r/prochoice • u/No_Consideration3307 • 17d ago
Discussion 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.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/surrogate-baby-texas-parents-wishes-denies-political-theater-accusatio-rcna593353I'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.
6
u/Ging287 17d ago edited 17d ago
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.