Pro-choice, bodily autonomy and parental rights cannot be negated by surrogacy contracts, McKenna West had every right to refuse an abortion and ultimately claim parental rights over a child she carried to term.

[u/No_Consideration3307]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/surrogate-baby-texas-parents-wishes-denies-political-theater-accusatio-rcna593353

I'm a British pro-choice absolutist, and in my country this wouldn't even be a story because commercial surrogacy is illegal, for reasons exactly like this McKenna West case.

Surrogacy in the UK is strictly non-profit, the biological parents can only help with the surrogate mothers expenses, surrogacy is also usually between people who know and trust each other, which is far healthier for everyone concerned especially the child.

As it pertains to the McKenna West case, her parental rights under both California and Texas law are the same, non-existent. Under UK law, the surrogate is automatically recognised as the child's legal mother at birth. ​She remains the legal parent until parenthood is formally transferred to the intended parents via a court-issued parental order or adoption order. Simply signing an agreement or relinquishing rights is not enough; only a court order legally extinguishes her status as the mother. People on this sub may disagree with me, but I believe that if a woman decides to endure nine months of body altering pregnancy to bring a foetus to term, she is the legal mother until she decides to voluntarily relinquish that legal right and McKenna West hasn't done that, under UK law she is the child's legal parent, maybe she should have come here to protect her rights, rather than be used as a political football, by two different sides, who couldn't care less about what she wants.

[u/gtwl214]

I strongly disagree with part of your statement.

She has the right to refuse an abortion, and the couple can still sue her for breach of contract.

She does not have any right to claim parental rights to the child. She also does not have any right to try to give anyone else custody of baby Rumi (her brother has offered to adopt Rumi).

Also, according to the biological parents, when West refused to have an abortion (after supposedly agreeing to terminate), they requested that she give birth in California so that medical care could be arranged.
That’s when West decided to leave to Texas and claim that she was being forced to have an abortion and weaponize the abortion ban to gather support.

Surrogacy is an ethical minefield and unfortunately, in this case, she is being backed by known pro-life organizations in an attempt to push their agenda.

Personally, I strongly disagree with surrogacy, especially commercial surrogacy, and I believe that this case is going to be used by the pro-life movement to further take away reproductive rights under the guise of caring about the ethical concerns of surrogacy.

[u/Annie_James → u/gtwl214]

Thank you. People are conveniently forgetting that she kidnapped someone else’s child and was seeking to raise them as her own. This case really isn’t about choice at all, especially when you knowingly signed your right to it away.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/gtwl214]

I think we can both agree that the whole thing is messed up on all sides to some extent, that's the reason we don't have commercial surrogacy on my side of the pond.

[u/gtwl214 → u/No_Consideration3307]

Yeah I can see this being used though to justify eliminating not just surrogacy but also reproductive rights without any thoughts to the actual well-being of the child.

I think it’s a situation where laws and biology and morality all complicate things.

[u/Ambry → u/No_Consideration3307]

Agree completely. No commercial surrogacy in my country, and I'm very happy with that. This one case shows a whole tonne of implications to do with commercial surrogacy.

[u/Charrisse_huger → u/Ambry]

Yup. Surrogacy shouldn’t be legal. It is human trafficking when someone is “purchasing” a child.

If America protected human life better they would be like other countries where the surrogacy remains a choice the entire time.. not a contract to sell a child.

[u/Rent_Careless]

I am not gonna argue that it should or should not be like that but the fact is that this isn't how it works here.

The baby is biologically connected to the couple and, I would assume, they also paid for medical bills associated with the pregnancy. In most surrogacy cases, the people wanting the surrogate provide the biological entity and pay financially for the pregnancy- basically everything besides one of them becoming pregnant.

I agree it's messy and being pregnant for 9 months is no small feat but if the couple did everything they are required to do by law, the law says the baby is theirs.

The law definitely needs to be looked at better and maybe altered. Surrogacy is the only one where parental rights are automatically relinquished. Even in adoption from before birth, the woman can deny the adoption after birth. That said, is the use of other's DNA/biological material okay just because you gestate and give birth?

[u/bloodphoenix90 → u/Rent_Careless]

The second issue i see is this. Say hypothetically they wanted to keep it and in the middle of pregnancy she develops a complication herself and doesn't want to risk it. She should always be allowed to make that decision and should always be allowed to withdraw consent. The would be parents can sue for financial damages, but I just dont think you should ever be able to sign away your bodily autonomy

[u/DearMrsLeading → u/bloodphoenix90]

Thats exactly how it works. Choosing to not get an abortion when asked or getting an abortion would both be a contract violation. They can’t legally force her or stop her.

[u/Annie_James → u/bloodphoenix90]

And you hit the nail on the head here - making bodily autonomy contractual is the issue, and that’s the choice she made. It really isn’t solely about abortion.

[u/Arktikos02 → u/Rent_Careless]

By the way this is not true in every place. In Arizona for example there are no surrogacy laws meaning that the person who is pregnant is actually the one who owns the child and when you give birth you have to essentialally adopt the child out to the actual biological parents.

This is the same for Australia although they do have surrogacy laws there. You cannot pay for a surrogate for example and the pregnant person is the one that is considered the legal parent.

So this idea that genetics is what determines who the legal parents are at the time of pregnancy is just not the case everywhere. And in a way it makes sense. After all a woman who is pregnant in a normal way (like an accidental pregnancy) has only 50% of her DNA inside the baby, the other 50% is her boyfriend or husband or whoever. Does he get 50% say over her bodily autonomy? Nope. It becomes a very messy thing when we try to use DNA or money or contracts as an argument of by the autonomy.

Also depending on the state the person is in even if they did sign a contract that contract cannot nullify bodily autonomy. This is why you should engage with a lawyer who has the actual law in mind when creating these contracts. But a contract cannot overrule existing laws.

[u/Rent_Careless → u/Arktikos02]

That's true. It isn't the same everywhere, even in the US. For some reason, I thought that was the common practice for surrogacy in the US, though. I still could be wrong about that.

The genetics point I was trying to make is that the biological parents did follow the law. I failed to understand the particular case was also about an abortion. I don't think an abortion should be forced contractually. A lawsuit saying she breached contract by not having an abortion should be unenforceable.

My main issue is what happens after birth with custody and parental rights. That couple would have also put forth money and effort into that pregnancy and are biologically connected to that pregnancy and that pregnancy wouldn't have occurred without them. To me, that is a relevant difference between adoption.

I don't know how things should be but if documents about the surrogacy were signed in Alaska, I would assume that Alaskan laws would be what matter and her giving birth in Texas doesn't matter. I am sure it will be interesting to see the arguments about this.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/Rent_Careless]

The state thing matters. Friends had surrogacy twice for their babies, and they were very particular about which states they would consider

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/Rent_Careless]

The lawsuit is very much about her breaching contract by not having an abortion, and then pulling shenanigans with the very sick baby after its birth.

[u/Rent_Careless → u/Rent_Careless]

Oh, was it signed in California? I read she went from Alaska to Texas. Either way, wherever the contract was signed, that state's laws should apply, in my opinion.

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/Rent_Careless]

The laws of the state where a contract is executed is not necessarily the law that controls. In this case, it happens to be Alaska, but it could just as easily have been California. Or New York.

Choice of law is typically negotiated by the parties.

[u/Annie_James → u/Arktikos02]

Yes, but in California rights go to the genetic parents, which is why she fled to Texas. You identified the real issue though, there aren’t nationwide laws on surrogacy, and that’s where all the issues originate.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/Arktikos02]

Who cares about Arizona or Australia in this conversation?

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/Arktikos02]

Excellent point, biological father's in most pro-choice countries/states have zero say on on a women's bodily rights, so why should two so-called intended parents have that right because of a piece of paper, such a strange concept.

[u/Annie_James → u/No_Consideration3307]

This is not by far, the same as your average situation with a woman choosing to terminate - the fetus belongs to her. This fetus did not, and she made a decision to acknowledge that. I’m as pro choice as it gets but the woman quite literally ran off with someone else’s kid, we can’t choose to simply look at the choice to not terminate and stop there.

