E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSCrystal Kelley got paid $22,000 to have a baby. But that wasn’t the only offer the 29-year-old Connecticut mother of two received. After an utrasound at 21-weeks revealed significant medical issues, the parents offered her $10,000 more if she agreed to an abortion.
The gross immorality of that second offer tells us that there is a lot wrong with the first arrangement. It is intolerable that our society continues to put up with an unregulated, free market in hiring cash-starved women to make babies.
The couple, which had two other children, "were very attentive," Kelley told NBC Connecticut. "They wanted to be involved in the pregnancy. [The biological mother] said she really felt like she was living through me in this pregnancy and she wished she could experience it.”
But after the tests revealed complex heart problems, a cleft lift and palate and other issues, the would-be parents decided that the pregancy should be terminated. Kelley refused, even after the money was offered after she was told the parents would no longer adopt the baby.
Then things went from ethically bad to ethically despicable. According to a CNN report, Crystal Kelley then got a letter from an attorney named Douglas Fishman reminding her that her surrogacy contract required her to get an abortion in the case “of severe fetus abnormality.” The lawyer told her that if she did not promptly get an abortion the no-longer-wannabe-parents would sue her to get back the money they’d paid along with the money they’d spent on Crystal’s medical bills and legal fees.
This crummy story goes on and on (for those who are curious, Kelley did eventually give birth and was able to find another couple to adopt the child), but there is enough on the ethical plate to see that there is plenty wrong with commercial surrogacy if a woman can be bribed or bullied into an abortion.
Let’s do the low hanging ethical fruit first.
No one can contract with a woman to have an abortion. Under any circumstances. For any reason. Never. A woman controls her body and no one can make her do anything she does not want to do in terms of medical intervention with her body no matter what she has said before, signed or promised. The lawyer who tried to coerce and threaten Crystal Kelley to have an abortion should be subject to loss of his license to practice law. Any surrogate agency which conveyed an offer of money to encourage an abortion is guilty of at best bribery and an attempt to crassly manipulate a vulnerable woman. And any surrogacy agency that sticks abortion language into its contracts is guilty of gross misconduct.
Now let’s go for the broader moral lessons evident from this horrific tale.
Surrogacy for money is about money -- not love, or help, or altruism or doing good. Money is most attractive to those who need it most. Young single mothers with kids to feed and bills to pay and the rent in arrears are not likely to read the small print. If we are going to put up with markets in wombs, then the least we can do is mandate by law that the potential surrogate has her own lawyer that she picks but that is paid for by the couple who want to rent her womb.
In addition, we need legislation that makes it absolutely clear that if you hire a surrogate you will legally be bound to accept and raise any child that results. Would-be parents who use surrogates must understand that if a fetus is found to have problems, it is their responsibility, not the surrogate’s, to resolve them. If you enter the genetic lottery via surrogacy, you have to live with the consequences: that is the only way to insure the interests of children made via surrogacy are protected.
Lastly, we need tighter control over those in the commercial surrogacy broker business. If Crystal Kelley’s story is any indication, there are a lot of brokers out there who are far more interested in making an easy dollar then protecting the women whose wombs they offer for sale or the children who may result from surrogacy arrangements.
Technology has given us many new and valuable ways to make babies. The free market – complete with its shady middlemen and lawyers -- is not up to the task of deciding how best to use that technology.
Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., is the head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center.
Leave a Comment:
The article only tells half the story. First off, the couple in question already had two children of their own who had been born with birth defects. Which begs the question of why they would use their DNA again and ask a surrogate to bear another child with anomalies? Nature has already shown these people twice that their chromosomes are defective when mixed together.
Secondly, the surrogate refused to have an abortion because the couple did not pay her an additional $5,000 that she was demanding.
People need to start listening when nature speaks and stop breeding more inferiors. Our planet is already much too overpopulated to begin with. We need to begin giving cash incentives for people who don't reproduce....those who are solutions to the problem of overpopulation instead of contributors to the problem.
I was with you up until this:
At which point your opinion joined the dustbin with those others who espoused the practice of Eugenics.
