Surrogate refuses abortion - Page 5
+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 128
Like Tree60Likes

Thread: Surrogate refuses abortion

  1. #41
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    THE PARENTS HAD THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE DECISION ABOUT THEIR OWN CHILD. PERIOD. They could not force an abortion or force this skank (who would have aborted for 15K, lest you forget) but they SHOULD have been able to decide whose care their child then went into. This lowlife stole their child like a thief in the night away to another state. That is kidnapping, IMO. Not.Right.
    Agreed. I would actually love to see her prosecuted for it. Kidnapping and crossing state lines in commission of a felony should get her some nice jail time. And the parents should file a breach of contract lawsuit to make sure she never profits from selling her story.
    70% of the U.S. population now lives in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. At 36 and counting!

  2. #42
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    I think that child's right to live overrides what other people want. We are not talking about letting a child die we are talking about killing it. I can't really sympathize with any hurt feelings her parents might have because she is alive.
    At some point many family members have to make some tough decisions. Unfortunately sometimes it comes much sooner than you want it to. I've had friends involved in car accidents where their parents had to make the decision to take their children off of life support. Does the children's right to life trump their parents' right to make what they believe to be the most compassionate decision? Why do we even allow DNR directives if keeping someone alive trumps all else? I don't like the idea that we seem to define life as "having a heartbeat."

    Some health problems are terminal. Life can be prolonged with treatment but sometimes there are serious side effects. Parents must weigh the outcomes and make the best decision for their children. Yet, they have the right to make that decision.

    In the case in the OP, the parents had that decision placed on them much, much sooner than anyone would be ready for. But they still need to be allowed to make that decision. The decision they came to was that they wanted to terminate the pregnancy.

    Do these tough decisions somehow become more compassionate after the child is born?
    Sapphire Sunsets likes this.

  3. #43
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ethanwinfield View Post
    At some point many family members have to make some tough decisions. Unfortunately sometimes it comes much sooner than you want it to. I've had friends involved in car accidents where their parents had to make the decision to take their children off of life support. Does the children's right to life trump their parents' right to make what they believe to be the most compassionate decision? Why do we even allow DNR directives if keeping someone alive trumps all else? I don't like the idea that we seem to define life as "having a heartbeat."

    Some health problems are terminal. Life can be prolonged with treatment but sometimes there are serious side effects. Parents must weigh the outcomes and make the best decision for their children. Yet, they have the right to make that decision.

    In the case in the OP, the parents had that decision placed on them much, much sooner than anyone would be ready for. But they still need to be allowed to make that decision. The decision they came to was that they wanted to terminate the pregnancy.

    Do these tough decisions somehow become more compassionate after the child is born?
    Withdrawing life support and allowing someone to die is a completely different thing than killing them. This child was not dying.
    Sapphire Sunsets likes this.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  4. #44
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Withdrawing life support and allowing someone to die is a completely different thing than killing them. This child was not dying.
    I think you have really missed my point.

    The decision to end life support is because your loved one is suffering. Depending on age/circumstances a person on life support could live for decades but the end result will be the same. It's a decision to hasten the process in the name of compassion.

    Upon receiving the news of their baby's health issues, the parents deserved to be able to make the same choice. How does something magically change after birth v. before? This was an extremely difficult situation for all involved. From what I have read about her diagnoses, it does not look good for this little girl. If it were my pregnancy, I would be doing some serious soul-searching asking myself if bringing a baby into the world for what may be for 1 year of surgeries, doctors' visits, hospital stays, tears, pain, and suffering is about me or about the baby. As a parent, I'm somehow allowed to make every single decision when it comes to medical treatment for my child yet I'm not supposed to make medical decisions for my own body?

    Where do you draw the line? If a baby ends up on life support at 6 months, can the parents decide to take him/her off life support? How about 3 months? Day 1? How do we go from a woman not having any say in her own body by allowing her to abort a fetus with severe health problems to mandating she wait until the baby is born, can't survive on his/her own and allowing the mother to then end life support?
    Potter75 likes this.

  5. #45
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    What a mess.