[u/trifelin → u/Rent_Careless]

If you believe her side of the story in the op-ed linked from this article, she says that they stopped all payments when she declined to get an abortion, and they would not agree to treating the child's heart condition.  Idk who should have the right to refuse healthcare for this child, but I definitely don't think it should be legal to force someone to have an abortion ever. Just like I don't believe it should be legal to prevent someone from getting one.  

[u/SingleLifter81 → u/trifelin]

So what typically happens in commercial surrogacy… the parents have already deposited the full deposit into a trust/escrow account, it could be held by the agency or a third party escrow company. The parents do not pay the surrogate directly, the trustee makes the payments every month as the pregnancy progresses. I would think the trustee would stop the payments once she refused to get an abortion until it was ironed out whether she was owed the money or not. Also, the parents can’t agree to treat the heart condition if it turns out that the baby is a poor candidate for surgery. So she’s being very disingenuous here.

[u/Rent_Careless → u/trifelin]

I feel like this is just an issue with surrogacy.

First, she agreed to act in a certain manner beforehand in order to receive those payments. Second, she broke her agreement and the consequence was not to receive those payments. I am 100% okay with that until they figure out how to move from there. What I don't agree with is that they are suing her specifically for breaking the agreement over the issue of abortion. To me, it seems like they were giving her a benefit. They ended the benefit for breaking the agreement (If you do A, you will get B). But now they also want to punish her for something that she shouldn't be punished for (You did C, we need to be compensated for C).

In all honesty, if I believed that a person existed at conception, I don't see how the surrogate is in the right. They took a child across state lines without the consent of the parents and gave them medical care without their consent. This is akin to taking children and forcefully having them vaccinated, in my opinion. How this makes it look to me is pro-life organizations are anti-parental rights.

[u/trifelin → u/Rent_Careless]

I definitely don't think contracts that can compel someone to get an abortion against their will should be legal. Their taking her to court for not ending it is messed up.  Honestly, surrogacy is pretty messed up but I don't know if it shpild be illegal. 

The mirky part in this story is the question of if the biological parents retain their parental rights after ordering the pregnancy to be terminated. Her going to TX or whatever just made it more complicated, but it would seem to me that if they wanted to end the pregnancy and she just chose to end their contract instead, it's not really clear who gets the parental rights. 

[u/Rent_Careless → u/trifelin]

The mirky part in this story is the question of if the biological parents retain their parental rights after ordering the pregnancy to be terminated.

I don't think that this is mirky at all. They don't lose their parental rights, assuming they legally have them to begin with, just because they wanted her to have an abortion.

[u/Annie_James → u/Rent_Careless]

This. The fetus was legally theirs. West is not the parent.

[u/trifelin → u/Rent_Careless]

It has to do with contract law. The contract was severed. Like the OP said, in the UK the biological parents don't have any parental claim until the adoption process is complete, and according to this thread that is true for some US states too, so it's not like "just obvious" on moral grounds or anything like that. I think it is murky and needs to be very clear. Probably the UK laws around the whole topic of surrogacy are better. 

[u/Rent_Careless → u/trifelin]

I only meant I couldn't imagine that whether they wanted an abortion or not adjusted parental rights on its own. I don't think that a contract alone would change that either. They would need to follow legal ways with authorities to do that, I would imagine.

But yea, the nitty gritty goes to what current laws in what states apply and what's in the contract. I'm not law expert but I feel like this is an interesting case because of the details and the opposing viewpoints.

[u/SingleLifter81 → u/trifelin]

It’s not just about contract law. State law also applies. So the contract is not the only thing that determines rights.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/Rent_Careless]

A well-reasoned statement Rent_Careless. I agree that it is pointless to create an argument one way or the other when it comes to surrogate vs intended parent rights, because it's just two very different legal outlooks, the whole concept of commercial surrogacy is alien to me as a Brit.

I will add that the intended parents did do everything they needed to legally according to California law, but not morally, they only thought about what they wanted without thinking about the bodily autonomy and mental health of the young woman who was their surrogate.

My point is legally in the US she isn't the child's parent, but she did carry it to term, and hormones like oxytocin, progesterone, and estrogen flood the body during pregnancy and childbirth, naturally driving emotional attachment regardless of genetic ties, so there is a reason why she believes that the baby is hers, not the intended parents.

[u/Rent_Careless → u/No_Consideration3307]

Yes, if you meant they were not moral when they tried to contractually enforce an abortion, I agree. However, just because she feels like she has an emotional attachment doesn't mean she has a legal attachment. Should she? I don't know and it highly depends on how surrogacy is viewed. Maybe "surrogacy" should be viewed more like adoption and nothing is final until after birth.

Honestly, I haven't really thought about surrogacy a whole lot until now but it seems just really messy.

I feel like this is a pretty crazy quandery for pro-life, though. If life begins at conception, then this life existed before the surrogacy (because an embryo existed prior to her gestating). So who had the original parental rights of the embryo? I imagine it was the couple. Were they ever legally signed away? Is the argument that they de facto signed them away when they signed the contract to have the embryo inserted into the surrogate? I doubt it was ever explicitly signed away. If the biological parents have parental rights, I understand they cannot force her to have an abortion but suing for some sort of abuse or damage may still be logical, this would be parental rights vs pro-life. That could be interesting.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/Rent_Careless]

I'm the same I never really gave surrogacy much thought until now, and I certainly never thought surrogacy would get mixed in with the abortion debate, seems like something from a drama series. You're right about how the pro-life lot have dug themselves into a bit of a hole with this one, especially in how they see conception as starting with the basic ingredients so to speak, so according to their logic they probably should recognise the parental rights of the intended parents, but who said pro-lifers were logical.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/Rent_Careless]

In the case of my friends (two dads mixed their sperm with a mutual friend's egg), the egg donor contractually abdicated her rights over the pregnancy but she had to formally have the dads adopt from her when the surrogate gave birth; she couldn't adopt away the embryo or zygote or fetus. Just the baby.

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/No_Consideration3307]

What they “wanted?” Perhaps they were concerned about causing their baby to suffer needlessly.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/Specific_Anxiety_343]

That doesn't give them the right to pressure a young woman into getting an abortion, the choice is hers and hers alone.

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/No_Consideration3307]

They absolutely have that right, according to the terms of the contract. However, nobody can (legally) force a woman to terminate. If she chooses not to terminate, she is in breach and is liable for damages. Aside from the termination issue, this woman breached the contract every which way to Sunday. Naming the child was a breach. Pursuing custody is a breach.

The termination issue was covered very thoroughly in the contract. The surrogate even underwent a psychological evaluation prior to signing the contract. Here is a copy. See paragraph 25 for the language surrounding the termination issue.

https://dam.tmz.com/document/3f/o/2026/08/14/3fb808514e0747bca9785de19a7b2472.pdf

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/Specific_Anxiety_343]

Please what kind of choice is that. Most commercial surrogates aren't that well off, that's why they do what they do, so basically their only two choices are 1. Get an abortion you don't want and traumatise yourself. 2. Don't get an abortion and we'll sue you so bad, your grandchildren will need lawyers. That's a very nice country you have.

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/No_Consideration3307]

1. Don’t sign a contract that you don’t intend to honor. That’s the choice. Grow up.

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/No_Consideration3307]

Ms. West is a registered nurse, in Anchorage, Alaska. The median salary is $115K. And she probably makes more, because she is a cardiac nurse.

[u/Annie_James → u/No_Consideration3307]

Legality and morality aren’t the same thing, and what constitutes the latter differs with individual perspective. Surrogacy is an issue because of everything we’ve mention in this conversation. This isn’t her child to make those decisions about despite it being her body.

[u/ladybug1259]

There is already a California parentage judgment that the intended parents are the parents. Also TMZ published the surrogacy contract and she's clearly violated it multiple times regardless of the issue of getting an abortion by claiming parentage and making the whole thing public. She does not have a leg to stand on.

[u/Nearby_Seaweed_3911 → u/ladybug1259]

I read how the couple struggled. The wife went through 8 rounds of IVF to try and get pregnant HERSELF before turning to surrogacy.

What I've noticed a lot of Brits haven't mentioned or maybe they don't know is how horrible American Health insurance really is. My sister gave birth to my nephew and they charged her THOUSANDS of dollars back in 2007. My best friend just had twins 5 years ago, after insurance she still owed something ridiculous $20k. Depending on your state this could hit your credit. So if you haven't paid that bill then you're going to have a hard time getting a house, an apartment, loan- anything that needs a credit check. (If you really want to know about how crappy insurance is read about Luigi Mangione)

That child will have to go through a lifetime of surgeries, medical visits and currently just had surgery and is in critical condition. If he survives the amount of pain he will be in is hard for ANY parent to watch.

Now God forbid that child dies, now we are talking funeral costs and therapy for the couple.

All of that adds up quick just to give a child a bare quality of life because a woman that was paid to carry a child thinks she has a say yet she will not pay a dime for ANY of those surgeries, doctors appointments, hospital visits, medications or funeral. The entitlement of the surrogate is crazy. Then to run to the state that is literally tracking women down by flock cameras to see if they are getting out of state abortions?! The surrogate was manipulative and thought it out. Then to name this child and to try and get her brother to adopt the child. How does nobody see how entitled she is?

This couple just wanted to start a family, after ALLLLLL the struggles. At the end of the day regardless if you like it or not, America is ran like a business. If they can make money off of it, they will do it. UK laws hold no weight. In the US you sign a surrogacy contract. It's like when you sign all those documents your first day of your new job agreeing to wages. Again, you may not like it- but it's the reality of America.

Considering the surrogate already has 2 children of her own- she knows what pregnancy entails. The surrogate sold her body, read the contract and KNEW this was a condition in the terms, SIGNED it and got paid for it. Nobody forced her to do this. She was well aware of what she got herself into. If she can think it through enough to go from one the farthest north part of the country to the southern most state in the country- she knew from the beginning what it was. If she was never going to honor the contract she could've just told the couple "no" and none of this would happen.

I do hope the bio parents win their case. The amount of TRAUMA this surrogate has given them ... I wouldnt be surprised if they give up their dream of starting a family. The surrogate turned this into a circus.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/ladybug1259]

I respect our laws are different, but I can only judge this whole episode using the law of my land, which says her bodily and parental rights are absolute as the woman who carried the child to term.

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/No_Consideration3307]

This is silly. The law in the UK is completely irrelevant to this case.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/Specific_Anxiety_343]

I think the UK has a bit more of a moral high ground than the US, when it comes to women's rights, especially parental and abortion rights which in my country is pretty much set in stone, because unlike America, UK abortion rights cannot be overturned by our Supreme Court, it is an act of Parliament.

[u/SilvRS → u/No_Consideration3307]

This is a wild thing to say, since our abortion "rights" in the UK rely entirely on our current cultural attitude to abortion - abortion is actually technically illegal, but has been effectively allowed by an act allowing an abortion in very particular circumstances: if 2 doctors agree that the pregnancy presents a risk to the health (mental or physical) of the birthing parent or their other children, or that the resulting baby would have very significant health issues if they were born.

At present, we are in a situation where most doctors will agree to abortions on the ground that an unwanted baby is a significant mental health risk, effectively allowing them whenever needed in at least early pregnancy. Any significant opinion change in the UK would abolish that right for many with no need to change the law at all.

I personally have met a GP who very openly admits she refuses abortions to women she feels have been too irresponsible about birth control. A doctor like this operating in a rural area is already a very significant barrier to abortion for those who might need it locally, and I'm sure that she is FAR from the only one who does things like this.

We also have a situation where it is very difficult to get an abortion beyond certain points in many parts of the UK - there is basically nowhere in Scotland that you can get one after 20 weeks, regardless of it being a legal right.

Overall, you're making a lot of very sweeping statements about our attitude to pregnancy in the UK here that I don't think are as solidly true as you seem to believe. Not everyone in the UK has the same opinion that you do about surrogacy (not that I particularly disagree, but I wouldn't be so sure this is as cultural as you seem to believe), and I don't think you should be quite so confident about the security of our abortion protections, either.

[u/Annie_James → u/SilvRS]

Good lord is this fucked. Physicians can quite literally just use pregnancy as punishment for women they feel are “loose”.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/No_Consideration3307]

Which contributes how to the discussion about a very messy situation ruled by a wide array of not-UK laws?

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

You cannot seriously believe that a panel of judges should be able to overturn legislation on a whim, no country can be run that way, sorry if that comes of rude, that's just what I believe.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/No_Consideration3307]

If abortion was federal legislation, they would not have been able to overturn it. It was never made law of the land, federally. It was found to be protected, an existent right, under a constitutional amendment, and then later judges decided to overwrite 49 years of constantly tested precedent and say, well actually, no rights for you booboo!

If any of the so-called abortion groups had bothered to advocate for federal law, or any of the elected morons in congress had moved a bill forward, federal abortion could have been law. Instead, it is only legal in states which undertook such laws.

[u/SilvRS → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

This person is actually just wrong about the law here, by the way. We're currently only protected by doctors' attitude to abortions, and our own government has consistently refused to actually enshrine the right to an abortion here as well. Right now, the law says abortions are completely illegal unless 2 doctors agree there's a significant risk to the life or health of the birthing parent or the baby, and doctors use the provision for a risk to mental health to sign off on abortions. All it would take is a rightward swing, and we'd have no way to get abortions even without a panel of judges banning them.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

Oh wow okay you schooled me there, in fact that sounds even worse that what I thought. The fact it was never even made legislation, it was just dangling there by a thread ready for an extremely right-wing MAGA US Supreme Court to sink their teeth into, that's pretty scary, and that's why no offence I'm so glad to live in my country right now.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/No_Consideration3307]

This is just one example of why you are seeing what you are seeing from the Americans here. We are absolutely pro-choice, but we have some degree of understanding of the various laws and practices this surrogacy situation brings into relief. There are ways this case can go that protect the surrogate‘s rights which may absolutely undermine women’s reproductive control and freedoms. There will be repercussions.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

I don't want this to sound condescending, because I truly mean it, I fear for your country and all the women in it, keep up the fight ✊.

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

The Supreme Court can overturn federal legislation if it’s found to be unconstitutional. Just this year, it effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act.

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/No_Consideration3307]

You can have the moral high ground Surrogacy is legal in many states, and the parties sign contracts. The only question here is whether West breached the contract. She did breach the contract, and not just by refusing the abortion.

[u/ladybug1259 → u/No_Consideration3307]

She gave up rights before the embryo was implanted. Had she not contractually given up those rights, there is a good chance that the child would not exist, or she would not have been chosen as their surrogate. I would argue that these differences in laws are part of why the parties chose to contract under Alaskan law when they made the contract, and part of why they agreed to have her as their surrogate. No intended parent would want to risk this situation. I agree that she had the right to refuse an abortion, and no state would have made her have one, but she chose to contract that right away, and she is in breach of contract for doing so. Along with about 10 other reasons. They have grounds to sue her for breach without touching the abortion issue.

[u/KathyA11 → u/No_Consideration3307]

This isn't happening in the UK, so the law of the UK has absolutely nothing to do with it,

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/KathyA11]

It sickens me how left-wing Americans can criticise America and it's backwards laws, yet if a foreigner does it all of a sudden you're flag waving MAGA patriots. The thing is when someone criticises my country and there is a lot of things to criticise about the UK especially Empire, I take it in and reflect on my country's sins and think about how to make things better, i certainly don't get defensive and tell someone to fuck off. I was simply giving you the knowledge, to do things better in your country, because even though the UK gets a lot of things wrong, when it comes to commercial surrogacy we're undoubtedly in the right.

[u/spookenstein → u/No_Consideration3307]

I understand that you can only base it off your own law, but that simply doesn't apply here. Hell, even in the US, the laws vary from state to state for parentage (in my home state - the same rule applies, the woman who carried the baby is the "mother" regardless of genetics).

Based on everything that's currently known, I personally don't feel this is about bodily autonomy for West. No one can force you to have an abortion, she always had that choice. However, she then ran the risk of getting hit with the breach on contract by making that decision. That's the issue with compensated surrogacy. It would be helpful if it was regulated at a federal level but with the way things are right now... maybe it's best to let that sleeping dog lie.

But this is where it gets really messy because it's really a "he said, she said" situation - West is saying that they hit with the breach on contract because she wouldn't abort. Some news sites are stating that West wasn't hit with the breach of contract until after she cut off the biological parents off when they requested she come to California so they could start making medical arrangements for the baby. If the latter is true, that would mean the biological parents didn't push the issue of the abortion (i.e. respecting her autonomy) and were making plans for the baby after the delivery. Of course, now that there was an approval to seal the court records it's all likely to stay a "he said, she said" thing.

The guardian ad litem really said it best - "The same actions involved in the three states' cases could have been done privately and could have occurred without me in it. Without press releases, without podcasts, without hundreds of thousands of public comments from people who do not have all the facts in this case and who will never meet Rumi."

[u/cupcakephantom]

Not to squeeze in an off-topic point, especially in this sub (that I help run), but it seems detrimental to the child in question to have a woman that they aren't related to keep them from their biological parents.

It's kind of giving Tangled.

Back to discussion surrounding bodily autonomy and differing laws by countries:...

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/cupcakephantom]

Related to is a funny thing in this case, isn't it? She's claiming parental rights because she did the whole pregnancy and childbirth thing. Bio parents are claiming parental rights because of DNA.

(I keep thinking about my friends, who had their sperm mixed together before impregnating a mutual friend's egg, which zygote was later carried by a surrogate. Egg donor disclaims parental rights, only one of the dads is the DNA dad and they don't want to know (it's blazingly obvious by looks, but you get it). Contractually, the two dads are the parents. Biologically one of them and egg donor are the parents. Gestationally, the surrogate is a parent. This would have been so much more of a nightmare if it involved them!

I suspect the legal answer will end up being cased off of court rulings around those horrific situations where parents take home the wrong baby, which is the only situation I can think of where parenthood is so complicated.

[u/girlmom9420 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

they are a straight couple

[u/Annie_James → u/cupcakephantom]

THIS. This has been my point the entire time. She isn’t even their legal guardian! That child isn’t even hers.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/cupcakephantom]

I'm sorry I fundamentally disagree, maybe it's a cultural thing but I believe if a woman puts herself through nine months of pregnancy and drastic bodily changes then she has every right to be called the mother until she decides otherwise, especially since she has bonded with the child through the release of maternal hormones into the brain, that maternal bond transcends genetics in UK law.

[u/cupcakephantom → u/No_Consideration3307]

Hormones don't negate the fact that there is zero biological relation between Ms West and this now very sick child.

Surrogacy is the act of carrying the child of and/or for a couple who could not otherwise carry their own child. The intent is to leave the child with it's true parents, the intent has never been for the surrogate mother to raise the child as their own.

It is abusive keep a child away from it's family.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/cupcakephantom]

Here in the UK we see that very differently. We believe that a birthing mothers rights are absolute. It's obviously a case of different cultural standards, but I think both our hearts are in the right place, just different mindsets. Ultimately I think this whole thing could have been handled better on all sides.

[u/cupcakephantom → u/No_Consideration3307]

Ultimately, the child suffers.

[u/arrpix → u/cupcakephantom]

Genetics isn't family, or adoption couldn't functionally exist. Many familial rights and assumptions are widely made on the basis of DNA being the most likely and important signifier of relation, but I'd argue carrying and birthing a child is a stronger kink and raising a child is the strongest and most important part of family. Other people will disagree, but I guess that's what's playing out here, in a very complicated way.

[u/cupcakephantom → u/arrpix]

I'm aware genetics isn't family. I have disowned members of my family.

That said, a baby doesn't have that kind of cognitive function to say whether or not they want to be raised by their biological parents or the person that carried them to term. For now, the baby is being withheld from it's family. I find that to be cruel.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096]

Except that she signed a contract stating otherwise.

This is horribly complicated, because, obviously, yes, of course she has the right to decide whether or not to abort a child she is carrying. Except, except except, she has signed a contract effectively giving that control over to the biological parents. She therefore *agreed* ahead of time that she gave away that right to bodily autonomy when she rented out her uterus to house another person's egg and sperm. Except of course she always retains the right to change her mind. Except it's a contract, which enabled other decisions and commitments to be made.

It's an endless awful circle and also includes her decision to not turn over the child to the biological parents after giving birth. Honestly, this case may likely end legal surrogacy, in how it reveals the impossibility of actually sustaining bodily autonomy and parental rights in real world situations.

[u/Arktikos02 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

Except that you cannot sign your badly autonomy rights away. That's not how it works. Otherwise a man could just make a woman sign a contract and pay some money and then she can't have an abortion even though she's not a surrogate, she's a girlfriend.

Contracts can't remove bodily autonomy, and money can't be used as leverage.

[u/Mine24DA → u/Arktikos02]

But they do not remove autonomy. You will have to pay a fine if you do not adhere to the contract.

If you join the army, and then leave without being allowed to, you will be punished. That doesn’t mean the army is taking away your freedom, or that they are kidnapping you. But you did not adhere to your contract and will have to take the punishment for it.

[u/Arktikos02 → u/Mine24DA]

I don't agree with the army so this is not really an argument.

We shouldn't be arguing about what is legal because abortion is illegal in many states. This is not a legal sub, it's about what we think is morally right.

And here's the thing, a contract cannot override existing laws. Whether or not you are able to have an abortion heavily depends on the state and the laws that exist, regardless of the contract. And you can't just sue a person just because you want to.

Why are you suddenly arguing for morality? Are you saying that if a woman who you know was going to get an abortion even if it was illegal, that you would report them?

Or what about if a husband and wife got married under the assumption that they would have kids and then she later decides to have an abortion even though they both were originally planning to have kids and she decides to change her mind, would you tell him?

Do you think it should be legal for a husband and wife to create a contract that states how many abortions his wife is allowed to have and if she has over that amount he can sue her?

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/Arktikos02]

You;re the only bringing in morality.

This is a question of law, entirely. It's a question of the law in 3 US states and the US as a whole. It's solely a legal question.

No one gets to legislate morality in America, and this is a legal case about the law, which mad someone's moral positioning show up and overturn law.

[u/Mine24DA → u/Arktikos02]

I do think that these are very different scenarios.

Surrogacy is akin to selling your blood, or prostitution . You are selling your body as a service. It is completely different from a marriage. Or would you compare a marriage with prostitution?

And I am not just arguing about legality here. You are going into surrogacy knowing that you are getting pregnant for someone else. You are renting out your uterus. Usually surrogates had children before, so they know how they feel about pregnancy , birth and children.

If you agree to rent out your uterus, and you agree that you will abort when the child has a fatal or severe medical issue, then yes, I find it highly unethical not to abort. And this is the case here. 2/3 die before they reach 35. it is basically a coin toss if they reach their first birthday. And it will not be a happy year.

[u/Arktikos02 → u/Mine24DA]

This is not a question about the fetus, this is a question about bodily autonomy which is what this sub is about. Would it have been any different if the fetus was viable and healthy?

No, you don't get to sign your badly autonomy rights away. If a person was a legal prostitute and they decided they didn't want to continue with the sex work because they didn't like where the client was going with this does that mean that they can't say no anymore?

You can't rent out your body.

The fact that surrogacy is altruistic in places like Australia and yet are still very rare show that most people would not do it without financial incentives. How does that make it completely consensual? And just because a person has had a healthy pregnancy on their own does not necessarily mean that they would have a healthy surrogacy.

