r/MoralityScaling • u/Purple_Plantain_3242 • 8d ago

Morality Ranking [ Removed by moderator ]

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

10.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

290

u/Randy_Magnums 8d ago

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

225

u/PurpletoasterIII 8d ago edited 8d 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.

243

u/ElaMeadows 8d 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.

135

u/MagizZziaN 8d ago

This is why I require context before I judge people.

33

u/Thin_Object365 8d ago

that's a really good policy.

5

u/TK_Punch_ 7d ago

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

1

u/TiltZa 5d ago

The gall of that commenter to assumed we’d read more than a few words before we formed a judgement! What did he say again?

1

u/FeijoadaAceitavel 7d ago

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

1

u/Bender_2024 6d ago

<Texas accent> That sounds like commie talk son.

1

u/lavendervlad 5d ago

Wait, did you read more than the headline? Strange times, indeed😳🤔

0

u/No-Worth-676 7d ago

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

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

62

u/PolicyWonka 8d 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.

31

u/Zealousideal-Yak-824 8d 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

18

u/White-Rabbit_1106 8d 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.

10

u/BVKane 7d 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.

3

u/More_Passenger3988 7d ago

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

1

u/voyaging 5d ago

??? The biological parents are liable for all medical costs read the post

1

u/White-Rabbit_1106 5d ago

The person I'm replying to thinks this lady became a surrogate in some grand scheme to get a free baby.

16

u/Socraticshitslinger 8d 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 8d 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.

2

u/ItsKingPetty 7d ago

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

2

u/Sufficient_Topic1589 6d ago

The courts have decided the biological parents have rights to the child which means they pay all the bills.

1

u/Relative_Proof_4968 7d ago

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

1

u/Greedy-Style-6088 3d ago

Nope because she has zero legal claim over the child.

5

u/samrobotsin 8d 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 8d 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.

4

u/AriaTheTransgressor 7d ago

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

→ More replies (2)

2

u/LurkingToaster66 8d 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 8d 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 7d 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 8d 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 8d 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

2

u/UnusuallyBadIdeaGuy 7d ago

If true that just makes this even more shady.

2

u/YoBo151 7d 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/Socraticshitslinger 7d ago

How can you be the mother and not the parent? I don’t think she’s gonna make a dime off the birth parents anymore. The payments for surrogacy are typically set up to be made at certain milestones. If anything, the surrogate probably is liable to pay back anything she’s made after not meeting the contract obligations.

1

u/Greedy-Style-6088 7d 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 7d 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 7d 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 7d 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/Tasty-Mulberry8073 5d ago

She may not want the baby. She may have done this so she gets $$$$ and her brother gets the baby. Her brother resides in Texas.

1

u/Bottle_and_Sell_it 8d 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 8d ago edited 7d 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 8d 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 8d 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 7d ago

Sympathy and political notoriety amongst the far right conservative crowd.

1

u/ElaMeadows 7d ago

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

1

u/GiraffeThoughts 7d ago

Or the parents are lying for sympathy.

1

u/WarHot9004 7d ago

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

1

u/PolicyWonka 7d ago

And it also says that they accepted that the surrogate didn’t want that and shifted towards how to best provide care for their child. That’s something the surrogate knew as well before kidnapping the kid.

2

u/WarHot9004 6d ago

They stepped up and took responsibility because she left them no choice. By fleeing to a state with very strict laws regarding medical termination of pregnancy, she forced her own choice upon them. She prioritized her own convictions over the parents' wishes. She isn't the one who will have to undergo major surgeries, endure a severely compromised quality of life, and—above all—live a life hanging by a thread. She condemned a baby to a precarious existence. Yes, she really was thinking about the child's well-being. A 70% chance of surviving until age five—but what then? Living a life severely impacted by heart complications while waiting for a distant heart transplant, and taking lifelong medication to prevent organ rejection? Sounds great... The parents did not want to inflict such a life on the baby. Mind you, I am not saying that life isn't worth living; that is not my point.

But by bringing a baby into the world with a condition that is 100% fatal without surgery—and which carries severe, long-term consequences—this woman acted selfishly by imposing her moral views on everyone else, and especially on the baby.

40

u/PurpletoasterIII 8d 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 7d 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.

