A couple entered a contract with a surrogate mother (a single mom) to have their child. Turns out the woman is now pregnant with twins. In the contract it stipulated that the surrogate mom would use selective abortion in the case of multiple implantations to reduce the pregnancy to one. However surrogate mom is refusing to abort, saying that it was verbally agreed that 12 weeks was the cut-off point for this procedure and they asked too late.
So, the biological parents, whose own sperm and egg were used for the creation of these children, have told the surrogate mom that either she aborts one or the deal is off. In other words, they don’t fucking care that these two children are their own flesh and blood, that they are healthy fetuses. They don’t want to deal with TWINS. Surrogate mom is saying, “I can’t afford to raise twins, and they’re YOUR kids. They aren’t mine to keep OR give up for adoption.”
The legal imbroglio has just begun.
So let me just say to the biological parents: You have clearly demonstrated that you are not worthy of being parents. I hope some loving, worthy parents adopts your designer children and I hope you NEVER find another surrogate mom.
Being a parent means loving your child unconditionally. And if you are so self-centered that you will kill your own child because your CONTRACT says you can, then you deserve every bit of public condemnation that is coming your way. As parents, YOU’RE supposed to be willing to die for your kids. Your kids aren’t supposed to die for YOU, you arrogant, emotionless pricks.
I’m sure that’s why they want the abortion now. If they wait until the fetus is a kid then it will be illegal to kill it and they’ll have to keep it.
The contract says that in case of multiple implantations, there will be a “voluntary reduction” (horrible phrase) - a completely standard clause in surrogacy contracts. The surrogate claims there was a “verbal agreement” not to do this after the twelfth week. Unless she has some convincing proof of that verbal agreement, she loses.
The obvious thing to do, then is just abort both fetuses and walk away. Too bad she waited 12 weeks to file the lawsuit and is too far in for an abortion in many places.
If we are going to allow surrogacy, should we be surprised when the legal parents aren’t emotionally attached to the fetus? That’s what they get for bargain hunting and not working with the California surrogacy community. They wanted it cheaper so they went to England where such things are not allowed and found a cheaper vessel. It’s a grand society we’ve created; let’s enjoy the results.
You just know that if one was aborted, the parents would bemoan their chances and say that they should’ve kept the other one. And anything can go wrong with twins, maybe one ends up a stillborn, then they wouldn’t have any kids. They’re still emotionless bastards. What was wrong with the woman where she didn’t want to get pregnant herself?
If the surrogate mom is so dead-set against abortion after 12 weeks, she should have insisted that the 12 week limit be included in the contract.
And if the biological parents did agree to the 12 week cut-off point for abortion, they should have insisted that the surrogate mom undergo testing to detect any extra fetuses before then.
Lesath: There very well could be physiological/health reasons for not getting pregnant herself.
Robodude: The surrogate mother found out about the twins in the 8th week. She claims she informed the legal parents immediately and they did not respond with the abortion deman until the end of the 13th week. So, six days earlier the surrogate mother had no problem with abortion.
I don’t think that would be such a good idea. Seperating twins would be harsh. Even if they were uniformed about eachother, they would find out somehow, they always do. Then there would be the question of Why did they give up me and not my sister/brother? Is there something wrong with me? Amd then self esteem issues would arrise.
What I am curious to know is, if the couple they had naturally concieved twins themselves, would they be as willing to have a reduction? Also, this isn’t really the surrogate mothers’ kid. She is only carrying them. If she should end up having to keep them, shouldn’t she get child support from the real parents?
No one really plans twins or triplets or whatever, but when they do happen, people deal with it. My parents only wanted two children, but ended up with 4 becuase they had triplets. They didn’t have a lot of money, but they were still happy and excited, they called us triple blessings.
I think those people shouldn’t be aloud to keep the kids, but I think they should still have to pay for everything that the kids need.
A verbal contract is still a contract, legal and binding.
Why is aborting both fetuses the “obvious” thing to do? I’d think the obvious thing to do would be either abort one fetus, the weaker one usually, carry both babies to term and put one up for adoption, or simply force the parents to take both babies.
I happen to agree with you here, but there must have been a medical reason as to why the mother couldn’t carry the baby. I don’t disagree with the idea of surrogacy, but I don’t like the idea of it being so impersonal as to become just a business deal instead of the birth of a baby.
ladyfoxfyre, please do not suggest the biological parents be forced to keep the kids. To me, aborting both babies is better than putting them in the care of those selfish bastards.
The outcome I would like to see is the babies being carried to term, and then quietly adopted by another couple or family. I’d also like to see the biological parents both slapped around a bit, sterilized, and then banned from ever being the caregivers of any human being or owning pets. But I think I have better luck with the first one.
Of course it is. If you can prove that such an agreement was ever made. Thus my statement.
It is the obvious thing to do, because as she points out, she does not have the legal right to put those children up for adoption. They are not hers. By going to court, she risks a judge deciding that she will be stuck with them. Which she doesn’t want. When the donor parents (the sperm was from the father, the egg was from an anonymous donor) washed their hands of things, she should just have gone to a clinic and had an abortion. Seems to me the simplest way to just make it all go away.
Worst case scenario for her, she’s deemed to be the legal guardian of the children which would free her to put them up for adoption. I really think that would be the best-case outcome for this case.
As far as aborting both of them now, I would imagine the surrogate mother had ethical problems with aborting any child after 12 weeks. I doubt aborting both of them would be an option she’d consider.
Yes, but a verbal change or addition to a written contract is treated differently from a simple verbal contract. If the contract says somewhere that it is “integrated” or is the complete agreement, then the surrogate mom is probably SOL.
About all I can say about this case is that I’m glad I resigned from the human race a couple of months ago. I am so sick of hearing about what everyone knows is right and what people can get away with because of legal processes. Everyone knows that these biological parents should be completely sterilized and not ever allowed to buy children again in any way; we also know that no court in North America would pass that judgement because it would trample on their human rights. What the courts are missing (IMO) is that these people don’t qualify to be called human beings.
A fetus is not a person, it is a thing. If it is a thing it can be a commodity. If it is a commodity then why do we care about two people bitching about a contract of sale?
How can you say that? Sure maybe when it is a very young zygote it could be considered a thoughtless senseless thing, but by five and a half months, they are now actual human beings. She is past half term by now. That is, of course, just IMHO. This isn’t just a “contract of sale” either. The parents had no original intent of it being one either. When the contract was signed, they had every intention of gaining a living, breathing, person. Not an object.
Also, I believe that she didn’t want to get an abortion after 12 months because of health risks to herself, not because she objected to doing it. I think that best senario would be having the babies go to this new adoptive couple. That way everyone wins. Except the prospective parents, I guess, but they don’t deserve to win.
How can you say that? Sure maybe when it is a very young zygote it could be considered a thoughtless senseless thing, but by five and a half months, they are now actual human beings. She is past half term by now. That is, of course, just IMHO. This isn’t just a “contract of sale” either. The parents had no original intent of it being one either. When the contract was signed, they had every intention of gaining a living, breathing, person. Not an object.
Also, I believe that she didn’t want to get an abortion after 12 months because of health risks to herself, not because she objected to doing it. I think that best senario would be having the babies go to this new adoptive couple. That way everyone wins. Except the prospective parents, I guess, but they don’t deserve to win.
If you think this case is depressing… Several years ago a couple engaged a surrogate mother to bear their child. The child was born retarded and the father refused delivery of the child because it was damaged goods. I watched him in an interview. I just wanted to slap him! :mad: