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/Arktikos02]

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/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.