# The surrogate, the bio parents, and a "complicated" pregnancy- whose side are you on? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 5, 2013, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131 "2013-03-05T22:39:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/41 "2013-03-07T04:23:22Z")
I’d just like to extend my sympathies to the judges who’ll end up having to rule of this case. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/42 "2013-03-07T04:36:20Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > With regards to abortion, we certainly should be able to. What is it about abortion that you think it is OK to force it on a woman who is unwilling? Who makes such decisions - you? If so, why you? How are you qualified to make such decisions? > [@](#): > > It wouldn’t matter to the dead. The dead lose nothing Way to miss the point AGAIN that in this case the child is NOT doomed and making a decision based on the assumption that the child is “doomed” is deeply flawed when such is not the case. > [@](#): > > I’ve given it a lot of thought. Dying matters to people. And certainly the living would miss the dead. I don’t think we should be able to kill anyone we want but neither do I think that the actual dead people are sitting around worrying about how dead they are. Once you are dead, all worrying ceases. You lose nothing because there is no “you” to miss it Got it. You think murder is OK. Well, at least I know what sort of reprehensible person you are. > [@](#): > > I don’t consider the fetus to be a person. It is no more morally repugnant to me to force an abortion than to force the cutting of hair. You can always just make another one, not like fetuses are rare Except you’re totally ignoring that abortion is a hell of a lot more invasive than cutting your hair. ---
**Author:** ![Locrian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/locrian/32/14146_2.png) [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/43 "2013-03-07T04:55:34Z")
You had me at “religious grounds”. She (the surrogate) didn’t fulfill the contract. She should not be paid and return any money that was provided during pregnancy. Yes, I’m glad the baby was born and has special needs parents. Best wishes to them. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/44 "2013-03-07T06:06:56Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > We can compel people to eat and not harm themselves while in custody and we can certainly take her into custody, drug her up, and scrape out the fetus Who is “we”? Unless the judge is going to perform the abortion himself, an order for that to be done means jack shit. You need a doctor to perform it, and if the woman says “someone else is making me do this,” boom, no abortion. It doesn’t even need to be something as intrusive as abortion; cops have had a hard time getting doctors and nurses to even do court-ordered blood draws on DUI suspects. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/45 "2013-03-07T17:25:35Z")
> [@Max\_the\_Immortal](#): > > My understanding is that a properly written contract should not say “If event A happens, party B _must_ take action C.”, but rather “If event A happens, party B must either take action C or pay penalty D.”. That is to say that party B is totally within its rights to pay penalty D and refuse to take action C; it’s not truly a violation of the contract, but rather an alternate way of fulfilling it. > > Regardless of whether having an abortion is a legally enforceable action C, it sounds like whoever drew up the contract fucked up royally. I agree, it was poor planning by everyone, and a badly drawn up contract. No contract should be made that compels abortion. Some women are pro-choice in the abstract, but would be unwilling to have one themselves. And some might not even realize this until they are pregnant and having to make that decision. The contract should have stated under what cases of abnormality the couple would have asked for an abortion- it might be impossible to list all possible abnormalities, but they could have more guidelines than just “severe fetus abnormality.” It would also need to be defined on how the abnormalities are detected. If one test at 18 weeks detects one thing, but another test detects another at 19 weeks, then there could be issues, so what tests and what results they would be considering would need to be clear. The surrogate should not be compelled to have an abortion, but the contract should lay out what the consequences are if the couple asks for one based on the previously stated criteria and the surrogate doesn’t have one. Like the contracting parents will no longer pay for medical care, and would give the child up for adoption, or whatever else. > [@listedmia](#): > > Anyway, this case worked out pretty well in the end. Infertile couple doesn’t need to take care of a baby they don’t want, surrogate mom doesn’t have to go against her conscience, adoptive couple gets a kid, baby does not get stuck in the foster care system forever. Could have been a lot worse. I agree, it’s a messy situation, but ended up pretty well. I do wonder why the couple was wanting to give the child up to the state instead of let the surrogate mother keep her. Maybe it was a legal thing, and they were afraid of being asked for more money if the surrogate kept her, or something like that. But I’m glad the child ended up with parents who can take care of her. ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/46 "2013-03-07T19:45:26Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Patty Nowakowski and a Michigan man contracted for a girl. Nowakowski delivered twins, and the man took only the daughter. Patty was left to take in the foundling child as her own son, although legally she had no obligation to. A maternal instinct saved this child from the adoption agencies. But as the man stated, “I ordered a pink one not a blue one." **Nowakowski sued and won custody of the girl baby, as the legal father had broken the contract.** How did the legal father necessarily break the contract? > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I’m being morally and logically consistent. I don’t consider the fetus to be a person. It is no more morally repugnant to me to force an abortion than to force the cutting of hair. You can always just make another one, not like fetuses are rare I don’t consider a fetus a person, but I also consider personhood totally irrelevant to the abortion issue. The more central issue is of body autonomy you can not force a medical procedure on someone without their consent (or a court order). Even when someone refuses a lifesaving medical intervention that they will die without - it can not be forced on them (think Christian Scientist) If you were to cut someone’s hair without their consent (or a court order) you would be charged with assault. ---
**Author:** ![chela](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chela/32/21582_2.png) [@chela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chela)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/47 "2013-03-07T21:30:33Z")
What a mess!Three selfish adults. One is in it for the money and imo was a very poor choice for surrogacy,she’s in need of an income so she makes babies for a living? The couple yearning for a baby in the womb already have three kids, two with special needs… What motivates these people? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/48 "2013-03-08T17:06:06Z")
> [@Tollhouse](#): > > Yogsosoth, if that is how ¥ you¥ feel, that an abortion is like a haircut then you are free to undergo as many abortions as you like…just dont foist one on a woman who doesnt want one. Are you also in favor of forced impregnation? If you are, go ahead and get impregnated but again, dont try to foist it on others I think we should be able to foist one on a woman who doesn’t want one precisely because its like a haircut. No, I’m not in favor of forced impregnation because that carries with it at least 9 months of penalties, plus our laws make you biologically tethered to the child sometimes even if you give up your parental rights, so it could be an 18 year commitment all with the excuse that its best for the child > [@Broomstick](#): > > What is it about abortion that you think it is OK to force it on a woman who is unwilling? Who makes such decisions - you? If so, why you? How are you qualified to make such decisions? Qualification has nothing to do with it. You and others are arguing two different things. My belief is that the fetus is not a person, it is akin to a human limb or like a fingernail or hair. Therefore, I do not see it as a person that deserves rights, or a thing that deserves special treatment. Do I think that people can force others to cut their hair or something? Yes, so long as there is justification for it. You and others are attributing it more human-like characteristics than it deserves, as if its a person already. Forced abortion seems like, from the way you’re arguing, akin to killing someone, or stealing organs, or amputation. By confusing those things together, you grab onto emotional baggage that should not exist, and make it seem like a forced abortion is much worse than it is. A fetus is rarer than a fingernail, yes. Its removal is more serious than cutting hair, I get that. But ultimately, it is a renewable product of your body, not like taking a kidney, and thus should be treated as property or something, not like we are going in and forcing the woman to amputate her limbs or forced sterilization or something. It will grow back, its renewable, and thus expendable. > [@Broomstick](#): > > Way to miss the point AGAIN that in this case the child is NOT doomed and making a decision based on the assumption that the child is “doomed” is deeply flawed when such is not the case. You’re refusing to understand that I did get the point. Let me illustrate this with an extreme example: If I killed a healthy baby, one who is not genetically predisposed to have any debilitating illnesses, then to that child, he still loses nothing. He’s dead. It doesn’t matter if he’ll grow up homeless or Emperor of the Earth. To a dead thing, it misses nothing because its dead. In fact, I could kill everybody on Earth and each one of the dead would still miss nothing, lose nothing, be unaffected because everyone would be dead. Only when one is alive can one do things like miss things, lose things, regret things. Everyone born from the beginning of human history to now who are dead miss and lose nothing at this point in time. It is impossible for the dead to do that. Just as its impossible for this child to miss anything should it die. It is only the living around the child that will miss things for their sake. When you die, you will not have lost the life you could have lived had you lived. You would be unaffected, lose nothing, because you’re dead and you can’t lose anything. Someone would only be able to comment on your loss if they are alive and attribute a life and memories and experiences you may have felt had you lived. But to you, the person who is dead, you would have lost nothing at all. I get your point, but it is utterly inconsequential to what we’re talking about > [@Broomstick](#): > > Got it. You think murder is OK. Well, at least I know what sort of reprehensible person you are. I