Surrogate refuses abortion

128 posts / 0 new
Last post
GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Potter75" wrote:

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.

And I will never agree that that decision should include killing their baby. She went out of state so they couldn't force her to have an abortion. Not to kidnap the baby. She also did it on her own dime, at personal sacrifice. I don't think I am being silly at all. I don't think a child should be killed because it is handicapped or inconvenient. From what I see the parents should be very satisfied with the arrangements. They don't have to care for the handicapped child they wanted dead, and still get to see her whenever they want. The baby is happy and living in a home with parents that love her and wanted her. Its a win win.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

She should never have agreed to their terms in the first place.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

And I will never agree that that decision should include killing their baby. She went out of state so they couldn't force her to have an abortion. Not to kidnap the baby. She also did it on her own dime, at personal sacrifice. I don't think I am being silly at all. I don't think a child should be killed because it is handicapped or inconvenient. From what I see the parents should be very satisfied with the arrangements. They don't have to care for the handicapped child they wanted dead, and still get to see her whenever they want. The baby is happy and living in a home with parents that love her and wanted her. Its a win win.

Why are you making up lies? This is America Gloria. They couldn't force her to have an abortion (though she did try to extort them remember!). She stole their baby, and then when it was born with way more devastating defects than she was expecting she gave it away to someone else. You continue to paint her as a hero but she's a villan.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Potter75" wrote:

Why are you making up lies? This is America Gloria. They couldn't force her to have an abortion (though she did try to extort them remember!). She stole their baby, and then when it was born with way more devastating defects than she was expecting she gave it away to someone else. You continue to paint her as a hero but she's a villan.

We have different definitions of hero I guess. I think she is a hero. She saved this little girl's life. She was already planning to give it away before it was born she had an adoptive family lined up, so the level of defects she was born with didn't matter. She not only didn't get the surrogate money from the contract she moved out of state at her own expense, so I'm not sure exactly what you think she gained from this.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

We have different definitions of hero I guess. I think she is a hero. She saved this little girl's life. She was already planning to give it away before it was born she had an adoptive family lined up, so the level of defects she was born with didn't matter. She not only didn't get the surrogate money from the contract she moved out of state at her own expense, so I'm not sure exactly what you think she gained from this.

For sure! I'd never call someone who broke their word and a contract, blackmailed, extorted the life of a child, and kidnapped a child a hero. Your lack of objectivity simply because abortion is involved is fascinating.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Potter75" wrote:

For sure! I'd never call someone who broke their word and a contract, blackmailed, extorted the life of a child, and kidnapped a child a hero. Your lack of objectivity simply because abortion is involved is fascinating.

Yep, just as I would never take the side of parents who wanted to kill their child. Once they made that decision I don't think they have any right to decide what happens to it. That child is dead to them. So whatever she had to do to save the life of that child was justified IMO. And yes I do have lack of objectivity when we are talking about the life of an innocent child, and I have no reason to be ashamed of that.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Yep, just as I would never take the side of parents who wanted to kill their child. Once they made that decision I don't think they have any right to decide what happens to it. That child is dead to them. So whatever she had to do to save the life of that child was justified IMO. And yes I do have lack of objectivity when we are talking about the life of an innocent child, and I have no reason to be ashamed of that.

Ah, well! If that is your logic your hero the surrogate ought to have had the child be dead to HER when she signed a contract saying that she would abort the child before she even became impregnated with it! OR again, the child should have been dead to her and she ought to have NO rights to make a decision about its life when she offered to kill it for $15,000, and the childs biological parents ought to have been able to then make the decisions of the child's life at that point.

Tricky, eh? What of your hero now?

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Yep, just as I would never take the side of parents who wanted to kill their child. Once they made that decision I don't think they have any right to decide what happens to it. That child is dead to them. So whatever she had to do to save the life of that child was justified IMO. And yes I do have lack of objectivity when we are talking about the life of an innocent child, and I have no reason to be ashamed of that.

I wish you would understand that this little girl will be dead to everyone in (probably) the not so distant future. It isn't as simple as you keep making it sound.

At some point, the adoptive family will also have to let it go.

What this woman did was wrong. She fled to a state that would give her rights to a child that isn't hers. This should not be allowed to happen.

You will never convince me that you don't think the opposite to be true - if the surrogate wanted the abortion and the bio parents did not you would be all up in arms over it. Suddenly it would be reversed and the bio parents would be the ones afforded the decision (in your opinion).

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

We have different definitions of hero I guess. I think she is a hero. She saved this little girl's life. She was already planning to give it away before it was born she had an adoptive family lined up, so the level of defects she was born with didn't matter. She not only didn't get the surrogate money from the contract she moved out of state at her own expense, so I'm not sure exactly what you think she gained from this.

She's not an "it." If your position is that her right to live a short life of surgeries etc. trumps all else, at least humanize her by using the proper pronoun.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Potter75" wrote:

Ah, well! If that is your logic your hero the surrogate ought to have had the child be dead to HER when she signed a contract saying that she would abort the child before she even became impregnated with it! OR again, the child should have been dead to her and she ought to have NO rights to make a decision about its life when she offered to kill it for $15,000, and the childs biological parents ought to have been able to then make the decisions of the child's life at that point.

Tricky, eh? What of your hero now?

Doesn't make any difference to me. As I already stated once, it is a lot easier to say what you will do on paper than when you are actually faced with a situation that you thought would never happen and asked to kill a child. And she already also stated that even if they had agreed to the $15,000 she wouldn't have gone through with it, which she proved by not getting ANY money and spending her OWN money to give birth to the baby.

Words mean nothing it is actions that count.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Can you prove that? I'm assuming that a pro life association, the state, or the adoptive parents paid for the birth, since this woman HAD no money. Please cite your assertion.

And I actually agree with you. It is one thing to say something and another to do it. Which is why I find it so INCREDIBLY unfair that you are willing to forgive the surrogate for wanting to kill the child but not the birth parents. Why did SHE get a second chance, but not them? When they decided that they wanted to be parents why do you think that its fine that this horrible surrogate could just kidnap their child away and give it to strangers?

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Doesn't make any difference to me. As I already stated once, it is a lot easier to say what you will do on paper than when you are actually faced with a situation that you thought would never happen and asked to kill a child. And she already also stated that even if they had agreed to the $15,000 she wouldn't have gone through with it, which she proved by not getting ANY money and spending her OWN money to give birth to the baby.

Words mean nothing it is actions that count.

This was not her child. So you really think this was an easy decision for them to make? Their attachment was much stronger to their baby than the surrogate mother's. The surrogate mother went into the contract knowing she would never be the one to raise the child.

Let's say I decided to be a surrogate for my sister and BIL. Fairly early on it is clear, if born the child will live maybe days or maybe months. Most babies born with the diseases die by 12 months. All three of us have some soul searching to do. Should my sister and BIL come to the conclusion that - for them- the most compassionate thing to do is terminate the pregnancy, is it really ethical of me to force then to bring this child into the world so they can watch her suffer for her short life? And then start the grieving process instead of celebrating a 1st birthday?

What dog do I have in the fight? I'm not the one that will raise this child. There would already be a certain detachment because all I would be is the surrogate.

(I know my sister and BIL is not the best examlple because I would be the baby's niece but it is still a valid point with any couple for whom I would be a surrogate.)

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Potter75" wrote:

Can you prove that? I'm assuming that a pro life association, the state, or the adoptive parents paid for the birth, since this woman HAD no money. Please cite your assertion.

And I actually agree with you. It is one thing to say something and another to do it. Which is why I find it so INCREDIBLY unfair that you are willing to forgive the surrogate for wanting to kill the child but not the birth parents. Why did SHE get a second chance, but not them? When they decided that they wanted to be parents why do you think that its fine that this horrible surrogate could just kidnap their child away and give it to strangers?

They never asked for a second chance. They still didn't want the baby. They never decided they wanted to be the parents, they only wanted to control where the child went. They wanted the state to take control of the baby instead of adoptive parents.

And even if the actual medical expenses of the birth were covered by the state, she was still out the cost of moving to another state and her living expenses.

A lawyer acting for Kelley, Michael DePrimo, said that while the intended parents could not legally compel her to have an abortion, they planned to put the child up for foster care as a ward of the state. As legal parents - under Connecticut law the genetic parents are considered the legal parents - the intended parents would seemingly be permitted to do so.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

Gloria - I am against abortion in almost every situation and would never advocate for an abortion, however, she signed a contract stating that she would get an abortion if the couple choice to do so. Someone who was against really against abortion IMO would never have signed such a contract in the first place. This leads me to believe that it was not about a deep objection to abortion, but about money or because she became attached to the baby. If you sign away your body, you loose the right to make decisions about your body. I believe there are very good reasons that the practice is illegal in some States.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

They never asked for a second chance. They still didn't want the baby. They never decided they wanted to be the parents, they only wanted to control where the child went. They wanted the state to take control of the baby instead of adoptive parents.

Who the heck are you to say that that decision isn't theirs to make!!! TONS of parents with horribly sick children make that decision, and its a valid one, especially with three other children at home. Not all people are willing to be martyrs like your sister or whomever you mentioned, and it is not your business or right to judge the decision these parents had every right to make. This surrogate STOLE their child and their decision away from them. I won't even have a dog in the family because I don't want to have to deal with the death of a much loved thing ~ to bring a baby who is going to die in childhood into a family is NOT an easy decision. I support each family having the right to deal with that as they choose. If foster care nearby is the right decision for a family I allow them to make it without judgment. I do not think that because that is what this family chose it makes it just dandy super for someone to steal their child and give it away to the highest bidder! That is gross!

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Gloria - I am against abortion in almost every situation and would never advocate for an abortion, however, she signed a contract stating that she would get an abortion if the couple choice to do so. Someone who was against really against abortion IMO would never have signed such a contract in the first place. This leads me to believe that it was not about a deep objection to abortion, but about money or because she became attached to the baby. If you sign away your body, you loose the right to make decisions about your body. I believe there are very good reasons that the practice is illegal in some States.

So you don't think that a woman could say she would abort on paper then change her mind when the actual child she would have to kill is alive and kicking inside her? And also from what I understand the wording in the contract it didn't specify exactly what serious defects or abnormalities meant so that was up for interpretation and they clearly disagreed about what that meant.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

You don't think that a child who is going to die before age 10 and who has a serious chance of dying in her first year and has already undergone several invasive surgeries would be considered to have "serious defects"? C'mon now. A cleft palate is NOT a serious defect. SERIOUS heart AND brain defects. Yes. Problems. Now, were it my child I would have it. That is a decision my husband and I made each time we were pregnant, we didn't even do prenatal testing (other than the 20 week ultrasound) because of how strongly we felt about that. For US. I won't make that decision for any other family, however, and I'm not going to pretend to be stupid about what any normal person would consider to be a "serious" health defect.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Potter75" wrote:

You don't think that a child who is going to die before age 10 and who has a serious chance of dying in her first year and has already undergone several invasive surgeries would be considered to have "serious defects"? C'mon now. A cleft palate is NOT a serious defect. SERIOUS heart AND brain defects. Yes. Problems. Now, were it my child I would have it. That is a decision my husband and I made each time we were pregnant, we didn't even do prenatal testing (other than the 20 week ultrasound) because of how strongly we felt about that. For US. I won't make that decision for any other family, however, and I'm not going to pretend to be stupid about what any normal person would consider to be a "serious" health defect.

As you yourself pointed out they didn't know about all of that until after she was born.

the baby had a cleft lip and palate, she had a cyst in her brain and also suffered from several serious heart defects

This is all they knew before she was born. None of those things are incompatible with life.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

They actually used the word "serious" in what you quoted. Are you still questioning if the defects were serious? And the contract didn't stipulate abortion if the defects made the fetus incompatible with life. In fact, wouldn't that by default make abortion a moot point? In other words, the fetus would die?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

So you don't think that a woman could say she would abort on paper then change her mind when the actual child she would have to kill is alive and kicking inside her? And also from what I understand the wording in the contract it didn't specify exactly what serious defects or abnormalities meant so that was up for interpretation and they clearly disagreed about what that meant.

Part of signing a contract means that you can not change your mind without consequences.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Part of signing a contract means that you can not change your mind without consequences.

She paid the consequences. She wasn't paid.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

She paid the consequences. She wasn't paid.