    I don't think that I support a forced abortion in ANY scenario. She absolutely shouldn't have signed a contract that stipulated abortion in certain scenarios if she even suspected that would be too hard for her to follow through on (assuming her motives for keeping the pregnancy were moral and not financial) but I kind of feel like that is all would have/should have/could have once the situation is actually at hand. I realize that this was not her child, but we're still talking about her undergoing a medical procedure that is being done to her body, so I think she still has the ultimate choice, contract or no.

    Having said that, once she made the choice to breach the contract, I think at that point the biological parents don't owe her any more money, and should probably get back the money they had already paid her thus far. I also agree with Melissa that once the baby was born, the baby's fate should have been entirely up to the biological parents, and not up to her. I agree that what she did was basically kidnapping, and I can't believe it's legal in ANY state.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  6. #46
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,737

    Default

    The parents agreed to give up their parental rights for the adoption before the baby was adopted.

    Kelley’s name went on the birth certificate but the space for a father was left blank.

    Two weeks later, Kelley finally struck a deal with the couple. The husband and wife agreed to give up their parental rights as long as they could maintain a relationship with the child.

    Kelley handed over the child, who is identified as Baby S, to the chosen adoptive mother.

    In the seven months since Baby S’s birth, the unnamed adoptive mother told CNN that the Connecticut couple visited and held the child.

    “They do care about her well-being. They do care about how she’s doing,” she said.
    Surrogate mom refuses to abort fetus with birth defects | The Mommy Files | an SFGate.com blog
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  7. #47
    Community Host Sapphire Sunsets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Northeast, USA
    Posts
    7,964

    Default

    Surrogate Insanity


    The surrogates blog. It really is worth the read. It brings up alot more questions. I'm really surprised any agency worked with her given just how prolife she is.

  8. #48
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    The parents agreed to give up their parental rights for the adoption before the baby was adopted.


    Surrogate mom refuses to abort fetus with birth defects | The Mommy Files | an SFGate.com blog

    You say "agreed" like they had any real choice. They clearly did it only so that they would be allowed to have some contact with their CHILD.


    From the article you quoted:
    In the midst of a legal battle, Kelley gave birth to a baby with medical problems that were far worse than ever expected.
    CNN reports:
    She has a birth defect called holoprosencephaly, where the brain fails to completely divide into distinct hemispheres. She has heterotaxy, which means many of her internal organs, such as her liver and stomach, are in the wrong places. She has at least two spleens, neither of which works properly. Her head is very small, her right ear is misshapen, she has a cleft lip and a cleft palate, and a long list of complex heart defects, among other problems.
    Kelley’s name went on the birth certificate but the space for a father was left blank.
    Two weeks later, Kelley finally struck a deal with the couple. The husband and wife agreed to give up their parental rights as long as they could maintain a relationship with the child.
    The baby was already born. The SURROGATES name was on the birth certificate and she was legally recognized as the mother because of the bullcrap laws of the state the she had intentionally snuck away to. The parents had absolutely no way to have any legal contact with their child, or have any information about their child. So, they struck a BS deal, having no other options, and gave up their rights, just so that they would have a way to see their own child. That is freaking SICK and terribly sad.

  9. #49
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    And that blog is sick. This woman clearly has issues. I hope if she makes a dime off of her horrible actions the parents sue her for every red cent.

    I find it so ironic how incredible fertile the emotionally insane are. Its so effed up.
    mommydearest likes this.

  10. #50
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    You say "agreed" like they had any real choice. They clearly did it only so that they would be allowed to have some contact with their CHILD.



    From the article you quoted:


    The baby was already born. The SURROGATES name was on the birth certificate and she was legally recognized as the mother because of the bullcrap laws of the state the she had intentionally snuck away to. The parents had absolutely no way to have any legal contact with their child, or have any information about their child. So, they struck a BS deal, having no other options, and gave up their rights, just so that they would have a way to see their own child. That is freaking SICK and terribly sad.
    They gave up their rights because they still didn't want to take the baby home. They wanted to put her in foster care. How would that be better than going straight into an adoptive home? If they had said they wanted to take the baby home I'm sure she would have gladly given the baby back.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions