Surrogate Mother Refuses to Abort Child at Parents' Request...

Two Peas is Closing
Click here to visit our final product sale. Click here to visit our FAQ page regarding the closing of Two Peas.

Posted 3/5/2013 by joyce.k.b. in NSBR Board
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
 

joyce.k.b.
PeaFixture

PeaNut 370,129
April 2008
Posts: 3,531
Layouts: 44

Posted: 3/7/2013 1:36:21 PM
Good grief, if any good comes from this, it will be clear, enforceable surrogacy laws.

Edgy, that was a very thought provoking article.


eta: corrected spelling.




shannoninkc
PeaAddict

PeaNut 304,038
March 2007
Posts: 1,725
Layouts: 0
Loc: Where you vacation.

Posted: 3/7/2013 2:46:02 PM
While I don't have a child with medical complications...I've worked many years with the developmentally disabled population. I started doing direct care, and ended my career as a case manager. I worked with 100s of people with many different disabilities. I worked with the state or their families if they were involved. I've seen quite a bit of that population that have zero quality of life. While doing direct care, I'd say half my folks were nothing but a shell of a human. I did everything for them. Fed them, wiped the drool, changed their diapers, basically grown babies. I don't know if they were in pain, but that isn't living. They sat in a smelly group home with other people that didn't interact. The only interaction was an occasional family member and paid staff. I've watched the heartbreak of family members who feel guilt for placing children in group homes, but had no other choice. I could go on and on, but basically just disagreeing with the "it's a life, you don't end one" crap. If I knew my baby in my belly would face a life like this, I would never bring the baby into this world. Not because I'm selfish, but because I would do that for the baby. The baby doesn't need to live a life like that.


ijc
ic a pea or is she gone on an adventure?

PeaNut 4,985
June 2000
Posts: 9,527
Layouts: 40
Loc: Cape Cod, MA

Posted: 3/7/2013 4:54:15 PM
I have to post and run (have a meeting to go to, so I'm not trying to be rude, but won't be around to reply)


I think the attitude that 'thank goodness she wasn't aborted b/c she is bringing joy to people' is very selfish


So I could/should have left the 'joy' statement out of it (I think I either read or got the joy part from the video - that she would bring joy to lots of people, and I tend to agree with that but that's not the only reason I included that statement.) I still say, thank God that she wasn't aborted. And I see it the other way around. I'm a lot of things, but honestly, I am pretty certain that one thing I'm not is selfish.
I think the easier more selfish way would be to abort. Done with it. Problem taken care of. Where do you (general you - not 'you' who quoted me) draw the line. What if the ultra sound had been wrong? Down Syndrome - ok as long as there aren't too many other abnormalities? And the list could go on. Where is the line drawn?
I honestly do believe in this case that it is sad all the way around.
Like someone else just posted - she is a blessing. Not perfect by any stretch, and with many obstacles on the road ahead of her (and her parents), but a blessing none the less.


However, when we get into these 5 page discussions, where the facts aren't clear, we can only argue based our own experiences and beliefs. While it may also take some time to hammer out how those experiences come into play, I always end up learning something....so thank you.


I think this is so true. I know that my feelings and opinions are only based on my own beliefs. And because my convictions are strong, though it is not my intention, I'm sure I can come across as narrow minded. I learn so much from these discussions, which I think is a great thing.




ic a blog - Life is Good!


Married to my best friend and mom to 6 wonderful kids - life is good!


leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,257
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 3/7/2013 5:15:06 PM
I think there's a huge difference between having a surrogate who is a close family member, or a friend that's considered family, and a total stranger.

The family/friend would be expected to remain in the lives of the child and parents.

The stranger would be expected to go back to being a virtual stranger.


You can have a bad auto mechanic. You can have a bad lawyer. You can have a bad surrogate too - and bad in this particular case means that she would have more loyalty to bringing a disabled child into this world than following the will of the parents-to-be.

The parents were willing to pay her off to abort the baby. They told her they would take no responsibility for being the parents of the baby. I don't think the surrogate owes the parents any of the money back since they wanted to pay her to break the contract. They made their intentions very clear. The deal to surrogate a child for them was off.


It would be an entirely different situation if they wanted the baby and the surrogate took off to be able to lay a parental claim on the child. Something that once again, because it can happen will happen if it hasn't happened already.

As complicated as this case is, it's not the most complicated situation imaginable.

You just can't contract the womb of human life in the same way you can contract a plumber's service.










If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.

PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 32,845
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse

Posted: 3/7/2013 6:03:59 PM
Darcy, I did go back to page one. Of the three posts to which you refer, just one alluded to the gun argument. Go back to page one and re-read, please. I am posting the relevant one here:


Human life? Screw the contract?

That's like saying screw those ridiculous 2nd amendment rights. People are being slaughtered all over America with guns. It's HUMAN LIFE.



It was not 'random.' It was deliberate. Mrs. T is very much in favor of sticking to the letter of the law in that there should be no bending on the 2nd amendment rights, for example. Then in her next breath, she says screw the contract. Because now, the law runs counter to her opinion.

Second point, She is talking about the value of human life and how sometimes compromises have to be made and the law is not the be all end all when human life is at stake. That is analogous to gun control advocates saying that there can be measures put in place which are reasonable to preserve human lives. But then, she says the law and the rights outweigh the human lives that have been lost as a result of gun violence.

So on both counts, it was not random, I am neither a dog, nor someone with a bone, though I have repeatedly seen her referred to as such on threads. She does not like it when people say it about her, but found it appropriate to say about me.

If you didn't understand my point, you can say so. But it neither was random, Darcy, nor was it unfocused, Mrs. T. It was to point out the contradiction in Mrs. T's adherence to the law depending on her opinion of the substance of that law.


OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.




myboysnme
Living life on the left

PeaNut 69,081
February 2003
Posts: 7,959
Layouts: 1

Posted: 3/7/2013 6:39:04 PM
I am interested in who should pay for this child's medical care? The parents may have (I don't know) known that they could not pay for her medical care, hence their comment about being a ward of the state. Many people place their children in the state's care to get them state provided medical care that they cannot afford. Even insurance companies have lifetime caps and this infant would reach those caps very quickly.

