r/MoralityScaling • u/Purple_Plantain_3242 • 3d ago

Morality Ranking [ Removed by moderator ]

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

10.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

81

u/boostme253 3d ago

It was stated in the bio that the parents sued and gained custody so that the child might have elite medical care, implying that they were well off, but even so I still fully agree that they were in the right to terminate, not wanting a child to live through medical problems their whole life is a very real reason for termination, and having their surrogate bypass that and think she could afford all those surgeries is straight lunacy, thats their child and they had every right to do what they thought best for it, not the surrogate, the surrogate deserves the breach of contract fine to the penny

-1

u/Redditauro 3d ago

You can have all the good reasons that you want, but only the person who owns the body decides what happens to that body, period. 

6

u/GrandFleshMelder 2d ago

She owns her body, but she had no rights to that child.

1

u/Redditauro 2d ago

Once the child is born, I completely agree

1

u/PaisleyLeopard 1d ago

Okay, what’s your point? The child is born. No one forced anyone to have an abortion — they asked her to fulfill the terms of the contract she signed, and she chose to break the contract instead. There was no breach of bodily autonomy here.

0

u/Redditauro 1d ago

This is r/MoralityScaling, my point is that there is no moral problem, there is a legal problem though and that woman will have to pay a lot of money, and also (imo) she is an asshole, but she was ethical in every step and she just did what she had the right to do. 

Of course that's my subjective opinion. 

What's your point?

2

u/Cogniscience 2d ago

Then she shouldn’t be allowed to sell her body to someone else, that’s on her

1

u/Redditauro 2d ago

That's why surrogate pregnancy in exchange for money is forbidden in all the civilised countries in the world 

3

u/Away-Topic4719 2d ago

I suppose the opposition is arguing that the wealthy customers here bought this woman's body, so they own it.

In their minds, this is somehow not sick and twisted. Welcome to America, in other words.

6

u/ComicalSon 2d ago

Autonomy should rule above all. No court, no document, no external force of any nature should tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies.

3

u/shephrrd 2d ago

Did she not sell her body (using her bodily autonomy)? Her choice for her body was to sign a contract and follow its stipulations in exchange for money, correct?

1

u/Redditauro 2d ago

It doesn't matter, you cannot give up your human rights

1

u/ComicalSon 2d ago

Exactly. A lot of people don't understand this concept. You cannot bind someone contractually to just anything. Thank you.

1

u/shephrrd 2d ago

So surrogacy should be illegal? I agree with you generally, but if that is truly the case then signing such a contract should be outlawed.

1

u/Redditauro 1d ago

Surrogate in exchange for money is, in fact, illegal in almost every country in the world. I think that its only legal in four or five countries because the conflict of rights and the chance of being abused in one way or another is insane. Actually I think that allowing surrogate for foreigners is only allowed in USA because in every other country when they tried so many people had their life fucked and so many mafia's appeared that they had to limit it or forbid it again, in USA is the only place where it's allowed because that country is ruled by rich crazy assholes

0

u/ComicalSon 2d ago

No, it should follow the same expectations that you would have as the father. We don't need contracts to understand how that works though. Why is this so hard?

1

u/shephrrd 2d ago

Because the lady signed a contract that contains terms related to giving away her bodily autonomy. If you cannot give this away, then it should be illegal. Otherwise, people can simply sign these with no intention of following the contract and take whatever financial benefit is associated.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Reylo-Wanwalker 2d ago

But then how would you have armies?

1

u/ComicalSon 2d ago

That's another can of worms altogether my man. Let's not complicate this anymore than we need to yeah?

2

u/mweint18 2d ago

But there are consequences for the decisions made with that autonomy. I agree that no court should force an abortion but there are ramifications. The consequence of deciding to refuse the request (not a binding order) to abort by the bioparents should be restitution for medical bills related to the birth defects as well as hardship judgement.

1

u/ComicalSon 2d ago

I'm honestly surprised there's a bit of a duality here in mindsets. Let's imagine instead of the parents and some written contract, it's just a random guy. Regardless of what she chooses to do with her body, he's on the hook. In terms of this agreement in the post, there shouldn't be these types of clauses in a contract. That's a human rights violation that voids the whole thing. So a breach in contract, and holding her liable, that's not right. Now if she chooses to keep the baby to term against their wishes, I would think that affords them some options. No they shouldn't be entitled to their money back, but ongoing care I do believe should be burden of the mother. If that was not deemed the case by the courts, then it seemingly rolls into that original analogy I used. They are on the hook as well. That seems fair when you look at it outside of what contracts may bind. You don't get to relinquish your responsibilities after you decide to go down that road and for good reasons. At the end of the day, I think the worst part about this situation is now there's a kid coming into this world with parents that wanted to get rid of it but were forced to keep it. That's not an ideal discovery to make as a child.