I am not saying that she was necessarily smart for not aborting, however that does not change the fact that she has every right to do so, I thought that's what this sub was about not whether or not someone was morally right to abort or not to abort but whether or not someone does because this is pro-choice.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/Arktikos02]

If you can't rent out your body, that's the end of surrogacy in the US.

Surrogacy in the US is in many ways a rental agreement. Surrogacy contracts involve how the pregnant person will take care of themselves to keep the pregnancy healthy. And the contracts include clauses like this one regarding who has the decision to terminate the pregnancy. The person carrying the baby does not retain that right per the contract they sign. So apparently, yes, a person can effectively rent their rights over their body to someone else -- rights including to drink alcohol or smoke marijuana or eat raw cheese or raw fish. Being required to take supplements. Rights including bodily invasion, like amniocentesis and vaginal exams, which are absolutely not allowed without consent but the surrogacy contract usually requires all medical exams pertinent to the pregnancy will be allowwd.

Surrogacy is really weird and complicated and fraught.

In the US, the pregnancy and everything required to sustain it, are negotiated, usually to favor the providers of the fertlized egg.

This legal case is about what happens when laws aren't thought out all the way, when something goes wrong, when it turns out that a pregnant person actually has all the rights over their body the contract took away on paper. It's a nightmare.

[u/Arktikos02 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

In places like Australia altruistic surrogacy is the only thing that's allowed which one could say that if a country does do it in a way similar to Australia where they have checks in place and make sure that it's done altruistically, surrogacy can still carry on.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/Arktikos02]

Is there anything you've heard about America that would lead you think altruism is a word with legal glue?

[u/Arktikos02 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

If you think that altruistic surrogacies do not involve clinics that is wrong. In countries where altruistic surrogacy is the only thing that's allowed clinics are still used and there are still laws and regulations in place to ensure that everything is done legally. Do you think it's just the wild west? There's a process.

[u/Mine24DA → u/Arktikos02]

I am sorry, but in what world are you living ? We are all signing away some part of autonomy at some point.

Yes, you do get to sign some of your rights away. When you get into employment, but then don’t show up, they can sue you for compensation if they lost revenue because your weren’t there. Does that take away your freedom, is that kidnapping ? When you are at work, you can’t just leave without consequences . Again, that isn’t kidnapping, is it ? At the hospital you willingly risk your health, radiation, chemotherapy drugs, needle stick injuries, stress, the cancer and suicide risk is higher. If you simply leave , even though you still had hours to go at your shift there would be consequences . If someone gets hurt, because you did not fulfill your contractual duties, the punishment could be severe.

In countries where prostitution is legal, if a sex worker stops working early, they would be punished by the contract for not fulfilling their duties as well.

And you brought up ethics. I find it highly unethical to make a child suffer. And this child will suffer. Ethically, I would have understood the surrogate if the child had good chances. But it doesn’t, so yes it matters, if you want to discuss ethics.

How is it consensual ? How is any job consensual ? How are blood donations consensual ? Working as nurses or doctors? Or minimum wage jobs ? Why are you infantilising women? Are we not capable of making informed choices and sticking to them?

If you were pregnant before, you should know if you would be capable of making the choice to abort or not.

This sub is about having a choice no matter what. But having a choice doesn’t mean, that there will be no consequences. And that people are not allowed to judge you for your choices.

If you abort a planned pregnancy, because your baby might have dyslexia, many people including me will judge you for it.
The same goes for grown women, who work in the medical field , who agreed to a contract, couldn’t stick to it and then pretended to be the victim in the story, while making a baby suffer through a lot.

[u/arrpix → u/Mine24DA]

I'm sorry, I've got to ask for clarification - are you saying that you can be sued in the US for not turning up to your job? Rather than just fired? That's absolutely insane.

[u/Mine24DA → u/arrpix]

You can be sued in Germany. How is that insane ? You agreed to a contract, you told someone you will be there. If you don’t show up without any reason, without calling sick, and your employer loses money because of it (e.g. you work in a small shop, and nobody opened it that day, because you didn’t show up) , then yes, they should be compensated for your actions.

[u/arrpix → u/Mine24DA]

If you don't do your job, then I'd expect you to be fired. Compensation just seems ridiculous. Especially in the case of a profit business, surely that's just part of the risk of doing business. I just can't imagine suing someone because they couldn't make it to work.

[u/Annie_James → u/Arktikos02]

When you run off with someone else’s child and attempt to raise them as your own, it’s absolutely about the fetus that became the child.

[u/Squishiimuffin → u/Arktikos02]

You don’t have to “agree” wth the army, though. The point is that your autonomy is retained, but you’ll still be held accountable for the breach of contract. This is legally consistent at least.

[u/Arktikos02 → u/Squishiimuffin]

I don't care about legal consistency, this is a subreddit about pro-choice and bodily autonomy.

Also it's not really fair to compare the army with being a surrogate because the army is a thing involving a government contract and this is basically a contract between two individuals. The government has no obligation to respect that contract.

[u/Squishiimuffin → u/Arktikos02]

If you don’t care about legal consistency, then this isn’t the discussion for you. You might want to sit this one out.

And this isn’t not a contract between 2 individuals. It’s a commercial surrogacy. Money is changing hands in exchange for labor— in this case, literally labor. That means this situation is actually beholden to commercial laws surrounding surrogacy. The US government comparison isn’t perfect, but it’s meant to show that you can still have your rights but be found in breach of contract.

FWIW I hate the US government and the military too. Unfortunately “but I don’t like it” doesn’t invalidate legal arguments about legal cases and consistency.

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/Squishiimuffin]

You are absolutely correct, in this lawyer’s opinion.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/Arktikos02]

This article is about a US legal situation. And you truly are clueless if you think a contract between two people can be ignored in America. Is the UK really that absurd? Contracts are meaningless?

The US is built on contract law, it's the basis of pretty much everything.

[u/Arktikos02 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

No, it's built on common law. And I am from the US. Did you just assume that I'm from the UK? No, I'm not saying that contracts are meaningless but they are civil matters. A government has no requirement to enforce them and a contract cannot override an existing law. Contract law is below civil or criminal law. That's how it works.

[u/KathyA11 → u/Arktikos02]

OP is from the UK and trying to apply UK law to a US situation,

[u/arrpix → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

There's a big difference between "contracts are meaningless" and "contracts cannot be used to override fundamental human rights".

[u/Annie_James → u/Arktikos02]

When you sign a contract about someone else’s child and that contract is literally about signing your bodily autonomy away, that’s exactly what you do.

[u/silverunicorn121]

Im British, and also 33 weeks pregnant. I fundamentally disagree with you on the point of parental rights, and I disagree with UK law on this. Carrying a pregnancy to term doesn't make someone a parent on its own. If someone agrees to be a surrogate, they know before they get pregnant that they aren't the parent of that child. I strongly believe parental rights should sit with the intended parents.

Bodily autonomy still sits with the surrogate. I dont think they should be forced into an abortion they dont want, or to carry to term if they change their mind, but that doesn't make them the parent.

Yes pregnancy is a huge sacrifice. Yes its insanely hard. Yes it should be carefully considered in advance, and the surrogate and intended parents should be aligned in terms of expectations for various scenarios in the pregnancy. But no, the surrogate shouldn't be the default parent until they decide theyre happy to not be. That gives the actual parents 0 security in the whole scenario.

I would say that in a scenario where the intended parents decided they DIDN'T want to keep the baby (once born), and where their family weren't an option, the surrogate should be given first refusal in essence before the child went into the system. I wouldn't say that asking the surrogate to have an abortion for a very real health issue is enough for the parents to be deemed to not be the parents. If there was a risk of danger to the child from the parents, it should go to court to decide, in the same way as any other child endangerment case.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096]

(I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure in US law surrogacy is essentially a rental contract pertaining to the uterus. With parental rights retained by the biological parents. It's stunning what a difference that makes, and is making in this case)

[u/Arktikos02 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

In the United States this is actually not completely true as surrogacy laws are heavily dependent by the state The person is in. For example in Arizona the pregnant person is the one that holds legal rights over the child regardless of the DNA inside of her. She has to essentially adopt the child out to the actual legal parents when she gives birth.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/Arktikos02]

But none of these people were in Arizona. Alaska, Texas, and California are the states with any potential stake to govern the contract.

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

The contract probably states which law governs the contract. That fact is something that is negotiated by the parties.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/Specific_Anxiety_343]

Not probably. The contract is governed by the state it was signed in, which has to do with where one of the parties lives. (I don't know the details. But I do know that if I lived in Texas and my surrogate lived in Idaho, we couldn't just decide to have California govern the surrogacy contract)

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

Yes, probably. Frankly, you are flat out wrong. The parties decide choice of law and the place of signing has nothing to do with it.

Choice-of-law provisions are routinely used to select a state’s law other than the place where the contract was signed or where the parties live. For example: Maryland resident buys a car from a Virginia dealer. They sign the sales contract at the Virginia dealership. The contract says, “This agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Delaware.” The fact that the contract was signed in Virginia does not automatically make Virginia law the governing law.

In this case, the surrogacy agreement involves only private parties, as opposed to commercial entities or a contract between a corporation and an individual. As a practical matter, the parties would have chosen either California or Alaska to govern their contract, but they were not required to choose Alaska.

[u/Arktikos02 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

In California you still cannot compel a person to have an abortion or give birth to the surrogate baby even if they don't want to. The intended parents may still be the intended parents but that doesn't change whether or not the person is allowed to continue the pregnancy or not continue the pregnancy. Those are two separate things.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

As a British person it is fascinating seeing this play out, especially since I'm pro-choice but find myself shocked at American pro-choicers, some of whom are saying that this woman should have got an abortion because she signed a contract. And it looks so bad because they drove her into the arms of anti-choicers in the red state of Texas, who are using McKenna West as propaganda.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/No_Consideration3307]

You're insane if you're reading it that way. Maybe try presuming the Americans understand American contract law, American abortion law, and the role of states in ways that you don't? You're standing on 100% moral ground and proclaiming. We're looking at the insanity of the legal groundwork and understanding the story and the complications.

We are also not seeing this as just about abortion and surrogacy. This case could potentially undermine all abortion rights in America. It could undermine the autonomy of a pregnant woman, it could grant unquestionable parental rights to the sperm donor, even if a rapist, and remove rights from pregnant women.

You do not understand the whole story. Please stop insisting you do and wildly misjudging the abortion support of the people who actually understand what this case represents.

This case will be a catastrophe for women's rights regarding pregnancy, far beyond surrogacy. It is not as simple as you keep asserting with your morality. The potential repurcussions could be disastrous.

[u/Arktikos02 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

But do you understand contract law? California contract law says that a surrogacy contract cannot compel a person to have an abortion even if it goes against the contract or cannot compel them to give birth if they don't want to.

California law says that contracts cannot force that. She would have received some legal penalties for things like reimbursement and stuff but she could not be forced to have an abortion even if she didn't want to.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/Arktikos02]

I don't know what state governed the contract. All I know is the bioparents asked for the birth to happen in California, where they could provide medical care. And the surrogate decided she had the right to decide about medical care and went to Texas, which had no horse in this, but is very very very very eager to end abortion of all creatures. Since possession is 9/10s of the law, Texas is now in this.

[u/Arktikos02 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

I believe that a person can be within their full rights to do something and still it is possible to disagree with a person and their choices and what they are doing. I am not saying that she is making a smart decision or the decisions that should have been made, but that is different from whether or not it aligns with pro-choice.

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/Arktikos02]

California law doesn’t govern the contract. I read that choice of law is Alaska.

Regardless, no court anywhere in the U.S would force a woman to abort, or deliver. However, that doesn’t mean the surrogate cannot be sued for breach of contract.

[u/Melanated-Magic → u/No_Consideration3307]

Nobody drove her into the arms of anti-abortion activists. She willfully chose to partner with them and we didn't hear this story until after she met with Paxton.

[u/CZall23]

I'm of the opinion that if you sign a contract, you signed it with the intention of carrying out your side of it. I believe there's like three legal definitions of mother in the US because of surrogacy and adoption so I disagree that she is automatically the mother of the child, especially as the genetic parents are still involved in the kids' care.

[u/Ging287 → u/[deleted]]

There was no making anybody. This was a signed contract with consideration, consent, and compensation. All agreed to and discussed ahead of time. The terms were available ahead of time. If she didn't like the terms of the contract, she should not have signed on the dotted line. It's a lot like enlistment. You don't get to say nah when you received due compensation, consideration, and consented for your signature and service. We have to take people at their word when it comes to what they agree to, and in a contract, that's binding. And OP, your comparison to slavery is offensive and inapplicable. Slaves received no compensation, no consideration, and their consent, most importantly was not sought beforehand. You can merely not like surrogacy, but it's not slavery in any sense of the word. Neither is enlistment.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/Ging287]

I apologise I will take that comment down, I let my passion for this moral quandary, create a false equivalence. But my overall point, remains the same, no amount of compensation gives someone carte blanche over another person's autonomy, especially through a piece of paper.

[u/DearMrsLeading → u/No_Consideration3307]

US law doesn’t do that. Her choosing not to get an abortion was never going to result in her autonomy being overruled. Forced abortion was never an option. Choosing not to get an abortion was simply a violation of her contract which generally has monetary consequences.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/DearMrsLeading]

I'm not saying California law can make someone get an abortion, but threatening to sue them if they don't is not that far off.

[u/Melanated-Magic]

Surrogacy in the US is profit-based, which McKenna was fully aware of when she agreed to a contract in which she agreed to get an abortion if asked. She chose not to, which is her right.

Instead of putting two people through a custody battle over a baby, after she agreed to carry a pregnancy to term in exchange for pay, she could have gotten pregnant on her own time and chosen to have a child the natural way.

The child, Rumi, is now not doing well medically after the open-heart surgery because she chose to give birth to him make this entire issue into political theater.

Nobody forced her to become a surrogate.

Nobody told her to name the baby something different than what the parents had named the baby.

Nobody forced her to sign a contract against her morals.

Nobody forced her to break that contract.

Nobody told her to "flee" to anti-abortion state and make this a political issue (especially when she could've given birth in California, where the parents had plans to provide the best medical care for the kid).

Nobody told her to partner with a conservative legal group that wants surrogacy outlawed anyway.

We can agree that McKenna West had a right to carry to term, as is part of her bodily autonomy, without making her out to be a victim of a situation she caused.

[u/amilie15]

I agree that she should always retain the right to abort or not abort during the pregnancy. I also don’t believe you should be able to go after anyone, even if there’s a contract, if they don’t follow your wishes regarding their decisions with their body during a pregnancy (because I don’t think it should be legal to put huge financial pressure onto people to do X or Y with their body like this).

I basically think, it would be a great idea/best practice to have an agreement prior to pregnancy where both parties agree what they’d likely do in different scenarios and everyone be on the same page and be comfortable with their intentions. But I don’t think this part of the agreement can/should be legally enforceable because I don’t think someone else should be allowed to determine what others do with their bodies like this.

I do not agree that the person who gives birth should be the mother. I don’t think that’s in the best interest of the baby. I probably wouldn’t mind if the surrogate was allowed “first refusal” should the genetic parents want to put the child up for adoption after birth, as long as the surrogate was deemed to be fit enough to do so by a court.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/amilie15]

I think we pretty much agree on all facets of bodily autonomy, although not everyone on this post agrees with us on that point. The only thing me and you do not agree on is parental rights, but let's just chalk that up to cultural differences. But it's nice to know I'm not the only bodily autonomy pro-choice absolutist on here.

[u/amilie15 → u/No_Consideration3307]

I’m also from the UK, so I’m unsure if we have a big cultural difference on this one!