We do not have an overpopulation problem, but rather an overconsumption one. If everyone reduced his/her use of the planet's resources, there would be enough to support a much larger number of people. Small families are not necessarily "greener" than larger ones- we need to be worrying a LOT more about conservation and a LOT less about family size.
If the surrogate doesn't want to abort, let her raise the child from her own financial means. She may have no DNA contribution to the child, but since she has the womb, she has complete legal say in the outcome of a pregnancy.
Actually, the family admitted that the egg was from a donor. So that reduces their 'anomalies' by half.
Looks like they picked the wrong person to help with expanding their family. Evidently it isn't all about the money with this woman. Should be rather interesting how this ends. Bringing severely handicapped children into the world by choice is selfish especially if they are not wanted or cannot be supported financially (healthcare and special needs) or emotionally. That is unless your circumstances dictate otherwise. That is why it is called 'choice." Either way this is a very sad story and a black eye for surrogates.
Theoretically, correct. And good look with that. It's not going to happen.
Ian, I have been told by woman that I have no say so in this matter I am just a seed vessel, in that case she is just a womb, she would have no say so, you can't have it both ways. If your not part of the process you have no say so even if your going to go through all the as I've benn told PAIN.
surrogate signed a contract agreeing she would have an abortion if the child had significant problems, as this one did-- malformed brain and organs formed in the wrong areas of the body, are just the beginning of what was wrong-- the doctors recommended abortion as mercy. the surrogate demanded $15,000 to go through with the abortion, she signed a contract to get $10K in this circumstance. she planned to keep the baby, but had to find someone else to adopt when she realized she did not want to take care of a vegetable in addition to the rest of her children. it is sad nbc would allow the above article to be posted on their site with so few of the relevant facts. this article belongs under 'commentary,' not news.
This is just another case to cement the female monopoly on reproduction. When will men have some reproductive rights? With no rights, the negate stereotype of men playing the role of "mere" sperm donors without legal rights is perpetuated.
Men can get the right to make final decisions about a fetus as soon as men can grow fetuses inside their bodies.
Mike, umm the dad DID get the "rights" he sought. Someone else adopted the baby he didn't want. for HIM problem solved. For BABY pitiful. He wanted an abortion. No one can get him for child support, the baby was adopted by another couple. You've just proven WHY men shouldn't have rights, YOU want the right to force a woman to have abotions, OTHERS want the right to force a woman to raise a child but ALSO the right to cut any type of help she might get when she's on her own. THAT'S why men won't have "rights" until they get on board with the reaility of the responsibility of KEEPING THEIR ZIPPERS ZIPPED UP! You don't want a child? don't go sticking it where it might produce one. and if you DO want a child, make darned sure the women you have it with is one you want to deal with for the rest of your life.
Ian, men have the right to stay clear of fornicating with women who don't share the same values/ideas/plans/viewpoint on abortion.
I saw a picture of this dear child. She definitely does NOT look like a vegetable. She looked very alert actually. Their is no justification for trying to force an abortion!! Google the surrogates name and you will find pictures as well. She had a brain cyst, calling it a malformed brain is a bit much!
Absolutely. This article was an emotional plea that should have been reserved for the editorial section. There was not a lack of morals in this case but a lack of clearly defined legal plans that would foresee a medical condition that might warrant an abortion per the biological parent' wishes.
I don't think that the parents deserve the approbation of this psychologist - the mother was a gold digger and tried to hold up the parents for an additional $5k - so get off your high horse about morality . . .
What's new? I see all kinds of problems for people that make babies for a living.
It takes two to tango.
I bet that her surrogacy fees are considered income and completely taxable.
Surrogacy is more about money than compassion. There are many children out there that need adopting.
Soon enough, medical technology will convert most abortions into adoptions. Should women seeking abortions be financially responsible for the child adopted by other parents?
And what planet did this observation originate on, might I ask?
Do you envision a United States, where there are forced "labor" camps for women?
I can think of two ways where this could happen, besides the "forced labor" camp mentioned above. First, the embryo could be removed intact and put in cryogenic suspension, along with millions of other fertilized eggs. Or second, a fetus could be removed intact from one woman and placed either in another woman's womb or some kind of artificial womb/incubator, where it can remain until fully developed and ready for birth. Such a device would be a godsend to women prone to miscarriages who actually WANT to have a baby. As for the question of financial responsibility, I think a woman should pay the initial costs of the transplant/removal, just like she would pay for the abortion. But then the adoptive parents would take on responsibility after that. Personally I think it would be a great thing, because we could then FINALLY put this stupid abortion argument to rest!
T Bourlon - except that you're now advocating forcing pregnant women to go through major surgery as opposed to a simple out-patient abortion. In addition, you want pregnant women to foot the bill for your intrusive scenario and risk their lives going through such an invasive procedure??
The truth is there is no need to have babies at any cost. There is already enough people around, and there is no need to spawn uncontrollably. The eggs are just single cells, without dreams and thoughts. They are not people.
TBourlon wrote "r second, a fetus could be removed intact from one woman and placed either in another woman's womb or some kind of artificial womb/incubator, where it can remain until fully developed and ready for birth."
Correct. Fetus and embryo transplants will be possible. Current medical technology does allow for some five-month babies to be brought to term. In a couple of decades, four-month babies will be brought to term. So, will it be ethical for a mother that doesn't want her fetus or baby (future term for 4+ month fetus) to force it to be killed when it is not necessary to do so?
TBourlon wrote "As for the question of financial responsibility, I think a woman should pay the initial costs of the transplant/removal, just like she would pay for the abortion. "
So, she should be relieved of the costs because she doesn't want the baby and isn't brining it to term? Isn't this abdication of parental rights and responsibilities similar to those forced on men involved in unwanted babies?
googforgoodnesssake wrote "n addition, you want pregnant women to foot the bill for your intrusive scenario and risk their lives going through such an invasive procedure??"
The procedure will be very similar to the surrent abortion surgery. But, yes, as maternal womb services decrease, a woman's involvement in a pregnancy approaches that of a man. Women are used to killing babies (infanticide) with little punishment and paternity fraud. Medical technology that has helped women with reproduction will also help men with reproduction.
So, if he has no legal say in the outcome of a pregnancy or abortion and is forced only by the woman to be financially responsible for a child, a similar legal climate should exist for women.
Your scenarios are very frightening and a threat to freedom.
Some women will enjoy the income from selling or donating fetuses. Today, women are limited to selling womb services and eggs.
Selling fetuses ?!? If you think a fetus is a baybee, then buying and selling them would be slavery. Better think that one through twice ... no, once.
Is it a fetus or a baby? Since a fetus has no legal rights of any kind, buying and selling them is more legitimate than buying and selling turtles.
When abortion is limited or banned, as it is in late pregnancy in all U.S. states, this appears to me to convey some legal rights to the fetus. Anyway, you are envisioning a sci-fi world where even early abortion is banned because the embryo can be salvaged for an artificial womb, whether the woman likes it or not. Fetuses would clearly be seen as having legal rights in that case, and if your wish is really to treat fetuses as persons, you have to do so consistently. (For example, the doctor who just threatened to have another pregnant woman dragged in by the police for a forcible C-section needs to be slugged upside the head with the fact [wrapped around a brick if possible] that you can't force one person to have major surgery for another person's benefit.)
jane wrote "Anyway, you are envisioning a sci-fi world where even early abortion is banned because the embryo can be salvaged for an artificial womb,"
The fetus can be removed. It's just that the woman would no longer have the option to kill it.
"and if your wish is really to treat fetuses as persons, you have to do so consistently."
and conversely, the pro-choice group would have to also; to do so consistently. If the fetus truly is a worthless lump of cells then it deserves no more consideration than the hangnail a doctor removes. so if removing an aborted baby and placing it in an artificial womb to allow it to grow and become a person and live is abhorrent to you, then you are placing a higher value on that worthless lump of cells. If the reason for abortion is so that a women is not forced to carry a child she does not want, and/or forced to have it wreck havoc on her precious beauty, then an artificial womb is the perfect solution, she dumps the worthless cells and moves on, with no connection to it at all, like a hangnail. If you still insist that the cells be destroyed at that point, any argument invalidates your stance, to believe the cells are not important.
