They were terminating a pregnancy legally. She's a terrible person for what she has done.
Just because you legalize murder doesn't make it any less murder
ETA - and just because something is illegal doesn't mean you are a terrible person for breaking the law
Last edited by Rivergallery; 03-11-2013 at 11:23 PM.
DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03
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
Many here will remember my stance on abortion. What this surrogate did is horrible and sad and many, many things as well. What I cannot understand is how what she did, is legal? I am not talking about not aborting.
It is not honorable or heroic. It is wrong.
It was her choice to not abort, regardless of her contract. A contract is only as good as the parties who sign onto it. It was her choice to not be paid for the surrogacy, by fleeing the state, not terminating, by all of the other shennannigans. But to be clear. . .It most certainly was not her choice to arrange the adoption. It was a baby that gestated in her. Yes she is connected, but she is not the mother. She is not the parent.
The whole story makes me deeply sad. In no way is this woman a hero.
Last edited by bunnyfufu; 03-12-2013 at 01:42 AM.
I feel that if you are really against abortion, you would not sign a contract saying you would do it on the decision of another person. I don't think she did it to screw them over. I think she naively went into this though thinking she would carry and deliver a baby and when that turned out not to be the case, she freaked out.
To me this case is about the right of the surogate to decide what to do with her body versus the bio parents. This can't be about abortion because if you think abortion is wrong, then this lady did the right thing. If you take abortion out of the situtation, what rights does she have? The contracts are usually full of things the surrogate will and won't do.
I know abortion is legal for any reason. In the initial case, there are serious birth defects which I can see people terminating over. I can also see reductions having 8 embryos. I cannot understand a reduction because you only want one child rather than twins.The case involves Helen Beasley, a 26-year-old surrogate mother who is six months pregnant, and is suing Charles Wheeler and Martha Berman because, she claims in legal papers, they backed out of their agreement when she refused to abort one of the twins she is carrying.
Wheeler and Berman say they were not trying to force Beasley into an abortion and had no plans to abandon the unborn fetuses at all. In a statement Sunday through their attorney, Diane Michelsen, they said they informed Beasley that they would find a couple to adopt the twins when they were born before she filed the suit and approached the media.
DD1 July 2008 (41w3d)
November 2010 (13 weeks)
DD2 August 2011 (33w5d)
If we allowed nature to take its course this baby would be dead. Instead we shove a feeding tube in her and subject the poor love to a host of painful surgeries that its own parents feel are terribly cruel.
Dont confuse some anti abortion agenda and man made science (yes- that same science you all so loathe when it comes to the environment or evolution) when it comes to what is responsible for saving this baby. Please note that no one has advocated for standing around the babies bedside praying over the babies grevious defects. If it is Gods will that this baby live don't you trust him to fix her? Instead you look to the public dime and private insurance to do so. Hm. Had you done that you could talk to me about allowing nature to take its course......but THIS? This is not a natural course - unless you consider being fed through a tube and dying as a child natural and positive and good?
It may make you feel virtuous and superior to use inflammatory language like you do here ~ to intentionally try to hurt and upset other mothers (most of whom would never even HAVE an abortion personally) and women to fuel your purpose (which is only to hurt, as this is not a voting issue or booth). Of course, it doesn't, it just hurts people. And you may try to even use this BABY, this innocent CHILD, to do the same. It is so ugly that it just breaks my heart. You would even justify stealing a baby to do it, to prove your point. Because you and Rivergallery can lie to yourselves and justify it all you like, this woman didn't have to have an abortion, NO ONE ON EARTH had the power to make her, but there was NO reason for her to give this couples CHILD away, None. And you EXCUSE it! That is flat out terrible of the two of you as mothers, and shows how irrevelant your thoughts on the subject matter are because of your rabid views on abortion. I worked with severely disabled people for years in my late teens. You may think that this baby is so "happy" now and her parents are so "happy" now....It may be a different matter when they are cleaning matted fecal matter out of her pubic hair because she still wears a diaper. It may be different when their entire family can't afford to take a vacation, ever, because of the cost of her care. It may be different when the parents divorce due to the stress of caring for her. I've seen all of those things. Yes a smiling 8 month old is not all that different from other 8 month olds, except for her multiple surgeries which take her mother away from her other children. A 22 year old moaning all night in pain wearing a diaper and a feeding tube is NOT like other 22 year olds, and I've seen it, and I've seen both the toll it takes on the families, and I've read JUDGMENT on those families from people like you, and it just turns my stomach. Because until you have walked a single yard in their shoes, let alone a mile, you have nothing to judge.
Last edited by Potter75; 03-12-2013 at 07:26 AM.
Get your facts straight. She didn't break any laws. The contract was vague enough that the extent of the disability could allow wiggle room, she didn't actually break the contract by not aborting, IMO, though clearly she did not do what the couple wanted. I would argue that she did blackmail or extort, though she backed off of that illegal action before charges could be filed, is my guess. She fled to a state which considered her the legal mother at birth. She adopted the child out legally. The fact that you would condone these actions, while legal, is reprehensible. She gave away another couples child, who had entrusted her to grow their embryo. That is sick.
She is a terrible person. Unfortunately, being a terrible person is legal, too.
And if it were really all about her fine morals, she would never have signed a contract agreeing to abort if the couple decided that was what should happen. For those of you who are anti-abortion, would you ever sign a contract saying that?
While I don't think anyone should ever be forced to undergo an abortion, I think what this woman did is morally repulsive.
Laurie, mom to:
Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 7 )
Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)