I accept that your understanding of the law is probably correct. I still disagree with it though.
Well, OK, I for one can accept your opinion/worldview is different than mine. However, it seems you are in a distinct minority on this issue.
So in other words, you don’t consider yourself pro-choice?
Looks like I am. I apologize for making things uncomfortable in this conversation. I probably should have kept some of that to myself
I do, but I also consider that if one willingly goes into a contract, one should honor it, barring some exigent circumstances. Its funny because I was actually thinking about it this morning. Here’s the difference I see: sex and babies are separate issues, though one can lead to the other. They are separate because one does not need to have sex to have babies (adoptions, kidnapping, etc) and one does not always have sex to have babies, it can just be for fun. Plus, sex isn’t something that can be annulled by a judge, if it happened it happened.
A contract can only be entered into by 2 or more parties with a clear mind. There are rules like you have to be 18 to do so, and the terms of the contract are spelled out clearly before each side is to sign.
So with things like abortion in cases of regretful sex, that’s necessary. People don’t think before they do that, and they can’t really take it back once it happens, so they have to deal with the consequences. I favor abortion because I want women to be able to take that back, or to look at their future and decide they’re not right to be a mother, or they can’t afford it, etc.
Whereas with a contract, the norm is that you know the circumstances before you go into it, and you agree to it with a sound mind. That is why in this case, I believe the surrogate needs to be forced to uphold her contract. In this instance, the contract should be prioritized over her objections, which should have been made known in the first place. By allowing her to violate the terms of the contract, she throws all such contracts into jeopardy.
yogsosoth,
its truly alarming that you think in a civilized society it would be acceptable to tie women down and perform abortions. You are not prochoice if you hold this view, …one cannot be pro tying women down like slaves and doing invasive surgery on them and claim to be prochoice
YogSosoth, I think you’re misunderstanding contract law. People contract for lots of things which, if breached, you could not get specific performance [that is, force the person to actually do what they contracted to do] for.
For instance, if we contract for me to buy 100 widgets and you decide to breach by not delivering, I can not force you to sell me the widgets. I can make you return my deposit and pay damages, but that still doesn’t get me the widgets.
If I were a performer who contracted to perform at a certain venue at a specific date for an agreed sum of money but then breached the contract (for whatever reason) do you think law enforcement or the sheriff should be sent over to physically force me to perform at the venue as contracted? NO, more likely I would have to return all money and perhaps pay damages.
Same if we contracted for me to paint your house, landscape your yard or any other type of labor. If I failed to perform the agreed upon labor, you could not physically force me to. You could get your money back and sue for damages.
What if the surrogate decided to terminate the pregnancy for whatever reason against the wishes of the intended parents breaking the terms of the contract. Do you think she should be physically forced to continue the pregnancy against her will?
Actually, one can it’s called being pro-responsibility. Freedom of choice cannot exist without it. This pregnancy did not occur in some mystical dimension inwhich only the surrogate mother supplied everything and did every procedure necessary for the pregnancy to occur. The zygote is the genetic child of another couple and they damn well, should have the final say about what happens to it. Consider the surrogate’s act custodial interference. Surely you believe if a kidnapper had someone’s already born child sugerglued to them or somehow connected to them surgically that the police would be correct in dragging the person before a surgeon and having the bond surgically undone.
I would say no, but the fetal tissue should be considered the property of the couple paying for the surrogacy.
I too am interested in your last question, which I posed previously on the other thread on this topic.
Another example perhaps a bit closer to the issue here is whether, if I contracted to let you practice your newly acquired tattoo skills and pay you $5 for it, then changed my mind about getting a tat, can you then force me to let you ink a dragon my shoulder? Obviously the answer is no and the idea that forcing the person to undergo an abortion is justified because there is a contract is nonsense.
I think what is really at the heart of YogSasoth’s position is the concept that the couple who hired the surrogate are being “forced” into parenthood against their will. Setting aside the obvious question of why that is worse than forcing the surrogate to abort, it should be considered that the couple are already “parents,” of the unborn child but wish to change that status by forcing the surrogate to abort.
What if the unborn child was completely healthy and the couple decided they didn’t want to be parents of that particular child? Should the surrogate be forced to abort if that clause was included int he contract?