That would be extra-problematic in the case of a severely handicapped fetus. Many people do not think it is moral to intentionally produce children whose early lives will consist of one surgery after another with the most successful outcome being lifelong institutionalization. Even if we only apply this law to normal embryos, clearly the embryo would be getting legal standing at an earlier stage than it now does.
It's a binding contract. Chances are there's an escape clause that says if woman refuses to abort on the command of the biological parents, biological parents absolve themselves of responsibility for child. Then surrogate mom will have to raise the child.
That said, heart problems and cleft palate can be mitigated, the latter can be repaired surgically. I suppose the real deal-killer is the "other issues" mentioned.
The contract was not legal per the article. No one can legally force a birth mother to have an abortion period. Not for any reason. I am pro-choice. The choice absolutely belongs to who is carrying the fetus, not who supplied the two cells.
Lois wrote "The choice absolutely belongs to who is carrying the fetus, not who supplied the two cells."
This is belief is becoming archaic with advances in medical technology.
The contract should then be amended such that the child is then the responsibility of the surrogate mother. If she is then allowed to abdicate her parental rights, men should have a similar legal avenue out of forced parenthood.
Ian,
Men do have that avenue, they can keep thier pants zipped if they don't want to become parents.
Morality has nothing to do with this story unless one is a Humanist. The Ten Commandments treat women and children like cattle, and fear of eternal punishment is not morality. Read your Bible, all ye Christian commentators! As for Muslims and Zionists, the same Abrahamic god belongs to you (which it is rather obvious nowadays isn't it?)
How does not stealing, lying, making false statements, worshipping other gods, honoring your parents, keeping the sabbath, not coveting, etc. have anything to do with treating women and children like cattle? What Bible are you reading from?
I disagree. As long as she is of legal age and can fully understand the contractual specifics prior to and up to signing the surrogacy contract, she should be forced to uphold her end of the agreement. In this instance, it was all about the money! For both, the surrogate mother who just wanted more money than what had been offered and the couple who already have disabled children and fully understand the financial costs associated with their immediate and future care.
Furthermore, this couple is not the first to have an abortion clause within their surrogacy contract. One of Romney's son and wife had the same abortion clause in their surrogacy contracts.
Nooooooo....you cannot legally enforce a contract, or at least parts of it that tries to force a woman to have an abortion. Legally and morally it's the same as forcing someone to be a "hit man". It's not legal to force someone to commit murder, whether you pay them or not. An abortion clause is non-enforcable. Period.
If one of Mitt's kids did what you said, it's pathetic, immoral and not enforceable. If they had managed to coerce a woman to get an abortion, it's probably grounds to be kick out of the Mormon church.
As I said Granny, if she is of legal age and fully understands the contract she signed her name on- then she was fully aware what she was getting herself into legally and morally! After all this is a woman who has 2 children she has given birth to AND claims to have had 2 miscarriages as well.
As to Mr. Romney's son read parrellecooler's post #8. Or simply google it.
I thought the Romney's were against abortion under any circumstances. I guess those rules only apply to everyone else.
outragious,
The comparison still stands. A person who offers to kill another person for money (contract killer) cannot be held responsible for breach of contract if they decide to back out - the contract is illegal. Could you imagine the court case?
However, I am a bit puzzled - maybe someone can help me understand. If the surrogate has complete reproductive rights over the fetus and decides to break the contract and HAS an abortion...does she get to keep the money? Maybe I'm thinking about it incorrectly.
HChris,
I respectfully disagree with the comparison offered because the ultrasound was done when the surrogate was 5 months pregnant. This would place the pregnacy at approximately 20 weeks along. It is illegal to have an abortion after 24 weeks (national average) of gestation unless the "mother's" life is in danger.