I am interested because it is my observation that those who are most opposed to abortion are also equally opposed to government provided medical care, subsidies for providing custodial care, and are opposed to those who cannot, for what ever reason, contribute to society. This child can never provide for herself, pull herself up to contribute to society, and will always require extensive, high cost care that she herself can never pay for.

I know that once a child is here, they are here and there is usually someone who will step up, at least while they are cute little babies. But what about when they are a grown adult who can't do anything for themselves, can't communicate, and has severe brain impairments? Who wants to take them in? Who can afford to? What kind of financial assistance is someone willing to put forward to maintain their lives?

I work with people with catastrophic spinal cord injuries. They cannot afford the 24 hour medical care that they need to stay at home. They have to go on state medical aid to get nursing home care; the most medically needy must have incredibly expensive medical care to survive. Who wants to pay for it? Generally not the people who want to cut government assistance, who also generally are opposed to abortion. But on the flip side, also are in favor of the death penalty and gun ownership.

Just some observations.


My choice is to not take it personally - people have opinions. Particularly people here.-Peabay 12/29/11
I know this is assuming, but I'm really starting to think you are one of those "entitled" peas - Dalayney 4/2/12
When someone elects you Queen of Two Peas, then you can make the rules. - Sue_Pea 12/22/13
"Myboysnme,...I bow down to you, oh queen of the scrapping goodness" - Irish Eyes 3/9/14
"Myboysnme -- ... Whoa. I bow to thee." - Jill S 4/26/14









Edgy Coolness
PeaFixture

PeaNut 365,853
March 2008
Posts: 3,514
Layouts: 0
Loc: Dallas, Texas

Posted: 3/7/2013 7:01:17 PM



I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,253
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 3/7/2013 9:45:26 AM
Edgy....excellent post. Makes more sense than anything else I've read about this case. Thank you.


I found this articlehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2288237/Woman-paid-22-000-surrogate-mother-refuses-parents-wishes-abortion-ultrasound-reveals-series-disabilities-flees-country-save-baby.

where I found her blog and actually her blogged "real life" and actions do not even come close to my version and I would rather that mine were true because this woman has custody of two children:

Surrogate Insanity



Becoming a parent is the single most defining thing that ever happened to me. It changed everything. From dealing with a child with a heart defect, fighting postpartum depression, and realizing that the world wasn't about me anymore, I felt lost. I thought that it was dually the best and worst thing that ever happened to me.

Then came #2. They are now 15 months and almost 3. ButtButt is a crazy whirlwind of a child, spirited in her own ways, who loves to be active, has communication 'issues', and loves to play puzzles, watch "Ana-ina" (Angelina Ballerina) jump on her trampoline and give mommy snuggles and kisses. BooBoo is a little more laid back, (as long as she's being held!) a booby monster, and just learning how to get into everything. We're not perfect, but we have a lot of fun!!



Honestly, I am heartsick for the bio-parents of Baby S that this woman WAS EVER considered much less allowed to become a surrogate with her given personal history outlined over the course of this blog because she obviously suffers from mental illness and has a repeated history of unplanned pregnancy plus she is training to be a Midwife/Doula (that truly creeps me out and am reminded of another blog about those fringe/alternative lifestyle people who use unlicensed Midwifes/Doulas to birth their children, believe me it was eye opening because I have a different outlook about them before reading that horror story.) And given that her oldest living daughter has a heart defect, it is obvious there is strong evidence that once implantation occurred not only was her mental health a determent to a positive outcome (what 'above board' surrogacy group allows a woman with mental issues and unstable life choices as well as postpartum depression to be a surrogate) but her mitochondrial DNA was as well.


I sure hope that if the bio-parents used this business they sued them too.










batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.

PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 32,845
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse

Posted: 3/7/2013 7:40:18 PM
Of course no one would force her to have an abortion. It's against public policy and there is often a clause that states that within the contract itself.

I also know, as a *citizen*, the difference between a contract and the law of the land. I still maintain that you will turn on a dime, depending on your personal POV, like abortion for instance.

However, from your prior post, you didn't appear to know that abortion was a fundamental constitutional right, which I found surprising. And you'd have that stripped away in an instant.

I don't know why you insist on playing victim. It reeks of being able to dish it out but not being able to take it. You post, you open yourself up to responses. I already told you your post stand out to me for their rampant fallacies and I feel called upon to refute them. If anyone else posted such, I would respond in kind. I hope that was clearer now.


OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.




batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.

PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 32,845
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse

Posted: 3/7/2013 7:41:48 PM

I am interested because it is my observation that those who are most opposed to abortion are also equally opposed to government provided medical care, subsidies for providing custodial care, and are opposed to those who cannot, for what ever reason, contribute to society. This child can never provide for herself, pull herself up to contribute to society, and will always require extensive, high cost care that she herself can never pay for.

I know that once a child is here, they are here and there is usually someone who will step up, at least while they are cute little babies. But what about when they are a grown adult who can't do anything for themselves, can't communicate, and has severe brain impairments? Who wants to take them in? Who can afford to? What kind of financial assistance is someone willing to put forward to maintain their lives?
'

I think these are all valid observations and excellent questions.


OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.




moveablefeast
do justice, love mercy

PeaNut 265,707
June 2006
Posts: 12,559
Layouts: 0
Loc: Northern Virginia

Posted: 3/7/2013 8:00:42 PM

I am interested in who should pay for this child's medical care?


I presume in this case that it is the adoptive parents.

Sometimes there is aid money available when you adopt a special needs child, to help offset the cost of their care. I know that is true when you foster-adopt a medically needy child, but I don't know if this family is eligible for it because it sounds like this was an adoption arranged through an agency rather than through social services.

It is my opinion that we as a society should see to it that the medical needs of children and other vulnerable groups are covered - through insurance (be it private insurance or an insurance pool or whatever else), through assistance such as state medical programs or financial aid to families who need it, and through other means as appropriate.


I am interested because it is my observation that those who are most opposed to abortion are also equally opposed to government provided medical care, subsidies for providing custodial care, and are opposed to those who cannot, for what ever reason, contribute to society.


I agree with your observation, but I will put myself out there as one who is generally opposed to abortion on a moral level (though not necessarily on a legal one), but very much in favor of expanded access to health care, and in favor of programs that support people who simply cannot support themselves.

In other words, it is my belief that the surrogate in the OP did indeed have the right to choose against abortion, that the decision to place that child for adoption was appropriate given that the child's intended family did not want her, and that we as a society should do as much as we can do to give that child the best chance at the best life possible for her now.

I have many opportunities to pursue the best life possible for me, some of which were paid by the government (for example, much of my education was government-paid by way of educational grants) - why should it be different for her simply because her care is more expensive than mine, or because her life is going to be "less productive"?

Dalai Mama
La Pea Boheme

PeaNut 49,641
September 2002
Posts: 26,337
Layouts: 85
Loc: Drunk on the lawn in a nuclear dawn

Posted: 3/7/2013 8:36:28 PM

Not really a great attribute for a lawyer
And there it is again.


Jo Mama

***********************************

Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight. - Bruce Cockburn

The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - Douglas Adams


moretimeplease
PeaNut

PeaNut 85,465
May 2003
Posts: 489
Layouts: 1
Loc: Minnesota

Posted: 3/7/2013 8:36:47 PM

Do you not see the egocentric high-horse you have yourself seated on?


Still using the word "egocentric" incorrectly...



~Teri~

batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.

PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 32,845
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse

Posted: 3/7/2013 8:47:37 PM

The 2nd Amendment spells out specific rights for law abiding citizens regarding their right to bear arms. That right was included in the original Bill of Rights which tells me it was one of the inherent rights the Founding Fathers recognized as one no government could take away. The 14 Amendment has been INTERPRETED to include abortion but the term ABORTION does not exist in the Constitution, unlike the right to bear arms. Which is why I said ABORTION isn't a right spelled out in the Constitution.

I think it's hilarious you keep trying to paint ME as the hypocrite. You are just as wishy washy about how strictly you adhere to the Constitution based on your political opinion. Not really a great attribute for a lawyer. To equate the CONSTITUTION with a private contract between two citizens, one that cannot ever be fully enforced? To compare the words of the Founding Fathers in the 2nd Amendment to a modern interpretation of the 14th Amendment? The Constitution specifically states law abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Nowhere in the Constitution does it specifically state women have the right to an abortion. A later amendment added the right to privacy. Which was only interpreted in modern times to include abortion. Still the word "abortion" does not exist in the Constitution.

I already told you your post stand out to me for their rampant fallacies and I feel called upon to refute them.

Do you not see the egocentric high-horse you have yourself seated on?


The founding fathers did not spell out that individuals have a right to possess firearms. The word FIREARMS is nowhere in the CONSTITUTION. That was an INTERPRETATION by the Supreme Court in Heller, 2008 many years after the Constitution was written. Exactly the argument you use to distinguish Roe v. Wade. So are you saying that this particular interpretation and that right is as fragile and non-fundamental as abortion rights?

I will tell you one thing. When you challenge the constitutionality of a law that may violate someone's right to an abortion or right to bear arms or any other fundamental right, there is no court that distinguishes the two. That is only distinguished in your mind. They are both held to strict scrutiny. Period. You can do all the mental gymnastics you want, but a fundamental right, however you get it, is a fundamental right.

In fact, when the Miller case was adjudicated in 1939, the court did not guarantee the right to bear arms as a fundamental right. Just because it was in the Bill of Rights and the word arms was used is not how a right acquires its significance. So this is a rather new iteration. Newer than abortion rights.

I am trying to explain to you why it's your posts I respond to since you accused me of hounding you. I am not putting myself on a high horse by pointing out that your posts are weak. You are making statements that invite critique and I am responding. If you are bothered by that, then don't make strong statements on a public board. I don't think egocentric means what you think it means.

AND-I am not attacking you personally or by your chosen profession, yet again you are stooping to personal attacks. It says a lot about your character. It also says a lot about mine.



OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.




Darcy_Collins
PeaFixture

PeaNut 514,615
July 2011
Posts: 3,236
Layouts: 0

Posted: 3/7/2013 10:00:10 PM

Darcy, I did go back to page one. Of the three posts to which you refer, just one alluded to the gun argument. Go back to page one and re-read, please. I am posting the relevant one here:

Human life? Screw the contract?

That's like saying screw those ridiculous 2nd amendment rights. People are being slaughtered all over America with guns. It's HUMAN LIFE.


Actually you missed this little nugget in your very next post - which you posted before any response from anyone:


Then again, I see people who put guns at all costs before safety of their fellow man as having questionable morals. So there's that. HUMAN LIFE doesn't make such a big impression when it's not so close to the womb. Not sure why, though. I've seen this theme with a number of conservatives. Not picking on you, though you're the one who posted here.


You can say it's not random - but I'm just telling you how it's coming off - I'm sure it's analogous in your mind, but as I said - when it comes to responding to a certain conservative, you do sound as much like a dog with a bone as she does.

Belia
PeaAddict

PeaNut 503,375
March 2011
Posts: 1,411
Layouts: 3

Posted: 3/7/2013 11:10:42 PM
Manda- Did you delete your post? Why? It was so powerful. And true.

And as I type this, I realize how weak those words are.

(((((((((hugs)))))))))

leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,257
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 3/8/2013 3:45:46 AM

Of course no one would force her to have an abortion. It's against public policy and there is often a clause that states that within the contract itself.


But from Edgy's link....

Unsure of their legal rights, the parents were stunned to discover that only Crystal could arrange and go through with an abortion.

and

'You are obligated to terminate this pregnancy immediately,' wrote Douglas Fishman, an attorney in West Hartford, Connecticut. 'You have squandered precious time.'



That's exactly what the parents thought they could do.




Fishman said she was in breach of contract and that if she did not abort she would be sued for the money already paid, which was $8,000 and the medical fees and legal fees to date.

How can she be made to refund payment to them? It's not like she didn't use her body to gestate their child, whether it turned out the way they anticipated or not.





I don't know why they chose a surrogate to begin with. Maybe she had too much trouble bringing a child to term? I'm sure they had their reasons. It's a drastic step to consider. It must be devastating news to find out your developing child will have major medical complications.

But, this is what happens when your child is growing in someone else's body. You lose control over the body that is carrying your child since that body is an adult with a mind and will of her own.

This is the flip side to "Her body, her choice." She chose not to abort.





Maybe future laws will recognize that no contract can be made forcing a woman to abort a child she's carrying just because the child doesn't belong to her or will be too expensive throughout its life if it comes to term and survives.

Or maybe future laws will demand exactly the opposite, and we will see women being arrested and forced to abort a child.

Those are the choices if this is legislated to a natural conclusion.









If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



scrappower
Allons-y Alonso

PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 15,754
Layouts: 0

Posted: 3/8/2013 9:18:18 AM

How can she be made to refund payment to them? It's not like she didn't use her body to gestate their child, whether it turned out the way they anticipated or not.


Because she still broke the contract with them.



dynalady
My soul is fed with needle and thread

PeaNut 25,620
December 2001
Posts: 20,256
Layouts: 49
Loc: Sweet Home Chicago

Posted: 3/8/2013 9:23:33 AM
And for six pages nobody has said she could or should have been forced to abort. The issue is that she freely signed a contract, refused to abide by the terms that she agreed to, and since it was a legally binding contract she should be subject to the legal ramifications of her action.







"I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts




Dalai Mama
La Pea Boheme

PeaNut 49,641
September 2002
Posts: 26,337
Layouts: 85
Loc: Drunk on the lawn in a nuclear dawn

Posted: 3/8/2013 9:28:26 AM

The issue is that she freely signed a contract, refused to abide by the terms that she agreed to, and since it was a legally binding contract she should be subject to the legal ramifications of her action.
Bingo. Just because she can't be forced to have an abortion doesn't mean that contract doesn't have teeth.


Jo Mama

***********************************

Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight. - Bruce Cockburn

The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - Douglas Adams


Darcy_Collins
PeaFixture

PeaNut 514,615
July 2011
Posts: 3,236
Layouts: 0

Posted: 3/8/2013 9:34:10 AM

The issue is that she freely signed a contract, refused to abide by the terms that she agreed to, and since it was a legally binding contract she should be subject to the legal ramifications of her action.

Bingo. Just because she can't be forced to have an abortion doesn't mean that contract doesn't have teeth.


The hypothetical contract that none of us have seen??? Give me a break - no one even knows what's in it - so to state unequivocally that it's legally binding or does or doesn't have teeth is silly.

But the court of the peas doesn't really resemble the court of law now does it.




Dalai Mama
La Pea Boheme

PeaNut 49,641
September 2002
Posts: 26,337
Layouts: 85
Loc: Drunk on the lawn in a nuclear dawn

Posted: 3/8/2013 9:40:09 AM
Well, aren't you pedantic.

I stand by what I said, whether I've seen the contract or not: just because she can't be forced to have an abortion doesn't mean that the contract doesn't have teeth.


Jo Mama

***********************************

Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight. - Bruce Cockburn

The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - Douglas Adams


Darcy_Collins
PeaFixture

PeaNut 514,615
July 2011
Posts: 3,236
Layouts: 0

Posted: 3/8/2013 9:47:52 AM

Well, aren't you pedantic.




And there it is..... that was your quote - what was batya's again....



you are stooping to personal attacks. It says a lot about your character.



Dalai Mama
La Pea Boheme

PeaNut 49,641
September 2002
Posts: 26,337
Layouts: 85
Loc: Drunk on the lawn in a nuclear dawn

Posted: 3/8/2013 9:49:51 AM
I'm commenting on your actions and your words, not your person.


Jo Mama

***********************************

Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight. - Bruce Cockburn

The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - Douglas Adams


Darcy_Collins
PeaFixture

PeaNut 514,615
July 2011
Posts: 3,236
Layouts: 0

Posted: 3/8/2013 10:04:27 AM
You might spend more time researching surrogacy legislation, history of court challenges and less time dogmatically reiterating an unsupportable position. If you want to state your feelings on the situation - go for it - but for anyone to offer an opinion to the legality of a contract they've never seen is laughable - we're really limited to stating things we KNOW to be unenforceable... But I'm sure we can find another 6 pages of people offering opinions on the "legally enforceable contract and teeth in the contract. Of course completely neglecting the fact that there are more states that specifically invalidate any surrogacy contract at ALL than offer any legal protection whatsoever.



Dalai Mama
La Pea Boheme

PeaNut 49,641
September 2002
Posts: 26,337
Layouts: 85
Loc: Drunk on the lawn in a nuclear dawn

Posted: 3/8/2013 10:13:13 AM

You might spend more time researching surrogacy legislation, history of court challenges and less time dogmatically reiterating an unsupportable position. If you want to state your feelings on the situation - go for it - but for anyone to offer an opinion to the legality of a contract they've never seen is laughable - we're really limited to stating things we KNOW to be unenforceable... But I'm sure we can find another 6 pages of people offering opinions on the "legally enforceable contract and teeth in the contract. Of course completely neglecting the fact that there are more states that specifically invalidate any surrogacy contract at ALL than offer any legal protection whatsoever.
You seem to need some help reading my posts. I made no unequivocal statements. What I said (again) is, just because she can't be forced to have an abortion doesn't mean the contract doesn't have teeth. I didn't say that it means that it does have teeth either, did I? Again, no unequivocal statement.

But, where's the fun in reading what I actually wrote? Rant on.


Jo Mama

***********************************

Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight. - Bruce Cockburn

The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - Douglas Adams


Darcy_Collins
PeaFixture

PeaNut 514,615
July 2011
Posts: 3,236
Layouts: 0

Posted: 3/8/2013 10:21:11 AM
Who's ranting? Oh I forgot the tactic of insinuating someone is unreasonable if you can't support your position. I'd avoid bingoing unequivocal statements in the future if you don't want people to think you believe them.



Uploaded with iPhone client

Dalai Mama
La Pea Boheme

PeaNut 49,641
September 2002
Posts: 26,337
Layouts: 85
Loc: Drunk on the lawn in a nuclear dawn

Posted: 3/8/2013 10:24:36 AM
Again, where is my unequivocal statement? Is it possible you don't understand what the word means?

