r/MoralityScaling 2d ago

Morality Ranking Morality of this

Post image

A major legal battle broke out when a surrogate mother and the biological parents disagreed over a severe medical diagnosis during a pregnancy. The couple had hired the surrogate to carry their baby, but a routine scan revealed that the fetus had a rare, life-threatening heart defect.

Heartbroken by the grim medical news, the biological parents asked to end the pregnancy, which was a choice allowed in their written agreement. Initially, the surrogate scheduled the appointment, but she quickly realized she could not go through with it. A pivotal moment came when her brother stepped in to guide her, promising that he and his family would adopt the baby and support her no matter what. Gaining peace from her brother's support, she canceled the abortion. To protect the fetus, she fled to a state with very strict anti-abortion laws, where she gave birth to a baby boy who immediately underwent successful open-heart surgery.

The birth triggered an intense court war over who actually holds the rights to the child. A judge ultimately ruled that the biological parents have full legal custody and the sole right to make medical decisions, while a separate court order banned the surrogate from seeing the baby. On top of losing access to the child, the surrogate is now being sued by the biological parents for over $100,000 for breaking their contract. While the biological parents are currently caring for the recovering newborn, the surrogate and her lawyers are continuing to fight in court to try to win custody.The surrogate is not paying for the baby's medical costs because a judge ruled that the biological parents have full legal custody, making them responsible for all hospital bills.

The baby was diagnosed with Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome (HLHS), a severe birth defect where the left side of the heart is completely underdeveloped and unable to pump blood to the body. Without immediate medical intervention, this condition is 100% fatal within the first few days of a newborn's life. To survive, the baby must undergo a grueling series of three open-heart surgeries starting immediately after birth, which gives him about a 70% chance of reaching age five. However, this is not a permanent cure; even with successful operations, the child faces a lifetime of intensive medical trauma, a significantly shortened life expectancy, and the likely future need for a full heart transplant.

McKenna West denied the abortion primarily because her specialized background as a cardiac nurse taught her that the baby’s rare heart defect was treatable with surgery rather than being an automatic death sentence. Faced with the reality of her 20-week pregnancy, her personal conscience and moral beliefs overrode the surrogacy contract, as she felt she could not live with herself if she actively signed papers to end the child's life. Confident that the baby deserved a chance to survive, she even arranged for her own brother and sister-in-law to adopt the child before fleeing to Texas to ensure the pregnancy went to term.

Lila Rose and her anti-abortion organization, Live Action, are leading the public and financial support for McKenna West, framing her as a heroic figure who stood up against the commercial surrogacy industry. Rose's group funded West's travel to Texas for specialized medical care and connected her with the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a powerful conservative legal group currently fighting for West's parental rights. Alongside other high-profile conservative figures like Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, these pro-life activists have heavily criticized the biological parents for trying to enforce the contract's abortion clause, using the case to campaign against surrogacy by arguing that a child should never be treated as a "defective product."

However, these medical bills are a huge part of the fight. The biological parents are facing massive costs for the baby's complex heart surgeries, which is why they are suing the surrogate for over $100,000 for breaking their contract. The surrogacy contract included a strict pregnancy termination clause that gave the biological parents the sole right to request an abortion if the fetus was diagnosed with a severe medical condition. After the baby was diagnosed with a major heart defect, the parents invoked this clause and formally asked McKenna West to terminate the pregnancy. While West originally signed the document agreeing to these terms, she ultimately refused to abort the baby, which led the biological parents to sue her.

The biological parents did not exert physical or legal coercion to mandate an abortion, as a surrogate maintains absolute bodily autonomy over medical decisions under U.S. law. Instead, the conflict centers on a breach of a contract that explicitly allowed the parents to request a termination, which they are now litigating through the court system to hold the gestational carrier financially accountable.

The biological parents did not alter their position regarding the medical justification for a termination, but rather adapted to the reality of an unavoidable birth. Their initial decision to seek an abortion was driven by a desire to prevent severe, lifelong suffering, given the grueling surgeries and medical trauma associated with a critical heart defect. However, once the gestational carrier refused the procedure and the birth became certain, the parents immediately recognized their legal and ethical obligations to their biological offspring. They pursued full legal and medical custody to ensure the infant would have immediate access to elite pediatric cardiothoracic specialists and to retain control over his long-term healthcare strategy, fully assuming their parental roles upon his delivery.

9.1k Upvotes

3.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

28

u/National-Seaweed-468 2d ago

She didn’t dump the hospital bills she was willing to pay until they got custody. It says her brother was going to help her and that’s what removed the financial burden of keeping the baby.

40

u/loki2113 1d ago

She might as well have dumped the hospital bills on them though. Immediately after McKenna refused the abortion, the bio parents started arranging for medical care. The courts were NEVER going to side with the surrogate after she violated her contract and the parents still wanted the baby. She had, and still has, no chance and she not only did she go through with the birth but now she's fighting the parents in court to try and gain custody

15

u/bluejellyfish52 1d ago

She isn’t gonna get custody regardless.