Once again, Ms. Kelly agreed to the entirety of the contract, including the abortion clause when she placed her signature on the contract AND accepting monies there after.
Nice OPINION from someone who is neither an M.D. nor a lawyer!
A contract is a contract. Break a contract, you don't get to keep the money. If the contract said 'get an abortion or give us money back' - its not about the abortion, its about the cash. The woman doesn't want to get in that situation - well, no one made her sign the damn contract.
The husband and wife are on the hook for the baby, by the law in most states. They are responsible for the medical bills unless they give the baby up for adoption. If there is extra expense to doing that they have to pay it. The parents have a RIGHT to recoup the additional expenses if the surrogate woman does not follow the contract.
The surrogate can't just say 'I changed my mind, I don't want to follow the contract I signed' and not expect to take FULL responsibility for her actions. The end product might be a living baby, but she made a choice, and now people are vilifying the other party for asking her to keep to the contractual choices she made? I have no problem with her changing her mind and giving birth. I DO have a problem with her trying to dodge a contractual obligation by playing people's feelings against the parents with whom she has a contract.
I wish I had that kind of option. I'd stop paying my mortgage, car payment, credit cards, and other contractual obligations and there would be no repurcussions of those decisions, right?
I'd love to see the case law and/or statutory provisions behind this. I'm sure it has been litigated in the past.
"In the event the child is determined to be physiologically, genetically or chromosomally abnormal, the decision to abort or not to abort is to be made by the intended parents. In such a case the surrogate agrees to abort, or not to abort, in accordance with the intended parents' decision."l
The above is from the surrogacy contract of Mr and Mrs Tagg Romney. You know Tagg Romney. The creepy son of Mitt and Ann.
Where has this writer been living? The paragraph about women controlling their bodies, especially when it comes to medical interventions makes me think of delivery rooms and all the unwanted interventions which occur there and nary a feminist to be found. How about court mandated c-sections? I agree with John^ morality is a word almost without application in our world. You can say what is moral for you but not what is moral for me or anyone else. Morality is personal taste as these responses demonstrate.
What a selfish idiot she would prefer to bring a baby into the world with sever health issues that will always be in pain and most likely have a very short and painful existence to bad she can not feel the pain the child is and will feel I am sure it would change her mind!. If it was not for the child's suffering she should have to keep, raise and pay for all the future expenses and return at least 1/2 of the money!
Yes, kill them early, kill them often. For you know exactly that these children really didn't want to be alive anyhow. You know, we should just abort all children with any abnormalities. You know, blue eyes are considered a genetic defect. What about those who will be below average height? Maybe those who may need hearing aids, or glasses, right?
Eugenics is being taught again, by the left, as the solution.
@no more filbert
An entirely plausible scenario for not not-so-distant future, except you get one detail wrong.
What you just described is not a product of the political Left, but in fact would be the free market at work - a market which views a child as a commodity no different than a new car, boat, kitchen redesign, etc.
Any government regulations restricting the modification and/or abortion of fetuses for the purpose of getting a child with desired characteristics would constitute interference with the free market.
It'll be interesting to see how "conservatives" and "liberals" alike tackle this issue when the time comes.
Whatever happened to the Christian concept of "God's will"?
If you believe in a God, then you believe that he created a defective fetus -- and it did not come with instructions on how to medically save it.
Let them go.
Keeping them alive, like the Santorum child so mentally challenged that it doesn't know when ti swallow, is NOT a life.
I fail to see the issue here. The woman entered a contract, knowing fully well the possible outcomes. As a result, her refusing to do what the contract stated is grounds for her to lose her money. Sounds like the writer of this article has some bias towards abortion, surrogacy and the contract involved.
What the writer suggests is, what? Government regulation? Yeah, all that will happen is the government will start banking on it, and the individuals will have less rights. That's how it goes in every other case of government regulation. Selling our freedom so people who aren't even involved, who make excuses and try to paint them as saints when in reality they are irresponsibly handling their contract and the DNA of two other people, can feel like their form of justice is served is not the answer.
