Can abortion be part of a surrogate contract?

Story here [cnn.com] (not very well written, but...)

Can/should abortion be part of a contract? Should human life be sold like this?

Quote from Favrerox : Story here [cnn.com] (not very well written, but...) Can/should abortion be part of a contract? Should human life be sold like this?

Wow. Yea, for CNN that story is written terribly.

That said... that is a horrendously complicated situation. Honestly, I'd say since the contract has an abortion clause, if the woman decides to carry the baby to term the parents should no longer be responsible. The surrogate is breaching the contract, after all. I don't she should be forced to have an abortion, but I also don't think the parents should have to be burdened with a child they otherwise wouldn't have had if she hadn't breached the contract.

Quote from bridgeburner : That said... that is a horrendously complicated situation. Honestly, I'd say since the contract has an abortion clause, if the woman decides to carry the baby to term the parents should no longer be responsible. The surrogate is breaching the contract, after all. I don't she should be forced to have an abortion, but I also don't think the parents should have to be burdened with a child they otherwise wouldn't have had if she hadn't breached the contract.

Agreed.

As far as selling human life that's pretty much what surrogacy is after all and I personally have no problem with it as it helps many people that otherwise wouldn't be able to have a "child of their own".

Quote from bridgeburner : Wow. Yea, for CNN that story is written terribly. That said... that is a horrendously complicated situation. Honestly, I'd say since the contract has an abortion clause, if the woman decides to carry the baby to term the parents should no longer be responsible. The surrogate is breaching the contract, after all. I don't she should be forced to have an abortion, but I also don't think the parents should have to be burdened with a child they otherwise wouldn't have had if she hadn't breached the contract.

I do not think people who are otherwise financially responsible for a child could then get of that responsibility by a contract. The responsibility is to a child and/or to the society. A third person cannot forgive such responsibility, contract or no contract.

Quote from LivninSC : Agreed. As far as selling human life that's pretty much what surrogacy is after all and I personally have no problem with it as it helps many people that otherwise wouldn't be able to have a "child of their own".

I cannot see how surrogacy is selling of human life. If any a person is getting compensated for her services and not for the child.

Quote from TRNT : I do not think people who are otherwise financially responsible for a child could then get of that responsibility by a contract. The responsibility is to a child and/or to the society. A third person cannot forgive such responsibility, contract or no contract. I cannot see how surrogacy is selling of human life. If any a person is getting compensated for her services and not for the child.

The only other option I can see (short of forcing her to have an abortion, which seems awful) is having her carry the baby to term, and then the child going into foster care.

Ms. Kelley = hero fighting to protect the baby in her womb.

The State should require the biological parents to pay the medical bills since their faulty genetics are the cause of the maladies.

The appalling side of this to me is the contract stating there would be an abortion in case of severe fetus abnormality. Just a nice, quick way to genocide without them having to actually grow up and develop some other trait you loathe. Truly disgusting.

Quote from Favrerox : Story here [cnn.com] (not very well written, but...) Can/should abortion be part of a contract? Should human life be sold like this?

Human life is extremely cheap and has been sold cheaply all over the world. This is just normal.

Quote from Favrerox : The appalling side of this to me is the contract stating there would be an abortion in case of severe fetus abnormality. Just a nice, quick way to genocide without them having to actually grow up and develop some other trait you loathe. Truly disgusting.

may want to look up the word "genocide," there.

"Mercy-kill" would be a more appropriate term, though certainly far from a perfect description. Have you ever seen an animal or human that was suffering so much you felt they should be put to death to end it?

considering the whole argument in favor of abortion is because it is the womans right to control her body it would seem extremely anti-abortion rights to allow a forced abortion. people are dumb.

Quote from bonkman : may want to look up the word "genocide," there. "Mercy-kill" would be a more appropriate term, though certainly far from a perfect description. Have you ever seen an animal or human that was suffering so much you felt they should be put to death to end it?

Maybe ethnic cleansing is more appropriate. But what do you consider a group of people born with, or diagnosed in utero with defects? They don't fall into the definition of genocide, but I don't see the difference (yes here comes the Hitler reference) between a supreme Aryan race eliminating those outside their ideal human and a couple saying to abort in the case of severe fetus abnormality. Why not just chain them to radiator and lock them in a closet for being so hideous?

Quote from Favrerox : Maybe ethnic cleansing is more appropriate. But what do you consider a group of people born with, or diagnosed in utero with defects? They don't fall into the definition of genocide, but I don't see the difference (yes here comes the Hitler reference) between a supreme Aryan race eliminating those outside their ideal human and a couple saying to abort in the case of severe fetus abnormality. Why not just chain them to radiator and lock them in a closet for being so hideous?

No, ethnic cleansing isn't appropriate.

Genetic or developmental deformities are not an ethnicity. They are not a race. They are a medical condition.

The differences between a Hitler and aborting a severe fetus abnormality are numerous: 1) after birth, oftentimes, the latter requires someone else to take constant care of them, even through adulthood, and far beyond the scope of "normal" parenting. This may be impossible because of financial situations, parent's abilities, or a wide variety of other things. 2) many conditions cause extreme pain and trauma. There may be life, but it can be a horrendous life with literally no redeeming qualities. Ever see anybody with late-stage ALS? I realize that this is different from what we're talking about -- just trying to give an example of a person that has a beyond-horrible quality of life with no escape that you might be familiar with. 3) some fetal abnormalities can also be harmful to the mother/surrogate. Pregnancy in general is as well.

Quote from BigBananaMess : Ms. Kelley = hero fighting to protect the baby in her womb. The State should require the biological parents to pay the medical bills since their faulty genetics are the cause of the maladies.

This is really faulty logic. What if the maladies of the fetus is not due to genes of the sperm/egg donor?

Quote from Favrerox : The appalling side of this to me is the contract stating there would be an abortion in case of severe fetus abnormality. Just a nice, quick way to genocide without them having to actually grow up and develop some other trait you loathe. Truly disgusting.

You may want to look up the definition of genocide before you go on some baseless rant...

When I have a kid you better damn well believe I'm doing genetic testing and if there is something obviously wrong with it I would have an insanely hard time not terminating the pregnancy. I mean, why go through the heart ache, why put the kid through all the pain, why take away a lot of resources from your other children when frankly the selfish while at the same time the most non-selfish act you can do is not have it be born?