She stole a baby. I don't feel that appropriate consequences were paid and I hope that she faces legal action. I'm so glad that she will never be able work as a surrogate again due to the media attention this has drawn so she can never ruin another couples life or steal another child.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Potter75" wrote:

She stole a baby. I don't feel that appropriate consequences were paid and I hope that she faces legal action. I'm so glad that she will never be able work as a surrogate again due to the media attention this has drawn so she can never ruin another couples life or steal another child.

Well everyone involved agreed on the outcome so however it came about everyone is happy now. I'm not sure what legal action they could take since she already wasn't paid. I'm sure no one would hire her as a surrogate unless they would never abort their baby. There are probably people that would hire her for that very reason.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Well everyone involved agreed on the outcome so however it came about everyone is happy now. I'm not sure what legal action they could take since she already wasn't paid. I'm sure no one would hire her as a surrogate unless they would never abort their baby. There are probably people that would hire her for that very reason.

Again, your insistence on acting as though you know what people are thinking is bizarre. We have no idea how the bio parents feel, Gloria. We know that they wanted the child aborted, originally. Once that became impossible, they wanted custody. Once THAT became impossible, they wanted visitation. At every turn they were not driving the decisions, but making due with what scraps they could beg from the limited menu of choices the surrogates decisions were leaving them. Its grandiose of you to declare them "happy" with this outcome. Or to declare this child suffering through surgeries and going to die young and maybe in lots of pain "happy". Or to declare this surrogates children, who have had their lives uprooted and dragged all over creation and are now broke "happy". I mean, you are really making a lot of leaps in your little scenario of happy there, don'tcha think. Its like Forrest Gump is talkin Smile Finding a surrogate who would not abort is easy. NO ONE in their right mind would hire a surrogate who has a history of kidnapping fetuses! Don't kid yourself. This woman has endangered her childrens well being as she obviously has little work skills ~ she was broke and had nothing to do but rent out her body according to the article ~ now she wont even have that. Shame on her.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Potter75" wrote:

Again, your insistence on acting as though you know what people are thinking is bizarre. We have no idea how the bio parents feel, Gloria. We know that they wanted the child aborted, originally. Once that became impossible, they wanted custody. Once THAT became impossible, they wanted visitation. At every turn they were not driving the decisions, but making due with what scraps they could beg from the limited menu of choices the surrogates decisions were leaving them. Its grandiose of you to declare them "happy" with this outcome. Or to declare this child suffering through surgeries and going to die young and maybe in lots of pain "happy". Or to declare this surrogates children, who have had their lives uprooted and dragged all over creation and are now broke "happy". I mean, you are really making a lot of leaps in your little scenario of happy there, don'tcha think. Its like Forrest Gump is talkin Smile Finding a surrogate who would not abort is easy. NO ONE in their right mind would hire a surrogate who has a history of kidnapping fetuses! Don't kid yourself. This woman has endangered her childrens well being as she obviously has little work skills ~ she was broke and had nothing to do but rent out her body according to the article ~ now she wont even have that. Shame on her.

They wanted custody ONLY so they could award it to the state and put her in foster care. Show me where it states they wanted to take the baby home. It never once said that they wanted to take the baby. I guess maybe you are making a few assumptions yourself don't you think? The adoptive mother said the parents are happy with the outcome and have visited the baby. The baby is happy for sure. She is not a vegetable. You can rage against her all you want... I think it is a GREAT outcome.

Her adoptive parents, who asked to remain anonymous to protect their family's privacy, know Baby S. might not be with them for long. The cardiac procedures she needs are risky, and her heterotaxy and holoprosencephaly, though mild, carry a risk of early death, according to doctors.

If Baby S. does survive, there's a 50% chance she won't be able to walk, talk or use her hands normally.

In some ways, Baby S. looks different from other 8-month-olds babies. In addition to the facial abnormalities, she's very small, weighing only 11 pounds and she gets food through a tube directly into her stomach so she'll grow faster.

Her adoptive parents know some people look at her and see a baby born to suffer -- a baby whose suffering could have been prevented with an abortion.

But that's not the way they see it. They see a little girl who's defied the odds, who constantly surprises her doctors with what she's able to do -- make eye contact, giggle at her siblings, grab toys, eye strangers warily.