So the aborted fetal tissue should be returned to them? Considering the fetal tissue as property of couple paying serves what purpose exactly? Determing parental rights? Parental rights are typically conferred at birth. In Connecticut the intended parents have parental rights at birth. In Michigan, where the surrogate fled, the surrogate has parental rights at birth. Embryos in a petri dish may be assigned as the ‘property’ of someone(s). But once that embryo is implanted into another person’s body, attached to their biological processes, the embryo/fetus becomes the ‘property’ of that person, just like that person’s kidney or appendix – until that physical, biological connection is severed at birth or termination.
Which is why the surrogate can terminate against the wishes of the intended parents. She can be held in breach of contract and forced to pay back all money received and sued for damages, but she can’t be forced to complete the pregnancy against her will.
The stem cells could be medically useful and for that reason I think the aborted fetal tissue should be returned to parents.
I have only read the OP’s summary, but it appears like many here assume she signed the contract with foreknowledge that she would not abort, something that is reasonably doubtful. Besides the surrogate ‘not considering complications’ as a real possibility, there is also a real possibility that actually being pregnant and feeling that life inside her will change the mind of the surrogate as to the status of that ‘being’ and want to protect it.
Well, I favor choice. Not abortion. Not keeping the child. Not adoption. But choice. And that includes the choice to change one’s mind. You know, HER body, HER choice. It’s her body.
That’s why it’s called being pro-choice, rather than pro-abortion. Just as it’s disgusting to force a woman to remain disgusting against her will, it’s equally disgusting to strap a woman down and force surgery on her against her will. An abortion isn’t like having a haircut, dammit. You’re not strapping me down and forcing instruments into my vagina for a haircut.
And if you’re only pro-“choice” in the case when a woman chooses abortion, then you’re not fucking pro-choice.
How can you put something that would be illegal to enforce into a contract anyways?
Hope perhaps that the other party might feel honorable enough to abide by the agreement. And also hope that if the agreement isn’t enforced theirs could be the Supreme Court case that makes new law thus helping others in the same situation.
I disagree strongly. By her actions she is a participate in an ongoing crime. She is in possession of genetic material that is not her own, same as if she appropriated any other piece of property or kidnapped an already born child. Legal authorities should be able to use whatever force is necessary to stop her.
It’s done in the hope that the other party will be foolish enough to not only agree to it but also to believe it is enforceable, and to a lesser extent that the other party might capitulate to avoid the hassle and the chance that a court might enforce the provision in whole or in part
So for the same reason the lawyer wrote the letter advising the surrogate to abort or face the consequences, i.e. it might just work.
She didn’t “appropriate” anything or kidnap anyone, she is carrying and supporting with her body a child that was implanted in her at the request of the couple who hired her.
But your premise would be equally applicable if the surrogate wanted to abort and the couple who hired her didn’t agree, or even if there were a difference between the couples’ and the surrogate’s view about managing delivery. So what say you, should she be forced to continue the pregnancy and give birth? If she wants to have an epidural and the couple wants their “property” to be delivered without anesthesia, should she be forced to deliver drug-free? If not, what’s the difference?
Yet, you were against her being forced to complete the pregnancy against her will if she decided to terminate the pregnancy against the wishes of the intended parents? A termination would destroy their “genetic material.”
I agree, she did not break in to a fertility clinic and kidnap/steal embryos. They implanted her with an embryo, there is a fetus and later on a baby because of her biological work. The genetic material provided the instructions, but her body did the assembling. It is much easier to acquire sperm, ovum and embryos than a surrogate because of the very involved biological work of surrogacy.
Even after birth, there has been custody battles between gestational surrogates and genetic or intended parents. The genetic relationship does not trump all and in this case only the father is genetically related to the child, the ovum was donated. Both relationships, genetic and biological pregnancy are in play here and rights vary by state.
I think the surrogate behaved reprehensible in this situation and she should not have entered into a contract if she wasn’t willing to adhere to the termination clause. I think people who bring babies into the world with such catastrophic abnormalities are inhumane. But you still can not force an abortion on anyone and highly doubt any court would ever order mandatory abortions.
I think such contracts and state laws are reprehensible, to the extent that they attempt or purport to give gamete donors rights in a pregnant woman’s body.