There is one big logical flaw in this article. If we assume surrogacy is about money, then this is purely a business contract. That means the contract can include an abortion clause.
If a surrogate chooses to enter into a contract in which she is paid for her services, she cannot change the contract when things do not go her way. Buy choosing to carry someone else's baby for money, you lose your right to make moral or ethical choices for that baby.
The terms of service were laid out before implantation. The idea the surrogate mother is some hero for refusing to abort the baby is pure religious craziness. Lat's face it, this child will never have a good quality of life and will never be a productive member of society.
As it is a business contract, the surrogate needs to have her own lawyer to interpret it for her and to advocated for her. As she is a surrogate because she needs the money, someone has to pay the lawyer.
Apparently your judgement of a "good life" is different from others. Another set of parents are thrilled to have the baby. As for "productive member of society," I rather doubt that any of us posting on this board are, as we should be working to cure cancer or doing the laundry or doing volunteer work instead of wasting our time here.
The washer and dryer are both running even as I type this!
This woman entered into a legally binding contract with the parents under the provision that any severe abnormalities in the fetus would result in termination of the pregnancy. The parents expressed an aversion to forcing a newborn into multiple surgeries and suffering, a stance I can agree with. Ultimately, the parents have the final say, at least in CT, where this transpired. The article above neglects to mention the surrogate fled to another state to avoid this; in MI, where she ended up, the surrogate has the right to refuse an abortion.
Imagine I buy all the ingredients to prepare a cake. My oven breaks and I have to borrow my brother's. That does not mean the cake is my brother's. This lady has no ties to the fetus; she is simply an incubator. She should have aborted when requested, as per the terms of the contract.
A little OT, but I'm wondering how the pro-abortion crowd will react when they can predict with reasonable certainly whether a child will be gay. If the parents don't want a gay child (suppose they believe it to be a "defect"), it's still their (her) choice, right? She could ask for the test, then decide to abort. Her privacy would demand that her reasons are her own, and nobody can question them. Any takers to the question?
So did you just get back from seeing the play "Twilight of the Golds" or the movie of the same name? (The endings are different.) The movie was made in 1996.
Another book to add to your reading list is "Far From the Tree," by Andrew Solomon, which has in it accounts of people who were conceived in rape and incest, who are dealing with society telling them that they should have been aborted.
http://www.boomerangbooks.com.au/Far-from-the-Tree/Andrew-Solomon/book_9780743236713.htm
First, explain who this "pro-abortion crowd" is? I know of no such crowd.
goodforgoodness,
Just answer the damn question instead of getting hung up on bull@!$%# labels.
Ohlawd, don't have a cow. I was being serious, using inflammatory language will not win a debate.
It really doesn't matter what reasons a woman has for abortion, it's a private matter between her and her doctor. Yes, still her choice and her right to privacy is still protected under the law.
So, yes, goodforgoodnessake would allow for testing of a baby to determine it's sexuality before birth, and then could abort. That's all you had to say.
It's interesting that your scenario assumes that homosexuality has a genetic component, an idea most social conservatives vehemently reject.
To answer your question, that action would probably be considered unethical but entirely permissible according to the principle of the free market. It's already happening in India with the disproportionate abortion of females. The only solution (except for a shift in culture) is increased government regulation, a concept disagreeable to the political Right.
lol. Only in matters NOT involving sexual activities.
Filbert: I am neither a law-maker or an enforcer, therefore I don't allow anything. But the US Constitution does provide that abortions are legal in this country. That being said, I don't think that's a very good reason for an abortion. I do however defend a woman's right to choose her own destiny.
There's no such thing as "pro-abortion!" Who's pro abortion?
Yes! A woman's reasons for electing an abortion is hers and hers alone.
That's what I just said.
goodforgoodnesssake wrote ". I do however defend a woman's right to choose her own destiny."
Should men also have this right? Currently, this is always decided by a woman. In the case of a married woman bearing a child from a man other than a husband, the husband has no say in fatherhood and is legally forced to be responsible for her child by default.
