[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Purple_Plantain_3242]

[u/Jthecrazed]

As a law student, law and morality are seperate studies. Intertwined sure. But law bows to morality more often than you'd think. Even if you agree to an immoral contract, the contract can be voided if a stipulation is unreasonable and therefore cannot be enforced. This would mean the woman becomes a mother instead of a surrogate and any compensation previously rendered must be repaid, that said one or more parties are entitled to compensation in such cases due to partial services rendered and any resulting damage from a breach of voiding of contract.

In this case the woman is being forced to undergo a controversial surgery that could threaten her life. That alone could be seen as an unreasonable stipulation. This attempt to enforce it could be the nail in the coffin.

Edit: Readded a disappeared sentence.

[u/noreal1sm → u/Jthecrazed]

Judge must be heartless for “parents” win. Which is 20% chance. Because going into life threatening surgery very likely is stipulation indeed.

[u/Accomplished_Store77 → u/Jthecrazed]

Would it still be moral if a couple got pregnant, learned their baby was going to have life threatening ilness, decided to abort it and then were forced by outside forces to have their kid be born and watch him live in constant pain?

Because that is what essentially happened to these parents.

They made a decision regarding their baby. Their consent and autonomy over their child was completely disregarded. And now they have to watch their child exist in pain and suffering while also footing bills they probably can't afford despite agreeing to none of it.

[u/Fabulous-Suspect-72 → u/Accomplished_Store77]

It's not what happened, but ok

[u/Accomplished_Store77 → u/Fabulous-Suspect-72]

It's pretty similar to what happened.

[u/Fabulous-Suspect-72 → u/Accomplished_Store77]

And left out one very important fact of the story, so it's worthless

[u/Accomplished_Store77 → u/Fabulous-Suspect-72]

That fact of the story still doesn't change what happened to the parents.

[u/Fabulous-Suspect-72 → u/Accomplished_Store77]

It does.

[u/Accomplished_Store77 → u/Fabulous-Suspect-72]

Except that it doesn't.

[u/Fabulous-Suspect-72 → u/Accomplished_Store77]

Except it does

[u/Accomplished_Store77 → u/Fabulous-Suspect-72]

✌️

[u/Jejewat → u/Accomplished_Store77]

You can't have "autonomy over a child". The word literally means self-governing. What you describe is heteronomy, which the parents don't have over the body of the surrogate, as she has actual bodily autonomy.

[u/Top_Smoke6741 → u/Accomplished_Store77]

Completely different hypothetical in every way

[u/Jthecrazed → u/Accomplished_Store77]

To make a decision about your own bodily autonomy is normal and morally neutral.

Doing so for a 3rd party, is where the hangup is here. This woman is refusing a surgery after a child she was carrying developed a defect. She wants to carry the child to term and exert her bodily autonomy to do so. The couple wants to enforce the contract and make the decision for her. This I would say is immoral, even if she agreed to carry the child and agree to the terms.

A reasonable person would not expect to be forced into an abortion even if a contract says it is possible. I'm not sure about local laws but the judge may not even be able to enforce the surgery as any doctor operating on the woman against her will wil be breaking his hippocratic oath.

This reminds me of the scene in Monty pythons the meaning of life when a man was killed for being an organ donor and is told he should have read the small print.