can pretty much just say anything in this reply here and you will simply respond how you want to respond without reading what I said, can’t I? I can’t wait for Starcraft 2: Heart of the Swarm to come out. The first one was excellent > [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Who is “we”? Unless the judge is going to perform the abortion himself, an order for that to be done means jack shit. You need a doctor to perform it, and if the woman says “someone else is making me do this,” boom, no abortion. It doesn’t even need to be something as intrusive as abortion; cops have had a hard time getting doctors and nurses to even do court-ordered blood draws on DUI suspects. Don’t focus on “we” as if I need to name someone. The correct reading of that statement would be “People in custody can be compelled to eat and not harm themselves. It logically follows that if one believes the fetus is no different from hair or fingernails intrinsically, one can understand that actions forced upon prisoners with regards to those body parts can be forced upon prisoners carrying fetuses”. Or if you really wanna be pedantic, cops and doctors can do it. Sure, some won’t, but some pharmacists don’t like to sell birth control because of their stupid religious beliefs. I am sure we can find doctors who will perform forced abortions > [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > H > I don’t consider a fetus a person, but I also consider personhood totally irrelevant to the abortion issue. The more central issue is of body autonomy you can not force a medical procedure on someone without their consent (or a court order). Even when someone refuses a lifesaving medical intervention that they will die without - it can not be forced on them (think Christian Scientist) If you were to cut someone’s hair without their consent (or a court order) you would be charged with assault. There are limits to that. I think that in custody, authorities can force prisoners to do things like shave or cut their nails. They can also prevent them from committing suicide. Body autonomy isn’t absolute. And I believe some Christian Scientist parents have been prosecuted successfully for using quack science and religious idiocy and allowing their children to die. There is a limit to everything and I believe forced abortions doesn’t cross the line in this case. You may not like, and can argue about the implications of that, but I am logically consistent. By not bringing in emotional baggage into this, one can see the issue more clearly ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/49 "2013-03-08T20:51:26Z")
> [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > How did the legal father necessarily break the contract? There’s a clause that the legal father will take custody of any and all children resulting from the pregnancy. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2013, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/50 "2013-03-09T03:06:56Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I think we should be able to foist one on a woman who doesn’t want one precisely because its like a haircut. No, it’s not. A haircut doesn’t result in blood loss. A haircut doesn’t significantly alter the hormone balance of a person’s body. A haircut doesn’t have a risk of uterine perforation or pelvic infection. While these are not common in the First World with modern medicine, the risk of infection is sufficiently elevated even there that prophylactic antibiotics are routinely given prior to an abortion. You don’t need to pre-medicate for a haircut. So no, it’s not like a haircut or trimming your nails. It’s at least like a root canal and it is most definitely considered a surgical procedure. Your analogy fails on that alone. > [@](#): > > My belief is that the fetus is not a person, it is akin to a human limb or like a fingernail or hair. Therefore, I do not see it as a person that deserves rights, or a thing that deserves special treatment. Do I think that people can force others to cut their hair or something? Yes, so long as there is justification for it. I don’t believe the fetus is a person, either. You seem to be assuming I’m pro-life. I’m not, I’m very much pro-choice. This is _NOT_ about the fetus, it’s about the woman. How do you justify subjecting a human being to a surgical procedure against her will? Adults of sound mind are allowed to refuse any and all medical care even if the lack of that care would mean their death. How do you justify taking away that right in the case of abortion? > [@](#): > > You and others are attributing it more human-like characteristics than it deserves, as if its a person already. Again, this is **not about the fetus**. It’s about the woman being forced to undergo a surgical procedure she does not want to have. How do you justify that for abortion when it’s not applied to other surgical procedures? > [@](#): > > A fetus is rarer than a fingernail, yes. Its removal is more serious than cutting hair, I get that. But ultimately, it is a renewable product of your body, not like taking a kidney, and thus should be treated as property or something, not like we are going in and forcing the woman to amputate her limbs or forced sterilization or something. It will grow back, its renewable, and thus expendable. You are ignoring that abortion, even early in pregnancy, is considered a surgical procedure and carries medical risks no haircut ever does. > [@](#): > > If I killed a healthy baby, one who is not genetically predisposed to have any debilitating illnesses, then to that child, he still loses nothing. He’s dead. And yet… you would be a murderer in that case subject