Nope, you cannot force a woman to have surgery so that you do not have to pay child support, even if the laws are as unfair and the woman as much of a b$#@# as in the extreme scenario described.
I'm not talking about forcing an unwanted surgery. Rather, I'm talking about a legal method for a father to give up parental rights similar to the process women have for giving up parental rights to an infant AKA giving up for adoption.
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that in a scenario like that, a simple paternity test would solve the issue of financial responsibility. In this scenario, there's a choice right there, to stay or leave an unfaithful spouse.
A couple of your messages have sounded like you were suggesting a man who didn't feel like paying child support should be able to compel a woman to have an abortion. I would absolutely agree that a man should never be required to pay support for a child that can be shown not to be his. But I would also say that a husband who demanded a paternity test when his wife had not been unfaithful to him had provided immediate grounds and good reason for divorce.
When men get pregnant, then they'll have that right.
Your point?
Not necessarily. The law determines what is the best option for the welfare of the child.
First off, she should've never signed up in the first place. Being a surrogate is a heavy responsiblity in itself with unforeseen complications. It is not something you do because "you need a little extra money on the side". If she didn't potentially want to be a parent, then she should have never done it.
The notion that we humans are willing to treat other humans as little more than property to be haggled, destroyed when not to our liking and only worth a damn when we judge them to be so pains me so very much.
If this is indeed a society where every life should be protected and is inherently equal to every other life, then this nonsense is nothing more than an ethically bankrupt practice of selfishness.
@!$%#ing humans.
Not your choice to make. In fact, their choice to abort their baby has no impact on you what-so-ever.
None.
Go cry somewhere else.
No but it impacts the human growing inside them which is NOT their body. Everyone has the right to live. You don't want to take responsibility, stop having sex. Go spill your vial rhetoric somewhere else.
The fetus is utilizing someone else's body for their own benefit. If the woman in question doesn't want it there, it gets evicted.
Fetuses have no rights, and certainly none which trump thoat of the mother.
Electing an abortion is taking responsibility too.
I am really surprised that all the anti abortion people are not on here sounding off. Wonder what they think?
For me this is a very difficult issue for all involved.
No one can make you have an abortion? Really you might want to mention that to quite a few politicians that seem to feel that they (not the mother, not the father, not the doctor but the politician) has the right to determine if a woman must have an abortion. On the other hand the woman should be sued for breaking the contract. if she signed the document saying she would have an abortion if needed, she should have stuck to what she agreed to and signed.
"gross immorality", "ethically despicable", "horrific", "crummy"....Your opinion on the subject is ungracefully clear. I would rather read a sound NEWS story, (without facts conveniently omitted) than this soap box speech.
Can you not imagine yourself in the shoes of ALL parties involved?
Arthur Caplan, you may have written 20+ books and have been named one of the more influential people in science and medicine but your influence would be more credible in the eyes of many if you would tell a more thorough story.
The genetic parents in this case were not childless due to infertility. They had already produced at least two other children. This story says two; an earlier AP story reported that there were three, of which two had congenital defects or birth problems that led to disabilities. At least two kids, then, of which at least one and maybe both have problems. Perhaps these parents might have considered that their personal genetic material may not be quite as special and superior as they presume, and instead of going to extreme lengths to produce a third (or fourth?) genetic child, adopted one of the many existing children who languish in foster care for lack of parents. If I were the sort of person to suggest that anyone should be involuntarily sterilized, these two would be somewhere near the top of my list.
Do you have biological children? If so, why didn't you adopt? What makes your DNA so special that it should be reproduced but not others? I have a real problem with anyone with biological children saying "just adopt" to others. If adopting is the way to go, then everyone should "just adopt" .
I read in another artical that the egg used was a donor egg, not the wife's egg.
While I do not believe any woman, no matter the circumstances, should be forced to have an abortion, I do wonder why someone would sign a contract with abortion as an option when that is something they would never consider doing?