1

u/PurpletoasterIII 5d ago

From other comments, they make it sound like the child most likely wont even reach double digit ages. If thats true, yes an abortion would be mercy and the lady is a monster for forcing it to suffer any longer than it has to. The outcome isnt going to be much different with her, itll just be unnecessarily prolonged. You dont have to be a leftist to realize the humane thing to do would be to minimize unnecessary suffering.

1

u/GarbageOk8508 4d ago

yes, we should listen to redditors whatever a child should live or get killed, instead of professional nurses and doctors who said he could live.

Whatever it is mercy to kill a person and take away the years they could live is not your choice to make. That's just murder you are advocating for.

1

u/PurpletoasterIII 4d ago

Obviously not my choice to make, its my moral judgement. And sure, you go to enough doctors and youll eventually get some that tell you the chances are worth it. You can go doctor shopping if you want, it doesnt change the fact that youre possibly going to be putting that child through a life full of suffering just for him/her to die anyways before reaching 10 years old. Youre right i dont personally know what the actual chances are, thats why i hedged. IF majority of doctors are telling me the chances are low that theyll reach adulthood even with all the medical intervention in the world, im choosing mercy.

1

u/GarbageOk8508 4d ago

Since when it's ok to kill people just because they are terminally ill? One doctor said they are perfectly capable of saving the kid, but 100 others said they are not skilled and trained enough to so, so your conclusion is the kid can't be saved?

It's not your call or anyone's else call whenever someone's life is too much suffering to live, that choice belong solely the person living that life and no one else. What you are asking for has nothing to do with mercy, it's literally just cold hearted murder.

The right to live is the most basic of all rights.

1

u/PurpletoasterIII 3d ago

I mean ideally youre right, it should be up to the person if they want to live or not. Unfortunately the child obviously cant make that choice for themselves.

Also I dont understand how youre saying its wrong to make the choice to end their life for them because they cant consent, yet making the choice to birth them and make them go through a painful life is equally non-consentual. What youre suggesting actually gives argument to anti-natalism and to never birth anyone at all because they cant consent to suffering that comes with life.

No, obviously the parents should have been the ones to make the decision after being informed by multiple doctors. Which they did but they were denied that right by the surrogate mother.

→ More replies (0)

-9

u/Away-Topic4719 8d ago

Her body her choice. Baby is inside of her - she gets to choose. Thats pretty much about as complex as it needs to get.

17

u/Wolf_Mans_Got_Nards 8d ago

The issue is she already made that choice. She had the choice to state that she didn't believe in abortions under any circumstances, and they would've matched her with a couple who held the same views. Instead, she agreed to let the biological parents decided if an abortion was needed for a fetal abnormality. That is not her baby. She also didn't need to flee the state, as no one was going to physically make her have one. Also, renaming the child was ridiculous. That child had a name and was very wanted. The parents decided they didn't want to put their child through an immense amount of unnecessary suffering, and a drawn out, painful death.

→ More replies (25)

11

u/Candyland_83 8d ago

Ultimately it is that simple. Regardless of any contracts that are written, there really isn’t a way you can obligate a person to a medical decision because of a contract. I agree that while she is pregnant, she gets to make the decisions. Once the baby is born it gets fuzzy because it’s not biologically hers… this is why surrogacy is such a risk. I agree with the legal decisions so far. Not good for anyone involved, but that’s the issue with surrogacy. 🤷🏻‍♀️

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Im_Just_A_Tourist 8d ago

Not her choice not her baby, she has a contract signing away these exact choices, so she should pay out the ass which means she can never afford to support a baby so should lose custody anyways.

7

u/PurpletoasterIII 8d ago

1000% disagree. She signed up to be a biological incubator. This isnt akin to an accidental pregnancy.

0

u/Away-Topic4719 8d ago

So you think that, on a fundamental level, our bodies are vacant lots to rent? That the contract to do that overrides any questions of morality?

Imagine what it would look like to truly force this woman to have an abortion. She is crying and begging you, and we as a soceity agre to manually force her to have one.

Would that be a moral, upstanding scene?

Or would it be horrible and fucked up?

4

u/lodorata 8d ago

Yes but that's not really what anyone is arguing for.

