Surrogate refuses abortion

128 posts / 0 new
Last post
GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116
Surrogate refuses abortion

If the biological parents of a child want the baby to be aborted should the surrogate be forced to have an abortion? In this case they found out that the baby has birth defects and so the parents wanted the baby to be aborted and offered the surrogate $10,000 to abort and she refused. The baby was born and has been adopted.

Surrogate mother had the right to choose - CNN.com

Surrogate mother refused abortion: Right? Wrong? Damned to hell?

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3187

No woman should ever be forced to have an abortion. The couple shouldn't be (and wasn't) forced to keep the child themselves, as long as they created that clause in the contract, but there's no way on earth a surrogate should be forced to abort.

bunnyfufu's picture
Joined: 10/21/05
Posts: 203

That is a sad story.

I agree that no woman should ever be forced to have an abortion, but how did she have the right to arrange an adoption?

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

There are so many issues I see with this case.

First of all, the lack of consistency among states. She should not have been allowed to flee and then put the baby up for adoption solely because she gave birth. Had she given birth and then fled to MI, would that have been kidnapping?

Second, contract law. I have no idea how that works but when I read one of the links it said she was legally bound to the terms of the contract which read agreeing to have an abortion in the case of “severe fetus abnormality”. Not sure if that was specifically spelled out or how it was worded, but the fact that the parents offered her $10K to abort, I'm guessing it wasn't previously addressed.

Third, who has the right to control a woman's uterus? Had this been reversed and she wanted to abort but the other party wanted her to carry to term, it would be a totally different reaction. People would speak out against abortion and that contractually she was legally obligated to carry the baby to term.

Fourth, the quality of life issue. Well, this child was born with a myriad of health problems. Clearly this would qualify as "severe fetus abnormality"
cleft palate and lip
a brain cyst
many serious heart defects and problems
holoprosencephaly (the brain does not divide into two hemispheres
heterotaxy (internal organs are in the wrong places)
a misshapen ear
If a baby is born with all of the above and has a short lifespan of pain and suffering, what is the most humane thing to do? At the other end of the spectrum, families often have to make similar decisions. When family members end up on life support and are alive solely because machines are keeping their organs functioning at some point the plug is pulled. When faced with that decision at any point in life, what constitutes too much suffering? Which then leads back to my previous point.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"bunnyfufu" wrote:

That is a sad story.

I agree that no woman should ever be forced to have an abortion, but how did she have the right to arrange an adoption?

She went to a state where they don't recognize surrogates.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

DP

Sapphire Sunsets's picture
Joined: 05/19/02
Posts: 672

Yikes!

So wrong on many levels.

She did sign a contract that she would abort if serious medical problems were found. She breached that.

They offered her 10,000 she refused but said that if they gave her 15,000 she would do it. If they really felt that strongly why not agree to give her 15,000?

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

She signed a contract saying that she *would* have an abortion if the parents wanted one. They are the parents, it's their decision. It's not her baby. She could have chosen a different couple who would not have considered abortiing. She chose them. She should have honored her contract with them. She had no right to make that decision for someone else or their family. Shame on her. And shame on the state of Michigan.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3187

"Spacers" wrote:

She signed a contract saying that she *would* have an abortion if the parents wanted one. They are the parents, it's their decision. It's not her baby. She could have chosen a different couple who would not have considered abortiing. She chose them. She should have honored her contract with them. She had no right to make that decision for someone else or their family. Shame on her. And shame on the state of Michigan.

I agree completely BUT once she wasn't ready to have the abortion, I do not think she should have been forced to do so. I still think she is in the wrong.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Spacers" wrote:

She signed a contract saying that she *would* have an abortion if the parents wanted one. They are the parents, it's their decision. It's not her baby. She could have chosen a different couple who would not have considered abortiing. She chose them. She should have honored her contract with them. She had no right to make that decision for someone else or their family. Shame on her. And shame on the state of Michigan.

