| |
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,081
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
 |  Posted: 3/9/2013 9:41:22 AM
The exact same argument can be made for women in other circumstances who choose to abort. Do you show them as much understanding?
Actually, yes I do understand their tough situations and if you've ever read anything I've posted to a woman struggling with this issue, I feel I have been compassionate in my response. The fact that I know 100% that abortion ends a human life and that I really dislike abortion does not mean I can't understand the struggle of the woman facing that situation. And again, I have never advocated for overturning Roe V Wade, but rather give society a heart change so that there are fewer abortions taking place in our country. | |
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,578
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
BucketHead
PeaNut 553,030
April 2012
Posts: 515
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 four adorable grandkids!
PeaNut 124,219
January 2004
Posts: 7,271
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: 18,708
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.
|
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,081
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 3/9/2013 8:12:39 PM
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.
I hadn't read her blog and if this was the case, she was not a good candidate for being a surrogate. But hindsight is 20/20. We can't go "undo" what was done. I'm betting she thought she'd never have to deal with the situation that arose and falsely assumed that part of the contract wouldn't be necessary.
I'm sorry that I wasn't clear that my "dis" on Wenchie's occupation was made tongue in cheek in response to her over exaggeration regarding how many posts I had made to the thread and her snotty attitude towards everything I post. I didn't intend for her to take it as a real slam since I was responding to her exaggerations and bossiness.
Yes, I suck at spelling. Most of it happens when I quickly type on my iPad. When I create documents and activities for my students and send out communication with staff and parents, I am very thorough in checking my spelling and grammar. I can distinguish between a quick casual response on a message board vs. communication with staff, students, and parents.
As for Batya, I do feel a lawyer should not be making statements equating the US Constitution with an unenforceable private contract between citizens that we do not know the full details of. | |
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,593
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.
| |
|
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,578
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 3/10/2013 4:35:04 AM
If she had this on her blog right from the beginning, then it sounds like the couple didn't check her out very well.
No, she had it on her blog AFTER the fact, after she had tried to negotiate a higher payment to have an abortion, and was turned down. She then claimed she had missed the part of the contract where it said she would agree to an abortion if their were significant medical issues. She didn't mention it before she got pregnant. As I said before, I suspect she saw it, and despite her pro-life convictions, just ignored it because what she was really doing it for was the money.
She had been rejected as a surrogate prior to signing on with this couple. Maybe she figured it was better to just agree with everything and be chosen as a surrogate, regardless of what the contract said, so she could get on with being paid for her services.
After spending several hours reading her blog entries, I got the strong impression she viewed surrogacy as a quick/easy way to make money, without actually going out to work at a real job. In which case, it's not too surprising that she modified her persona to meet the needs of potential sponsors/parents/deep wallets. Everything about this woman, and the choices she made, smacks of of someone who is devoid of morals and ethics. She reminds me of an alley cat. | |
|
Edgy Coolness
PeaFixture
PeaNut 365,853
March 2008
Posts: 3,514
Layouts: 0
Loc: Dallas, Texas
| Posted: 3/10/2013 12:25:26 PM
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 23,526
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
Posted: 3/9/2013 8:12:39 PM
I hadn't read her blog and if this was the case, she was not a good candidate for being a surrogate. But hindsight is 20/20. We can't go "undo" what was done. I'm betting she thought she'd never have to deal with the situation that arose and falsely assumed that part of the contract wouldn't be necessary.
And THAT is you problem 99.9999% of the time. I-95 posted directly from Crystal Kelley's blog,Surrogate Insanity, and as usual you made your extremely opinionated comment based on your very "black and white" personal views based on your fundamentalist religious beliefs and one of them being you are fully on board with the extremist Pro-Life Personhood belief and fully committed to overturning a woman's right to a legal abortion which you stated at the beginning of the thread when you were trying to equate gun laws with the right to a legal medical abortion is government interference and you have posted them enough that nearly all the Peas know them.
Now page 7 of this thread you claim:
Mrs_Tyler
Posted: 3/9/2013 9:41:22 AM
***
The fact that I know 100% that abortion ends a human life and that I really dislike abortion does not mean I can't understand the struggle of the woman facing that situation. And again, I have never advocated for overturning Roe V Wade, but rather give society a heart change so that there are fewer abortions taking place in our country.
