What if a surrogate decides she doesn't want to be surrogate anymore and to opt for an abortion? Her body so she can do what she wants? And still be entitled to the money that was paid to her so far to cover medical costs?
Yes, she has the right to get an abortion. No, they don't get the money back for medical expenses already paid.
In adoption situations, as I understand it, prospective parents and/or the agency can offer to pay medical expenses, but they are not entitled to that money back if the woman changes her mind and keeps the baby, or changes her mind and chooses different parents.
lexus , this impacts her health too. It's not a risk free procedure for her.
Ugh this is so tricky. I'm not even sure where I stand on this because there is so much involved.
it seems to be an area where there needs to be a lot more work done, to protect surrogates and parents.
This is such a crappy situation... and it has really made me think I am not OK with surrogacy in the end, which feels heartbreaking since I know it is a last resort for some to have children.
In the end, though, I couldn't ever be OK with forcing a woman to have a medical procedure she doesn't consent to.
Post by StrawberryBlondie on Dec 20, 2015 12:20:02 GMT -5
I think this situation illustrates perfectly just why surrogacy makes me so uncomfortable. On the one hand, I don't believe this woman should be forced to undergo a medical procedure against her will. On the other hand, these are not her children. I'm not sure I'm comfortable giving non-parents the right to make decisions that will ultimately have the most impact on the parents.
While I understand it's not a risk free procedure for her, if she chooses not to do it, there could be a lot of consequences that will affect the parents for their entire lives. I'm not sure I'm comfortable giving a surrogate that amount of power, either.
This morning I read an article (headline and the FB blurb lol) about a woman who found out she has cancer while pregnant with her child. She opted to deliver the baby 12 weeks early in order to have life saving treatment and the baby just died.
Would a surragate have the right to make this choice?
What if a surrogate decides she doesn't want to be surrogate anymore and to opt for an abortion? Her body so she can do what she wants? And still be entitled to the money that was paid to her so far to cover medical costs?
Yes, she has the right to get an abortion. No, they don't get the money back for medical expenses already paid.
In adoption situations, as I understand it, prospective parents and/or the agency can offer to pay medical expenses, but they are not entitled to that money back if the woman changes her mind and keeps the baby, or changes her mind and chooses different parents.
lexus , this impacts her health too. It's not a risk free procedure for her.
So, any contract that was signed is completely meaningless then? Why even have one if the surrogate doesn't need to follow it at all?
Post by Velar Fricative on Dec 20, 2015 13:43:04 GMT -5
Morally, I would judge the shit out of a surrogate who terminated the pregnancy because she didn't feel like going through pregnancy anymore. There are lots of decisions a surrogate could make that I would judge too.
Ultimately though, this just highlights how very risky surrogacy is - to both the surrogate but especially the parents. I am sure a significant amount of surrogate arrangements work out for the best for all parties, but now I understand why states don't even want to touch surrogacy with a ten-foot pole, and I realize now that I prefer it that way because of potential conflicts with the right to choose abortion. Just think about all the examples of "what-ifs" posted here already.
All of the guessing in the world about what exactly occurred among the couple and surrogate doesn't change the fact that she violated the terms of the contract. Point blank. Therefore it is handled and/or being handled like a breach of contract, as it should.
I again say that we have NO knowledge of her background. She may have been poor and taken advantage of or could be a very normal middle class person thinking an extra 35k for a pregnancy is pretty fucking amazing. But, please, she was getting paid REALLY fucking well. She agreed to the terms, agreed to take the money in exchange for those terms and in terms of contract law don't have much to recoup except money.
Unless I hear anything otherwise, the surrogate was in it for money like the couple was in it for a child/children. I will not be quick in assuming she is a victim with nothing to gain out of this. She has/had a whole lot of fucking money out of this shit which appears very voluntary.
I do hate the suggestion that this type of voluntary contract some how puts woman back a 100 years. The point of the fight was to give women the CHOICE. If they chose the "wrong" choice, they at least had the choice, regardless if one feels it is beneath them/or woman's rights as a whole. Not the point. She chose to be a surrogate and accept their terms, she needs to abide.
The reason why we, as women, fought for abortion, was to have a choice over our bodies. The surrogate, unless otherwise shown, made her OWN choice to get pregnant with another couple's child/children and agree to their terms while being paid pretty handsomely. She had a minty pejorative as well.
Yes, she has the right to get an abortion. No, they don't get the money back for medical expenses already paid.
In adoption situations, as I understand it, prospective parents and/or the agency can offer to pay medical expenses, but they are not entitled to that money back if the woman changes her mind and keeps the baby, or changes her mind and chooses different parents.
lexus , this impacts her health too. It's not a risk free procedure for her.
So, any contract that was signed is completely meaningless then? Why even have one if the surrogate doesn't need to follow it at all?
My point is that I think surrogacy is so loaded with ethical considerations that I don't think it is something that can be governed using traditional principles of contract. I think it should be treated like adoption, in that it is seen as two people gifting things to the other, without any sort of expectation that is enforceable in the courts. We don't let people buy children, and for many of the same reasons and more, people shouldn't be able to enter into a contract to buy a human to use for 9 months and expect the courts to enforce it. I'm really uncomfortable with surrogacy arrangements in general, but there's a difference between surrogacy being legal and contracts for surrogacy being enforceable.
If someone wants to be a surrogate, and people would like her to be their surrogate, I think those people should view it not unlike the adoption situation, where people gift money to cover medical expenses and other needs to a woman considering giving them her child. Those prospective parents have no enforceable right to their money back, nor can they make the woman abide by behavioral guidelines.
Now I know you will all say it's different because those couples don't have a legal right to custody of the child in that situation. But it really is very similar because before there is a volunteer surrogate, the parents don't have custody of anything because the child has not even been created yet. In both situations, there's no parental rights at all at any point before money even gets discussed. So before a prospective parent in either situation starts spending money, they should go in eyes wide open, knowing that any money spent is essentially a thank you gift, and not a "contract" that's giving them a right to go to court to order a woman who decides she can't go through the pregnancy on their specific conditions to be forced to undergo or refrain from medical care, or suffer enormous financial consequences.
The reason why we, as women, fought for abortion, was to have a choice over our bodies. The surrogate, unless otherwise shown, made her OWN choice to get pregnant with another couple's child/children and agree to their terms while being paid pretty handsomely. She had a minty pejorative as well.
The reason why we, as women, fought for abortion, was to have a choice over our bodies. The surrogate, unless otherwise shown, made her OWN choice to get pregnant with another couple's child/children and agree to their terms while being paid pretty handsomely. She had a minty pejorative as well.
Are you OK with legalizing prostitution?
Yes. I am. As long as it is their choice, yes. I never understood what was so wrong as long as it was voluntary.
Yes. I am. As long as it is their choice, yes. I never understood what was so wrong as long as it was voluntary.
And, before it gets into the 'not every prostitute is sober, or has a good home' argument, whatever, as long as it is voluntary and knowingly, wtf do I care? I don't. Not every potential self-harmful issue is necessarily horrible. God, some women like sex, or money, or both. Why is it always a horrible thing?
So, any contract that was signed is completely meaningless then? Why even have one if the surrogate doesn't need to follow it at all?
My point is that I think surrogacy is so loaded with ethical considerations that I don't think it is something that can be governed using traditional principles of contract. I think it should be treated like adoption, in that it is seen as two people gifting things to the other, without any sort of expectation that is enforceable in the courts. We don't let people buy children, and for many of the same reasons and more, people shouldn't be able to enter into a contract to buy a human to use for 9 months and expect the courts to enforce it. I'm really uncomfortable with surrogacy arrangements in general, but there's a difference between surrogacy being legal and contracts for surrogacy being enforceable.
If someone wants to be a surrogate, and people would like her to be their surrogate, I think those people should view it not unlike the adoption situation, where people gift money to cover medical expenses and other needs to a woman considering giving them her child. Those prospective parents have no enforceable right to their money back, nor can they make the woman abide by behavioral guidelines.
Now I know you will all say it's different because those couples don't have a legal right to custody of the child in that situation. But it really is very similar because before there is a volunteer surrogate, the parents don't have custody of anything because the child has not even been created yet. In both situations, there's no parental rights at all at any point before money even gets discussed. So before a prospective parent in either situation starts spending money, they should go in eyes wide open, knowing that any money spent is essentially a thank you gift, and not a "contract" that's giving them a right to go to court to order a woman who decides she can't go through the pregnancy on their specific conditions to be forced to undergo or refrain from medical care, or suffer enormous financial consequences.
What? YES, that is fucking right..in this case. She is not being financial harmed at this point that I can see. She is merely giving back compensation for her 'acts.'
I cannot get behind the surrogate appearing as a victim. She was paid, like, a yearly fucking salary rates for a 'normal' person. No, I don't feel bad based upon the facts.
So, any contract that was signed is completely meaningless then? Why even have one if the surrogate doesn't need to follow it at all?
My point is that I think surrogacy is so loaded with ethical considerations that I don't think it is something that can be governed using traditional principles of contract. I think it should be treated like adoption, in that it is seen as two people gifting things to the other, without any sort of expectation that is enforceable in the courts. We don't let people buy children, and for many of the same reasons and more, people shouldn't be able to enter into a contract to buy a human to use for 9 months and expect the courts to enforce it. I'm really uncomfortable with surrogacy arrangements in general, but there's a difference between surrogacy being legal and contracts for surrogacy being enforceable.
If someone wants to be a surrogate, and people would like her to be their surrogate, I think those people should view it not unlike the adoption situation, where people gift money to cover medical expenses and other needs to a woman considering giving them her child. Those prospective parents have no enforceable right to their money back, nor can they make the woman abide by behavioral guidelines.
Now I know you will all say it's different because those couples don't have a legal right to custody of the child in that situation. But it really is very similar because before there is a volunteer surrogate, the parents don't have custody of anything because the child has not even been created yet. In both situations, there's no parental rights at all at any point before money even gets discussed. So before a prospective parent in either situation starts spending money, they should go in eyes wide open, knowing that any money spent is essentially a thank you gift, and not a "contract" that's giving them a right to go to court to order a woman who decides she can't go through the pregnancy on their specific conditions to be forced to undergo or refrain from medical care, or suffer enormous financial consequences.
But if she chooses to end the pregnancy the IP are out the money they spent harvesting and implanting the embryos too not just whatever money they gifted her. Those embryos don't belong to her if they aren't at least partly her DNA.
Yes. I am. As long as it is their choice, yes. I never understood what was so wrong as long as it was voluntary.
And, before it gets into the 'not every prostitute is sober, or has a good home' argument, whatever, as long as it is voluntary and knowingly, wtf do I care? I don't. Not every potential self-harmful issue is necessarily horrible. God, some women like sex, or money, or both. Why is it always a horrible thing?
It is not, right?
I don't have the energy to get into the many, many reasons why prostitution should be illegal , but if you search this board for threads on prostitution and sex work, you'll see some excellent discussions.
More to the point -- I am not trying to equate prospective parents with Johns and pimps. Obviously there's a world of difference. But they both implicate similar issues of bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy doesn't mean the right to sell your body. It means acknowledging that women have the absolute rights to control their bodies at all times. That they can change their minds as things become uncomfortable, unhealthy, dangerous, or undesirable. Contracts -whether they be to rent a uterus or rent a vagina- do not expand the right to bodily autonomy, but rather they nullify that right for the duration of the "work", because they prevent a women from having the freedom to change her mind as the circumstances and conditions of the job change. They turn the female body into something that can be bought and sold for any length of time, and give another human complete ownership and dominion over them, with no way out. Even if some people "choose" these things, normalizing the idea of the sale of a body sends a dangerous message. If they are truly legitimate ways of making money, people may see unemployed and poor women, and wonder why they don't sell their bodies instead of taking food stamps. Etc.
My point is that I think surrogacy is so loaded with ethical considerations that I don't think it is something that can be governed using traditional principles of contract. I think it should be treated like adoption, in that it is seen as two people gifting things to the other, without any sort of expectation that is enforceable in the courts. We don't let people buy children, and for many of the same reasons and more, people shouldn't be able to enter into a contract to buy a human to use for 9 months and expect the courts to enforce it. I'm really uncomfortable with surrogacy arrangements in general, but there's a difference between surrogacy being legal and contracts for surrogacy being enforceable.
If someone wants to be a surrogate, and people would like her to be their surrogate, I think those people should view it not unlike the adoption situation, where people gift money to cover medical expenses and other needs to a woman considering giving them her child. Those prospective parents have no enforceable right to their money back, nor can they make the woman abide by behavioral guidelines.
Now I know you will all say it's different because those couples don't have a legal right to custody of the child in that situation. But it really is very similar because before there is a volunteer surrogate, the parents don't have custody of anything because the child has not even been created yet. In both situations, there's no parental rights at all at any point before money even gets discussed. So before a prospective parent in either situation starts spending money, they should go in eyes wide open, knowing that any money spent is essentially a thank you gift, and not a "contract" that's giving them a right to go to court to order a woman who decides she can't go through the pregnancy on their specific conditions to be forced to undergo or refrain from medical care, or suffer enormous financial consequences.
But if she chooses to end the pregnancy the IP are out the money they spent harvesting and implanting the embryos too not just whatever money they gifted her. Those embryos don't belong to her if they aren't at least partly her DNA.
And the adoptive parents are out things like plane fare to meet the woman, agency fees, etc.