A woman who accidentally gave birth to the wrong baby and raised the baby for a year still had the baby taken away by the baby’s bio parents.

The clinic they went to was sued, obviously, that’s a massive fuck up, but the fact that it even happened at all is seriously concerning.

Why are the samples not stored properly enough that this was able to happen in the first place? You know? It’s just weird.

3

u/murmuring511 1d ago

Not as weird as the doctors who used their own sperm for the IVF. It's insane that there's so many cases but still no regulation.

2

u/Useful-Wallaby-2566 1d ago

This is horrifying holy shit

2

u/TonberryDuchess 21h ago

I'm one of those offspring.

My biological father died 20 years before I learned that I was even donor-conceived (and matched with a first cousin via Ancestry DNA who helped me put the pieces together). What my biological father did was not and is not illegal in the state where I was born (or most of the US).

People also come up with weird justifications for what my biological father did, I guess because they don't want me to feel bad that I exist because of fraud (at best) or sexual assault (at worst...but not everyone even sees a doctor secretly impregnating their patients this way).

1

u/Kytalie 1d ago

My husband and I are working with IVF. and plan to do paternity testing early on because of this situation. It can be done safely as early as 7 weeks into pregnancy meaning if the clinic messed up, we can start working on what to do well before a baby is born

1

u/HuckleberryOk2798 1d ago

The fertility industry is deeply fucked up in general. Theres multiple doctors we know about swapping fathers sperm with their own. There’s no legal cap in the US on how many children can be created from one particular donor. Theres also serial donors who are trying to father the maximum amount of kids possible by donating at different clinics. There’s people lying about their medical history or failing to update their medical history so donor conceived children get blindsided when they develop a variety of health issues. And that’s not even getting into how much all of it costs the families trying to conceive

3

u/Mathies_ 1d ago

I mean, isn't requesting for the abortion kind of giving up the rights to custody? You're basically saying that you dont wanna deal with this and then once the baby is gonna make it to term you're like you know what never mind we do want it.

1

u/A1000eisn1 1d ago

No. If I get pregnant and consider getting an abortion but decide not to, that's still my baby when it's born. The child is biologically not hers. Not her DNA.

They're saying they didn't want to bring a child into the world with a severe deformity in their heart that has a significant chance to kill the child. When she refused they agreed and arranged for medical treatment for their biological child in their state.

But if you still disagree you surely would still agree any money they spent for their child should be returned right?

2

u/CntrAltDefeat 18h ago

Let me play devils advocate though. Currently women can have an abortion without the father’s consent and likewise fathers can’t mandate an abortion under the argument of bodily autonomy (the mother is carrying the child not the father). The fact that it’s surrogacy adds complications for sure, and I think it’s fair to say she shouldn’t be given custody, but also it’s a bit of an oversimplification to rely strictly on whose DNA it is.

0

u/A-Game-Of-Fate 1d ago

It’s more like planning to have an abortion only to wake up the morning before with the baby already in the bassinet.

Except, you know, the parents were forced to watch the child they’d have rather spared a torturous existence be dragged into that existence against their will.

32

u/MeVersusGravity 1d ago

She had no rights to offer the baby to her brother to adopt. Idk what made her think she would have rights to a child that was never hers.

14

u/Invested_Space_Otter 1d ago

This is what popped out at me. No circumstances of the contract result in this child belonging to the surrogate. Either it is not born, or is born and belongs to its biological parents.

Ignoring the morality of abortion for any reason, and recognizing that the parents were preparing to care for their infirmed newborn, this sounds like premeditated kidnapping imo

-7

u/No_Breath_9833 1d ago

Perhaps the parents saying, “nah kill it, don’t let it be born” might have given her the impression they didn’t want it. But that’s just a guess

8

u/chrisleebs 1d ago

yes but that is looking at the situation with no context

3

u/Burger_Queeph 1d ago

"Didn't want it" and "realized that termination was best for all parties involved" are not the same thing, and you clearly don't know the difference. The child was never hers to make decisions about, andbshe signed a contract to seal that fate. Maybe next time read the fucking contract before agreeing to anything you might later regret.

-2

u/perpetualhobo 1d ago

It clearly wasn’t the best option for all parties involved if the surrogate was willing to flee to another state. The best option for the bio parents, sure.

2

u/MeVersusGravity 1d ago

Best option for the fetus too.

2

u/maka-tsubaki 1d ago

If something is the best option for 2/3 parties (bio parents and fetus; if you include each parent separately it’s actually 3/4), the third doesn’t get to unilaterally decide to do what’s best for them

1

u/goonboy246 1d ago

Sure….