ETA* Now I see - I've gone from making unequivocal statements to bingoing unequivocal statements. In that case, you're talking to the wrong person. Take it up with dynalady.


Jo Mama

***********************************

Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight. - Bruce Cockburn

The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - Douglas Adams


Ms. GreenGenes
AncestralPea

PeaNut 140,500
April 2004
Posts: 4,365
Layouts: 44
Loc: Just this side of crazy!

Posted: 3/8/2013 12:07:43 PM

I guess I just can't wrap my head around the fact that pain and/or deformity invalidates one's right to live and breathe. I've seen and met people who have overcome great pain and suffering to bestow greatness on the world. It's scary to me to think that some of these things cause people to automatically believe the "best" or "kindest" response is to terminate a life. If you have not been a person who has dealt with this on a first-hand, personal level, you truly do not know what you are talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Mrs. Greengenes, thank you for sharing your story. I'm not clear whether you knew about your DD's medical issues during the your early pregnancy, or whether that would have influenced a decision on how to proceed.

My whole point throughout this debate, and with the limited information we have as to the actual facts, is that I don't blame anyone who choose to terminate a pregnancy after learning their baby will be in for a lifetime of horrific problems.

I doubt the vast majority of people 'automatically' consider an abortion, no matter what their circumstances. I think most people think long and hard about it, especially under the circumstances currently being discussed.

Having two children who will never live a 'normal' life, nor ever live independently, and having spent their whole lives (25 years) around parents of children in similar situations, I feel pretty qualified to have an opinion. What I can tell you is, I wouldn't insist anybody be forced to have this experience. It does make some people stronger, but it breaks others. Most people are somewhere in the middle, struggling to make the best of their drastically altered life plans, and do the best they can for their children.


I-95, First, I get the sense you felt my post was directed at you. It was not. If it was, I would have addressed it to you. Not being snarky, just clarifying things. I posted my experience, and my perspective, and that was all. Just like you, I think, so I'm not sure why you felt compelled to respond specifically to my post.

Second, as to the "automatic" abortion statement, read back through this thread, and see how many were quick to support her choice to abort, and again, note how little about this baby's medical issues were made clear before these responses were given.

It is so common for everyone to shoot for perfection in their lives and their children. No one wants to face the hard things, and while it's understandable, it still kind of puzzles me. I guess, since our world was blown to pieces with our child's medical issues, the fear of the unknown has been replaced with the understanding that things happen. Bad things happen. And they are not only survivable, but they don't destroy us unless we let them. They're sometimes painful, but we are more than the sum of our pain. I don't know, I'm not saying this well, it's just that I think that constantly working to make sure nothing bad ever happens to us is an exercise in pointlessness, and maybe even an avoidance of reality in which we lose our perspective along the way. Bad things WILL happen. Hard times WILL come. We need to face them, not destroy them just so that we don't have to deal with them.

I know, I know, this is not the direction this thread has been going, and most people are probably reading past what I'm writing. I don't care. It just shocks me to read through this thread and realize that if some of the people on this thread were in my shoes, my child would probably not be here. It's shocking, and hurtful, though I know no one here means it that way.

Heading back to my corner now, where I'm going to hug my dd and tell her I love her.


~ Tracey

myboysnme
Living life on the left

PeaNut 69,081
February 2003
Posts: 7,959
Layouts: 1

Posted: 3/8/2013 4:06:37 PM

It just shocks me to read through this thread and realize that if some of the people on this thread were in my shoes, my child would probably not be here. It's shocking, and hurtful, though I know no one here means it that way.


See as long as you make it about YOUR child you will not be able to see beyond that. You did not and would not have an abortion and that is your 'choice.'

I would have, but if I did it wouldn't be YOUR child. And it wouldn't be anyone you would ever know or maybe have even known existed as a zygote ever. It seems some people attach all kinds of emotions that really belong to their own kids, who are here and that they have learned to love, either immediately or over time.

Yes, go hug your child who wants to be here. I'll hug mine. But we are talking about pregancies that are ended, not people you personally know and love. My coworker delivered a baby at 20 weeks. He died in utero. She grieved him because he was her child, and most people felt bad for her because she was grieving. But we did not rush home and hig our own kids because they did not die in utero. Not everything is about you and yours.


My choice is to not take it personally - people have opinions. Particularly people here.-Peabay 12/29/11
I know this is assuming, but I'm really starting to think you are one of those "entitled" peas - Dalayney 4/2/12
When someone elects you Queen of Two Peas, then you can make the rules. - Sue_Pea 12/22/13
"Myboysnme,...I bow down to you, oh queen of the scrapping goodness" - Irish Eyes 3/9/14
"Myboysnme -- ... Whoa. I bow to thee." - Jill S 4/26/14









ijc
ic a pea or is she gone on an adventure?

PeaNut 4,985
June 2000
Posts: 9,527
Layouts: 40
Loc: Cape Cod, MA

Posted: 3/8/2013 5:09:16 PM

What an incredibly harsh and nasty post. Tracey has shared on other posts about the almost unthinkably difficult challenges she has with her child, and she expresses her thoughts on this subject in a heartfelt and thoughtful post, and you respond like that? Incredible. Keyboard courage is a fascinating thing.

When the Sandy Hook shootings happened, MANY peas posted "I'm going to hug my child tight tonight" and similar sentiments. I can only imagine if you'd come out blazing with "hey, not everything is about you, no need to rush home and hug our own kids because they didn't die in a school shooting in a distant state."



Holy cow - no kidding

ETA

I know, I know, this is not the direction this thread has been going, and most people are probably reading past what I'm writing. I don't care. It just shocks me to read through this thread and realize that if some of the people on this thread were in my shoes, my child would probably not be here. It's shocking, and hurtful, though I know no one here means it that way.


Tracey, I'm so sorry. I, for one, didn't read past what you wrote.




ic a blog - Life is Good!


Married to my best friend and mom to 6 wonderful kids - life is good!


I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,385
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 3/8/2013 6:23:30 PM

I-95, First, I get the sense you felt my post was directed at you. It was not. If it was, I would have addressed it to you. Not being snarky, just clarifying things. I posted my experience, and my perspective, and that was all. Just like you, I think, so I'm not sure why you felt compelled to respond specifically to my post.