to severe penalties under the law. You’re seriously arguing that infanticide is OK? No, you’re still not getting my point. > [@](#): > > It logically follows that if one believes the fetus is no different from hair or fingernails intrinsically, one can understand that actions forced upon prisoners with regards to those body parts can be forced upon prisoners carrying fetuses". So… now you’re saying pregnant women should be treated as criminals? Subjected to procedures against their will simply because they are pregnant and due to that fact lose the right that every other sane adult has to reject a medical procedure? How do you justify that for abortion when it is not justified for any other surgical procedure? > [@](#): > > There are limits to that. I think that in custody, authorities can force prisoners to do things like shave or cut their nails. They can not, however, force medical treatment on a prisoner who doesn’t want it without a LOT of legal jumping through hoops. Medical treatment is different from grooming. > [@](#): > > There is a limit to everything and I believe forced abortions doesn’t cross the line in this case. You may not like, and can argue about the implications of that, but I am logically consistent. Welll, sure you can believe what you want, but you justify it by minimizing that abortion actually does carry risks cutting hair does not. ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2013, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/51 "2013-03-09T21:59:11Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > There are limits to that. I think that in custody, authorities can force prisoners to do things like shave or cut their nails. They can also prevent them from committing suicide. Body autonomy isn’t absolute. And I believe some Christian Scientist parents have been prosecuted successfully for using quack science and religious idiocy and allowing their children to die. There is a limit to everything and I believe forced abortions doesn’t cross the line in this case. You may not like, and can argue about the implications of that, but I am logically consistent. By not bringing in emotional baggage into this, one can see the issue more clearly Sure, there are limits, but a violation of body autonomy must have a \*serious compelling reason \*and typically involves the court. I think you would do well by reviewing the very basics of bioethics/medical ethics before you continue spouting about the ‘logic’ of your position. The pregnant woman in the OP is not a prisoner convicted of any crime by the court where her body autonomy and freedom are\* justifiably\* limited by statute. Nor is she a ward of the state. Prisoners and \* free citizens in good standing\* would be prevented from suicide by forcible commitment or in the case of a prisoner they are moved to suicide watch (aka “the hole”) because of questionable mental competency. Force feeding of prisoners is an ethical gray area, but SCOTUS has upheld that prisoners rights can be limited in order to keep order in the prison. You are conflating forced medical procedures with forced grooming of convicted criminals who have limited freedom by virtue of conviction. Logic fail on your part. An appendix has no rights either, no more ‘personhood-like qualities’ than hair or fingernails. An appendix isn’t even an necessary organ! Yet we do not force anyone to undergo an appendectomy - even if their life hangs in the balance. A patient with gangrenous limbs that is poisoning them and will surly lead to their death - absent amputation - is allowed to refuse. You also fail to note the difference of someone refusing medical care for themselves and someone refusing medical care _for their child or ward_. Big difference. The issue here is guardianship and informed consent of a minor. A minor child due to age is generally not considered to be legally competent to make their own decisions, thus, the state recognizes the parents to act as a guardian for their child’s rights and interests. The parent can refuse medical treatment for themselves due to religious beliefs, but as a guardian, they can not threaten the child’s interests by imposing their religious beliefs on the child and refusing the child life saving medical treatment. If there is a serious and compelling reason, the courts will step in and appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the minor child. The pregnant woman’s life in the OP is not in danger by continuing her pregnancy, nor is she ward of the state. An abortion in this case is not even a life saving medical intervention! The status of the fetus is moot, just as the status of her hair and fingernails is moot. Forcing _any_ medical procedure, _even in life and death circumstances_ is ethically fraught, and even then, conscious, mentally competent patients are allowed to refuse lifesaving medical care. Why do you think you can force a patient to undergo a non-emergent medical procedure when their life is _not_ in danger - when they could refuse _even when their life is in danger_? Even in cases of severe mental illness (when the patient is clearly NOT mentally competent), involuntary medicating someone is a big, big issue, typically only allowed when the patient is a danger to themselves and/or others and again usually involves a court order. It is you, **YogSosoth** that got caught up with the emotion of the ‘abortion personhood’ issue and presented a gross false equivalency totally irrelevant to the issue. Frankly, your position is so illogical as to be preposterous. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/52 "2013-03-12T05:00:09Z")
The only thing I’m guilty of is not attributing the same amount of seriousness to the abortion procedure as a medical practice as you two. Think whatever else you want of me, but as long as there is justification, even if it requires extraordinary justification, forced abortion is a sliding scale of severity, not a completely different type of procedure. I think people are too freaked out by the whole history of it all, the implication, eugenics, etc. That doesn’t concern me at all, so I don’t really feel it is especially bad. ---
**Author:** ![Tollhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e99b99/32.png) [@Tollhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tollhouse)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/53 "2013-03-12T05:05:56Z")
yogsosoth, then you go first…since as you say q late term abortion is nothing but a mere haircut ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/54 "2013-03-12T12:40:52Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > The only thing I’m guilty of is not attributing the same amount of seriousness to the abortion procedure as a medical practice as you two. Think whatever else you want of me, but as long as there is justification, even if it requires extraordinary justification, forced abortion is a sliding scale of severity, not a completely different type of procedure. I think people are too freaked out by the whole history of it all, the implication, eugenics, etc. That doesn’t concern me at all, so I don’t really feel it is especially bad. No, I think you’re considering only the impact of the abortion on the fetus (which I agree with you is of little moral concern) and you’re not at all considering the impact of the surgery on the _mother_. The ethics and impact of unwanted stuff happening to a woman’s body because someone else said so is WHY I’m pro-choice. Her body, her choice - even when the choice she’s making is not the choice I’d make. She’s not a criminal, she’s not insane, so we have no justification for making this decision for her. You’re using the wrong scale. You’re the one making a distinction between haircuts and abortion, even though you’re trying to equate them, by placing them on a scale. I’m saying that we don’t have the right to force _even a haircut_ on someone who isn’t in custody of the state through the legal or the mental health channels. The correct “sliding scale” is whether or not the person is capable of giving informed consent. And that’s not got much of a slide. Either they are free and competent, or they’re not. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/55 "2013-03-12T16:45:11Z")
Aren’t people in prison forced to keep their hair at a certain length/style? I know in the army you do, and that’s voluntary. In all cases (that I can think of), perhaps being forced to do it is a misnomer. Rather, you are obligated to do the procedure (get medical treatment, haircut, etc.) and if you refuse, you have the right to but you can be punished later on after the fact. Perhaps that’s the difference you want me to acknowledge? What happens when prisoners try kill themselves and are able to inflict harm? I know medical personnel doesn’t just stand by and watch the guy die, they help him even if he made it clear he wants to die. If there is a difference between that kind of forced medical procedure and forced abortion, by all means, state it. I simply don’t see much difference ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/56 "2013-03-12T20:21:41Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > The only thing I’m guilty of is not attributing the same amount of seriousness to the abortion procedure as a medical practice as you two. No, not just us two: > [@](#): > > [Constitutional Right to Refuse Medical Treatment.](http://www.thesullivangroup.com/risk_resources/refusal/refusal_1_constitutional.asp) > > A. Liberty Interests > > The United States Supreme Court has determined that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest to refuse medical treatment. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 110 S. Ct. 2841, 111 L.Ed. 2d 224 (1990). The court concluded that the U.S. Constitution would grant a competent person a constitutionally protected right to refuse life saving medical treatment including nutrition and hydration. > > B. Privacy > > The right to refuse medical treatment may also be based on the fundamental right of privacy found in the state constitutions. For examples see: In Re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990); and In Re Crabtree, No.86-0031 (HA Fam. Ct., April 26, 1990). However the right to privacy may be outweighed by other competing interests. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Think whatever else you want of me, but as long as there is justification, even if it requires extraordinary justification, forced abortion is a sliding scale of severity, not a completely different type of procedure. What _type_ of procedure are you talking about? An abortion is a medical procedure. What medically unnecessary procedure is allowed to be forced on a patient against their will (absent a court order)? What compelling reason could justify forcing a medically unnecessary abortion on someone - when they have the right to refuse medically necessary procedures? We are not talking about prisoners or wards of the state, but free citizens deemed mentally competent. We are talking about a medical procedure that can only be legally performed by licensed medical professionals. Unlike grooming which can be legally performed by anybody (though licenses may be required for commercial hair stylists and nail technicians). > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I think people are too freaked out by the whole history of it all, the implication, eugenics, etc. That doesn’t concern me at all, so I don’t really feel it is especially bad. Your ‘concerns and feelings’ about eugenics are not all that relevant . However, the [Nuremberg trials after WWII](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code), the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, eugenics, S[ymphysiotomy in Ireland](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphysiotomy#Symphysiotomy_in_Ireland), etc, are quite relevant due to the egregious human rights violations which led to the founding of modern day [Medical Ethics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics) > [@](#): > > [ul] > [li]Respect for autonomy - the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment. [/li][li]Beneficence - a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. [/li] > [li]Non-maleficence - “first, do no harm” [/li] > [li]Justice - concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment (fairness and equality).[/li] > [li]Respect for persons - the patient (and the person treating the patient) have the right to be treated with dignity.[/li] > [li]Truthfulness and honesty - the concept of informed consent has increased in importance since the historical events of the Doctors’ Trial of the Nuremberg trials and Tuskegee syphilis experiment.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/57 "2013-03-12T20:32:13Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Aren’t people in prison forced to keep their hair at a certain length/style? I know in the army you do, and that’s voluntary. In all cases (that I can think of), perhaps being forced to do it is a misnomer. Rather, you are obligated to do the procedure (get medical treatment, haircut, etc.) and if you refuse, you have the right to but you can be punished later on after the fact. Perhaps that’s the difference you want me to acknowledge? > > What happens when prisoners try kill themselves and are able to inflict harm? I know medical personnel doesn’t just stand by and watch the guy die, they help him even if he made it clear he wants to die. If there is a difference between that kind of forced medical procedure and forced abortion, by all means, state it. I simply don’t see much difference No, the difference I want you to acknowledge is that this woman isn’t a prisoner. She isn’t in the army and obligated to follow their dress code or face army disciplinary action. She’s a free woman. ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/58 "2013-03-12T21:07:28Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Aren’t people in prison forced to keep their hair at a certain length/style? I know in the army you do, and that’s voluntary. In all cases (that I can think of), perhaps being forced to do it is a misnomer. Rather, you are obligated to do the procedure (get medical treatment, haircut, etc.) and if you refuse, you have the right to but you can be punished later on after the fact. Perhaps that’s the difference you want me to acknowledge? Again, the surrogate is not a ward of the state or prisoner – besides the fact grooming and hygiene enforcement of prisoners is not in any way related to forced medical procedures of free citizens. Let me state the obvious: A haircut is not remotely on the same scale as a medical procedure. _Morally_ a haircut may be on the same scale as an abortion, but _physically_it is not even close. You are confusing the two. A patient undergoing medical care is much more physically vulnerable than someone undergoing a haircut. An abortion, in particular, is a medical procedure that is quite intimate, invasive, painful and uncomfortable and carries far greater liability than a haircut. Medical procedures are performed by licensed medical professionals with specific training who in order to have license in good standing must adhere to a specific code of ethics. A hair stylist or nail technician, though perhaps licensed, do not have the same code of ethics. Even still, they could not perform haircuts or nail trimmings without the consent of the client without being sued or charged with assault - outside of extenuating circumstances of grooming enforcement of prisoners who have limited rights - which is somehow central to your justification of forced abortion. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > What happens when prisoners try kill themselves and are able to inflict harm? I know medical personnel doesn’t just stand by and watch the guy die, they help him even if he made it clear he wants to die. If there is a difference between that kind of forced medical procedure and forced abortion, by all means, state it. I simply don’t see much difference Again, a prisoner or free citizen who attempted suicide is deemed not mentally competent and thus incapable of informed consent. The issue is competency. Someone refusing a _medically unnecessary_ procedure is competent to make their own choices. If it makes you feel any better, **YogSosoth** , I believe the surrogate should be held in breach of contract and forced to payback all money received for not aborting, _but she can not be forced to abort_. I also think she could not be forced to carry the pregnancy to term if she changed her mind for any reason. If she chose to terminate against the wishes of the intended parents she should be held in breach of contract and forced to pay back any money received plus damages. That is logically consistent. Equating forced grooming of prisoners with free citizens refusing elective medical procedures is not logically consistent. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/59 "2013-03-12T21:18:16Z")