Seriously?
Not only do I NOT believe you, I think that now that information given by Crystal Kelley on her blog (and it is making the rounds on those conservie blogs)shows she is not the "poster-child" Christian Pro-Life advocate -- she made a point of saying "she" IS NOT a Christian but has hobbled together a set of quasi-religious beliefs that supports her lifestyle choices -- that could be politically used to show how women are forced to abort their babies against their will and you're backing off your opinionated belief of Crystal Kelley's rights in this situation and the rights of other women to access to a legal, medical abortion when it is necessary.
Of course, maybe, just maybe, you are finally realizing that there is a difference between having strong opinions and being extremely opinionated when you don't have all the "facts" and others are telling you that you are wrong. That or your account was hacked.
|
|
|
Simply_Lovely
PeaFixture
PeaNut 463,295
April 2010
Posts: 3,309
Layouts: 3
Loc: New York City
 | Posted: 3/10/2013 2:07:59 PM
As for Batya, I do feel a lawyer should not be making statements equating the US Constitution with an unenforceable private contract between citizens that we do not know the full details of.
First of all, as a non-lawyer, please do not tell lawyers what they should and shouldn't do.
Second of all, even as a non-lawyer you should understand how all contracts arise out of the principles, rules and statements in the Constitution. Something does not need to be explicitly in the Constitution to be constitutional. As a social studies teacher you should really know better. |
 
Meow! | |
|
|
SuzastampinCTMH
PeaFixture
PeaNut 157,667
July 2004
Posts: 3,800
Layouts: 15
Loc: Upstate NY
| Posted: 3/10/2013 4:04:18 PM
I haven't read all 7 pages on this thread, but here's my conclusions.
Did she do it to help another woman have a baby? Possibly
Did she do it for the money? Probably
Is she Pro Life? Doubtful, as she would have done it for $15,000, just not for $10,000
Did she sell the baby for the highest bid or for what she could get? Probably since she didn't keep it and raise it, and probably didn't want to deal with the baby's health issues. |
|
|
Nightowl scrapper
Intl Assoc of Epic Length Posters - USA Chapter
PeaNut 103,889
August 2003
Posts: 24,823
Layouts: 0
Loc: Colorado
| Posted: 3/10/2013 4:31:39 PM
Did she sell the baby for the highest bid or for what she could get? Probably since she didn't keep it and raise it, and probably didn't want to deal with the baby's health issues.
You really think there's a smokin' hot adoption market for special needs babies with serious and costly health issues and short life expectancies? I seriously doubt she 'sold' the baby, or that she had multiple 'bids'.
I do have concerns about a known father who does not have to sign off the adoption, although he seemed to have made it clear he and his wife didn't want the baby as opposed to the Army sgt who fought for his for almost 2 years. It raises some troubling issues that ought to be sorted out along with all the other weird legalities that arise from this case.
It appears she found a loving adoptive home that wanted her and if so, that is a good outcome for the innocent baby in all this mess, regardless of how badly the adults behaved. |
"Until you put a thought into words, clearly and precisely, it is not a thought at all. It is a kind of fog rolling around inside the skull."
| |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,081
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 3/10/2013 4:40:54 PM
First of all, as a non-lawyer, please do not tell lawyers what they should and shouldn't do.
I will remember this when any non-teacher pea tries to tell a teacher what they should and shouldn't do.
If I ever need a lawyer for a purpose that one of my lawyer family members cannot provide, I'll be looking for one that doesn't equate an unenforceable and flawed private contract with the document that serves as the framework for our entire government and the highest law of the land. But you can certainly choose for yourself the traits you desire in a lawyer you hire. In this opinion we'll have to agree to disagree. | |
|
SuzastampinCTMH
PeaFixture
PeaNut 157,667
July 2004
Posts: 3,800
Layouts: 15
Loc: Upstate NY
| Posted: 3/10/2013 5:18:34 PM
Did she sell the baby for the highest bid or for what she could get? Probably since she didn't keep it and raise it, and probably didn't want to deal with the baby's health issues.