It is a lot easier to say you would take a life on paper than to actually go through with it.

bunnyfufu's picture
Joined: 10/21/05
Posts: 203

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

She went to a state where they don't recognize surrogates.

Does that mean that if they were in Michigan when the baby was conceived with the donor egg and the husbands sperm and she did go through with the pregnancy, that the mother would have to adopt the child?

Or by not recognizing surrogates in Michigan, that surrogacy is illegal?

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

She agreed to do it so she breached the contract. I am definitely not supportive of forced abortion. I think she sounds as if she was holding out for more money for the abortion.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Jessica80" wrote:

She agreed to do it so she breached the contract. I am definitely not supportive of forced abortion. I think she sounds as if she was holding out for more money for the abortion.

I think that she was trying to talk herself into it by asking for more money but I still don't think she would have gone through with it.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"bunnyfufu" wrote:

Does that mean that if they were in Michigan when the baby was conceived with the donor egg and the husbands sperm and she did go through with the pregnancy, that the mother would have to adopt the child?

Or by not recognizing surrogates in Michigan, that surrogacy is illegal?

This is what I found:

The Michigan surrogacy law states that, "all surrogacy agreements, regardless of the sexual orientation of the individuals involved, are prohibited by law in Michigan" (Human Rights Campaign). This makes surrogate agreements unenforceable,

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

What an icky case, start to finish. No wonder people are outsourcing baby farms to India, we clearly need unified laws surrounding this. And she sounds like a real sicko, agreeing to abort for $0, being offered 10K when she refused to honor her contract, but only because she was holding a baby hostage in her womb to be aborted for $15K. Ick.

I don't know what I think. I don't support forced abortion but I certainly also don't support kidnapping, which to me is just what this woman did, essentially demanding ransom for her fetus.

Sapphire Sunsets ~ what if $15 became $50,000? I mean, at some point a couple has only so much money. I'm sure that they were devastated to have already hired lawyers, paid for the IVF, paid the surrogate, were ELATED to find out they were pregnant.......found out about their babies devastating physical and mental issues etc and THEN have to cough up more just to have their agreed upon contract enacted? Shameful.

bunnyfufu's picture
Joined: 10/21/05
Posts: 203

I suppose that surrogate contracts should include a clause that prohibits travel to states that prohibit it. Or at least, they probably will now. Sheesh. So complicated.

Sapphire Sunsets's picture
Joined: 05/19/02
Posts: 672

"Potter75" wrote:

What an icky case, start to finish. No wonder people are outsourcing baby farms to India, we clearly need unified laws surrounding this. And she sounds like a real sicko, agreeing to abort for $0, being offered 10K when she refused to honor her contract, but only because she was holding a baby hostage in her womb to be aborted for $15K. Ick.

I don't know what I think. I don't support forced abortion but I certainly also don't support kidnapping, which to me is just what this woman did, essentially demanding ransom for her fetus.

Sapphire Sunsets ~ what if $15 became $50,000? I mean, at some point a couple has only so much money. I'm sure that they were devastated to have already hired lawyers, paid for the IVF, paid the surrogate, were ELATED to find out they were pregnant.......found out about their babies devastating physical and mental issues etc and THEN have to cough up more just to have their agreed upon contract enacted? Shameful.

Never said i agreed with her asking for more money to abort. I'm not allowed to wonder why they didn't agree to give her more if they felt that strongly about the baby being aborted? Had i been that couple i wouldn't have offered her a dime. I would sue for every dime she'd already been paided and breach of contract, then i'd find someone myself to adopt the baby.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Sapphire Sunsets" wrote:

Never said i agreed with her asking for more money to abort. I'm not allowed to wonder why they didn't agree to give her more if they felt that strongly about the baby being aborted? Had i been that couple i wouldn't have offered her a dime. I would sue for every dime she'd already been paided and breach of contract, then i'd find someone myself to adopt the baby.

You are allowed to wonder whatever you want, of course! This being a debate people will either agree or disagree with that wondering ~ that is how the debate board works. Its not personal when people reply to your debate point.

The surrogate probably has nothing to go after ~ as the article stated ~ women willing to incubate other women's babies for money are rarely wealthy.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

Contract or not, when someone uses a surrogate they are putting that babies life in her hands. They really have no control over what she chooses to do while the baby is in her body. They might not like what she eats or what medication she takes, and they can't force her to kill the baby if she doesn't want to. Contract or not that is unenforceable. So if someone uses a surrogate that is just the chance they take. I would guess most surrogates value life very highly since they are giving life to a baby that otherwise would not be born, so it is not surprising that this woman could not bring herself to kill this innocent child.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

I have signed up to be a surrogate in the past. I love being pregnant, and pregnancy is fairly easy for me. I have also struggle with secondary infertility for 3 years, and met some amazing people. When signing up most reputable agencies will give the surrogate the option to agree to abortion or selective reduction in the event of multiples. I was put in a group of surrogates that would not abort unless my health was in jeopardy.
I found out I was pregnant with my boy right after signing up so I ended up not going through with surrogacy, but going through the process made me very aware of how clear they make the contracts.

I do not like abortions, but this woman agreed to it. She is in breach of contract
I dont understand why she signed the contract if she was so opposed to abortion?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"mom3girls" wrote:

I dont understand why she signed the contract if she was so opposed to abortion?

This is what I was wondering as well. I have a very strong moral objection to abortions, however, I never would have signed the contract in the first place. If she was foolish enough to sign the contract in the first place and she truly understood what she was signing, than she does not have much room to fight it.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

DP

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Contract or not, when someone uses a surrogate they are putting that babies life in her hands. They really have no control over what she chooses to do while the baby is in her body. They might not like what she eats or what medication she takes, and they can't force her to kill the baby if she doesn't want to. Contract or not that is unenforceable. So if someone uses a surrogate that is just the chance they take. I would guess most surrogates value life very highly since they are giving life to a baby that otherwise would not be born, so it is not surprising that this woman could not bring herself to kill this innocent child.

Disagree. The contract should stipulate those things, and the parents absolutely should have the right to enforce them, because it's their baby. It's not really her body because they are renting it for that period of time she's gestating their baby. My sister-in-law said her surrogacy contracts have all stipulated what medications she can take on her own, whether she will have an amnio, or an external version if baby is breech, and yes, even what things she can or can't do to or with her own body. She could have regular manicures, but no acrylic nails, no hot tubs or saunas, no boating, and no skiiing, for example, and she had to get the parents' permission to undergo any medical procedure except to save her or the baby's life. They had to sign off on a dental cleaning! She agreed to not drink any alcohol or to stay in an enclosed area with a smoker. She was asked if she would be willing to terminate because if she wasn't, they wouldn't match her to a couple that wanted that option. She's personally pro-choice, she says would never have an abortion herself, but she was OK with agreeing to terminate if the parents wanted it because it's the parents' baby and they are the ones who willl have to raise & care for that child, so it wasn't her decision to make.

And it wasn't this surrogate's decision to make. You can't rent out the use of your body but expect to maintain complete control of it.

smsturner's picture
Joined: 05/11/09
Posts: 1303

"Sapphire Sunsets" wrote:

They offered her 10,000 she refused but said that if they gave her 15,000 she would do it. If they really felt that strongly why not agree to give her 15,000?

Wow. That's interesting. Seems like she couldn't be that sure she thought it was wrong if it only took another 5000 to go ahead with it.

"Spacers" wrote:

She signed a contract saying that she *would* have an abortion if the parents wanted one. They are the parents, it's their decision. It's not her baby. She could have chosen a different couple who would not have considered abortiing. She chose them. She should have honored her contract with them. She had no right to make that decision for someone else or their family. Shame on her. And shame on the state of Michigan.

