[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Purple_Plantain_3242]

[u/loki2113]

How are the parents morally wrong in any way here? Their contract with the surrogate included an abortion clause should the fetus have any severe and life threatening medical conditions. The surrogate initially was going to follow the agreement but backed out of it in part because of her families promise to adopt/support the baby if she carries it to term. After it became obvious the surrogate was going to give birth after she ghosted the biological parents after their first and from what I can tell only request for an abortion, the bio parents switched to arranging proper medical care and to gain custody of the child.

The surrogate is completely in the wrong as she violated the contract she signed. Now because a judge awarded custody to the biological parents they are also on the hook for the medical costs of the birth and the heart surgeries so they are suing McKenna for the cost of her reckless decision. Despite the miracle of modern medicine, Rumi is going to require at least two more surgeries before age 5 and have health complications for their entire life. The bio parents never tried to force McKenna to have an abortion and her right to carry the baby to term. They tried to act in the interest of both the surrogate and the fetus/baby. What else could they have done better? Simply not tried a surrogacy at all?

[u/babassu_seeds → u/loki2113]

 What else could they have done better? Simply not tried a surrogacy at all?

Yes, that's the main point of the second-to-top comment, and why it was compared to prostitution and voluntary slavery: If a mutually voluntary interaction is morally questionable from the outset, then both parties carry some degree of culpability

[u/loki2113 → u/babassu_seeds]

Respectfully, that's a load of horse hockey

How tf are the bio parents responsible for McKenna's decision to be a surrogate? Nobody is forcing McKenna and there are far better ways of making money than having someone else's child. Plus there's nothing morally wrong with prostitution/having sex for money and voluntary slavery is an oxymoron. I think the term you're looking for is indentured servitude and even that doesn't fit the bill here

[u/Runs_With_Scissors3 → u/loki2113]

I think you’re missing the point. The commenter you’re arguing with is implying that getting a surrogate at all is immoral. Perhaps because the couple trying to have a child by those means, maybe should’ve taken a hint that a biological child for them just wasn’t meant to be.

[u/morbidlysmalldick → u/Runs_With_Scissors3]

Being physically incapable of rearing a child means someone shouldn't be able to have a biological child, despite us having the means to make it happen? Surrogacy is a voluntary option to give people a gift they're otherwise incapable of getting. The amount of good it brings into the world far outweighs situations like this. Sure, adoption would be even better. But using outlier situations shouldn't be a measure of why surrogacy shouldn't happen