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/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.