They are not her babies. She is a contracted womb. It sounds cold and awful to say that, but that's what she is. The babies share zero of her genetic material (at least I'm assuming so per the limited information in the article.)
I'd like to know what her contract says regarding selective reduction of multiples. If she has agreed to the terms of the contract, then I think she needs to abide by that contract.
Post by scribellesam on Dec 17, 2015 23:30:48 GMT -5
I agree in theory that all choices regarding their children should belong to the IPs, but any scenario where the surrogate is forced to undergo a procedure against her will makes me very uncomfortable. Like a PP said, what are they going to do, tie her to the table?
Obviously she shouldn't have entered into a contract if she wasn't willing to abide by it in situations like this one, but I'm not okay with asserting ownership over her body and decisions because she changed her mind.
That sucks, but the surrogate is wrong. She's basically holding their babies hostage. This is what contracts are for.
As someone dealing with multiple failed IVFs and wondering if we will need surrogacy... THIS. I'm sorry. I feel for the surrogate and the emotional turmoil she must be in, but surrogacy isn't about just wanting to be some sort of martyr for the cause of creating life. I don't know a better way to phrase that. Surrogates can't see themselves as anything other than partners. If they have different beliefs from the parents (which would come up in the contract), they shouldn't be surrogates. The parents aren't just thinking about the health of the surrogate. They're seeing that they finally have viable babies and now those babies are threatened.
At each double embryo transfer, I worry that we will wind up with a failed transfer, or with triplets. Each result comes with its own difficulties. It's late and I had some wine with dinner (it's and IVF off month), so forgive me if I'm not expressing my feelings clearly.
This is abhorrent. I'm really fucking uncomfortable forcing this woman to have an abortion. I'm actually shocked at how many people here are siding with the parents. Shocked. Are you people serious with this?
So let's be clear what's going on. I can't imagine this woman is going to be arrested and hauled in for a medical procedure. I'm certain that would be unconstitutional in addition to fucking disgusting. I sincerely hope nobody here is suggesting that. Are you?!
So what seems like what happened is s that the judge said the parents could enforce this provision of the contract, which just means they can sue for damages if she breaches it. (If it was an unconscionable provision, the parents would not have been able to sue her if she didn't follow through)
I'm beyond grossed out that these parents could sue this woman, who is probably low income or otherwise desperate, for failing to get an abortion. She gave them her fucking body, and now they get to drain her financially for having second thoughts and feeling differently about what she wants done to her body. NO. That is not how this works.
I have issues with surrogacy generally as its so fraught with ethical issues and this is a great example of why. Women's bodies are not commodities.
But does the contract even hold legal muster in California? I thought only a few states recognize surrogacy (although CA could be one of them).
I understand the contract may say certain things but I am having a hard time coming around to the parents dictating that the surrogate get an abortion. One of the reasons I am vehemently pro-choice is because the pregnant woman deserves full bodily autonomy. I guess this is why I grapple with surrogacy in general because while I know it's a way for families to grow if they are battling infertility, I have a hard tome reconciling the rights of the parents versus the rights of the surrogate.
I agree in theory that all choices regarding their children should belong to the IPs, but any scenario where the surrogate is forced to undergo a procedure against her will makes me very uncomfortable. Like a PP said, what are they going to do, tie her to the table?
Obviously she shouldn't have entered into a contract if she wasn't willing to abide by it in situations like this one, but I'm not okay with asserting ownership over her body and decisions because she changed her mind.
Post by decemberwedding07 on Dec 18, 2015 0:15:57 GMT -5
I also think it's odd that in the recent thread about the egg donors, the overwhelming reaction seemed to be, "She's a grown women, it's infantilizing to say that she could be enticed by the money and then regret her decision years later-- nobody seems to be worried about that when men do it." But here we are with a surrogate who seems to regret the terms of her contract and many people seem to think that her contract should be voided for that reason? This is a perfect example of why I feel like surrogacy and egg donation should be highly regulated. It's an emotional issue for all parties and that makes it difficult to make decisions. (Maybe the surrogate didn't really read the contract, maybe the parents ignored red flags.) Add in monetary compensation, and it just seems like you're asking for trouble. FWIW, I worry about sperm donors, too.
I'm beyond grossed out that these parents could sue this woman, who is probably low income or otherwise desperate, for failing to get an abortion. She gave them her fucking body, and now they get to drain her financially for having second thoughts and feeling differently about what she wants done to her body. NO. That is not how this works.
I have issues with surrogacy generally as its so fraught with ethical issues and this is a great example of why. Women's bodies are not commodities.
No, I don't think she should be forced to have a medical procedure done. But I do think this is exactly why monetary compensation for surrogacy and egg donation needs to be highly regulated. There are too many people who will do either out of desperation and sign a contract thinking that the scenarios laid out are unlikely to actually happen. ETA: I likely will need either an egg donor, or a surrogate, or both, and I would rather not find a suitable and willing participant for either than find someone who was coerced. Regulate the shit out of both, as far as I am concerned.
This is abhorrent. I'm really fucking uncomfortable forcing this woman to have an abortion. I'm actually shocked at how many people here are siding with the parents. Shocked. Are you people serious with this?
So let's be clear what's going on. I can't imagine this woman is going to be arrested and hauled in for a medical procedure. I'm certain that would be unconstitutional in addition to fucking disgusting. I sincerely hope nobody here is suggesting that. Are you?!
So what seems like what happened is s that the judge said the parents could enforce this provision of the contract, which just means they can sue for damages if she breaches it. (If it was an unconscionable provision, the parents would not have been able to sue her if she didn't follow through)
I'm beyond grossed out that these parents could sue this woman, who is probably low income or otherwise desperate, for failing to get an abortion. She gave them her fucking body, and now they get to drain her financially for having second thoughts and feeling differently about what she wants done to her body. NO. That is not how this works.
I have issues with surrogacy generally as its so fraught with ethical issues and this is a great example of why. Women's bodies mare not commodities.
I completely understand what you are saying but there were a lot of assumptions being made in your post.
Who knows if she is poor or rich nor does that have true baring in this case. She entered this pregnancy voluntarily and knowingly while agreeing to the terms of the contract. This is not someone who got pregnant accidentally, this was an agreed upon contract to get pregnant with someone else's babies,so, I think it is unfair to side-eye me.
But, also I don't fucking believe her. In that one article there are several discrepancies and am sure there is much more to this story.
Bottom line is she intentionally agreed to carry a child/multiples and was paid accordingly. Per the article it appears she knew excact what she signed so no, I believe she should uphold her terms. Sorry, I give it up pro-choice but can't with her.
This is such a complicated situation. I agree with others that the surrogates explanation doesn't sound right. My guess would be she's lying. My sympathy is definitely with the parents. Their children have a much better chance at life, and a healthy life with a reduction.
I don't think the right move is to force her to have the surgery against her will, but if I were in the parent's position, that's absolutely what I would want. I don't think I'd be able to separate the legal precedent from the safety of my children.
Is there any sort of counseling done right now for surrogacy? I think this should be about as regulated as organ donation, and I'm not sure it should even be monetarily compensated beyond medical expenses. We don't let people pay for a kidney donation, I see why it should be different when renting a uterus (though I'd be willing to listen to the counterargument). Psych screenings and checks to make sure that the person wasn't coerced, that they truly understand the risks (on both sides) are a definite must.
With a reputable Surro agency yes psych checks and counseling are standard but there are a number of ways to get a surro and not all of them include these checks.
I don't see how there is any legal or ethical way to actually physically force her to have the abortion. But I do think it's fair for her to forfeit her compensation if she has failed to abide by the terms of the contract. That's the whole point of contracts.
Post by Velar Fricative on Dec 18, 2015 8:43:16 GMT -5
This is going to sound cold too given that (many? most? all?) people opt for surrogacy to grow their families because they've attempted other ways. But I think if you are going to enter into a surrogacy agreement, as the intended parent, you lose the ability to make certain choices - including the choice to terminate. Now, I don't know what's in this contract, so I will go ahead and ASSume that when a surrogate is involved, they are agreeing to gestate a baby/babies for you. That includes going through the procedures to become pregnant, gestating the baby/babies, and then going through whatever method of delivery the baby/babies require. They may be on the exact same page as you regarding when termination is appropriate, and if they are, well, that makes things a lot easier. And while the conditions of termination may be spelled out in a contract, it strikes me as an "additional" process that the surrogate shouldn't reasonably expect to have to do (unlike, you know, give birth to the baby or whatever).
Not to mention, women can (and currently have the right to) change their minds about termination. A woman may believe she could go through with abortion under certain circumstances, but then when that becomes reality, she may decide that she just can't have an abortion. And vice versa. So I'm also not going to say that just because the surrogate might have been okay with abortion before she got pregnant means that she can't change her mind at all. Feelings are complicated. And while I find this idea squicky too, I'm more okay with the parents suing the surrogate if CA allows them to do so if there are medical issues with any of the triplets that could have been eliminated if the reduction had taken place.
Finally, terminating for medical reasons is a shitty thing to have to do even if you're 100% fine with the choice and have no regrets. I can't imagine how much worse my experience would have been if I didn't have a choice in the matter. And at 17+ weeks? It's going to be very difficult to do anyway without endangering the other fetus(es). But I won't deny that the surrogate might be bullshitting here - unless she had a CVS early on, she wouldn't know at this point for sure if there are medical conditions any of the fetuses have without going through the amnio (and of course, not all conditions can be determined prenatally, like ASD mentioned above). My OB told me both times that the earliest I could have the amnio was at 17 weeks and then I'd still need to wait at least a week or longer for the full results. And the CVS and amnio are the only ways to confirm with 100% certainty several chromosomal abnormalities prenatally anyway.
This is going to sound cold too given that (many? most? all?) people opt for surrogacy to grow their families because they've attempted other ways. But I think if you are going to enter into a surrogacy agreement, as the intended parent, you lose the ability to make certain choices - including the choice to terminate. Now, I don't know what's in this contract, so I will go ahead and ASSume that when a surrogate is involved, they are agreeing to gestate a baby/babies for you. That includes going through the procedures to become pregnant, gestating the baby/babies, and then going through whatever method of delivery the baby/babies require. They may be on the exact same page as you regarding when termination is appropriate, and if they are, well, that makes things a lot easier. And while the conditions of termination may be spelled out in a contract, it strikes me as an "additional" process that the surrogate shouldn't reasonably expect to have to do (unlike, you know, give birth to the baby or whatever).
Not to mention, women can (and currently have the right to) change their minds about termination. A woman may believe she could go through with abortion under certain circumstances, but then when that becomes reality, she may decide that she just can't have an abortion. And vice versa. So I'm also not going to say that just because the surrogate might have been okay with abortion before she got pregnant means that she can't change her mind at all. Feelings are complicated. And while I find this idea squicky too, I'm more okay with the parents suing the surrogate if CA allows them to do so if there are medical issues with any of the triplets that could have been eliminated if the reduction had taken place.
Finally, terminating for medical reasons is a shitty thing to have to do even if you're 100% fine with the choice and have no regrets. I can't imagine how much worse my experience would have been if I didn't have a choice in the matter. And at 17+ weeks? It's going to be very difficult to do anyway without endangering the other fetus(es). But I won't deny that the surrogate might be bullshitting here - unless she had a CVS early on, she wouldn't know at this point for sure if there are medical conditions any of the fetuses have without going through the amnio (and of course, not all conditions can be determined prenatally, like ASD mentioned above). My OB told me both times that the earliest I could have the amnio was at 17 weeks and then I'd still need to wait at least a week or longer for the full results. And the CVS and amnio are the only ways to confirm with 100% certainty several chromosomal abnormalities prenatally anyway.
Honestly, I'm fine with that restriction. It's not ideal, but it's as good of a suggestion as any I've heard. My qualifier is that both parties need to understand it from the beginning. That's where all the problems seem to lie. Parents and surrogate think they are agreeing to one thing, but parents and surrogate both lack the clarity of the law to enforce those agreements. If the law were to end up being that the parents weren't allowed to decide whether to terminate so that the surrogates rights to her body could be protected, then that's the way it needs to go. We're not going to have a law that is equally fair to all players with the technology that we currently have. But the parents need to go into it knowing that those are the rules they will be playing by.
I'm actually really surprised this is just now coming up re: surrogacy/ selective reduction. I remember learning about this in high school (cough 15-20 years ago), & studying charts exploring how many more sets of multiples will exist in our country. How could she not have been completely aware of this process?!?
I definitely agree with a woman's rights/ self-assertiveness over her body. But I also feel like you give some of that up when you choose to gestate another's child(ren). Like I said, I'm very surprised a precedent hasn't been set re: these circumstances. I feel sorry for all involved, & am glad I'm not in a position to make the decision on how to proceed here.
Selective reduction is done around 13 weeks, and a respectable practitioner would not let you "pick" which fetus to abort beyond location/risk.
At 17 weeks, there's something else going on here. I am no expert but I surmise that would endanger the entire pregnancy.
I don't think anyone chose who to reduce other than the doctor, I think the article spins it for good media. I also think they made the decision to reduce at the appropriate time and the surrogate refused and now they're at 17 weeks and talking about it.
