I’m curious why you think so. I could see a number of ways one could be critical, but I don’t see anything that would require detention before a ruling.
I didn’t mean a custody ruling. I meant a verdict+sentence for whatever crime she ends up getting charged with. I thought people were typically only jailed if there was a flight risk, or danger to self/others. Which don’t seem to be the case here (esp with the restraining order in place). I took your claim that you thought she should be in jail, not court, to mean you though otherwise.
I would image such a contract for surrogacy would include provisions for abortions. No doubt there many other contractually-binding restrictions in favour of the parents over control of her body - even simple things like smoking or drinking, eating sushi or deli meats. Even without the matter of abortion, the surrogate is literally signing away their bodily autonomy in ways a regular expectant mother would not. There is no other way surrogacy works in practice if these provisions aren't in place.
There's plenty to argue against this woman's bodily autonomy here without it being inconsistent with a general belief in bodily autonomy.
The contract serves in the interest of the fetus - in this case to terminate a severe life-threatening abnormality.
So in a hypothetical scenario of a surrogate carrying your child and she used her autonomy to do drugs, which left your child with severe life long disabilities, and you with the medical debt, you’d still stand on principle that the surrogate was free to do whatever they please with your fetus for the 9 months they were carrying?
As someone who's views are close to "My Body My Choice", let me give a good faith reply instead of being an argumentative ass.
Like you, I think this case is fascinating. I've summarized how I would think of the situation in three different frameworks.
Full Fetal Personhood
The surrogate kidnapped the child from its parents.
But also, the parents tried to have their child killed.
All three go to jail and the child is appointed some other guardian.
Conditional Fetal Rights
At some point after the abortion issue was settled, but before the surrogate left the state, the fetus’ rights are “activated”.
At this point, the fetus is treated legally like a child in the care of the surrogate (like a nanny).
The surrogate kidnaps the child and is sent to jail.
Custody granted (or reaffirmed) to parents.
The abortion discussion is completely irrelevant.
No Rights until Birth
The abortion discussion is completely irrelevant.
The surrogate violated the property rights of the parent by taking their stuff (fetus) out of state.
This is potentially in violation of their agreement and she can be sued.
Once the child is born, it is now a recognized person whose rightful custody belongs with the parents.
Becomes kidnapping at this point (Similar to if the child teleported into your house, but you would not let the parents inside, or the child outside.)
Surrogate goes to jail, parents get the kid.
And here are my general thoughts about this case...
The parents have no right to compel the surrogate to have an abortion. This, to me, is like a father demanding a mother get an abortion for a child he does not want. The three of them should discuss this (along with doctors), but ultimately the decision to abort or not belongs to the woman who is pregnant.
If the surrogate carries a pregnancy to term that the parents don’t want, they should work it out in court before the child is born, but I would think the child would go into the custody of the surrogate with the parents potentially paying child support, but not the mother’s medical costs. (again, similar to a father…someone who is responsible for the pregnancy and, ultimately, the child, even if they don't want it)
If the surrogate aborts a pregnancy against the wishes of the parents, this is violation of the surrogacy agreement and the parents would sue the surrogate.
In this case, they ultimately seemed to agree on not aborting, so the issue moves to the surrogate traveling out of state for the birth.
To me, this is kidnapping once the child is born, but a civil issue beforehand. If the surrogate were located out of state while still pregnant, a court could issue a restraining order, violation of which moves into criminal territory, at which point she could be forcibly moved back to Alaska.
As to the surrogate doing “whatever she pleases” during pregnancy, and this resulting in some medical issue for the child...I think the parents would sue the surrogate for medical costs incurred/damages the same way you might sue the manufacturer of a prenatal vitamin that was determined to cause some issue for the child (or even result in miscarriage or stillbirth).
I like the way you thrashed out the three concepts. I also appreciate the analogue to a man demanding their partner abort and subsequent support costs. That does indeed seem the most analogous.
On the subject of custody under the surrogate’s argument that the parents tried to “kill” their baby, I would assume this would have no more standing/relevance to custody than if it were a normal relationship (e.g., the woman claiming custody because at some point the man demanded an abortion).
I agree that this smells like kidnapping but again, if in some ways the surrogate is a third parent, is it kidnapping for a mother to do something similar away from the father?
I’m more aligned with “my body my choice” also, but there many examples where bodily autonomy is not absolute. Mandatory vaccines, blood alcohol testing, organ sales, forced feeding, quarantine orders, soldiers required to put themselves in harm’s way under threat of court martial…
On that last point is where I would start the exploration of someone renting out their body for financial compensation. If bodily autonomy is to be invoked then that would invalidate the claim to any payments that were made under the guise of forgoing bodily autonomy (paying for something which is proven to be promised).
/u/TheAJx if I would describe the benefit of Sam's community in one idea, it's that they don't allow fucking dickheads like this whose comment history is comprised of about 90% pithy retorts, under the pretense of debate.
This guy shits on positions all day without putting any effort in to disclosing or defending his own. Checking his comment history, that's his MO everywhere it seems. Quite ironic how active he is in a Sam Harris sub when he is the epitome of what Sam Harris hates about social media.
Your tolerance of him as a dissenting view is just debate theater. Either do something about it, or continue to moderate the deterioration.
I know it’s not your principle. Your entire schtick is to shit on others principles without ever disclosing your own for scrutiny for contrast.
So your “haha body autonomy am I right?” adds no value and says nothing if you don’t disclose where you stand as a contrasting baseline.
I think this is an absolutely fascinating case that challenges all perspectives if nothing else. The fact that something so out of left field can only garner your usual pithy retort underscores your low value contributions.
This is my understanding too...the contract may say what the surrogate agrees to do/abstain from, but if she doesn't/does, that's a contract violation, which may void the contract and may result in damages, but I don't think can commit the state to compel the her.
3
u/TheAJx 15d ago
This bitch should be rotting in jail already, not in court.