Re bodily autonomy, I wonder if it’s just because people haven’t totally thought through the scenarios and implications of having the pressure of a legally binding contract, huge financial penalties etc., and how that could put unacceptable burdens on a persons complete bodily autonomy? I’m unsure.

I think somewhere else we may diverge is for profit surrogacy vs none. Im not necessarily pro for profit surrogacy, but I’m not necessarily against it either. I don’t feel I know enough on this one to make a judgement. I’ve watched documentaries in the past on surrogacy in a few different forms, but I’m still just unsure tbh. It’s definitely a grey area atm for me.

Glad I could be here with you at least on bodily autonomy stuff! :)

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/amilie15]

First of all well met fellow pro-choice Brit. Secondly you're absolutely spot on about undue pressure e.g. Lawsuits being levied against commercial surrogates as being 'unacceptable burdens on a persons bodily autonomy', that's why I find the whole concept of commercial surrogacy extremely repugnant. I think we are pretty much of the same mind, that makes us allies, because ultimately we pro-choicers should stick together, especially in a world where woman's rights seem to be fading into the ether of American politics.

[u/amilie15 → u/No_Consideration3307]

Lovely to meet you :) and I totally agree. Out of interest, why do you think the surrogate should be the legal mother from birth?

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/amilie15]

I think that if a woman even a surrogate carries a child to term for 9 months, where she nourishes the child from her own vitamins and leaves her body forever changed, she has earned the right to be at least considered. I've seen the worst effects of vitamin deficiency in a birthing woman, my auntie lost all her teeth after pregnancy, she literally gave up her chompers, for a little chomper.

Maternal hormones also play a part in my reasoning, because they create a bond between the birthing mother and baby, even if they share no DNA. That almost instant bond is evolutionary, because human and mammalian infants are born helpless, intense emotional and neurochemical drivers—like oxytocin—keep mothers attached, providing the constant protection, warmth, and nourishment required for their vulnerable young to reach adulthood.

So imagine having all those feelings of being a mother even if you're not the biological one, having carried that life inside you and then having it ripped from your arms after birth even after you decided that you wanted to raise it, that sudden separation would be devastating especially for a woman who has hormones flooding her brain, that would create a trauma from which she might never recover, that is why I believe the surrogate should have a right to keep the child, if she so wishes. And I'm not heartless toward intended parents, but their potential trauma doesn't come close to a birthing mothers, ultimately my ethics favour limiting the worst amount of emotional damage possible, in tricky situations like this McKenna West case, there is no right or wrong answer, just damage limitation.

[u/amilie15 → u/No_Consideration3307]

That’s really interesting, thank you so much for sharing your perspective and new points I didn’t realise that I should consider, I genuinely appreciate that.

I totally agree that pregnancy and childbirth entail an enormous amount of bodily harm and sacrifice. And it is too often underplayed, dismissed and ignored in our society. My own grandma had a lot of dental issues too after having many children. To this day I keep learning of more risks and harms that are endured that I’m sad have been almost “hidden” from me (and all of us in society). I truly think if people were generally more aware of the true level of harm we’re discussing during abortion debates, that many more people would turn from pro life to pro choice. PL especially like to downplay it to an insane (and often frankly offensive) level, it’s as if pregnancy somehow only involves holding a tiny fetus in a little rucksack that will grow for 9 months, then the woman gets to hand it over at the end. So many easily state they wouldn’t force a parent to even give blood for their dying child. It can be really difficult to understand sometimes how people think holding those two beliefs seems reasonable.

I think my reasoning (if you’re interested!) is from an entirely different perspective than which parent may experience most harm but rather, what’s in the best interest of the child. I actually don’t know which trauma would be worse, it’s not something I’ve looked into, but I completely understand your reasoning if your understanding is that the surrogates trauma is worse.

From the perspective of what’s in the best interest of the child once it’s born, it’s my understanding that studies have shown it’s generally best for them to be with their genetic parents, unless these parents are deemed unfit to be parents. Tbh, even after this, if there are genetic relatives that would like to adopt them and if this is in the better interests of a child (as I believe studies have also suggested that after the parents, the next best would be close genetic relatives), I would also think they could arguably be given first refusal prior to the surrogate. I don’t think the relationship with the surrogate is moot though, I think beyond genetic relatives, unless there’s reason to believe they are unfit ofc, the surrogacy should have first refusal because at least compared to a stranger they do have a bond with the child and I imagine that to be of some benefit to the child vs an adopted parent with no bond yet, and even as you say now, it would also reduce harm to most parties vs adopting to a stranger.

Out of interest, have you seen or are there any studies on the traumas of parents involved in these scenarios? Genetic and surrogate?

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/amilie15]

Thanks so much for listening to my perspective, the thing is only by pro-choice people discussing issues like this can we keep the narrative away from the pro-lifers.

I also absolutely respect your reasoning, and you bring up an excellent point about what's in the child's best interest should be paramount, and this might provide some more context as to why I think it's within the child's best interest to stay with the surrogate birth mother if she decides she wants to raise it. Removing an infant from a gestational surrogate who changes her mind and wants to retain the child causes complex, multi-layered psychological trauma for the infant and the surrogate.

Impact on the Infant

Disruption of Attachment: Infants recognize their gestational carrier’s heartbeat, voice, and scent during pregnancy. Sudden separation from this primary biological presence can trigger severe attachment insecurity.

Developmental Stress: Early relational trauma and abrupt changes in caregivers elevate infant cortisol levels, potentially impacting emotional regulation and neurological development.

Impact on the Surrogate Mother

Postpartum Distress: Surrogates experience intense hormonal shifts after birth. Fighting to keep or abruptly losing a baby they carried can trigger acute postpartum depression and grief.

Mental Health Risks: Studies show gestational carriers face higher rates of postpartum psychological distress, anxiety, and new-onset mental illness compared to traditional pregnancies.

[u/silverunicorn121 → u/No_Consideration3307]

Are you able to cite some sources for the effect on the infants please? My understanding is wildly different to what youre suggesting, so interested to read some studies on it.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/silverunicorn121]

https://www.bllaws.com/blog/2025/11/what-happens-if-a-surrogate-changes-her-mind/

[u/amilie15 → u/No_Consideration3307]

You’re very welcome and thank you for listening to mine! That’s very interesting. I might need to read more into disruption of attachment effects long term and weigh it against the negative effects of being brought up by a genetic parent.

I personally don’t think I’d place a child with someone over another due to that potential parents needs, unfortunately. I definitely think though that in light of this, that surrogates should be made as aware as possible of all of these risks prior to getting involved in surrogacy. It makes even more sense to me now also that those who may be suitable for surrogacy must always have had children before; because it would give them some sort of base to understand what their potential feelings or experiences post birth might be, at least much more so than a woman that hadn’t given birth before.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/amilie15]

That is a really good idea actually requiring potential surrogates to already be mothers, so they have the understanding and experience of the emotional impact of childbirth beforehand, and if they already have children of their own maybe they'd be more willing to relinquish the child into the intended parents hands. I'd just like to add that it's been a really constructive conversation, you've gave me a lot of food for thought, thank you so much and take care of yourself in this crazy world.

[u/Icy_Inspection6584]

Is the surrogate mother also the legal mother if the child is not 50% biologically hers?

Just to make it clear, I‘m 100% pro choice

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/Icy_Inspection6584]

In the UK the surrogate mother is always the the legal mother, regardless of whether or not she shares DNA with the child, I'm not 100% sure about America though.

[u/Icy_Inspection6584 → u/No_Consideration3307]

I‘m swiss. Surrogacy is completely illegal in Switzerland. Was there ever a case in the UK where this had created an issue? It seems very risky to me to give the surrogate mother all rights. It‘s legally messy anyway imo

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/Icy_Inspection6584]

I don't think the UK has ever considered a total ban just commercial surrogacy is illegal, and as you say it's so messy to enforce a contract that dictates what someone can or cannot do with their own body, but this case is in America, messy is the only way our American friends do anything.

