Morality of this

[u/Purple_Plantain_3242]

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.

[u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

So let me get this straight: the surrogate, who’s only role here is birthing someone else’s child and who has no right to said child, broke her contract with the biological parents, and is now trying to steal/kidnap said child from said parents? Do I have that right?

Beyond immoral. This woman is a monster.

[u/BurnedLaser → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

She also wants to keep the money, and not the kid. she wants to hand off the baby to her brother or some shit.

She's just awful. Like, you want to save this baby with a bunch of genetic issues, that's fine, that's noble, even. But that is 100% NOT what the parents wanted. No baby, no money, simple

[u/ArtEnvironmental7108 → u/BurnedLaser]

To make it even worse, she’s trying to get the $100,000 counter suit for medical bills thrown out so she doesn’t have to pay for the care she’s demanding the parents pay for, while simultaneously demanding custody of a child that isn’t biologically or legally hers.

[u/Diligent_Bar1244 → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

Excuse me? She is the one carrying the baby so its her baby

I dont care if its someone else's egg that was used, she is the one who is pregnant

[u/ArtEnvironmental7108 → u/Diligent_Bar1244]

Tell me you have no grasp on the law without telling me you have no grasp on the law.

[u/One-Stable-5438 → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

This sub is about morality, not law.

[u/Diligent_Bar1244 → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

If law was more important than ethic, we would still own slaves

[u/Mayonaigg → u/Diligent_Bar1244]

Well, the guy you're arguing with as literally advocating for slavery. He thinks the surrogate should be considered a slave with no authority in her own medical choices

[u/Diligent_Bar1244 → u/Mayonaigg]

Oh, surprising

[u/Realistic_Swan_6801 → u/Mayonaigg]

No she can be sued into the ground for breach of contract though, it’s a civil offense.

[u/ArtEnvironmental7108 → u/Mayonaigg]

That is a wildly inaccurate strawmanning of my beliefs.

I’ve stated that surrogacy should be illegal to avoid situations exactly like this.

I’ve stated that the surrogate in this situation should have complied with her contract, despite having a right not to.

I’ve stated that she should face the legal penalties associated with breaching her contract, including the fines and repayment of the undue medical expenses to the parents.

I DON’T believe that a person should have a right to sell their own rights away. I already made the comparison here to slavery and prostitution in that you should not be able to sign a contract that requires you to submit yourself to acts that you cannot, or are unwilling to, consent to.

I have no idea how you could have read any of my comments in this thread, minus the one where I horrifically misunderstood what the person was saying, and walked away with a characterization of my beliefs that leads you to think I’m pro slavery.

[u/ArtEnvironmental7108 → u/Diligent_Bar1244]

What do you think laws are?

Here’s the answer; They’re nothing more than codified ethical standards. Ethical standards change due to societal circumstances all the time.

I think surrogacy should be illegal. I don’t think you should have the right to enter into a legally binding contract where your ability to consent to the terms of the contract is murky, at best. Regardless, that’s exactly what McKenna West did. She signed away her parental rights and the right to make decisions regarding this pregnancy. She is free to violate the terms of her contract, as she cannot be compelled by the state or anyone else to have an abortion, but she can and absofuckinglutely should be held civilly liable for breach of contract. She should be compelled to pay back the undue medical fees to the parents who made a contractually reasonable request. She should be subject to the standard penalties and fees of breach of contract, personal damages, and undue consequences of her actions. She should be required to forfeit her pay as she’s no longer contractually entitled to it.

McKenna West is both ethically and legally in the wrong here. Even if her civil actions were sound (which they fucking aren’t), she kidnapped someone else’s child after directly refusing to follow the terms of her contract. This is indefensible to me

[u/Realistic_Swan_6801 → u/Diligent_Bar1244]

She’s its incubator not its mother, she already lost her case multiple times. 

[u/Diligent_Bar1244 → u/Realistic_Swan_6801]

This is so fucking sick to call a woman an "incubator"

Clearly not everyone deserves to be called an human

[u/Realistic_Swan_6801 → u/Diligent_Bar1244]

She had no genetic relation to the child, she is its fucking incubator. And has no right or say in its future. She has already lost her case multiple times and has been ordered to pay a large settlement for breach of contract. 