"S. wakes up every single morning with an infectious smile. She greets her world with a constant sense of enthusiasm," her mother said in an e-mail to CNN. "Ultimately, we hold onto a faith that in providing S. with love, opportunity, encouragement, she will be the one to show us what is possible for her life and what she is capable of achieving."

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

What ELSE is the adoptive mother going to say? I stole a couples child and they hate my guts? C'mon. If not being a vegetable is your only qualifier for happy you and I have grossly different ideas of what constitutes a great life. Having undergone two surgeries this year, been confined to bed/unable to walk for 8 weeks and then lived in chronic pain for the past 9 months I can't imagine what it is like to be a baby who can't even understand why she is in terrible pain/in and out of surgery/fed through a tube/etc. And read carefully. I never said they wanted to take the child. I said they wanted CUSTODY. Which is exactly, perfectly, correct. With that custody they wanted to turn her over to the state. That was their right and their decision to make if they wanted to. And please don't prescribe feelings to me that I don't have. I'm not raging about anything or anyone. Were this my child I would have had her, as I stated. We don't even test, for just this reason. I would not kill my child. I simply am not so rude as to tell other people what they should choose, and I loathe kidnapping. I also think that it is very cavalier of you to blithely assign feelings to people based on some article you read. You cannot possibly know enough to declare who is happy, and you are smart enough to know that Gloria, I know you are.

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

It doesn't matter one bit if the reason they wanted custody was to turn this child over to the state ...it is or was their child and they were the only people who should make that decision. Not the woman who was renting out her uterus to them.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Jessica80" wrote:

It doesn't matter one bit if the reason they wanted custody was to turn this child over to the state ...it is or was their child and they were the only people who should make that decision. Not the woman who was renting out her uterus to them.

I agree. If I were planning on turning this child I'm carrying over to the state, would someone else have the right to come and steal him from the hospital nursery?

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

If someone was wanting to kill them.. then I say kidnapping is actually heroism

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

They were terminating a pregnancy legally. She's a terrible person for what she has done.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

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 Wink

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"Rivergallery" wrote:

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 Wink

So then we should keep all people on life support indefinitely? After all, wouldn't pulling the plug on a loved one be murder?

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

So then we should keep all people on life support indefinitely? After all, wouldn't pulling the plug on a loved one be murder?

Again pulling a plug is ALLOWING nature to take its course. They are being KEPT ALIVE by a machine and pulling the plug just allows them to die on their own. To do an abortion on a baby you have to actually kill them. Most of the time by cutting the baby up in the womb or injecting them with a lethal drug. That IS murder no matter what other name is used to make everyone feel better about it.

bunnyfufu's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: 10/21/05
Posts: 203

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

That IS murder no matter what other name is used to make everyone feel better about it.

Murder is unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Abortion is horrible and sad and many, many things, but it is not illegal. Abortion is not murder.

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.

bunnyfufu's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: 10/21/05
Posts: 203

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Again pulling a plug is ALLOWING nature to take its course. They are being KEPT ALIVE by a machine and pulling the plug just allows them to die on their own. To do an abortion on a baby you have to actually kill them. Most of the time by cutting the baby up in the womb or injecting them with a lethal drug. That IS murder no matter what other name is used to make everyone feel better about it.

This description is why I am sad that there is no longer a specific debate board for abortion. This is to much. It is too graphic.

This is why I went away from pregnancy.org for a very long time.

Danifo's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 8 months ago
Joined: 09/07/10
Posts: 1377

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.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92627&page=1

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.

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.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Again pulling a plug is ALLOWING nature to take its course. They are being KEPT ALIVE by a machine and pulling the plug just allows them to die on their own. To do an abortion on a baby you have to actually kill them. Most of the time by cutting the baby up in the womb or injecting them with a lethal drug. That IS murder no matter what other name is used to make everyone feel better about it.

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.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Rivergallery" wrote:

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 Wink

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.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

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.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"bunnyfufu" wrote:

Murder is unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Abortion is horrible and sad and many, many things, but it is not illegal. Abortion is not murder.

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.

Law has nothing to do with whether something is murder or not.. or right or wrong or not.. I do not nor will I EVER base my morals on what society thinks is wrong or right.. Those that do can fall into a dangerous trap.