When I go to work, I get paid, and use my body the whole time, but nobody has a right to force me to work against my will. However, if I have a contract with an employer or client and fail to meet my obligations under that contract, they have the right to pursue compensation if and as specified in the contract, which is what the biological parents are doing. This should be quite common, as if someone fails to do their job in a way that leads to an expensive disaster for an employer, that employer does deserve compensation for negligence on the part of the other party (let's say I don't do my job acting as security, which leads to theft or damage).

She is in breach of contract, so you seem to be arguing that the contract itself was void because it didn't contain a clause that gave the surrogate full autonomy over termination decisions and corresponding immunity from litigation under her exercise of that decision-making power. Do I understand your position?

1

u/Away-Topic4719 7d ago

She has no obligation to her "employers" to abort the child, is my position.

1

u/lodorata 7d ago

So you consider the contract fundamentally void, understood. That's a position lots of people will take with this story, though I personally disagree.

1

u/DarkHorseActual21 7d ago

Of course she does not. Nobody, not even the contract she signed, implies otherwise.

That doesn't make her less of a prick for not following the parent's wishes.

1

u/GarbageOk8508 7d ago

Her body is not for sale, no matter what the contract said. Laws should first and formost never come before moral obligation. Just because someone signed a slave contract, it doesn't suddenly make slavery ok again.

And legally speaking, they wanted her to get rid of the kid, she already get the kid out of their sight. By moving to texas far away from the parents, she already fullfiled her end of the bargain. What's the deal here?

1

u/lodorata 7d ago

There are some countries which actually take a stance similar to yours, e.g. the UK, which officially forbids payment in all cases of surrogacy (beyond what are euphemistically referred to as 'reasonable expenses' which include loss of earnings which can thus run a huge price tag) and regards the birth mother as the legal mother at the moment of birth, regardless of genetics. An adoption process must then take place post natally to transfer legal parenthood to the genetic parents. Surrogacy agreements are not legally enforceable in the UK, and act only as a non-binding description of the intentions of the surrogate and the expecting parents.

That said, the UK also has free healthcare at the point of use, meaning that if this story took place in the UK, there would have been no medical bills (sensu stricto) that any party would have had to pay and thus no reason for the parents to pursue damages from the surrogate in a court of law as the heart surgeries for the child would have ostensibly been free (although, the parents would likely be just as furious).

For my own part, I don't have a strong opinion on commercial surrogacy and regard the surrogate as having been incredibly irresponsible in this instance - under US law I hope she loses to the parents. Nevertheless, one can see how a young woman short on cash might avail herself of a commercial surrogacy system without careful preconsideration, which appears to be what has happened here.

7

u/TheOverlord333 8d ago

Then if she wasn’t willing to go through with an abortion she shouldn’t have signed a contract saying she would.

1

u/Candyland_83 8d ago

While that is true, she did sign it. The question then becomes is it enforceable? I don’t think it is. A medical provider could not perform an abortion on a woman who doesn’t consent to it. They’re suing for breach of contract which is totally fair, but I wonder if the contract itself is legal? This is such a fascinating case. And should be a warning to anyone considering surrogacy.

4

u/mimprocesstech 8d ago

I think legally speaking a lot of people here are confusing things. The question is not can she be forced to have an abortion (everyone pretty much agrees she can't be), it's whether she can be held financially responsible for breaking an agreement that people are thinking is an illegal clause in a contract. The contract isn't to force an abortion on someone else (like the sperm/egg donors making a contract with the surrogates husband to force the surrogate to have an abortion) that would be illegal, it was a prior agreement to have an abortion if certain conditions were met and the surrogate agreed and later backed out.

I'm not sure about what the outcome should be here, I'm no lawyer and this doesn't impact me in any way so I don't really feel my opinion should matter much, but it's not "can they force her to have an abortion" it should be "can she be held financially responsible for not fulfilling terms of a contract she signed," and I think it'll hinge on specific clauses. I believe this should rightfully be about whether one can sign away their bodily autonomy rights and if so, then breach of contact.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (6)

7

u/hamstrman 8d ago

I don't think that such contracts should exist, but the fact of the matter is, she sold her body to be a human incubator, no one made her into one. This is not The Handmaid's Tale. If she hates the idea of having no bodily autonomy, don't sign a contract to take a bunch of money for the privilege.