I felt compelled to respond to your post, specifically, because it touched me. I do understand you weren't specifically addressing me, you said as much in your first post however, I was responding specifically to you....that's just one of the ways message boards function...you see something in a post someone has made and you decide to comment on it. If your post had not resonated with me I would have read it and moved on.

I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,385
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 3/8/2013 6:34:55 PM

The hypothetical contract that none of us have seen??? Give me a break - no one even knows what's in it - so to state unequivocally that it's legally binding or does or doesn't have teeth is silly.



Actually, it's not hypothetical. If you check back up this page, to a post Edgy made, she included a link to the surrogate's blog. It's a long, but interesting read. Anyway, on her blog she talks about signing the surrogacy contract with the potential parents. While neither the exact details, or a copy of the actual contract are posted, she does talk about the abortion clause and how she, and her lawyer, disagree with the wording. She apparently didn't disagree with it when she signed it, only after it was discovered the baby was going to have medical issues.

If it was not a legally binding contract, why does she have an attorney checking it and representing her? She went through a surrogacy agency, and I'm sure, if only to cover their own ass, they make sure that what they have the parties sign, is legal.

ScrapWench*
Seems a pity to miss such a good pudding.

PeaNut 247,139
February 2006
Posts: 18,899
Layouts: 0
Loc: Spokane, WA

Posted: 3/8/2013 6:59:44 PM

I already told you your post stand out to me for their rampant fallacies and I feel called upon to refute them. If anyone else posted such, I would respond in kind. I hope that was clearer now.

Oh, Batya, can you say futile?


----Theresa

batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.

PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 32,845
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse

Posted: 3/8/2013 8:02:57 PM

I already told you your post stand out to me for their rampant fallacies and I feel called upon to refute them. If anyone else posted such, I would respond in kind. I hope that was clearer now.

Oh, Batya, can you say futile?


Well, I felt that I should explain myself. I'm trying.

In any event, I saw Mrs. T also personally attacked you based on your profession and I'm sorry for that. And she also incorrectly assumed that a pharmacist is nothing but a pill counter.

I have to tell you, when I was in college, starting out in the sciences (which clearly was not a direction I pursued), and had friends who were in pharmacy programs, the chem and physics they had to learn was astounding. I was in differential calculus with some of them. I was finishing and moving on. They were going on to integral calculus and more advanced sciences. My grandfather and great uncle were also pharmacists. It's not just counting pills. Holy cow, the amount of science you have to learn for compounding, drug interactions, etc. Not my forte. Love my pharmacist.

ETA:

Scrap wench, I sure hope you count better on the job than you did on this thread. You'd be risking lots of lives with that kind of math.


In case I'm accused of making up things, attacking or whatever. This is to what I'm referring from a few pages back. Once may be a misstep. A few times? It's a pattern. Mrs. T, I know you don't believe it and you will defend to the death and get in your last word but you owe people apologies. Personal attacks based on what people do b/c they disagree with you or you feel frustrated?


OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.




ScrapWench*
Seems a pity to miss such a good pudding.

PeaNut 247,139
February 2006
Posts: 18,899
Layouts: 0
Loc: Spokane, WA

Posted: 3/8/2013 8:11:14 PM
SurrogateMom should never have been allowed to be a surrogate for this couple if she was unwilling to abide by the contract. If she was truly that adamant about not aborting if the parents so wished, then she should have been very upfront about it at the start.

From her blog:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pro-Life There is obviously the pro-life issue here of aborting a fetus. The bigger issue here is the coercion of people to try and persuade another to abort. The hiring of lawyers, the 'ganging up' against surrogates, and others who are not surrogates, by perceived authority figures and experts to try and coerce the individual into feeling she has no choice but to abort. I'm not even one of those die-hard pro-life advocates is the funny part. For me, myself, yes. I am very pro-life and everyone who knows me knows it. But I have friends who have had abortions, and I have friends who have chosen adoption. I have offered to take custody of children that were the result of unintended pregnancies, and I have been there for many of my friends as they came to terms with the decisions they had made or were faced with. I pride myself in being non-judgemental. However, as previously stated, for myself I am very strongly pro-life. I live it, I believe it, it is a part of my inner soul and I cannot deny it. I have lost a child at 19 weeks, I have lost a child at 8 weeks. I have been there, and I've known the pain that comes with losing a child that is inside of your body and does not become your flesh and blood growing before you. That I cannot do again. I sure as hell won't do it voluntarily. In my eyes every child deserves a chance at life. My children; those born of my body, are given every opportunity that I can afford them, and the first of these is the right to live. I make no apologies for that view, and I made that as clear as I could have made it to the IPs as well. The oversight in my contract; well, that goes back to the surrogacy issue. My agent should be fired.. but I digress.

----------------------
Why the hell would she sign the contract if she KNEW she would never ever ever abort a pregnancy that was NOT wanted by the couple that contracted her services?

She was ready and willing to give birth to this child but didn't want it herself, so she pawned it off on someone else. She is scum.


----Theresa

ScrapWench*
Seems a pity to miss such a good pudding.

PeaNut 247,139
February 2006
Posts: 18,899
Layouts: 0
Loc: Spokane, WA

Posted: 3/8/2013 8:16:27 PM
Thank you, Batya


----Theresa

Ms. GreenGenes
AncestralPea

PeaNut 140,500
April 2004
Posts: 4,365
Layouts: 44
Loc: Just this side of crazy!

Posted: 3/8/2013 10:56:57 PM
Myboysnme, you're missing the point completely. It ISN'T just about my child, because she is one of many thousands, hundreds of thousands, of babies with unthinkably difficult medical issues. I spoke of my child, because she is the case I know best. But I guarantee, from what I'm reading here, that others who would have found themselves in my shoes would've taken a far different road than I did, and those kids would not be here today.

What would the world miss out on in those cases? I cannot speak for those babies lost, as you were so quick to point out. But I can speak for one, and I can tell you that for all the heartache, the gut wrenching sorrow and pain, my life is better with her in it than without. Is she the only one for whom this is true? Assuredly not. There is value in these lives, despite the cost, and I want people to know that. That is all.

Nightowl, thank you. I really appreciate that.


~ Tracey
Uploaded with iPhone client

leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,257
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 3/8/2013 11:09:04 PM

And for six pages nobody has said she could or should have been forced to abort. The issue is that she freely signed a contract, refused to abide by the terms that she agreed to, and since it was a legally binding contract she should be subject to the legal ramifications of her action.


That's assuming that it is legal to make a contract that includes having a mother (whether surrogate or biological) to abort her baby against her will.

I don't believe that would survive a trial in many states, therefore, I don't particularly believe that it is a completely valid contract.

I don't believe you can contract a future life like this.




Mrs. Greengenes - I'm glad you've been on this thread. No matter whether you (general you) think a developing baby is nothing more than an embryo, a bunch of cells, or whatever other technical classification you prefer, the fact never changes that this is a potential human life that would include its own personality, traits, strengths and weaknesses. Tearing a child from the womb doesn't change what potential that life could have had, and it's not unusual to feel the loss of what could have been, even if it was *just* someone else's child and not your own.






If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,257
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 3/8/2013 11:24:02 PM

I have heard women speak about their crisis pregnancy experience, and I have heard them say they were very pro-life until they found themselves pregnant and realized their plans for school or career were in jeopardy. I have heard women say they always thought they'd just get an abortion if they had an unwanted pregnancy, and then when the time came, couldn't do it. Why are we so ready to think a piece of paper would negate the emotions and decision making we readily accept as normal from women who didn't sign a piece of paper?


That's it exactly, and that's why I don't think abortion is enforceable in a contract.




I wonder what her argument would be if the couple wanted to keep the child but the surrogate chose to abort it. I bet she'd be screaming about contractual responsibility and not "her body her choice" in that situation.

I'm not the person you were addressing this to, but my answer remains the same. You lose some control over a child growing in someone else's womb.

It is what it is. Someone else's body.

The same holds for a man and a woman. Ultimately, the man doesn't have much say over what the woman does with her body even if she is carrying his child.

How many fathers in this world have had to face the reality that the mother of their child chose to abort their child, even if they were married or had some other understanding that they would have children? How is that any less sad or any less of a betrayal than what this hypothetical couple would face?




ETA - Nightowl, a surrogate puts herself at risk by being pregnant. She fulfills at least part of the contract by becoming pregnant and should be compensated for the risk she has incurred for the benefit of someone else.







If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



*Erin
triathlon pea

PeaNut 80,864
April 2003
Posts: 10,658
Layouts: 13
Loc: Gone to chemo with BethAnne

Posted: 3/9/2013 7:55:37 AM
But her fulfillment of that portion of the contract was based on fraud. I think all the money should be returned.



*Erin
triathlon pea

PeaNut 80,864
April 2003
Posts: 10,658
Layouts: 13
Loc: Gone to chemo with BethAnne

Posted: 3/9/2013 8:21:22 AM

I doubt she went into it from the beginning thinkign "this kid is going to be handicapped, they'll ask me to abort, and I'll say no and take it away and score some money anyway". At least I'm pretty sure she didn't.
And you know this how? Right. It's an assumption. Then again, maybe you *are* privy to her thought process.



*Erin
triathlon pea

PeaNut 80,864
April 2003
Posts: 10,658
Layouts: 13
Loc: Gone to chemo with BethAnne

Posted: 3/9/2013 8:45:57 AM

Whereas you assume she KNEW the baby would be handicapped and therefore just collecting her paycheck before anyone else knew while she waited for them to ask for an abortion she wasn't going to get - just fraudulently planned the entire scheme from the beginning.
So you claim to know my thought process? Don't be daft. If she knew she couldn't agree to an abortion, that's fraud.



*Erin
triathlon pea

PeaNut 80,864
April 2003
Posts: 10,658
Layouts: 13
Loc: Gone to chemo with BethAnne

Posted: 3/9/2013 9:30:29 AM

You know people do often think they can agree to something in theory an then when they face it they change their minds. She's a human who probably didn't expect there to be anything wrong with the pregnancy and didn't think she'd have to face such a tough decision.
The exact same argument can be made for women in other circumstances who choose to abort. Do you show them as much understanding?



IleneTell
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 434,842
August 2009
Posts: 2,838
Layouts: 654

Posted: 3/9/2013 9:36:50 AM

The exact same argument can be made for women in other circumstances who choose to abort. Do you show them as much understanding?


Very good point.



I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,385
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 3/9/2013 11:59:17 AM

Perhaps, but it's more likely that she wasn't quite as certain about her decision on abortion until she had to actually face that reality. You know people do often think they can agree to something in theory an then when they face it they change their minds.



According to her blog she has always been pro-life, could never imagine destroying a life etc etc. In her own words, she first claims to have 'missed, or dismissed the abortion clause' (I'm paraphrasing there, I don't recall her exact words, but that was the inference) I got the feeling she knew about it and knowingly signed the contract, agreeing to those terms, but thought it would never happen so no big deal.

When it did happen, and the potential parents invoked what they believed they had all agreed to in the clause, she suddenly balked about losing all the money she had planned on getting. That led to the potential parents agreeing she should get something for her trouble, and offering her $10K. She decided she wanted more and countered with an offer to abort for $15K. They, perhaps finding she was now basically holding the fetus for ransom, said no and withdrew their offer. Faced with the reality that she'd called their bluff and lost, along with being threatened with a breach of contract lawsuit, she suddenly tells everyone she regretted making the counter offer, had always been pro-choice, and would never personally consider an abortion.

It's unclear how she went from that point to becoming the poster child for pro-choice groups, but it appears she went from nothing to having legal representation, receiving a ton of donated funds, and having an epiphany with regard to the wording in the abortion clause, which she now suddenly remembers.

Based on her own words, I come away with the impression she was unstable to start with, was in it mostly for the money, and would sell herself to the highest bidder....which turns out to be pro-life groups who were more than willing to do all the leg work (argue the wording in the contract, pay all her expenses, gift her with money, arrange her transportation across State lines, and arrange for adoptive parents), and she was a willing pawn.