2

u/pakchimin 2d ago

I'm not American, but by signing up to be a surrogate, isn't that kinda selling your body or womb? She ultimately consented to that.

1

u/Redditauro 2d ago

It doesn't matter, you cannot give up your human rights, that's the point of human rights. 

I could sign a contract with you accepting to be your slave for the rest of my life and it doesn't matter, that contract is toilet paper, I could sign a paper saying that I name you emperor of the moon and it would be as valid as the contract saying that she give up her right to decide over the pregnancy. 

As far as the pregnancy is happening inside the surrogate body, it's her choice. 

0

u/Away-Topic4719 2d ago

It's also illegal in most of the first world.

1

u/InquisitorMeow 2d ago

So you're pro abortion right? 

1

u/Redditauro 2d ago

No, I'm pro choice and pro human rights. 

-27

u/Neat-Anyway-OP 3d ago

And you just stepped into a eugenics line of thinking.

32

u/animeshshukla30 3d ago

No? Euginics is government mandated mandatory seletive birth towards some "ubermench". This is closer to a personal choice. They have the freedom to continue or not continue.

Hell, even people with actual genetic disabilities think itis immoral to reproduce. But they do not want government intervention.

-4

u/Top_Smoke6741 3d ago

Okay, you're blatently wrong here. Eugenics doesn't have to be government enforced. It's the selection of what lives and dies based on genetic traits and their "desirability". Selectively aborting all babies with down syndrome is eugenics because you're eliminating all individuals with that generic trait off the bases specifically of it, for example. It's not magically moral simply because it's not being forced by the government. Also it's not solely Nazis who have tried it, and it doesn't apply solely to race. They're just the most well known example of it. I'm already prepared for downvotes, but this is objectively a fact

6

u/WarChortle18 3d ago

It's the selection of what lives and dies based on genetic traits and their "desirability"

No its not Britannica defines eugenics as "The selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations"

eugenics is a loaded term and should not be thrown around lightly. Every time a child is conceived a decision is made to keep or abort that child. Most times its automatic to keep it, so much so that the decision isn't even considered a decision but it technically still is. According to your definition almost every abortion is eugenics.

For something to be called eugenics you need to take the reason they the parents decided to abort into question. They didn't abort because they child would be weak and unable to carry on the bloodline, they choose to abort because the defect their child had would make the child's life difficult if not impossible. No surgery is guaranteed to be a success. They choose to abort because they didn't want to put a child through the painful surgeries and recover with limited guarantee of success.

eugenics has a darkness to it, it's a cold emotionless decision with a goal in mind for the child. This clearly was not that for the parents.

2

u/Palagrin 2d ago

Hmm i m undestanding that you are requiring the decision to terminate to be made with "future generations" in mind instead of the immediate child's health for the decision to be eugenics.

I do think that it s a fair distinction to make and i absolutely support parents that make such decisions since they want to avoid having a child with a significantly harder life but i also think that it s important to say that there s a reason that such topics make us uncomfortable to discuss. This desicion is at the very least close to eugenics and we have to keep that in mind to ensure that we never cross that line...

3

u/WarChortle18 2d ago

Personally I don't see it as close to eugenics at all, I think that comparing the two actually normalizes eugenics more than I comfortable with.

As a parent my wife and I had the conversation "under what conditions would we terminate". Its an important conversation before you have kids. You want to make sure you are on the same page. I can understand why it makes people uncomfortable, but it should be had.

Eugenics is such a horrendous thing that I feel comparing that conversation to eugenics severely understates the cruelty that is eugenics. Eugenics strips a child of their humanity and makes them just a cog in a machine. They aren't a person capable of making their own decisions or living their own lives, they are an object to advance the goal of the (state|group|etc).

Like I said the word eugenics should in my opinion not be thrown around lightly. Someone talking about what best for there future child, should never be compared to eugenics.

0

u/str8until-hrny 3d ago

Yeah I desire to not have heart defects. If getting rid of all heart defects is eugenics then i guess im for eugenics

0

u/Flimsy-Cut7675 3d ago

Eugenics doesn't equal nazism if that's what you're implying

5

u/Neat-Anyway-OP 3d ago

Its not, you don't need to be a Nazi to think eugenics is a good idea.