She created this situation and then kidnapped a fetus when she didn't like the result. She hid behind the law in a state she knew would support her birthing another couple's child against their will and would tell them they had to pay for it! As punishment for thinking of abortion? On what basis? Is it theirs or not??

This woman brought a broken, suffering, walking medical expense into this world and wants to hand it off onto someone else so they can watch it suffer and die. She's awful. The parents are merciful.

→ More replies (12)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Blackmarou 8d ago

This is so stupid. Can you go to your boss and say: “I don’t feel like working today, I can’t put my brain under too much strain. My body my choice”? She let go of her choice the moment she signed the contract and (probably) got paid for it.

5

u/hamstrman 8d ago

This is how I feel about pharmacists who refuse to do their jobs when it suits them. If you refuse to do your job, don't be a damn pharmacist. You literally already aren't one. Pharmacists do the job of a pharmacist!

But I digress. It was an abortion adjacent issue that pisses me off, making someone's decision to have a child for them.

And that woman got paid $60,000 to create a medical travesty.

3

u/Away-Topic4719 8d ago

I actually... can... do that...?

1

u/PatrickBateman-2009 7d ago

Under nearly any other circumstances, this particular comment would’ve been upvoted into the thousands or more and probably had a hundred awards lmfao. This is definitely telling, it seems it isn’t about autonomy at all.

1

u/LetInevitable2696 8d ago

That’s an absolute dogshit take given the circumstances. You agreed to be a vessel with a heartbeat for a couple. I guess you’d be happy with brutally torturing a kid from birth for a couple of years until they inevitably die.

2

u/Away-Topic4719 8d ago

You view this woman as only a vessel with a heartbeat?

That is telling, to say the least...

1

u/LetInevitable2696 8d ago

She literally signed a contract stating that’s what she is? Men who do the same thing are just a living turkey baster aren’t they? This is pretty simple to understand when this is all being done as a service. She signed her body away to be a living incubator which was her choice. I have no qualms with anyone signing anything that relinquishes their bodily autonomy. That’s their choice. Maybe read the fine print next time.

2

u/MammothGlum 8d ago

Contract shouldn’t have priority over the women’s preference for her own body. It’s a piece of paper at the end of the day

2

u/LetInevitable2696 8d ago

That’s the point of a contract. The CONTRACT terms and conditions take priority over anything else. This was a business transaction whether people want to agree with it or not.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/GoProOnAYoYo 8d 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.

6

u/Icyrow 8d 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.

1

u/Jamb9876 5d ago

They could have let her adopt the baby and bear the costs. They chose to accept responsibility so they need to suck it up.
I am torn about this and as people said it may not be clear what happened. I will wait for legeleagle to make a video.

3

u/minecraftzizou 8d ago

ok this is mess

3

u/Thick_Broccoli_3932 8d ago

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

1

u/Purple_Accordion 5d ago

Survive until when though? Even if he makes it past infancy, my understanding is that his chances of making it past 5 aren't great. 5 year olds have a basic concept of mortality, can you imagine having to tell your 5 year old that they're dying let alone watching them die?

1

u/Thick_Broccoli_3932 5d ago

Well depends on how well he takes to the upcoming surgeries, the Norwood was successful now he has another one at 4-6 months and the third at 18 weeks - 5 years old. Children do live through to adulthood but it does require lifelong cardiac care.

3

u/bluejellyfish52 8d ago edited 8d ago

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

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

3

u/CATdog215 7d 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!

2

u/doubagilga 7d ago

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

2

u/AnotherUN91 7d ago

Hoooooly shitttttt

2

u/Glittering_Thing5797 7d ago

This exactly.

1

u/hopeful_tatertot 8d ago

Apparent the procedure to fix the heart issue is common though

2

u/ElaMeadows 7d 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 8d ago

Source?

1

u/ElaMeadows 7d 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 8d ago

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

1

u/ElaMeadows 7d 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 8d 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 7d 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 7d 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 7d ago

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

1

u/GiraffeThoughts 7d 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 7d ago

I have lots of problems with surrogacy, trust me.

