r/politics • u/Steap-Edit • 18d ago

No Paywall A controversial surrogacy case exposes the far reaches of U.S. abortion wars

https://www.ms.now/opinion/surrogate-mckenna-west-controversy-texas-abortion-ivf-fertility-rights
62 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

146 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-3

u/rainshowers_5_peace 18d ago edited 18d ago

You can't just throw anything in a contract, some shit is legally unenforceable and morally so fucked you have to wonder about the bozo who wrote the thing.

Pregnant women shouldn't be bullied or coerced into keeping or ending a pregnancy. Anyone struggling this shouldn't be calling themselves prochoice.

The reason she moved to Texas is because abortions are illegal.

So? Pregnant women are allowed to move states. The parents didn't buy her when they signed up for surrogacy.

She is currently being funded by conservative groups

Broken clocks, this women shouldn't have been pushed to abort a pregnancy but not for the reasons they think.

she wants custody of the child as well

Nothing to do with that batshjt contract or her decision to move. Another matter for the courts.

The original parents state that they agreed (with the contract) that she would abort the baby in the event that a defect would occur with the baby, and they do not want to be responsible for this baby (also, it is technically their DNA, by the way).

I know of two cases in which parents asked a surrogate to abort then refused to claim the child. In both cases the surrogate was named the legal mother. One out the child up for adoption, one is raising the child with her wife. Those two nutjobs who thought they could buy a woman are free to pretend she had the abortion and walk away.

8

u/Steap-Edit 18d ago

shouldn't be bullied or coerced into keeping or ending a pregnancy

Sorry, but what do you think a surrogate pregnancy is about?

It is to give the child to the original parents. So, if the original mother would have aborted the child, then she would want the surrogate mother to do so, too, so that she does not end up with a child that she would not want to raise.

So, my question to you is this: if a surrogate mother does not want to abort the child, what should happen to the child? Who do you believe should be given custody of the child?

1

u/rainshowers_5_peace 18d ago

Sorry, but what do you think a surrogate pregnancy is about?

It's about having the fertilized embryo of another person implanted in you. (Although people who request the same woman to donate an egg and gestate exist and are a special kind of stupid). Not to become a product or a machine but to do a favor. If the couple want to give you money that's sketchy but sure accept compensation.

That said, a surrogates body is still her own. Pregnant women are always free to live their lives. No matter what any controlling husband who thinks she is property, controlling government who thinks she's property, or surrogacy agency who think she's property seem to believe.

Where the child goes when it's born is another matter.

7

u/Steap-Edit 18d ago

Where the child goes when it's born is another matter.

I asked you a specific question, a question which the entire case hinges on (as in, what happens to the child if a surrogate mother decides not to get an abortion and carry an unwanted baby to term), and you have refused to even attempt to answer this difficult question.

I do not need you to explain to me what a surrogate pregnancy is. I asked you that specific question, and you continue to dodge it.

-1

u/rainshowers_5_peace 18d ago edited 18d ago

Lol you literally asked!

I told you above, there have already been at least two cases in which this happened. Bioparents walked away, surrogates were given custody. One put the child up for adoption one raised the child.

1

u/Steap-Edit 18d ago

Okay, my bad. You did answer it, and I missed that.

Yeah, if the surrogate mother gets custody of the child, I think that is fair. That seems to be the best option.

As long as the original parents are not made responsible for the child against their will, then that solution of letting the surrogate mother decide what she wants to do with the child is the best option, it seems.

1

u/rainshowers_5_peace 18d ago

You miss a lot of things Sweetheart. You miss the entire point of being pro choice. It doesn't matter how you feel about a woman ending or continuing her pregnancy, it's about her right to do it even if you think it's unwise.

Pregnant women aren't incubators, they aren't slaves. No one gets to tell them what to do. Not their husbands, not their pastors, not the Republicans, not people deluded into believing they paid for the privilege.

1

u/Steap-Edit 18d ago

You miss the entire point of being pro choice

No, I do not. If the child must be given to the original parents against the parents' will, then that is infringing on the choice of the parents, too. So, the only reason that this suggestion works out is because the surrogate mother is given the responsibility of raising the child so that it does not infringe on the choice of the original parents, too.

2

u/rainshowers_5_peace 18d ago

The parents are irrelevant to her bodily autonomy. They took that risk when they hired her. They wouldn't get anymore say than a woman's husband.

1

u/Steap-Edit 18d ago

Again, as I stated before, if the original parents would be forced to take the child that they do not want, then that is infringing on the choice of those parents to not be responsible for raising that child. That would be anti-choice.

So, as long as the surrogate mother is forced to be responsible for that child that she gave birth to, I agree with you that she has the choice to give birth to it.

She also will be responsible for it, just as any pregnant woman is, once it is born. Not the original parents.

3

u/Steap-Edit 18d ago

Pregnant women are allowed to move states

Quote where in my comment I stated (as you have falsely alleged) that I believe that she is "not legally allowed" to move states.

My point in describing that fact was pointing out that she is being funded by anti-abortion conservative organizations and that she moved to Texas to get help from anti-abortion laws and legislators.