Velar, I understand that women can change their mind. That really does it make it complicated. The way I am looking at it is that she made her choice when she agreed to be a surrogate, knowing she was paired with IPs who were willing to selectively reduce, and signing a contract where a not-insignificant part was her agreement to do so if necessary. And unlike some things in contracts, that's an issue that actually does come up occasionally. So I see her choice as her saying "I will be willing to terminate," just a few months before she would actually be asked to do so. Can she change her mind? Legally, not really, but in reality, yeah, I guess so. But again, that's why surrogacy is such a touchy thing and should really be monitored and regulated well.
I also wonder how she was found and if she's had an previous pregnancies. I think going through pregnancy might give one a sense of whether or not you'd be willing to terminate.
This is going to sound cold too given that (many? most? all?) people opt for surrogacy to grow their families because they've attempted other ways. But I think if you are going to enter into a surrogacy agreement, as the intended parent, you lose the ability to make certain choices - including the choice to terminate. Now, I don't know what's in this contract, so I will go ahead and ASSume that when a surrogate is involved, they are agreeing to gestate a baby/babies for you. That includes going through the procedures to become pregnant, gestating the baby/babies, and then going through whatever method of delivery the baby/babies require. They may be on the exact same page as you regarding when termination is appropriate, and if they are, well, that makes things a lot easier. And while the conditions of termination may be spelled out in a contract, it strikes me as an "additional" process that the surrogate shouldn't reasonably expect to have to do (unlike, you know, give birth to the baby or whatever).
Not to mention, women can (and currently have the right to) change their minds about termination. A woman may believe she could go through with abortion under certain circumstances, but then when that becomes reality, she may decide that she just can't have an abortion. And vice versa. So I'm also not going to say that just because the surrogate might have been okay with abortion before she got pregnant means that she can't change her mind at all. Feelings are complicated. And while I find this idea squicky too, I'm more okay with the parents suing the surrogate if CA allows them to do so if there are medical issues with any of the triplets that could have been eliminated if the reduction had taken place.
Finally, terminating for medical reasons is a shitty thing to have to do even if you're 100% fine with the choice and have no regrets. I can't imagine how much worse my experience would have been if I didn't have a choice in the matter. And at 17+ weeks? It's going to be very difficult to do anyway without endangering the other fetus(es). But I won't deny that the surrogate might be bullshitting here - unless she had a CVS early on, she wouldn't know at this point for sure if there are medical conditions any of the fetuses have without going through the amnio (and of course, not all conditions can be determined prenatally, like ASD mentioned above). My OB told me both times that the earliest I could have the amnio was at 17 weeks and then I'd still need to wait at least a week or longer for the full results. And the CVS and amnio are the only ways to confirm with 100% certainty several chromosomal abnormalities prenatally anyway.
She actually agreed to reduction in the contract, it was something they knew was a possibility going in and the parents covered their bases. I do think she's lying about the medical conditions. They usually choose which fetus to reduce based on location and since the other two are identical twins, the non twin is the logical choice. I don't think it has anything to do with a medical condition, I think the choice was made in a very straight forward way.
Velar, I understand that women can change their mind. That really does it make it complicated. The way I am looking at it is that she made her choice when she agreed to be a surrogate, knowing she was paired with IPs who were willing to selectively reduce, and signing a contract where a not-insignificant part was her agreement to do so if necessary. And unlike some things in contracts, that's an issue that actually does come up occasionally. So I see her choice as her saying "I will be willing to terminate," just a few months before she would actually be asked to do so. Can she change her mind? Legally, not really, but in reality, yeah, I guess so. But again, that's why surrogacy is such a touchy thing and should really be monitored and regulated well.
I also wonder how she was found and if she's had an previous pregnancies. I think going through pregnancy might give one a sense of whether or not you'd be willing to terminate.
This is such a complicated situation because the results can be disastrous I don't think they should be able to legally force her to have an abortion but I hope she really thinks about how she (and the IPs) will feel if she loses the babies early or they are born prematurely and have significant health problems as a consequence. It's just a sucky situation all around.
Post by jojoandleo on Dec 18, 2015 10:29:49 GMT -5
I don't know, I feel she made her choice when she signed that contract. And this may be shitty to say, but I kind of hate surrogacy. It's paying a woman to use her body. And it doesn't sit right with me. But until there is a scientific way to grow a baby in an artificial womb, it's all we have. And as a woman who chose to have an abortion, I understand the repercussions of that choice. It's not always easy to go through with even when YOU choose to and you want it. There are psychological repercussions to the surrogate as well. So, I feel this whole situation sucks and I have no answer. I have added nothing to this conversation. You all are welcome.
Post by StrawberryBlondie on Dec 18, 2015 10:50:22 GMT -5
I'm really super uncomfortable with surrogacy in general, but I feel like there's too much missing from this story for me to have an opinion on this exact situation.