Now of course, it comes down to which side of the issue one is on, as to which way one interprets the events that occurred. If you're strongly pro-choice, you can interpret it as an unfortunate turn of events,with uncaring potential parents hounding this poor woman to abort the fetus she's carrying, trying to bribe her with a $10K pay off, and bullying her with threats of lawsuits.

Or, you could be on the other side and interpret her story as this being a horrible turn of events, with shell shocked potential parents making the difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy, then being confronted with a manipulating, unstable, unethical woman....who disregards the contract she signed, holds the fetus hostage, then sells herself to the highest bidder.

Either way, if she was, as she now claims, to have always been strongly pro-life, she should NEVER have entered into an agreement with an abortion clause. One would hope that anyone, offering their services as a surrogate, would do some due diligence prior to making the commitment to bring a life into the world. Anyone who has given birth, and she had done it twice, knows your hormones go off the rails. You know that the act of giving birth is like no other. Wouldn't a rational person have examined their own feelings, visualized the moment you will hand the baby over to the happy parents, wonder whether you could do that... leave the hospital without a baby in your arms...and remain sane? Wouldn't you have Googled surrogacy and discovered that an abortion clause is quite common? Those things are just basic common sense. If, after you examine your feelings, conclude you can mentally and physically do this, then you contact an agency. If there's even a tiny little doubt in your mind about fulfilling your obligations, DON'T BECOME A SURROGATE!!!

Enough
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 553,030
April 2012
Posts: 2,637
Layouts: 0

Posted: 3/9/2013 1:19:49 PM

Mrs. T, I know you don't believe it and you will defend to the death and get in your last word but you owe people apologies.

Actually Batya, I was hoping to see you apologize on this thread where somebody is calling for you to own your part in another tiff you started with Mrs.Tyler.


ETA: It was Somepea near the bottom of page 1.





Deigh PEA
G'ma to five adorable grandkids!

PeaNut 124,219
January 2004
Posts: 7,338
Layouts: 0
Loc: Louisiana

Posted: 3/9/2013 1:33:32 PM
I think if a surrogate mother offers (even though she's paid to do so) to carry a couple's baby, then that is what she is paid to do. The couple shouldn't force her to have an abortion and if they want to give the baby up at birth, that's certainly their right. But to me, they paid for a child and they should love it no matter what disabilities the baby has. No parent is guaranteed a healthy child (whether giving birth to the baby or having a surrogate).

People wants children but want to "throw them away" at the first sign of being imperfect. Sad. I really feel sorry for that child and hope that whoever is raising the baby is taking excellent care of said child.


Don't worry about the people in your past; there's a reason why they didn't make it to your future.

Facebook is like jail. You sit around all day wasting time, writing on walls and if your not careful you'll get poked.


ScrapWench*
Seems a pity to miss such a good pudding.

PeaNut 247,139
February 2006
Posts: 18,899
Layouts: 0
Loc: Spokane, WA

Posted: 3/9/2013 1:45:35 PM

You both have made similar jabs at my career as well, so it's actually pretty funny watching you pick apart my comments and act as if you are so much better.

Until your snotty comment about my professional abilities, I had never said anything about your amazingly bad spelling(for a teacher). I don't attack other peas' professions because I would not like to be attacked about mine. How I do my job (which I am quite good at) is completely separate from my pea-ness (ok that sounds weird).

And frankly, you are like a dog with a bone. You claim to be "passionate!1!" about a topic, but it certainly doesn't come across that way. To ME, you seem condescending and snotty and unwilling and/or unable to see anybody's side but your own narrow view. And as if by sheer word vomit by you, you will ram your point down our throats. I guess I should be used to it by now.


----Theresa

Edgy Coolness
PeaFixture

PeaNut 365,853
March 2008
Posts: 3,514
Layouts: 0
Loc: Dallas, Texas

Posted: 3/9/2013 6:58:50 PM
I-95: I your posts! I'm glad someone else was able to see past the that the bio-parents wanted to uphold their contract with it's vague abortion clause since they were already dealing with 2 disabled children and offered to pay her for her time but that she had ulterior motives from the beginning and she was and always has been PRO-LIFE even knowing that was one of the stipulations of the contract.

One thing though, Crystal Kelley was not and never has been the legal Parent of Baby S, she is listed on the Michigan Birth Certificate as Mother with the name of the Father left blank and legally signed over Baby S for adoption less than a month after her birth, so she did not ever plan to keep Baby S and raise her. In every story I've read because Crystal Kelley asked for the 15K and they refused and once a legal abortion was not viable, the bio-father stated that upon birth the child would be given to the State for care which Crystal Kelley now claims is the reason she sought help from family and friends ( Blog post 3/8/13 ) to "kidnap" the fetus inside her to Michigan where SHE could choose how Baby S would be raised and by who.

I truly believe Crystal Kelley did what she did out of spite because they didn't offer her more than the 10K and it really would not have matter how much they would have been willing to give her (she might have had the abortion but she would have gone to the media anyway)and she was going to do *exactly* what she wanted with "her baby."

Again I feel extremely sad for her children, the bio-family and especially the bio-dad considering he has made arrangements to see the child multiple times (I think he would have eventually *won* the argument to dump the kid on the State with his wife) and that he along with his wife have visited Baby S in the care of her adoptive parents because there is no doubt in my mind that once Baby S even with her profound disabilities was given to her bio-father, she would have been loved and taken care of by that man because she is HIS GENETIC CHILD.











leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,257
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 3/9/2013 11:16:28 PM

Either way, if she was, as she now claims, to have always been strongly pro-life, she should NEVER have entered into an agreement with an abortion clause.


In all honesty, I agree with you. The couple would have been better off with a surrogate who shared their beliefs.

If she had this on her blog right from the beginning, then it sounds like the couple didn't check her out very well.




One thing though, Crystal Kelley was not and never has been the legal Parent of Baby S, she is listed on the Michigan Birth Certificate as Mother with the name of the Father left blank and legally signed over Baby S for adoption less than a month after her birth....

That's interesting. I wonder about the legality of putting a baby up for adoption without the father's consent.


So many difficult questions.






If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.


< 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Show/Hide Icons . Show/Hide Signatures
Hide
{{ title }}
{{ icon }}
{{ body }}
{{ footer }}