I totally agree.

Honestly, I feel most sorry for this baby. Now it's here, and it's probably in a bunch of pain, and it only has pain ahead of it right now, at least in the short term, while they fix these things. And it won't know it's birth parents, and it does hear the story it will be a long one about how his parents certainly didn't want him, and even offered to pay thousands of dollars not to have him. That's hard.

I agree, shame on this woman.

smsturner's picture
Joined: 05/11/09
Posts: 1303

Bonita I love your new pic Smile

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"smsturner" wrote:

Bonita I love your new pic Smile

Aw, thank you.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"smsturner" wrote:

Honestly, I feel most sorry for this baby. Now it's here, and it's probably in a bunch of pain, and it only has pain ahead of it right now, at least in the short term, while they fix these things. And it won't know it's birth parents, and it does hear the story it will be a long one about how his parents certainly didn't want him, and even offered to pay thousands of dollars not to have him. That's hard.

I doubt this child will ever grow up and say I wish I hadn't been born. And she has been adopted and has parents that love her.

This woman actually survived being aborted and was able to overcome the thought that her parents didn't want her and tried to kill her, so I'm sure this little girl will too.
Abortion Survivor and Pro-Life Advocate Gianna Jessen

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Spacers" wrote:

Disagree. The contract should stipulate those things, and the parents absolutely should have the right to enforce them, because it's their baby.

No they don't have the right to enforce them. They can refuse to pay if they don't follow the contract, but thats all they can do. They can't force someone to do or not do any of those things. They can't lock someone up because they went to the dentist or got in the hot tub.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I doubt this child will ever grow up and say I wish I hadn't been born. And she has been adopted and has parents that love her.

This woman actually survived being aborted and was able to overcome the thought that her parents didn't want her and tried to kill her, so I'm sure this little girl will too.
Abortion Survivor and Pro-Life Advocate Gianna Jessen

You can't know that this child will ever grow up to SAY anything at all, Gloria, not knowing what degree of HPE she has. To infer how she will feel about the fairly horrific circumstances surrounding her birth is clearly ridiculous and you are just saying what supports your beliefs surrounding abortion.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Potter75" wrote:

You can't know that this child will ever grow up to SAY anything at all, Gloria, not knowing what degree of HPE she has. To infer how she will feel about the fairly horrific circumstances surrounding her birth is clearly ridiculous and you are just saying what supports your beliefs surrounding abortion.

Even if she never says a word that video that shows her smiling and playing is enough for me to say she is happy to be alive.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

To be alive and according to Dr's not going to be alive into adulthood. I'm glad though that her short life with multiple surgeries makes YOU happy, though. I'm sure it is breaking her biological parents hearts.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Potter75" wrote:

To be alive and according to Dr's not going to be alive into adulthood. I'm glad though that her short life with multiple surgeries makes YOU happy, though. I'm sure it is breaking her biological parents hearts.

It does make me happy. And it isn't like I haven't seen a similar situation up close. I had a nephew that was born with birth defects and lived to age 11 and never had mental capacity higher than about a 3 month old. He had multiple surgeries and siezures and other medical problems. His parents and his sisters loved every day they spent with him and wouldn't trade those days for the world.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

That is nice that they got to be with their child and no one stole them. Your experience does not determine what other people should want, however.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Potter75" wrote:

That is nice that they got to be with their child and no one stole them. Your experience does not determine what other people should want, however.

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.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

We are also talking about a woman stealing a couples biological child. They had petitioned to have the child and have it turned over to the state for care once she refused the abortion. She went AGAINST their wishes and gave the child to another family out of state. You support that practice? Why?

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I had a nephew that was born with birth defects and lived to age 11 and never had mental capacity higher than about a 3 month old. He had multiple surgeries and siezures and other medical problems.