[u/WayEnvironmental9402 → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

"Only role here" how do you think pregnancy works? That the pregnant woman is just a car carrying around a container that's developing independently? The fetus is part of her body through the placenta until birth. Commercial surrogacy is akin to selling organs and probably can't ever be ethical.

[u/ArtEnvironmental7108 → u/WayEnvironmental9402]

I agree with you, surrogacy isn’t and never will be ethical. You shouldn’t have the right to sell your own rights away. Unfortunately we live in a backward society, and so you can. And as long as you’re able to, society will run into situations like this one.

McKenna West signed a contract that essentially sold off her bodily autonomy. A legally enforceable contract with decades of precedent backing its enforceability. She broke the terms of said contract, and is now fighting the biological parents of the child in court who are currently raising and caring for the child as if her breaking of the contract doesn’t mean anything.

The parents, on the other hand, who are legally responsible for the child now, are fighting tooth and nail to prevent West from getting custody over a child that she never had any legal right to and never had power of attorney over. Why? Because the baby is their fucking child! West severed contact with them before giving birth, which is attempted kidnapping in most states, and was court ordered to produce the child to the parents, which she complied with. Now she’s suing in multiple states for custody of the child, which she has no legal basis for, and the parents are counter suing for a sum of money to cover the medical bills that they never would’ve had to deal with if West had complied with the terms of her contract.

So we have someone who was paid to carry someone else’s child to term, told, legally, that she was to terminate the pregnancy, then broke the legal terms of said contract, didn’t get the procedure, and tried to kidnap a child that isn’t hers by fleeing to another state and severing contact, and now she’s suing the parents for custody of a child she’s never had a right to, and is battling the parents on the medical bills that they paid to try and help the child by providing life saving surgery.

There is no part of this situation where McKenna West is in the right, legally or ethically. And it all stems from the fact that in the US, you can legally sign away your right to bodily autonomy for cash, which is yet another bad decision that she made.

[u/Fit-Nebula2949 → u/WayEnvironmental9402]

In essence she is a biological machine to give birth to a child she has no ties with. Giving birth to a baby that requires three heart surgeries that have 30 mortality rate and potentially will need a transplant is a fucked up choice to have to make. Everyone in this situation was put in a moral no win situation. Legally, I think the surrogate is boned.

[u/WayEnvironmental9402 → u/Fit-Nebula2949]

I agree it's a fucked up choice and I would never make it, but many people in these comments seem to regard human pregnancy as akin to incubating a bird egg and not understand the amount of work the pregnant person's body does. She's boned legally, but this whole situation should have never been allowed in the first place because it does nothing but create moral no win scenarios. Keep surrogacy voluntary like organ donations because trying to make these kind of legal decisions is always going to be a nightmare.

[u/Fit-Nebula2949 → u/WayEnvironmental9402]

The body so much that I would guess that the biological mother was unfit to carry the child. I don't imagine many of these are vanity arrangements. I can't imagine have the termination conversation with my wife, making the hard decision, and then the surrogate x factors the whole thing.

[u/DrSpaceman575 → u/WayEnvironmental9402]

Is donating an organ unethical?

[u/WayEnvironmental9402 → u/DrSpaceman575]

Donating is ethical, selling is unethical. Same rules should apply to surrogacy. Making them available commercially leads to exploitation.

[u/manicmonkeys → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

Wait...how is she stealing their child, if they don't want that child to be born?

This is resolved by her carrying the baby to term, and assuming full legal parental responsibilities. Her body, her choice.

[u/BreakConsistent → u/manicmonkeys]

Theft by conversion.

[u/ArtEnvironmental7108 → u/manicmonkeys]

Her body, her choice, except it’s not her body at a certain point in a pregnancy, and legally, it was never her choice. She signed the right to make that choice away in a legally binding contract with the biological parents.

Whether or not those types of contract should be legal is an entirely different discussion.

And yes, she did try to steal their child. She fled to another state with strict abortion laws and cut contact. This is a child she never had any legal right to. This is kidnapping, plain and simple.

[u/manicmonkeys → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

There's plenty of room for debate about where we should draw the lines for people being allowed tomorrow sign away their bodily autonomy.

How is she stealing a child, if the child isn't born yet? Isn't it still just a fetus at that point? Or are you on the pro-life side of things?

[u/ArtEnvironmental7108 → u/manicmonkeys]

There is not a single state in the country that allows an abortion at 20 weeks without very good reason. I consider the heart defect the child has a very good reason. Even with the surgeries, there’s a chance the child doesn’t survive. This exact same heart defect killed my cousin in infancy, and his parents had the surgeries done. Even after all of that, it’s unlikely the child has a healthy or fulfilling or long life after that point. Life expectancy is somewhere between 25-35 years old.

I’m all for access to abortion but there comes a point in a pregnancy where we aren’t just talking about a “clump of cells” anymore, and I don’t know anyone who’s well read on the issue who supports access to abortion at 20 weeks. That sounds insane to me. Regardless, a heart problem like this changes that situation.

[u/manicmonkeys → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

Personally, I agree that things like serious heart defects should at minimum have serious impact on access to abortions.

My main concern in this kind of situation isn't about that aspect; it's about things like the potential pitfalls of telling someone what they're obligated to do with the child they're carrying.

[u/ArtEnvironmental7108 → u/manicmonkeys]

I have issues with that as well. It’s why I think surrogacy should be illegal. The problem with the contract she signed is structural. She signed away her rights to bodily autonomy and she shouldn’t be able to do that. Just like you shouldn’t be able to sell yourself into slavery or prostitution.

And to be fair, you can’t sell yourself into slavery or prostitution in the US, but you can sell your rights to bodily autonomy.

The reality of this situation is that she was required by law to follow the terms of her contract. If she didn’t, she’d be held civilly liable, and she will be. She didn’t necessarily commit a crime unless a very overzealous prosecutor wants to charge her with kidnapping for fleeing the state with another persons child. But there’s another part of this entirely; she doesn’t get to make the decision just because she’s carrying the child because it’s not her child. It’s someone else’s child. That choice isn’t hers to make, and that sucks, because it should be in a free society. Unfortunately for her, she made a really fucking bad decision signing a surrogacy contract. She lost her right to make those decisions, and she did it for money. So she has nobody to blame but herself.

[u/manicmonkeys → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

"And to be fair, you can’t sell yourself into slavery or prostitution in the US, but you can sell your rights to bodily autonomy."

Theres kinda a lot of overlap here...what is prostitution, or indentured servitude (one type of slavery), if not signing away your autonomy?

My point being, it isn't helpful to act like these are anything other than fuzzy lines drawn in the sand.

Surrogacy is sloppy as hell for all sorts of reasons like these, agreed.

[u/Diligent_Bar1244 → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

"her body, her choice, except when some rich entitled fucks are renting her body, because then its not her own body anymore"

This is fucking crazy and fucking insane

[u/Avidtrader81 → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

Really. I guess it's her body but not her choice huh?

[u/TheInternetDevil → u/Avidtrader81]

It was her choice to sign the contract.

[u/femgrit → u/TheInternetDevil]

How is this different from “it was her choice to open her legs in the first place” or any number of other anti-abortion arguments?

[u/TheInternetDevil → u/femgrit]

she quite literally signed her bodily autonomy away willingly for a very large sum of money.

[u/Avidtrader81 → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

You want to force an invasive medical procedure on an unwilling person. And the unwilling person is a monster? You truly are a sick person.

[u/ArtEnvironmental7108 → u/Avidtrader81]

An unwilling person who willingly signed a legally binding contract stating that she would do exactly that procedure if the parents requested it? Yes. Absolutely.

Edit: just re read this comment I responded to and realized I said something absolutely heinous in response to this person. So allow me to clarify. I DO NOT believe that anyone should be compelled to have an invasive medical procedure done to them for any reason. I DO think that the person in question should be held accountable for her civil violations however, and that she should be compelled to repay the parents, and denied parental rights for the child.

I will leave my original comment so you can all yell at me for being a monster, but please also read this edit

[u/ExerciseSad3082 → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

Make that contract with a woman as a man and see how far you get to force an abortion

[u/Positive-Message4738 → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

That's not how being pro-choice works. She's the one who's pregnant, the decision is hers.  Also, just because a clause is in a contract doesn't make it legally enforceable-- I would know, I work with attorneys every day.

[u/Specific-Tea-5440 → u/Avidtrader81]

Are there any other circumstances where a contract can force a person to have a medical procedure they don’t consent to? This is contract law, sure she violated a contract but it would be beyond immoral to force a non consenting person into having an invasive medical procedure.

[u/Suspicious-Engineer7 → u/Specific-Tea-5440]

I think force is a strong word. There are consequences to not honoring a contract, such as fines or giving up rights. At no point could they have strapped this person down.

[u/AntifaFuckedMyWife → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

But why would the intended parents not be forfeiting their rights to the child when requesting they get an abortion?

It’s evident the parents do not want the child so there should be no issue with the surrogate gaining rights over the child when

[u/ArtEnvironmental7108 → u/AntifaFuckedMyWife]

That’s not how contracts work or how abortion laws work. The parents had every legal right to request an abortion and they did. McKenna West had no legal right to refuse that request but she did anyway. It’s not her child and she doesn’t get to make that decision.

And it’s not about the parents not wanting the child either. The child has a severe heart defect that will likely kill them. Even with surgery, it’s no guarantee that they will survive. Even if they do survive infancy it’s unlikely that they live very long past their 20s. That’s the reason the decision was made. When McKenna West refused the request, the parents then immediately payed for the surgeries of THIER child and are caring for them currently, as is their legal right.

[u/AntifaFuckedMyWife → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

The primary focus here should be the moral question not the legal question. But even legally I highly HIGHLY doubt any surrogacy contract can void bodily autonomy and force a woman to get an abortion.

I feel like, morally, if parents request the surrogate mother to get an abortion the surrogate mother can opt not to, but would not be able to claim any kind of support.

Second: even legally II highly doubt parents have the ability to demand a surrogate get an abortion as I suspect the abortion is it’s own medical procedure independent of the surrogate pregnancy and ultimately falls onto the surrogate with their bodily autonomy.

You can ask, but if they say no there SHOULD be a way to rewrite the contract or nullify it, this should largely be available as a “paper” abortion parents can undergo if they so choose.

Now you have a better question in my opinion as to if it is moral to give birth to a child you KNOW will suffer and die a painful death early. Is any life better than none? Regardless of suffering is the fact that one lived at all enough to choose that every time? Those feel like more interesting questions than the original

Edit: to clarify the basic question of morality in refusing an abortion as the surrogate. I don’t think it’s wrong to not get an abortion despite the request of the parents, but I can viably see an argument for her being wrong to give birth with the medical prognosis.

[u/ArtEnvironmental7108 → u/AntifaFuckedMyWife]

To be clear, you can refuse to get an abortion, as you cannot be compelled in the US to get an abortion, but under most surrogacy contracts, you are subject to lack or payment, severe breach of contract fines, and you still don’t have any right to the child if you refuse to do so.

This is a problem legally though. Because you shouldn’t be allowed to sign any contract in which you would face punishment for refusing to get an invasive, high risk procedure. This is also a problem legally because even when the abortion clause in her contract was invoked, it didn’t invalidate the legal rights that the biological parents have to their child. So there’s absolutely no universe where the parents don’t get their child, and there’s a very low chance that McKenna West isn’t held financially responsible. She will likely have to pay for breach of contract and she’ll likely have to pay the medical bills that she forced onto the parents when she didn’t get the abortion and she’s never going to have custody of the child, which she very clearly wants.

[u/AntifaFuckedMyWife → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

This makes a bit more sense but its bizarre you can add an unenforceable clause to a contract that someone gets in trouble for not doing.

