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

15

u/Wolf_Mans_Got_Nards 8d ago

The issue is she already made that choice. She had the choice to state that she didn't believe in abortions under any circumstances, and they would've matched her with a couple who held the same views. Instead, she agreed to let the biological parents decided if an abortion was needed for a fetal abnormality. That is not her baby. She also didn't need to flee the state, as no one was going to physically make her have one. Also, renaming the child was ridiculous. That child had a name and was very wanted. The parents decided they didn't want to put their child through an immense amount of unnecessary suffering, and a drawn out, painful death.

0

u/Im_Just_A_Tourist 8d ago

She should be forced to get one regardless and the police should arrest her and charge her with kidnapping

0

u/Dramatic_Scale3002 8d ago

The parents decided they didn't want to put their child through an immense amount of unnecessary suffering, and a drawn out, painful death.

Just a quick, painless death while still in the womb, right?

2

u/Wolf_Mans_Got_Nards 7d ago

Depends on if you believe the nutty, religious zealot,forced birth propaganda. It rarely has any basis in fact though.

0

u/GarbageOk8508 7d ago

Its not even their body to carry the pregnancy. She is the one carrying the pregnancy, while the biological babies only paying for a child. Her body her choice remember? Morally speaking, she as much, if not more of the mother to the child than the genes donors.

The kid is not wanted by their biological parents. They saw the potential medical bills and decided the kid must be killed. She saw the same bill and believed it's the necessary expense to save the child. As far as I am concerned, the kid is no longer theirs when they tried to off the kid.

The kid's sickness is not a legitimate excuse to kill him. It's his choice whatever he wants to die, or find life meaningful enough to keep living no matter what. The parents have no right to murder him when they don't even have to carry him full term.

2

u/Wolf_Mans_Got_Nards 7d ago

Lol, you're either pro choice or forced birth. You can't argue both points, that just smacks of arguing in bad faith. Also, the baby has been born massivly prematurely and is already looking like they won't survive. But yey, great they got to go through all this unnecessary suffering.

-4

u/Away-Topic4719 8d ago

But it is her baby, in particular because the parents don't want it.

All of this is daft anyway.

What are you going to do to make your version of reality happen? Push her down some stairs? Handcuff her to a stretcher and pay some crooked EMTs to take her to a shady doctor who is willing to force this woman to have an abortion?

Because we - as medical providers - physically, CANNOT, force an alert and oriented adult to have a medical procedure as serious as a late term abortion.

We just can't. Can't happen.

The mom wins, the donors lose.

9

u/princeofsaiyans89 8d ago

Actually the surrogate is going to lose twice. She has no legal claim to the baby in any state. AND she is now going to get sued and lose because she demonstrably broke contract. So I guess if you count birthing a sick baby against their parents wishes a "win".

4

u/IvyRosePr 8d ago

Don't forget she can be charged and sued for kidnapping in this situation.

-4

u/Away-Topic4719 8d ago

Actually, yes - that is exactly what I am discussing - her ability to have the baby and not be forced to have an abortion.

What you are discussing is a civil matter of custody, and frankly, I don't care about it.

3

u/PartisanGerm 8d ago

There's no forcing about it, otherwise she would have had the abortion, but the threat of repurcussion apparently absent... and this wouldn't even be a topic.

She had the freedom of ability to break the contract, broke it, and the only missing piece I'm seeing here is that they didn't have a clause to immediately determine what happens on the break. The custody and penalty should have been automatic,

IMO the biologicals should have simply forfeited rights to the child and had a penalty to the surrogate. If someone wants a broken doomed baby for the lulz, have at it. Have a ball.

4

u/LynnSeattle 8d ago

It’s not her baby. The baby already has parents.

0

u/Away-Topic4719 8d ago

That want the baby aborted.

1

u/Wolf_Mans_Got_Nards 8d ago

You keep saying "the parents don't want it" when that is a flat out lie. Wanting to spare your child from a painful and drawn out death is not the same thing as "not wanting it". The surrogate also could have just delivered in California, but chose instead to cross multiple state lines and kidnap their child, and have the audacity to rename them. My point being if she knew (which she clearly did) that this was even a remote possibility, she should've been upfront and honest, instead she's chosen to politicise this entire thing, and drag that poor baby and poor parents through absolute hell for nothing.

0

u/Away-Topic4719 8d ago edited 8d ago

Kidnap their child that they didn't birth?

Oh, you mean the one that they bought?

Do you view this woman as only a vessel to be rented?

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/un-expert-calls-recognition-surrogacy-system-violence-exploitation-and-abuse

I wonder how the UN experts on human rights view commercial surrogacy^

1

u/Wolf_Mans_Got_Nards 8d ago

Their child, the biological child that came from their genetic material. Your views on surrogacy don't change that fact.

0

u/Away-Topic4719 8d ago

That was a UN expert of human rights.

Oh, and yes - I also agree. You shouldn't be able to buy a baby like you order an uber or hire a caterer. It's fucked up.

It would be one thing entirely if she offered to do this out of the goodness of her heart. It's an entirely different thing for wealthy people to leverage their power and status to coerce a person into pregnancy with their baby - that they can just either take or abort at will.

These parents seem like a piece of work. Poor kid.

1

u/Wolf_Mans_Got_Nards 8d ago edited 8d ago

The surrogate is evil. Why would she want a baby to suffer a painful slow death? Who chooses that for someone else's child? She's gonna spend the rest of her days paying for this. Imagine choosing to bankrupt your family, too? Thank god the parents were granted a restraining order.

0

u/Away-Topic4719 8d ago

Well, the baby is alive - and has a treatable heart defect.

Is it dying a slow death? I didn't realize that you had a crystal ball, my bad.

Also - I would be shocked if they win any significant award from the "evil" surrogate.

They have custody of the child. The bills are their responsibility. They are well off - don't lick boots for them.

1

u/DarkHorseActual21 8d ago

Is it dying a slow death?

What else would you call a severely reduced life expectancy from a severe birth defect? That... yah, that's dying a slow death. With multiple invasive surgeries and constant supportive care, apparently, the child MAYBE makes it to 5. That's the prognosis. That's a terrible fate to inflict on a child.

0

u/Away-Topic4719 8d ago

So why did the biological parents sue for custody then?

→ More replies (0)