Karen,
Infertility typically means there is some sort of defect that does not need to be passed on to subsequent generations. Or, if you are of a religious sort, God has other plans for your life that do not include biological parenthood. Why should we circumvent nature or God to fulfill our own wishes?
Taking an antibiotic pill circumvents nature and God, right?
Karen - I do not have children, biological or otherwise. If I had given birth to multiple children with congenital handicaps, I like to think that I would be honest enough to admit that either my or my husband's Darwinian fitness was not great and we should not spend a lot of money trying to further propagate our own DNA. I do believe that people can love adoptive children just as much as genetically related ones. Anyway, lots of people are happy with two kids in our society; I can see why the unhappily childless might go to extreme measures to get one, but three or four?
CD11 - Apparently abortion wasn't something she would never consider doing. At least briefly, she said she wouldn't do it for $10K but she'd do it for $15K. I don't want to argue the relative moral merits of having an abortion vs. having a baby with severe handicaps. I can respect those who think that the former choice is worse, even though I don't agree. But when someone says they might go with what they think is the immoral choice for an extra 5000 smackers ... that says it all about their values.
As a clinical ethicist I have long read Dr. Caplan's work on ethics. In the majority of cases, I have been in general agreement with him. However, his claims in this case either ignore some very important considerations, or worse yet, make light of the autonomy of the contracting parents who took all necessary precautions to insure any infant produced would be healthy and normal. The already existing children have no moral bearing on this pregnancy. Neither does the money that was paid. It is well know in the ethics community that what the law allows may not be what is ideal from an ethical point of view. I have to say, I'm disappointed in Dr. Caplan's stand on this issue.
This is what happens when we try to circumvent the will of God, just because we can do something , doesn't mean that we should.
I know a woman who had a partial hysterectomy due to cancer. Her sister carried the children for her & her husband, giving birth to a set of twins that are the light of their parent's lives.
How do you know this is not God's will ? Maybe he gave humans the intelligence & insight to develop technology so people could have children?
Would you suggest light bulbs are a sacrilege, since they were created by Thomas Edison, not God? God created fire, so we should still be living by torch light?
God, of course, is the biggest abortionist.
Do cancer treatments circumvent the will of God?
Quite the arrogance, to presume to know the will of god. Prove there even is a god!
Once we developed the technology to allow people that cannot conceive, a method to create a baby, and allowed legal agreements, and to be signed, we took morals off the table. You can mislead yourself into thinking surrogacy can have all the benefits that modern day allows it, but then you have to allow any and all bad effects that may come with the benefits.
It is probably safe to say, the very people that want to call corporations people and claim that contracts with CEOs and wall street execs over salaries are infallible, are the very same ones that want to destroy contracts with workers and private citizens. Its not about morals, its about class status. The elites can do whatever them want, but those without privileges are required to have morals on every aspect of life.
Everyone in this article except for the adoptive mother is sick, sick, sick. Firstly, if you have two or three previous biological children with genetic problems and then cannot have anymore, it should be a sign through whatever you want to believe that you are done. Also, why can't they focus on being there for the kids that they already have that have difficult health problems? Then you have the surrogate who's religious views are clearly up for sale. " Nope, won't do it for $10,000 because of my religion, but bump it up another $5,000 and you've got yourself a deal!" and insists on having the kid but doesn't even want it. There's just too many kinds of crazy in this scenario. I'm all for medical technology, but when it brings such blatant idiocy out in people I start to reconsider it's benefits.
Surrogacy contracts always have a statement about the payer making the decision about whether to abort.
There is nothing immoral about having a baby for an infertile couple. A woman can do what she wants with her body, and the government should not interfere. There is nothing immoral about abortion, particularly if there are medical defects. Millions of women abort for this reason.
Dr Caplan says that we must stop exploiting poorer women to have babies for richer people--yet we exploit the poor all the time, and Caplan doesn't mind. We exploit the poor by giving financial incentives to join the military and fight our wars. Where's Caplan's outrage?
This is a financial transaction. A woman is deciding what to do with her own body. No one forced her to have an abortion. I don't see American civilization grinding to a halt with this one, sorry.