I keep going over this thinking of possible outcomes. If all three babies are healthy, should she still receive her fee? If none of the babies are healthy, should she be liable for the cost of their care? If the babies die, should she be held responsible?
It keeps coming down, to me, that surrogacy - essentially purchasing the use of a woman's body for your own personal benefit - has a lot of inherent ethical problems. I don't really see how it is any different from prostitution.
I keep going over this thinking of possible outcomes. If all three babies are healthy, should she still receive her fee? If none of the babies are healthy, should she be liable for the cost of their care? If the babies die, should she be held responsible?
It keeps coming down, to me, that surrogacy - essentially purchasing the use of a woman's body for your own personal benefit - has a lot of inherent ethical problems. I don't really see how it is any different from prostitution.
This is probably flammable but I am fairly familiar with gestational carrier contracts and (if done through an agency) there is often a rider/bonus/extra payout for twins or more. I have to wonder if at least part of her sudden change of heart was motivated by an extra $10k she thought she could squeeze from the IP's. www.surrogacysolutionsinc.com/surrogates/gestational-surrogate-compensation-package/ this is just one agency, but both their multiples compensation AND their compensation for termination are listed. I looked up a few other compensation packages and all of them seem to be roughly in the $5k/baby range for HOM.
All this to say, the entire situation sucks. She is in the wrong (and I am almost certain she's lying or grossly exaggerating some of her claims) but I think ordering her to terminate is more wrong. And being IF and currently exploring the idea of using a GC for our second child plus thinking about these sorts of complications with a GC is enough to make be break out in hives. There aren't easy answers here.
Post by downtoearth on Dec 18, 2015 11:25:51 GMT -5
Sounds like the surrogate is stalling b/c she doesn't support this decision, so I'm guessing she's going to try to get to 20 weeks and then maybe she can't do that. But they aren't her eggs and they aren't her kids and she is just a vessel getting paid to help get them there. I want to feel bad for her and she should have some say if the selective abortion would put her health at risk, but for me it all comes down to the parents getting to decide about their own babies and her contract to just be the vessel and not the parent.
she is just a vessel getting paid to help get them there. I want to feel bad for her and she should have some say if the selective abortion would put her health at risk, but for me it all comes down to the parents getting to decide about their own babies and her contract to just be the vessel and not the parent.
Describing a human woman like this is just so ... icky. It basically encapsulates all my issues with surrogacy in one phrase. Should it be a legal reality that a person can transform into "just a vessel getting paid" because of words in a contract? It's a little Handmaid's Tale for me, frankly.
she is just a vessel getting paid to help get them there. I want to feel bad for her and she should have some say if the selective abortion would put her health at risk, but for me it all comes down to the parents getting to decide about their own babies and her contract to just be the vessel and not the parent.
Describing a human woman like this is just so ... icky. It basically encapsulates all my issues with surrogacy in one phrase. Should it be a legal reality that a person can transform into "just a vessel getting paid" because of words in a contract? It's a little Handmaid's Tale for me, frankly.
There is a great podcast on the ethical issues and view of how different women who are surrogates, mostly in Asia and with respect to international surrogacy and gay adoption. That recently made me feel more rooted in my belief of the body vessel and the right for a surrogate to chose to do that for money. www.radiolab.org/story/birthstory/
I'm not saying you have to look at it like this, but when I started looking at being a surrogate (I didn't go through with it), the agency interviewer said I was a "pretty good candidate" partly b/c I did have that view.
I keep thinking about this. What happens if the babies have severe disabilities as a result? They aren't her children. Should she have a right to decide her beliefs trump the health of the children? BUT of course that's exactly what happens when a woman in a normal pregnancy decides to get or not get an abortion against medical advice. So...I don't know. This is really hard.
I'm still judging this surrogate though, from a personal standpoint. I think what she's doing is shitty and I don't think she should get her fee.
Describing a human woman like this is just so ... icky. It basically encapsulates all my issues with surrogacy in one phrase. Should it be a legal reality that a person can transform into "just a vessel getting paid" because of words in a contract? It's a little Handmaid's Tale for me, frankly.
There is a great podcast on the ethical issues and view of how different women who are surrogates, mostly in Asia and with respect to international surrogacy and gay adoption. That recently made me feel more rooted in my belief of the body vessel and the right for a surrogate to chose to do that for money. www.radiolab.org/story/birthstory/
I'm not saying you have to look at it like this, but when I started looking at being a surrogate (I didn't go through with it), the agency interviewer said I was a "pretty good candidate" partly b/c I did have that view.