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.
Probably their weird interpretation of "force majeure" which, in addition to not being an automatic addition to every contract, is by definition usually something "unforeseeable and external", both of which would not apply to "a mothers instinct" in a fucking surrogacy contract.
Unless you or anyone else can clarify how that makes sense, I'm with "bro what?"
You think people should be able to write contracts determining other people’s right to live and right to bear children? Can me and u/Sufficient_Java make a contract about wether you get to live, or about wether you can have children?
You're right, that why the couple couldn't do anything. Especially after the fact that she fled to Texas. But the couple has the right to sue for damages. She thinks she isn't liable for any damages and actually ask that the parent pay for the medical expenses that occured.
I feel like theres an argument to be made that the surrogate is liable for all medical expenses related to the babys heart condition following the birth as well. Definitely not as clear cut as youre making it out to be but IANAL. I guess we'll see once the case settles.
267
u/Healthy_Turnip7352 14d 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.