I do agree that should shouldn't probably have taken the baby as her own after it was born.

Bunnyfu - also that is not even half of the graphic nature of a true abortion.. FACE it.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Danifo" wrote:

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.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92627&page=1

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.

"reductions" is murder. Let's call it what it is.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Law has nothing to do with whether something is murder or not.. or right or wrong or not.. I do not nor will I EVER base my morals on what society thinks is wrong or right.. Those that do can fall into a dangerous trap.

I do agree that should shouldn't probably have taken the baby as her own after it was born.

Bunnyfu - also that is not even half of the graphic nature of a true abortion.. FACE it.

And fortunately, society doesn't need to base its laws on your morals. "Murder" is a legal term. Whether you accept it or not, bunnyfufu is right. Murder has everything to do with the law and zero to do with your emotional definition of the word.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Danifo" wrote:

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.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92627&page=1

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.

I absolutely agree with the bolded. The fact that she did totally debunks the whole "hero" argument many are making here. I think that this woman actually saw an opportunity to make herself some money in our sadly opportunistic sensationalistic story selling culture. I doubt she is intelligent to forsee that if she does try to capitalize on selling the story the parents will sue and surely win the sum total of the proceeds as damages.

To the second bolded ~ Yes, but only up to a point. To the point of not aborting. It SHOULDN"T be about her deciding what to do with someone ELSES child. That child is NOT hers. She had no business then adopting out the child, that part is when the story gets sick and wrong to me, you know?

I think that the twin story is an entirely different debate.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Potter75" wrote:

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.

Well I think you are doing a little judging yourself when you have no idea what you are talking about, since I have lived it through my own nephew. The toll on your family is what you make it. If you see it as a burden then that is what it will be. But it can also be a blessing. My nephew had the mental capacity of a 3 month old, but he still went to school. The other teachers and kids and many other people loved him and many people were enriched by his life as tragic as it may seem to you.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Well I think you are doing a little judging yourself when you have no idea what you are talking about, since I have lived it through my own nephew. The toll on your family is what you make it. If you see it as a burden then that is what it will be. But it can also be a blessing. My nephew had the mental capacity of a 3 month old, but he still went to school. The other teachers and kids and many other people loved him and many people were enriched by his life as tragic as it may seem to you.

What do you mean I have no idea what I'm talking about? And what does your nephew have to do with you, a working parent with 8 kids? You didn't make any choices about to have or not have or to care for or farm out care for him. I'm talking about how I personally don't judge the decisions parents make surrounding very ill fetuses or living children. I understand that the family in this debate, or the parents of your nephew have to all do what is right for their individual family, and that those choices can vary widely, and are INCREDIBLY painful and filled with difficulty and tears and heartache. And you blithely write this family off with a "their kid should be dead to them because they wanted to abort it so good for this woman for giving it away or stealing it!". That is terrible of you to say. So yes, I will say that, and no, you having an ill nephew means nothing when it comes to you blindly okaying kidnapping because you are anti abortion.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Danifo" wrote:

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 agree with this portion of your post. It is not about if abortion is right or wrong.

-------------------------------------------------

To the debate in general - Regardless of what side of the issue you are on, I do not believe it is necessary to call anyone bad mothers or to attack anyone personally. We are all great mothers and this is just a debate board.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Bonita, could you please highlight where someone called someone else a bad mother? It is sometimes frustrating when you throw in non sequiturs like that........you are admonishing people for things that aren't happening in the debate and it disrupts the flow of the debate. Thanks.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Again pulling a plug is ALLOWING nature to take its course. They are being KEPT ALIVE by a machine and pulling the plug just allows them to die on their own. To do an abortion on a baby you have to actually kill them. Most of the time by cutting the baby up in the womb or injecting them with a lethal drug. That IS murder no matter what other name is used to make everyone feel better about it.

The point is that somebody makes that choice. Somebody decides they are going to let "nature take its course" by terminating life support.

At least we agree that the death penalty is murder.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Looks left. Looks right.

Death penalty inspired crickets? Innnnnnteresting, as Smithers would say.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

At least we agree that the death penalty is murder.

You can call it murder if you want. Doesn't bother me any. I would fight for the right of an innocent child not be be murdered over a convicted killer any day.

Pages