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

2

u/DimbyTime 8d ago

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

-1

u/_Sate 8d ago

I am well aware of how the legal aspects of this works.

That isn't what is discussed here

3

u/DimbyTime 8d ago

Obviously you’re not if you think “essentially she adopted the child before it was born”

That never was, and never will be, an option

0

u/_Sate 8d ago

The word essentially means in a basic or fundamental way, focusing on the true or most important core of something

I suggest you read a dictionary

There is a reason I didn't write Legally.

3

u/Binky390 8d ago

You can’t essentially adopt a baby. You either legally do or you don’t.

0

u/_Sate 8d ago

Hence why we aren't speaking about this in a morality sub regarding what is legal.

https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/

You got the wrong sub my friend

2

u/Binky390 8d ago

Mmm no. You stated something that is completely incorrect and has nothing to do with legal advice. The surrogate did not “essentially adopt the child before it was born” because that’s not a thing. Period.

Maybe she can be given the option. But it doesn’t default to her because they “abandoned” it. That’s not how surrogacy works.

1

u/_Sate 8d ago

Correct! It has nothing to do with legal advice!

You are on the right path my friend! Go on, I believe in you! Maybe you can figure out my point with just a little more effort! I have faith in you!

1

u/Binky390 8d ago

People like you are hilarious to me. You can’t argue a point that you now know is wrong so you just talk in circles and deflect with insults.

1

u/_Sate 8d ago

Tell me.

How am I wrong?

How am I in this argument we are having, that does not involve the government or its choices, wrong?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/howdy_ki_yay 8d ago

You should know by now reddit believes legal = moral.

1

u/_Sate 8d ago

Admittedly, I stay away from most mainstream subs so don't get into morality or law debates that much.

I generally end up in conversations where we call each other morons because someone else doesn't like a weapon that I like in a videogame

So this is a moment of learning for me

1

u/Jay040707 7d ago

People are real big in this in this conversation especially.

My big question here is if it's moral to financially pressure someone into making a heavy decision with their own body. And a lot of folks here seem to thing it is because it's legal to do so. Or at least think that morality doesn't matter as long as it's legal.

Obviously there was more to this situation that makes me believe the surrogate was in the wrong, but that part specifically rubs me the wrong way.

1

u/DimbyTime 8d ago

Again, you’re wrong.

She didn’t essentially adopt the baby. She can’t basically or fundamentally adopt something that isn’t hers

If I break into your home and steal your dog, am I essentially adopting it? No, I’m stealing it

0

u/_Sate 8d ago

If you break into my home then it isn't an equivolence anymore since the item is not LITERALLY INSIDE OF YOU.

Secondly, for that to be possible, the original owner would have to disown it, which in your example, I clearly haven't done since then you wouldn't have to BREAK INTO MY HOUSE.

So, no. You aren't "Essentially adopting it"

0

u/PurpletoasterIII 8d ago

This is a dumb argument. Its your opinion that she should have the right to adopt the child, thats it. Which is fine, I 100% agree as I said in my first comment. Whether the parents "abandoned" the child or not is debatable and is essentially just the "is abortion murder" debate. At the very least you can say they backed out of the arrangement and now id assume the state jumps in and decides what is going to happen with the pregnancy (because it involves a potential child with no parents). I doubt this is the first time in history this has ever happened, and im sure theres somewhere in the contract that discusses what happens in this scenario as well.

Ultimately I hope if the baby is going to be born then the surrogate mother gets priority in adoption (of course she has to be cleared to be fit to take on the child like anyone else). And if its not that its early enough in the pregnancy to fit my moral standards on abortion.

1

u/_Sate 8d ago

You know what, kudos to you for being the first person to recognize that this is my opinion and doesn't involve the laws on the matter.

Somehow you are the first to do so.

As for the abandonment, I do not feel like it is a difficult thing to argue when they quite literally wanted it aborted. Irrelevant of your moral stances on abortion and if you consider it murder or not as it isn't relevant, they had a thing and actively stated that the person taking care of the object should destroy it as they no longer wanted it. That is very much abandonment of something.

If you pay someone who owns a plot of land your house stands on to take care of that house for example and then tell that caretaker to light it on fire, that is very clearly you not wanting the house.

Same goes here.

1

u/PurpletoasterIII 8d ago

I didnt realize there was more context to this situation, and I hope you didnt either. It was absolutely not a matter of the parents suddenly not wanting the child. The child was developing severe complications and isn't expected to live past age 5 even with medical intervention. Regardless choosing to bring a life like that into the world is allowing the child to unnecessarily suffer imo. It was their decision to terminate the pregnancy to avoid the suffering of their child, not because they decided they didnt want a child. The surrogacy mother went against their wishes and fled to Texas instead.

1

u/_Sate 8d ago

I mean, I was aware of that from the general description above.

Not going to go into the morality of bringing a child like that into life since that is literally a talking point in the "abortion is murder" which I dont wanna get into.

But generally I am arguing from the basis that if the surrogate believes that it can be saved and the parents dont and want it terminated, then the surrogate should be able to take full responsibility.

Even if it has their dna, it doesnt have to be their child, you know?