Reply
Cass Hole 3 kids; Shiloh, IL, United States 7585 posts
4th Mar '13

I'm actually in the process of becoming a surrogate and this is all usually written up in the contract. My personal opinion is no. She agreed to carry someone else's baby on their terms not her own so if a situation like this would have presented a problem for her then she shouldn't have become a surrogate to begin with.

T♥B♥A Due June 27 (girl); 2 kids; 1 angel baby; Denver, CO, United States 12584 posts
4th Mar '13
Quoting pilot Jess:" It's her body. I think it would be disgusting to make her go through a surgical procedure against her will."


this. like yes it wasn't "her" baby but she shouldn't have to have such an invasive procedure against her will and it's not like the bio parents are having to take care of a special needs child they didn't want..

Piecey. 3 kids; K-Town, KL, Germany 63248 posts
4th Mar '13

Nvm. Read that wrong..

snglemama 4 kids; Georgia 11978 posts
4th Mar '13
Quoting Supafly★:" Yes because it's her body. But if she decides to go against the family's wishes all bets are off - it ... [snip!] ... all bets are off - it should be up to HER to take care of the baby whether she decides to keep it or put it up for adoption. "


!!



forcing her to go through with a potentially dangerous procedure is not ok in my book. They don't get to decide that.

Jennybananna 2 kids; Gilbert, AZ, United States 25079 posts
4th Mar '13
Quoting T♥B:" this. like yes it wasn't "her" baby but she shouldn't have to have such an invasive procedure against ... [snip!] ... against her will and it's not like the bio parents are having to take care of a special needs child they didn't want.."

Then shouldn't of been a surrogate in the first place. She signed a contract giving away the right to choose.

castaway 2 kids; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 18802 posts
4th Mar '13

<blockquote><b>Quoting T♥B:</b>" this. like yes it wasn't "her" baby but she shouldn't have to have such an invasive procedure against ... [snip!] ... against her will and it's not like the bio parents are having to take care of a special needs child they didn't want.."</blockquote>




Say, even if she agreed to beforehand, but changed her mind, what should they be allowed to do? Tie her down? Club her over the head? Drug her? So she can have her body invaded by a surgical procedure?




To me, saying "she chose this in the first place" is like telling a woman in a different situation that she shouldn't have had sex if she didn't want to get pregnant, and cannot have an abortion for the same reason.

_______Nope_________ 23772 posts
4th Mar '13

It's her body. This is the risk with getting a surrogate. You might be willing to do a service for the parents, but you don't give up to rights to your body. The option was the correct one. The bio parents are not responsible because the baby was put up for adoption. I don't think a woman should ever be forced into an abortion, even in cases of surrogacy.

Devil Duckie 3 kids; New York 48700 posts
4th Mar '13

if it isn't in the contract, it isn't in the contract. I don't think children with that many health issues should be forced to suffer, but That's not what the question was. The parents didn't want the child and now they don't have to care for it. I think everyone but the child won in this instance.

Monica♥YASDYARDFR 17 kids; Beverly Hills, California 57063 posts
4th Mar '13
Quoting pilot Jess:" It's her body. I think it would be disgusting to make her go through a surgical procedure against her will."


But she leased her body for them to use.

Sarah ♥ K&K 2 kids; 2 angel babies; South Land, CA, United States 117232 posts
status 4th Mar '13

But I am pro choice so I guess ultimately her body her choice. I do think she should rethink any future decisions to surrogate though.

Jennybananna 2 kids; Gilbert, AZ, United States 25079 posts
4th Mar '13
Quoting pilot Jess:" <blockquote><b>Quoting T♥B:</b>" this. like yes it wasn't "her" baby but she ... [snip!] ... situation that she shouldn't have had sex if she didn't want to get pregnant, and cannot have an abortion for the same reason."

Those women dont legally sign away the right to their body though.

T♥B♥A Due June 27 (girl); 2 kids; 1 angel baby; Denver, CO, United States 12584 posts
4th Mar '13
Quoting pilot Jess:" <blockquote><b>Quoting T♥B:</b>" this. like yes it wasn't "her" baby but she ... [snip!] ... situation that she shouldn't have had sex if she didn't want to get pregnant, and cannot have an abortion for the same reason."


yep...

Chuck Norris TTC since Jan 2013; 3 kids; 3 angel babies; Fairbanks, AK, United States 18865 posts
4th Mar '13

<blockquote><b>Quoting Monica♥YASDYARDFR:</b>" Should a surrogate get a say in the termination for a child? This child was diagnosed as having a cleft ... [snip!] ... for adoption. What are your thoughts? http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/health/surrogacy-kelley-legal-battle/index.html?hpt=hp_c1"</blockquote>



I actually went through my last pregnancy with her and talked with her on a facebook group through it all. She struggled hard with the decisions she made. Its her body in the end... she may have thought she was strong enough to terminate in the beginning, but the baby deserved a fighting chance imo. But thats because I just could never terminate a baby I was carrying.

Monica♥YASDYARDFR 17 kids; Beverly Hills, California 57063 posts
4th Mar '13
Quoting Devil Duckie:" if it isn't in the contract, it isn't in the contract. I don't think children with that many health issues ... [snip!] ... The parents didn't want the child and now they don't have to care for it. I think everyone but the child won in this instance. "


It was in the contract. She just chose to flee to another state.

Devil Duckie 3 kids; New York 48700 posts
4th Mar '13
Quoting Monica♥YASDYARDFR:" It was in the contract. She just chose to flee to another state."


oooooh I missed that part. They should sue her.