> [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > Your ‘concerns and feelings’ about eugenics are not all that relevant . However, the [Nuremberg trials after WWII](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code), the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, eugenics, S[ymphysiotomy in Ireland](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphysiotomy#Symphysiotomy_in_Ireland), etc, are quite relevant due to the egregious human rights violations which led to the founding of modern day [Medical Ethics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics) No right is absolute. I can’t think of one that would be in all circumstances. I think of an example, one that is similar to what is happening here. If someone steals my DNA somehow, or takes it after I trash it (let’s say from a used tissue), and uses it to grow another human being either through some cloning process, I think I deserve to have the right to have that cloned killed. Its probably not what most of you believe, but I find that to be a more severe violation than the violation on whatever person results from my DNA. Dunno, maybe this is a weird topic to talk about. I don’t agree if its a baby and I impregnate a girl, even on accident, while not wanting a child. That stuff happens, and let’s face it, pragmatically, we can’t stop it, so we shouldn’t try to. In this case, there’s a failsafe, a contract stating the terms, so I would say that takes precedent over the body autonomy of the surrogate. She’s the one who wronged someone so she should suffer all of the punishment. > [@WhyNot](#): > > No, the difference I want you to acknowledge is that this woman isn’t a prisoner. She isn’t in the army and obligated to follow their dress code or face army disciplinary action. She’s a free woman. Acknowledged. I believe, however, the best recourse here is forced abortion. Maybe that’s wrong to some people, most people, but it bugs me on a personal level that she’s essentially forcing parenthood, and along with it 18 years of commitment, on an innocent couple. That bothers me a lot more than forced abortion. Yes, even if the child is adopted away and the bio parents have no responsibility. It feels like a sword hanging over their heads for 18 years. An abortion is a quick process relatively to 18 years of uncertainty, and though it is a surgical procedure, it is arguably safe with our medical technology and shouldn’t pose much of a risk. ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131/60 "2013-03-12T22:22:45Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > No right is absolute. I can’t think of one that would be in all circumstances. > > I think of an example, one that is similar to what is happening here. If someone steals my DNA somehow, or takes it after I trash it (let’s say from a used tissue), and uses it to grow another human being either through some cloning process, I think I deserve to have the right to have that cloned killed. Its probably not what most of you believe, but I find that to be a more severe violation than the violation on whatever person results from my DNA. As has already been stated, repeatedly, body autonomy is not absolute. There must be a serious compelling reason that justifies violation. You analogy about your tissue being cloned is much like the [Henrietta Lacks case](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa)and _[Moore v. Regents of the University of California](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California)_. “The court ruled that a person’s discarded tissue and cells are not their property and can be commercialized.” A fundamental difference between someone cloning your DNA without your consent and forced abortion is where this tissue resides: A perti dish or in the body of another person. If you impregnated a girl you could not force her to abort - even if half of your DNA growing inside her. You could not destroy the kid once born. Even if she got your sperm by fraud (obtained from a discarded used condom) - you still could not force her to abort or kill the kid after birth. If someone used your sperm and created an embryo in a petri dish and then stored it the deep freeze - even then I am not sure you could have it destroyed. You may be able to prevent implantation, but that is not quite settled law (google custody battles over frozen embryos for reference). To reiterate, there is a big difference between frozen embryos located in a petri dish and an embryo located inside someone’s body. > [@](#): > > In this case, there’s a failsafe, a contract stating the terms, so I would say that takes precedent over the body autonomy of the surrogate. She’s the one who wronged someone so she should suffer all of the punishment. Civilized societies generally do not punish people by violating their body autonomy. I know, “But what about prisoners?!” In the case of convicted criminals they may be force fed (which again is an ethical gray area) and forced to maintain grooming and hygiene standards ‘in order to maintain order in the prison’, per SCOTUS. Not as a punishment. The death penalty may be the exception, but is an extreme circumstance (and IMO, totally unethical). If the surrogate violated the terms she should be held in breach of contract and liable for damages (paying back the money). However, the issue in the OP’s case is that pregnancy termination clause is not legally enforceable, so it is unclear whether the surrogate is in breach. IANAL. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-surrogate-the-bio-parents-and-a-complicated-pregnancy-whose-side-are-you-on/652131.md?page=4)