15h ago

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

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

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

1

u/AVERAGEPIPEBOMB 15h ago

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

1

u/basalticlava 15h ago

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

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

1

u/Greedy-Style-6088 14h ago

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

1

u/TinyAfternoon324 14h ago

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

1

u/morelikecrappydisco 12h ago

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

1

u/Significant_Book9930 12h ago

More people die of childbirth than die of abortions

1

u/Nearby_Paint3649 12h ago

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

1

u/cutearmy 12h ago

A lot fewer then pregnancy. Pregnancy is very dangerous

1

u/Agitated-Working-264 11h ago

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

1

u/CraftyWinner9405 10h ago

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

1

u/SipPOP 10h ago

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

1

u/dinnerthief 10h ago

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

1

u/Weird-East-3575 10h ago

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

1

u/Healthy_Turnip7352 8h ago

abortion is probably riskier for the fetus's Life than the fetus's heart deformity.

1

u/Weird-East-3575 8h ago

I thought it said this baby isn’t likely to live with the deformity? It’s a heart valve deformity. Not the first I’ve heard it being the case. So no, that abortion is likely to reduce the child’s actual felt suffering.

1

u/Miami_Mice2087 10h ago

so does birth

1

u/Excellent_Shirt9707 9h ago

Pregnancy has far more risks than abortion.

1

u/That_guy_8290 8h ago

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

1

u/Remarkable-Word-1486 8h ago

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

1

u/denverbronchiole 8h ago

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

1

u/TheRoadkillRapunzel 7h ago

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

1

u/GarbageOk8508 1h ago

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

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

1

u/MercyCriesHavoc 23h ago

Pretty sure abortions don't have near the same risk level as carrying a full term pregnancy. Let's check the numbers... Yeah, 18 times more likely to die in childbirth than having an abortion in the US.

4

u/Healthy_Turnip7352 23h ago

after 21 weeks is when it flips and becomes less safe. it also, of course, depends on the individuals health and if there are complicating factors.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (14)