Post by Velar Fricative on Dec 20, 2015 23:07:17 GMT -5
nikki25, I will just say that I felt similarly re: prostitution at one point but it really, REALLY is not anywhere near as simple as just thinking women who choose to be sex workers should have the right to be sex workers. There have been some great threads that changed my mind on prostitution on this board. It is rarely about choice.
I don't think a surrogate should have to have a medical procedure against her will but she shouldn't be so naive either. Selective reduction is something she should have been aware of and made a decision about beforehand. I understand the couple only transferred two embryos but they should have at least thought about the risks of 3+.
I also think this surrogate seems like a fame whore talking about emailing doctors and the sexes of the babies.
But why wasn't the procedure contemplated until 13+ weeks? I thought they were typically done much earlier.
Anyway I think surrogacy can be great. Hell, my mother volunteered to be a surrogate for me (foolishly as I didn't need one but her heart was in the right place). But in any contract there is potential for discord. It's just really awful when it involves something like a high risk pregnancy.
I think the parents have the say here. Ultimately, they are the parents and get to make the medical decisions. But I don't feel 100% about that, because I've looked into surrogacy and one thing I took away was that a contract needed to protect my health (I wouldn't carry triplets, for example, so I would choose to SR). So the reverse might not work either.
"Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind.”
I am puzzled about the comparison being drawn between prostitution and surrogacy.
I tried to explain about 10 posts back, the one at --:58.
I don't think they are the same exact thing by any stretch, at least in the United States (I think there's definitely a potential for trafficking and other awful stuff in other countries, as that thread about surrogates in India we had last year laid out.) But there are similarities. For example common response to making prostitution illegal is that women should have the right to choose to sell their bodies, which most of us agree has a lot of flaws. I think at least some of those reasons are applicable in the surrogacy context. Again, I am not saying the two things are the same. I do not think these couples seeking a surrogate are anywhere near comparable to a pimp. But both situations involve the sale of a woman's body for a period of time. Of course there are overlapping issues.
But if she chooses to end the pregnancy the IP are out the money they spent harvesting and implanting the embryos too not just whatever money they gifted her. Those embryos don't belong to her if they aren't at least partly her DNA.
And the adoptive parents are out things like plane fare to meet the woman, agency fees, etc.
What's your point?
That you keep talking about the money being a gift and how they should just write it off if things don't work out. I'd imagine that anyone in the position to need a surrogate is already concerned about the number of healthy eggs they have available. In a way, it's another investment that they have made (aside from the money it costs to get the embryos ready for transfer).people in these situations don't usually have a ton of eggs to throw around with a surrogate who may or may not change her mind.
It's definitely complicated and since surrogacy is already so wide spread it doesn't seem like your expectations are realistic. All you are doing is taking all the power and giving it to the surrogate which creates potential for them to blackmail IP if they can change their mind at any moment without any penalty or repercussions.
ESF, I don't think that the situation is quite as one sided as you are saying. Yes, the surrogates are most likely going to be of a lower socioeconomic status than the parents, but the qualifications to become a surrogate are pretty extensive. One is that they have to be in a financially stable home. Another is that they must undergo psychological testing. It isn't as if these women are choosing to become surrogates without any information about what they are getting into. I am not sure if the surrogate typically has legal representation. If not, then I do think they should have an attorney representing them when the contract is written up.
I don't really see how this could be more of a gift situation like you want. There has to be a contract. Otherwise the parents could just change their mind and say "oh, never mind, we don't want a baby and we aren't going to pay you". If you are going to have a contract, it can't be one sided. By the nature of a contract, both parties have to be getting something out of the arrangement.
I see a lot of issues with surrogacy. There are so many unforeseen situations that could come about that aren't spelled out in the contract. But in the case where there is a contract and it specifies what is going to happen in a given situation, then it should stand.
And the adoptive parents are out things like plane fare to meet the woman, agency fees, etc.
What's your point?
That you keep talking about the money being a gift and how they should just write it off if things don't work out. I'd imagine that anyone in the position to need a surrogate is already concerned about the number of healthy eggs they have available. In a way, it's another investment that they have made (aside from the money it costs to get the embryos ready for transfer).people in these situations don't usually have a ton of eggs to throw around with a surrogate who may or may not change her mind.
It's definitely complicated and since surrogacy is already so wide spread it doesn't seem like your expectations are realistic. All you are doing is taking all the power and giving it to the surrogate which creates potential for them to blackmail IP if they can change their mind at any moment without any penalty or repercussions.
They might also be at the point where they have to use donor gametes. That would be legally the best choice (rather than using the surrogate's eggs when it comes t determining legal parentage), but is very pricey. Probably twice the normal cost of an IVF cycle, or more.