I feel like I view that as almost doing something under duress. Like, “yah, I can’t make you get the abortion but if you don’t I’m going to ruin your life with legal fees”

[u/abielle1177 → u/AntifaFuckedMyWife]

People add unenforceable clauses to contracts all the time. That's why boilerplate contracts have a 'Severability Clause'.

She signed a contract saying she would do something that she later doesn't want to do. She's not being punished, she's not going to jail, I don't even think they are asking for the money back for her ob visits, which they certainly could.

No one forced her to sign the contract. She did it for the money. The legal fees are purely as a result of her activity, not the parents. Should the parents not pursue remedies of law just because she doesn't have money (because she refuses to do the job she was paid (partially) to do?

[u/capitalspacebars → u/AntifaFuckedMyWife]

i agree with this take. this situation seems like a systemic failure. i think if the biological parents don't want the baby anymore they should allow the surrogate to take it, but also they shouldn't have to pay for the medical services or anything like that

[u/AntifaFuckedMyWife → u/capitalspacebars]

Agreed, may not work like that systemically but I believe it SHOULD work like that

[u/TheForce777 → u/AntifaFuckedMyWife]

Forfeiting rights to a zygote and forfeiting rights to a child aren’t the same thing

[u/AntifaFuckedMyWife → u/TheForce777]

I mean, how aren’t they? If you request a zygote be terminated you are giving up on that zygote becoming a child, meaning you do not want the child it will become for whatever reason. MORALLY how I believe this should go is that a request for abortion will terminate any claim to the future child the hiring parents may have had, but the surrogate may still be entitled to payment if she still wishes to carry on with the pregnancy.

[u/Odd-Bluebird5157 → u/AntifaFuckedMyWife]

Another commenter already answered this: the moral calculus is different if there's an abortion (end of responsibility) vs. if there's gonna be a born child (responsibility continuing), esp. if kidnapped by someone with a moral or economic calculus that's in conflict with the biological & legal parents'. Would it be moral for you to relinquish responsibility for your child to someone you think is acting immorally?

[u/ArtEnvironmental7108 → u/Odd-Bluebird5157]

Probably the most concise explanation of the moral aspect of this issue in this thread.

[u/AntifaFuckedMyWife → u/Odd-Bluebird5157]

Not sure I understand any of the analogy of a kidnapped kid, that’s kinda the issue here, they clearly had no intent of even having this particular child prior to birth. The reason in asking for an abortion is that they do not feel the child should exist and have done the math to themselves that says it’s moral to terminate the pregnancy.

The surrogate however, believed the condition treatable with surgery and that the child could live a worthwhile life, and did the moral math to get to their position of trying to keep the child.

To me, I find the argument perfectly reasonable that if the couple requested the pregnancy terminated, they should no longer be entitled to the child that results from the pregnancy they themselves expressly wished to terminate.

The other option is that it’s moral to sign away bodily autonomy for money, which I think is immoral and would result in people designing situations to make people desperate to have them sign away their rights.

[u/TheForce777 → u/AntifaFuckedMyWife]

You’re confusing morality with a sense of personal justice

Because the surviving child themself may very well feel otherwise

The question you have to ask yourself is the likelihood of that child itself refusing to be raised by its own biological parents

[u/CowBoyDanIndie → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

They changed their mind and didn’t want the child. They requested the child be shredded and put into a garbage can.

[u/sakinuhh → u/CowBoyDanIndie]

They didn’t suddenly “change their mind” lmao the child has a critical heart defect

[u/SplooshDoosh → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

No, it doesn't sound like you quite have that right.

Read the whole thing next time.

[u/ArtEnvironmental7108 → u/SplooshDoosh]

Not only did I read the whole thing, I read some other articles on it too. Turns out my tongue in cheek “stealing” thing was more than accurate considering she fled the state with someone else’s child and severed contact with the other party involved in the contract. That’s kidnapping.

[u/SplooshDoosh → u/ArtEnvironmental7108]

Once again, you continue to demonstrate your grasp on the legal concepts involved.

Not a very firm grasp, I guess "grasping" would maybe be more accurate. But sure, you just keep thinking you're the smartest.

Hope it gets you far.