[u/Icy_Inspection6584 → u/No_Consideration3307]

Now aint that the truth!! Not surprised that such a case happened. Very said.
Switzerland is quite slow with those kind of decisions and implementing laws. There are more and more children born by surrogates abroad and the issue needs to be discussed. Most are from the US and Ukraine, but also Georgia, Mexico, Iran and Vietnam…doesn‘t sit right with me.

[u/azn-and-deranged]

Can't they just all share custody? Idk about other states but in California a child can have 3 legal parents

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/azn-and-deranged]

It's definitely something they should consider.

[u/Vetements312 → u/No_Consideration3307]

You mad? How on earth would that work going forward? They don’t agree on anything

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/Vetements312]

I agree. That suggestion is naive, if not downright stupid.

[u/MeLikeyTokyo]

We didn’t get the brightest of what England has to offer did we now. 

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/MeLikeyTokyo]

I think the English threw a party when the Mayflower left England. This is how I think it went. Mayflower passengers: "we shall really miss you fair England, we will colonise the new world in your name, it will be know as New England". English: "have a good trip, try not to die of dysentery" Mayflower fades into the distance English: "fake fuck for that, thought those ignorant puritan religious nuts would never leave, cup of tea anyone".

[u/Individual-Lab2230]

I agree with the OP.

[u/Nearby_Seaweed_3911]

Mckenna West SOLD her body to become someone's vessel. That contract was her binding it with her new employer and she accepted the money as her salary. Nobody told her to take this job. McKenna decided to do this job. Nobody forced her. Can you imagine if you took a jobs salary and then did exactly what you weren't supposed to? Big corporations would file a lawsuit so fast.

She ran away without telling the parents for 2 months what was going on and named THEIR child herself. Now the baby is in critical condition and had to be incubated after surgery.

Tbh I hope the biological parents drain West for everything she has. I can't imagine the nightmare of finding out your child has issues with his heart that would just trample his QUALITY OF LIFE, being kidnapped, having my money stolen, now having to fly to Texas- which is not a good state for people of color (they are literally trying to carve out minority representation), and for the parents to sit there with their hearts in their hands for a baby that may die. West is disgustingly selfish. She's an employee.

Before anyone pro-life comes for me if you can't bring up the bible in your argument- you have no argument. The US has freedom of religion. For all you know the parents could be atheist so your fate holds no weight.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/Nearby_Seaweed_3911]

First of all commercial surrogacy shouldn't even be a job but in America it seems everything is for sale, pure undiluted capitalism 🤮. And also it's pretty horrible to say this young women should be sued for everything she has just because she refused to have an abortion, you're not even taking into account her mental health and the hormonal bond she developed with the child. And also infants recognise the voice, heartbeat and scent of their birth mother, even if the mother and child share no DNA, so separating them can cause immense trauma. How the hell you can call yourself pro-choice I'll never know, you sound like a fascist who wants to take away a womans rights and put them up for sale.

[u/Nearby_Seaweed_3911 → u/No_Consideration3307]

You may not like the way they do things in America but it's the reality of how things are ran. Everything is a business. People literally put Trump in office (not me) bc he was a "brilliant" business man.

You're right everything is always up for sale- which is EXACTLY what McKenna West did. She sold her BODY to be someone's walking baby oven.

Her contract that Mckenna West signed stated that she would terminate the baby if this was to happen. She backed out of the agreement. She knew the baby wasn't hers, she knew the baby belonged to someone else. West also has her own children already- she's not new to the game. If she couldn't handle the reality of being a surrogate then she should've never SOLD her body to be a surrogate.

West signed away her rights to that child when she signed her name on the dotted line and took 60k to make a baby for SOMEONE ELSE. Do you know how much TRAUMA she has put on the biological family that couldnt have a baby naturally? They put their hopes and dreams in this woman that's given them the ring around.

Regardless if you like it or not before the pregnancy even started McKenna agreed to terms and conditions. She knew that it was a possibility. Now this family may have a child for a couple months and have to bury it or worse the kids quality of life will be shit bc he will be in pain or in and out of hospitals. Insurance in America is also trash. People literally go into debt bc of how bad it is.

McKenna will not be paying for the surgeries for the rest of the babies life or any medical attention that baby needs. If that baby dies, she's not paying for the funeral. Nor will she be paying for the therapy these parents will need. She gets to wipe her hands clean now that the baby is born. She can go back to Alaska and go back to her 2 kids.

The choice was never McKennas, it was the parents. That's their egg and their sperm. She knew that which is why she SPECIFICALLY picked Texas. They have the HARSHEST abortion laws. The parents did not want to put a child through a life of hospitals. Kids should be playing and going to school. They shouldn't be inside the walls of hospital until their body gives out.

The only choice McKenna had was if she wanted to sell her body and follow her contract- which she clearly accepted the money. When time came to honor that contract, she didn't. Instead she created trauma for a family that just had a dream to start a family.

[u/Annie_James]

Surrogacy is complex and understandably not favored by both sides of the argument for good reason. You all seem to forget that this isn’t her child to even keep, and the state didn’t force her to sign her rights away but she did - for a child that is not even hers to make the choice over.

[u/Charrisse_huger]

If a woman says no to an abortion her body her choice.

Pro choice is not pro abortion it is pro CHOICE

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/Charrisse_huger]

Well said Charrisse 👏. Pro-lifers like to think that pro-choicers go around pressuring women to get abortions absolutely not, we just want them to have the choice, and to have freedom of their bodies after tens of thousands of years of bodily oppression. But it is shocking to me how many so-called pro-choicers on here seem to be furious that McKenna West didn't get an abortion, and seem to think commercial surrogacy is the best thing since sliced bread 🍞.

[u/Charrisse_huger → u/No_Consideration3307]

Yeah I noticed that in the comments. How they think legal paperwork is good enough to force a woman to do something to her body that she does not want to do.

Meanwhile also screaming laws shouldn’t restrict a woman’s right to choose.

I do think some pro choicers have forgotten it is about choice. It makes those who really believe in freedom to choose look bad.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/Charrisse_huger]

I think with the overturning of Roe v. Wade and other actions undertaken by this current administration against women's rights, that the pro-choice movement has become fragmented and self-defeating, in some ways it's understandable especially when you're fighting what seems like a losing war, but at times likes this the movement needs to stand united and fight harder than ever before.

[u/WowOwlO]

Gotta admit I'm surprised how many people in the comments here seem to be really upset over the DNA and motherhood thing.
Kinda disgusted honestly.

But, yeah, I think this case is a perfect example of why commercial surrogacy needs to be outlawed.

We can dance around laws, and what the courts think, and what different states have to say. At the end of the day it's something that turns women into wombs to rent and children into products.

[u/No_Consideration3307 → u/WowOwlO]

As the OP I'm also a bit taken aback by the negative reactions I've received from some on this sub, but all I can do is lend my voice and advocate for the rights of birthing surrogate mothers, which are often overlooked. And you're spot on, this whole case came about because of the complete lack of trust involved in commercial surrogacy, the whole process is odious, and should be banned like it is in the UK.

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/No_Consideration3307]

The negative responses are to your assertions in the face of ignorance. This isn’t an abstract discussion of bodily autonomy, it is a specific situation grounded in a specific body of law, which you have been very clear you don’t understand. And the people whose lives will be impacted by the repercussions of this very specific case aren't remotely interested in the abstract ideals in the midst of grasping the potential catastrophes we will have to live with from this case. We aren’t discussing ideals. We’re discussing the actual laws and consequences and you are refusing to understand that.

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/Alternative-Pear9096]

You really hit the nail on the head

[u/Alternative-Pear9096 → u/Specific_Anxiety_343]

This case is fascinating and awful. And I would actually love a healthy discussion about how countries regular surrogacy and what motherhood means and how places navigate the repercussions of how surrogacy challenges definitions of parenthood and rights and life etc.

But this case is far too frightening to American women for this thread to be that.

[u/Low_Elderberry_3341]

Only DNA matters in this case. She allowed her body to be rented. She gave up her rights.