You really think there's a smokin' hot adoption market for special needs babies with serious and costly health issues and short life expectancies? I seriously doubt she 'sold' the baby, or that she had multiple 'bids'.
I do have concerns about a known father who does not have to sign off the adoption, although he seemed to have made it clear he and his wife didn't want the baby as opposed to the Army sgt who fought for his for almost 2 years. It raises some troubling issues that ought to be sorted out along with all the other weird legalities that arise from this case.
It appears she found a loving adoptive home that wanted her and if so, that is a good outcome for the innocent baby in all this mess, regardless of how badly the adults behaved.
I didn't say how high the bid was. It could have been a nominal amount, but she didn't have much of a choice since she overplayed her hand with the parents.
And, yes, there are people who will pay to adopt a disabled child. They are desperate to be parents but don't qualify under normal adoption standards, whether it be their age, or other circumstances. I am glad that a family was found to take care of this precious little one.
I, too, am surprised that the father didn't have to sign off on the adoption. |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,081
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 3/10/2013 5:25:18 PM
She did not sell the child to the highest bidder. She put the baby up for adoption through an adoption agency that works with special needs babies. I don't think she is devoid of morals or ethics. I think she made a poor ethical choice in signing a contract with elements she morally objected to. Being pro life, I am glad she did not abort. I am glad that the little girl was adopted by a loving family who is caring for her and giving her lots of love. | |
|
Darcy_Collins
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 514,615
July 2011
Posts: 2,120
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 3/11/2013 12:41:49 PM
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
This is totally inaccurate. The entire reason the woman went to Michigan is that the state is extremely clear on surrogacy - it INVALIDATES it:
all surrogacy agreements, regardless of the sexual orientation of the individuals involved, are prohibited by law in Michigan
The reason she's listed on the birth certificate and is ABLE to sign Baby S over is that she was the recognized legal mother at birth.
My admittedly cursory understanding of Michigan adoption law is that as the mother was not married to the father - he could have contested the adoption within 21 days if he wanted custody of the child, but otherwise did not need to formally participate in the adoption process there.
| |
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,593
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 3/11/2013 9:52:26 PM
My admittedly cursory understanding of Michigan adoption law is that as the mother was not married to the father - he could have contested the adoption within 21 days if he wanted custody of the child, but otherwise did not need to formally participate in the adoption process there.
Thank you Darcy.
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,578
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 3/12/2013 12:31:44 AM
My admittedly cursory understanding of Michigan adoption law is that as the mother was not married to the father - he could have contested the adoption within 21 days if he wanted custody of the child, but otherwise did not need to formally participate in the adoption process there.
That's pretty stunning! So is what you're saying, any pregnant woman who is not married to the baby's father, but doesn't want him to have custody of his own flesh and blood, can run off to MI. hide for 3 weeks, and have the door legally slammed on the birth father's wishes? That's a terrible thing to do.
ETA: I found this on a MI attorney's website...
It is true that the law provides that a mother can terminate her pregnancy without the father’s consent. It is not true that a mother can give a child up for adoption without the biological father's consent and/or that she can avoid the biological father exercising any rights unless she chooses to keep the child. A father’s parental rights are substantial and are protected under the Due Process clauses of both the Michigan and the United States Constitutions.
*************
Is it possible he was consulted and waived his parental rights? Or the Ms. Kelley filed to terminate his parental rights based on the fact he wanted her to abort, and then said he was going to turn the baby over to the State anyway?
| |
|
Darcy_Collins
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 514,615
July 2011
Posts: 2,120
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 3/12/2013 2:51:49 AM
That's pretty stunning! So is what you're saying, any pregnant woman who is not married to the baby's father, but doesn't want him to have custody of his own flesh and blood, can run off to MI. hide for 3 weeks, and have the door legally slammed on the birth father's wishes? That's a terrible thing to do.
No - that sounds more like Utah (where rights of unmarried fathers are truly stunning).
Notice is required in Michigan - so you can't hide, but if the father doesn't show up within the 21 days wanting custody of the child, the court will terminate his rights so the adoption can proceed.
Michigan Adoption Process | |
|