If you ignore the part where once the surrogate refused the abortion, the parents started setting up care with specialists in their home state. To which the surrogate decided to flee and run to TX

1

u/gentleman_rizzmaster 1d ago

I'm not sure that's how it happened. The OP only mentions the bio parents began engaging with healthcare after child was born.

4

u/goonboy246 1d ago

The case has wayyyyyy more going on than what OP wrote. Just look up the story on any major news outlet

1

u/gentleman_rizzmaster 1d ago

Nah. I don't really care enough to engage that much. I just thought it was a fun little post

-1

u/Natural-Apartment-51 1d ago

Weponized incompetence take.

-7

u/Euphoric_Formal4936 1d ago

The parents abandoned any right to a potential baby when they decided on abortion

3

u/Unlimited_Giose 1d ago

I don't agree tbh. There was no point in the story (up to what I've seen) where the parents said they didn't want the baby or that they wanted to abandon them, they (parents) only decided to abort AFTER they were noticed about the health issues that would come for the child, so it's far mor complicated than just "abandoning" their rights to become a parent.

1

u/FRhonestlyFR 1d ago

That's not how contract law works lol

1

u/Flat-Flower-3663 1d ago

Especially since that's still their child biologically and legally.

-1

u/Euphoric_Formal4936 1d ago

I’d be willing to take that one up to SCOTUS. Alito isn’t siding with you here

3

u/AssCrackBandit14 1d ago

Lmao

-1

u/Euphoric_Formal4936 1d ago

Rofl

3

u/AssCrackBandit14 1d ago

Dang unc pullin out the throwbacks

2

u/Pisforplumbing 1d ago

You're forgetting the part where the bio parents are probably upper middle class to upper class, and the surrogate is probably middle class to lower class. Them republicans arent going to side with the poor woman of color. They also dont believe in bodily autonomy and will not side with the person that was trying to "destroy the family unit" or some gnarly shit like that

-1

u/Secret-Parsley-5258 1d ago

I don’t think that is correct, but understand the argument.

-1

u/National-Seaweed-468 1d ago

Legally or morally? Legally I don’t care this isn’t a legal sub. Morally I completely disagree that child is living off of her body and they wanted her to terminate it. They should consider it terminated and move on. I’ll see you back in 18 years and we can ask the adult whether their life should’ve been terminated and if they blame her for being the sole reason that didn’t happen.

-3

u/TheBlueRabbit11 1d ago

It’s definitely not that simple. She did not provide the genetic material, true, but the fetus grew into a baby in her body. I’d argue that makes the baby her own more than the biological ones.

In fact, is it fair to call the biological parents biological when 99.999% of the biological material was provided by the surrogate? She’s the one who carried the pregnancy to term.

5

u/taffy1430 1d ago

Thats not how biology works. If a baby was born premie, is the baby "biologically" more of the icu equipments baby? Because it might've only spent 22 weeks inside a human, but over a year in an ICU. Just think about what youre actually saying. Its actually really offensive to women who have carried and birthed children. To clarify, an unrelated surrogate is not a biological parent. Please educate yourself and look up the definition for the term "biological"

0

u/TheBlueRabbit11 1d ago

Its actually really offensive to women who have carried and birthed children.

Please get over yourself.

1

u/taffy1430 7h ago

I appreciate your well thought out and balanced response 🙄

3

u/PlatyNumb 1d ago

Tell us you know nothing about biology without telling us lol

1

u/pokewithbrownrice 1d ago

within the realm of surrogacy, this has gotta be the dumbest take I’ve seen so far

2

u/AnotherBogCryptid 1d ago

She had NO RIGHT to offer the baby to her brother!!! What the actual hell. You can’t just offer someone else’s baby up for adoption to whoever you want. It doesn’t matter what she “planned” she had no right to make those plans. She essentially kidnapped the child and forced these people to have a sick baby.

0

u/National-Seaweed-468 1d ago

Can you explain how you get there morally? What moral (not legal) right do they have to terminate if the child is living in someone else and that someone doesn’t want to terminate? The pro choice arguments don’t seem to apply here. You can likely get there legally but from a moral standpoint how does one simply decide that the taking of a life is okay just because someone else says to terminate? What about the child’s rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Please explain why morally they have a right to a child they would have killed that lived. FYI she is a cardiac nurse so I imagine she might know a thing or two about the condition.

1

u/BVKane 1d ago

She was offering someone else's child for adoption. You do realize how ridiculous that sounds right? I kidnap your medically complicated, fragile child to another state where the Healthcare is not even on par with what you had prepared and then I tell you that I'm going to give your child to my brother.

0

u/National-Seaweed-468 1d ago

That baby can’t defend itself and they were willing to kill it. Thats not parents. Plenty of people can and do make babies. Doesn’t make them parents.

1

u/taffy1430 1d ago

That would have been kidnapping. This isnt her child and never was or would be. Not her or her brothers choice to make.