For me, that would absolutely be a living nightmare, and I would do anything I legally could to allow my child a quick, peaceful death. I would never want to subject my child to that kind of existence. That isn't "life." Life needs to be worth living, it shouldn't be a painful existence with no emotional growth until the day you finally die. No thank you. You & your family are free to make that decision for yourselves, but you have no right to make it for me or my child. And this woman had no right to make it for another family and THIER CHILD.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Potter75" wrote:

We are also talking about a woman stealing a couples biological child. They had petitioned to have the child and have it turned over to the state for care once she refused the abortion. She went AGAINST their wishes and gave the child to another family out of state. You support that practice? Why?

I have seen how hard it is to get a child out of state care. This child went straight into a loving family that wanted her instead of going through six months to a year of red tape through the state before being adopted. The family didn't want a special needs child and wanted her dead. Once they made that decision I don't blame her for doing what was best for the child. I don't think it is EVER best for a child to be turned over to be a ward of the state unless they are in some kind of abusive situation. The parents could have tried to arrange an adoption instead of turning her over to the state but they didn't want to be involved.

My sister adopted her own grandchild and she still ended up in foster care for 10 months even though they started the adoption process within a week of her birth.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I have seen how hard it is to get a child out of state care. This child went straight into a loving family that wanted her instead of going through six months to a year of red tape through the state before being adopted. The family didn't want a special needs child and wanted her dead. Once they made that decision I don't blame her for doing what was best for the child. I don't think it is EVER best for a child to be turned over to be a ward of the state unless they are in some kind of abusive situation. The parents could have tried to arrange an adoption instead of turning her over to the state but they didn't want to be involved.

My sister adopted her own grandchild and she still ended up in foster care for 10 months even though they started the adoption process within a week of her birth.

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.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Spacers" wrote:

For me, that would absolutely be a living nightmare, and I would do anything I legally could to allow my child a quick, peaceful death. I would never want to subject my child to that kind of existence. That isn't "life." Life needs to be worth living, it shouldn't be a painful existence with no emotional growth until the day you finally die. No thank you. You & your family are free to make that decision for yourselves, but you have no right to make it for me or my child. And this woman had no right to make it for another family and THIER CHILD.

There are lots of people with special needs children that would disagree with you. When that child smiles at you and laughs who are you to say if their life is worth living or not.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

There are lots of people with special needs children that would disagree with you. When that child smiles at you and laughs who are you to say if their life is worth living or not.

I do agree with you here. Spacers is not any more equipped to make this decision than........YOU are. That is ONLY the decision of the parent to make. Unfortunately Gloria, you are not the parent in this case.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"Potter75" wrote:

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.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

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?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

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.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

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?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

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.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

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

Sapphire Sunsets's picture
Joined: 05/19/02
Posts: 672

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.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

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:
[INDENT]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.
[/INDENT]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.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

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.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Potter75" wrote:

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.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

You are sure. This woman who fled to another state with a stolen baby in her womb. Again, you seem to know a lot about what this woman would have done, how people should feel, how this baby (who has massive brain problems) feels and thinks etc etc. You do see how ridiculous that is, right? Like, deep down on some honest level you know you are being silly? And you say "Still didn't want to take the baby home" ~ They COULDN"T take the baby home! It had been kidnapped and legally was now the surrogates baby! Her name was on the birth certificate! She had physical custody of the child and was arranging an adoption!

This family had three other children at home, two with disabilities. You may judge them deeply for not wanting to bring home a severely disabled child who needed many surgeries and is going to die young. I don't. I see my family as an entire unit, and frankly I don't know that our family has the emotional resources available to take the time and attention away from our other three children and devoted the care and love and attention to such an ill and needy baby. You may judge parents for that, but I applaud their bravery, honesty, and foresight. At the end of the day of course, the judgement shouldn't matter ~ IT WAS THEIR BABY!!!!!! THEIR BABY! THey and only they should have 100% right to decide what happens with that baby. 100% of the time, without coercion.

Pages