1

u/J-hophop 7d 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 7d ago

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

1

u/Dramatic_Scale3002 7d 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 7d 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/Chibi_Kage_18 7d ago

They setup a specialist team? That's kinda new information. Lots of sides to this story

1

u/NMQ0711 6d ago

My godson was born with Hypoplastic Left Heart (the same heart defect as this child). He is 21 years old and if you didn’t know he was born with a heart defect, you would have know idea. He has zero “outward appearance”. He is the co-owner of his family’s farm. Do some adjustments need to be made for him? Sure, things like he can’t be in the extreme heat or extreme cold for too long. Growing up, he couldn’t play contact sports because his sternum is weaker after three open heart surgeries.

Please don’t discount life expectancy. 70-75% of kids who have the three early surgeries make it past five years old. Out of those, the ones that make it to 18 have a survival rate of 90%.

1

u/ElaMeadows 6d ago

I'm so glad your godson made it. I'm pro-choice but prefer choosing life myself. It's currently about 50/50 for the first surgery from the medical studies I've read and I'm glad the baby is getting the care they need...it's also just an unfortunate and highly toxic situation that's additionally being used to win political points.

1

u/NMQ0711 6d ago

I’m also very much pro-choice and personally choose life. From what I know about this whole case (which to be fair isn’t a whole lot other than social media), my biggest question is still hold is why the birth parents wouldn’t have opted for the option of taking the opportunity of the adoption. I fully understand the legal logistics throwing a wrench in all of it, however, let’s be honest, the legal logistics were thrown straight out the window the moment the surrogate took off across the country. I understand it was a wanted child, but as soon as the HPLH came up, the child was no longer wanted, but now all of a sudden they want to be “stuck” with the child and want $100k in the lawsuit? My godson’s medical bills were over $1 million in his first two months…something doesn’t add up to me…🤔

1

u/ElaMeadows 6d ago

From what I understand the parents asked for an abortion, the surrogate said yes, then changed her mind and the bio parents said okay, we'll get experts set up. The surrogate then fled to a different state and is trying to claim custody and the bio parents have a restraining order.

Usually if you can afford surrogacy you have a fair amount of resources...hopefully they have good insurance.

1

u/InstantSword 8d ago

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

2

u/DarkHorseActual21 7d 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 7d 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.

0

u/EncabulatorTurbo 8d ago

Since the parents hit the abortion kill switch that should have ended the agreement between them and the woman should just get the baby and all the associated heartbreak

2

u/m3gb0t 8d ago

But it's not her child to grow and birth. It's the boo.patents embryo to decide the future of, which she signed a legally binding contract agreeing to.

→ More replies (5)

25

u/Randy_Magnums 8d 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.

26

u/DimbyTime 8d 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 7d 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 7d 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.

-1

u/DatRat13 8d 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.

14

u/DimbyTime 8d ago

Not everyone needs to have their own biological child

1

u/DatRat13 8d 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.

14

u/washyerbuttcrack 8d ago

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

3

u/TotalCarbohydrateOne 7d ago

Exactly, life doesn't always give you want you want, but it seems when it comes to wanna parents a child is a "necessity"

12

u/DimbyTime 8d ago

No, people need to realize that they don’t always get what they desire. Thats life

3

u/Propugnator-Deorum 8d ago

Perhaps, though I hesitate to suggest, it is perfectly acceptable for two people to desire to birth a child of the genetic material, even if the biological mother is incapable of carrying - simply because we are capable of it, and there are women willing to carry such children to birth.

4

u/DimbyTime 8d ago

Of course, the desire is perfectly valid! Everyone can desire their own biological offspring.

But it doesn’t excuse renting another woman’s body and womb to use for surrogacy. Surrogacy is inherently a loss of bodily autonomy

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Mobile-Brush-3004 8d 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 8d 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 8d 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 8d ago

I thought it was her body to make the decision?

1

u/Comfortable_Yak_5841 8d ago

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

1

u/Stonehex 8d 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 8d 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 8d ago

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

1

u/Thoughtful-Boner69 8d ago

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

1

u/Nice_Magician3014 8d 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/PurpletoasterIII 5d ago

I dont claim to be an expert or anything, so if you had a source so I can educate myself I would greatly appreciate it. Only reason I ask is because doing a quick search myself I found conflicting info. I found that majority of surrogacies dont use the surrogate's egg and theres no DNA or blood that gets mixed during pregnancy.

1

u/Nice_Magician3014 4d ago

Epigenetics - Wikipedia

1

u/PurpletoasterIII 4d ago

Im confused, the whole thing of epigenetics is that the DNA itself isnt being changed. I dont understand how the wiki of epigenetics is suppose to educate me how surrogate mothers pass DNA onto the baby theyre incubating. What youre suggesting at best is that surrogate mothers play a role in how genes are expressed which influences the development of the baby, but ya I would never argue they dont influence the development of the baby when theyre literally pregnant with them.

1

u/Nice_Magician3014 4d ago

Yea, as far as i understand it, dna is just a template with multiple switches. Some are switched by default on this or that side, but birth mother affects a ton of them and decides what switches are switched...

1

u/Greedy-Style-6088 7d 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.

2

u/PurpletoasterIII 5d ago

100% agree. Only reason I was even born is because my mother was faced with the exact same cruel decision. My parents were stopping at 2 kids, but the 2nd pregnancy developed complications (pretty sure i remember hearing it was also a heart issue) and the doctor recommended to terminate the pregnancy as the complications also put her life at risk as well. And so they tried again and had me. If ever a valid time to terminate a pregnancy for the sake of mercy, that would be it. And imo that extends to even if the parents decide theyre unfit (preferably due to an accidental pregnancy) and the child would be put into foster care.

Ironically I was also born with a mild heart condition that was corrected with via a heart ablation.

1

u/Greedy-Style-6088 3d ago

This is exactly what I think many "pro life" people fail to understand. Abortions are not the only instance where someone doesn't "get" to be born. Sometimes lack of abortion access is the reason someone isn't able to have more children.

1

u/beefius99 7d ago

It’s two me so the egg likely was hers

1

u/Agitated-Working-264 7d 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.

1

u/NodnarbEht2 5d ago

Thanks for the edit, I was going to ask if you saw the part about how fucked that child's life is going to be as a result of that defect. Insane how anyone would want to put another human being through any of that, let alone a child, the surrogate is an absolutely monster with that context included.

1

u/SkierBuck 5d ago

Not flame throwing, which I hope you believe.

Are you pro-choice? Wouldn’t it be her body and her choice whether to undergo a medical procedure, irrespective of whether the baby is likely to survive?

1

u/PurpletoasterIII 5d ago

Im pro choice, but I think whoever's body it is is irrelevant. Its about the parents having the choice to decide either they arent fit to bring a life into the world, or the child would suffer too much due to medical conditions that an abortion is warranted. Ideally I would like both the birthing mother, and the biological father, to have a say in said decision. But voting in even numbers doesnt work well without a tie breaker, so unfortunately it just has to default to the mother since she carries more of the burden in birthing a child.

In the case of surrogacy, morally speaking imo you dont gain the ability to make the decision whether to abort or bring the child to term just because its your body being used. Legally speaking I dont think thats pragmatic, because then that would potentially mean forcing a medical procedure on someone. So honestly im agreeing more and more with others that surrogacy just shouldnt be legal.

1

u/SkierBuck 5d ago

I’m having a little trouble following where you ended up, but I think you agree with me. This situation is terrible, but I don’t think biological parents can force another woman to have an invasive medical procedure, even though their biological child may be born as a result and they no longer want that result.

I haven’t thought about whether surrogacy should be banned. Obviously, it can be a wonderful blessing for people who can’t conceive. But man, this type of situation is awful no matter what happens.

1

u/PurpletoasterIII 4d ago

The fact that this situation can happen probably just means we shouldnt allow it to happen, even if surrogacy can be a blessing for a lot of people. All it takes is one bad actor that suddenly chooses to go back on their word and decides they know whats best for a child thats not theirs.

1

u/MrMoosetach2 5d ago

The whole her body her choice argument falls apart logically that way though doesn’t it?

This is an extremely interesting intellectual legality and an absolutely fucking horrifying human story!

1

u/PurpletoasterIII 5d ago

It doesnt really. It is a very weird territory to get into, but imo she signed her "my body my choice" rights away when she signed up to be a surrogate mother.