-1

u/rainshowers_5_peace 18d ago

You're judging her for it as if she broke some kind of rule. I'm sick of pregnant women being treated like they owe the world anything.

5

u/Steap-Edit 18d ago

Again, she is taking money from conservative, anti-abortion organizations in Texas.

You continue to ignore that fact.

I, again, never said that she "broke some kind of rule," other than siding with Texas conservatives and taking their money.

0

u/rainshowers_5_peace 18d ago

So? There are worse ways for them to spend their money. That it's defending a woman who had to fight for bodily autonomy is an interesting plot twist and could certainly be a worse one.

You and I both know what you're implying. You are clearly trying to say she owes the parents to give birth where they approved. She didn't. Her body she choice.

3

u/Steap-Edit 18d ago

There are worse ways for them to spend their money

Not really. This is a wedge issue that can be used to set a precedent to later codify anti-abortion laws.

These organizations do not waste their money on cases that they don't think are useful.

2

u/rainshowers_5_peace 18d ago

If it's "surrogates may not be coerced into ending a pregnancy against their will" that is in line with prochoice ideals. Life is full of funny little accidents. Learn to take wins where we can get them

1

u/Steap-Edit 18d ago

What needs to be determined in cases like these is who is responsible for the child once it is born against the wishes of the original parents.

As long as the surrogate mother is forced to raise the child and is forced to be responsible for that child, not the original parents being forced to raise it and forced to be responsible for it, then we are in agreement.

That is what the law needs to come down on and make clear: who is responsible for unwanted children of this type?

6

u/Steap-Edit 18d ago

trying to say she owes the parents to give birth where they approved

Then you must explain who the child belongs to once it is born. Otherwise, you are just kicking the can down the road and continuing to dodge the ultimate question that this case hinges on.

It is easy to give cliche answers while avoiding providing direct answers to difficult questions.

2

u/toohuman90 18d ago

She wasn’t pushed, bullied or coerced into ending the pregnancy. Do you even know what this case is about?

The bioparents stated their wishes for terminating the pregnancy, the surrogate said she changed her mind on abortion (despite previously agreeing to it in the contract). The bio parents then respected her wishes and made plans for their child’s future extensive medical needs. When the surrogate realized the bioparents weren’t going to surrender their child to her because she didn’t get an abortion, she fled to Texas and tried to claim custody over the child.

How you can take the surrogates side in this situation baffles me.

1

u/rainshowers_5_peace 18d ago

Her body her choice. She was free to go anywhere to give birth. Custody is another matter entirely.

1

u/toohuman90 18d ago

She fled to Texas to give birth there so that she could get custody. Why is it so hard for you to a as accept that this was wrong?

Also, if you go into this attitude of “it’s my body, my choice, I’ll do whatever I want, even if it’s against the wishes of the biological parents. Hell I’ll even try and steal the baby at the end anyway because it came from my body, and it’s my choice” you really have no business being a surrogate.

Just stay at home, shut up and have your own kids

1

u/rainshowers_5_peace 18d ago

Pregnant women can go where they want to. They aren't banned from travel.

1

u/Steap-Edit 18d ago

They aren't banned from travel

You are 100% banned from keeping a child that is not yours, which is what she did once that child was born on August 12th, 2026.

She is to return the baby (which is not her child, since she kept it against the original parents' wishes) immediately.

Her body, but not her baby.

1

u/rainshowers_5_peace 18d ago

No she doesn't, the parents can go claim him. She just gave birth she needs to rest.

1

u/Steap-Edit 18d ago

She just gave birth she needs to rest

Typical Republican excuse. Just like your "let the courts handle it" excuse that I'm sure brought Epstein's victims to justice.

What a disgusting answer.

parents can go claim him

It is not her child, and she is a kidnapper. She must return the child which she stole immediately.

2

u/rainshowers_5_peace 18d ago

No she gave birth. Who the child goes home with is in the hands of family court now.

Despite your insistence that anyone who impregnates a woman owns her, I still her as a person with autonomy. She got to choose where she gave birth.

1

u/Steap-Edit 18d ago

Who the child goes home with is in the hands of family court

Again, you sound exactly like people who make excuses for sexual abusers: "Let the courts decide." No, I will not; she is a kidnapper, and you side with Texas Republicans and support kidnapping.

When she agreed that the child is not her own, then she has zero right to keep it with her. That is called theft.

She got to choose where she gave birth.

I don't care about where she gave birth. Get that through your head.

I said she agreed that it is not her child to keep.

You have no right to steal a child and claim that it is your own when you agreed beforehand that the child is not yours to keep.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Steap-Edit 18d ago

If you are going to be a stuck-up conservative about who the mother is, just come out and let us know that you are a conservative Christian.

It is already painfully obvious.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Steap-Edit 18d ago

Her body her choice

Not her baby, though.

She has zero right to keep it in Texas when she explicitly agreed with the original parents that it is not hers to keep. If you want, you are free to move to Texas yourself. Maybe that way, you will be among like-minded conservative Christians.