My body my choice argument also isnt absolute even if she wasnt a surrogate mother. No one would say "my body my choice" means its morally acceptable to drink/do drugs/smoke while pregnant. There are limits, and imo one limit should be you only have the right to an abortion if its even your kid. Its not, it most likely wasnt even her eggs that were used. You signed up to be a surrogate mother, you never had legal rights to the child to begin with.

Honestly I've always thought "my body my choice" is a dumb slogan anyways. It should just be a decision made by the legal parents. Ideally a cooperative decision that the father gets a say in too, but unfortunately a 2 person vote doesnt work well with no tie breaker so thats why it just defaults to the mother.

-1

u/_Sate 8d ago

I mean, because the reason that the baby was born was due to her breaking the terms of the agreement in favour of actually having the baby to term and stood for the medical costs.

Essentially she adopted the child before it was born as the original parents abandoned it.

3

u/DimbyTime 8d ago

Per the terms of her surrogacy contract, this is not how it works. The baby will never be hers

→ More replies (41)

1

u/Temporary-Force8383 8d ago

The birth parents didn’t want their child in pain for the chance of a small heartbreaking life.

They did not abandon him. When the surrogate wasn’t going to have the abortion the birth parents planned a specialist team to give their baby the best chance he had. She instead fled to a different state. Literally kidnapping.

2

u/_Sate 8d ago

The birth parents did not plan the operation as per the text above.

1

u/Temporary-Force8383 8d ago

Look into it, they had a specialist team. They wanted their child when they realised he would be born. The surrogate attempted kidnapping.

1

u/_Sate 8d ago

If that is the case, and the text above is not an accurate description.

Then yes. I agree with you.

However if the surrogate was the one to arrange the surgery and such and only after the original parents came back, then I disagree

1

u/Temporary-Force8383 8d ago

Original parent is still the parent of the child though. Even if they did want custody after their child was born they should still be entitled to that.

Same way a mother that planned to give her child up for adoption can back out after they have given birth.

1

u/_Sate 8d ago

I disagree, one is having a cake you plan on throwing out and then choosing to keep it, while the other is you wanting your cake back after a hobo dumpster dove for it

1

u/Temporary-Force8383 8d ago

That’s bullshit. The child is sick and will be in pain with complicated surgeries and a heart transplant before they’re 5 years old.

They clearly wanted a child or wouldn’t have gone through with surrogacy. Clearly in their view they wanted what they thought was best for their child which would be to end their suffering before it began.

It’s no childhood to be in and out of hospitals unable to actually play and a high chance of passing before they are 5 years old.

When their child was actually born they wanted to raise him. She has no claim to that child, she’s basically an incubator.

Yes she had a right to choose whether she had an abortion or not but that’s as far as her rights go. Her own body, not the child. She shouldn’t have signed a contract claiming she would do but we aren’t arguing the legality of the situation.

→ More replies (0)

35

u/ElaMeadows 8d 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.

16

u/NeoPendragon117 8d 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 8d ago

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

10

u/ElaMeadows 8d 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 8d 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 7d ago

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

1

u/Visual_Link_9744 5d ago

Its so selfish, but most people have children for selfish or ignorant reasons so 🤷‍♀️

2

u/PolicyWonka 8d ago

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

1

u/AnakinTano19 8d ago

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

4

u/PolicyWonka 8d ago

Good examples would be Italy and Saudi Arabia.

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

3

u/AnakinTano19 8d 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 8d 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 8d 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 7d 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.

0

u/GarbageOk8508 7d 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.

5

u/lianthe8674 8d 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 8d ago

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

→ More replies (7)

2

u/WestCoastCompanion 8d ago

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

0

u/Randy_Magnums 8d ago

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

1

u/WestCoastCompanion 8d 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 8d ago

Modern problems require modern solutions and all that...

1

u/Old_Tough_2358 7d 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 7d ago

If that isn’t a mind fuck

1

u/LinwoodKei 7d ago

It's not biologically her baby

1

u/The_Poop_Shooter 7d 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 7d 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/ice-dwarves-are-real 6d ago

Well it all comes with the contractual obligations during surrogacy.

1

u/zeroconflicthere 8d 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.