There is a fascinating case in Canada on the legal status of babies carried by surrogates. We have seen various rulings in surrogate cases, including surrogates awarded custody and surrogates fighting for such rights. The couple who (upon learning that the baby carried by their surrogate had Down’s Syndrome) wanted to abort the baby. However, the surrogate refused and wanted to complete the pregnancy.
Under the surrogate agreement, the parents are not liable for the child if the surrogate proceeds to give birth against their wishes. However, there is a general policy in many countries that biological parents are responsible for child support.
Bioethicists like Juliet Guichon objected to any court honoring this contract, stating “Should the rules of commerce apply to the creation of children? No, because children get hurt. It’s kind of like stopping the production line: ‘Oh, oh, there’s a flaw.’ It makes sense in a production scenario, but in reproduction it’s a lot more problematic.”
What do you think?
Update: The surrogate eventually relented to the abortion.
Source: Care 2
Jonathan Turley
Wow, fantastic blog layout! How long have you
been blogging for? you make blogging look easy.
The overall look of your web site is wonderful, as well as the
content!
Traci wrote:
Like gay couples that want to adopt?
Is that a justification not to abort, or doesn’t that count?
I say shame on those parents for wanting this woman to abort, just because the baby has Down’s Syndrome. Above all else, this baby is their flesh and blood and should be treated with the same love and respect as any other child that they might have. That poor baby did not ask to be conceived and brought into this world, but it also has a soul and a spirit. I’m going to go ahead and say it. I am pro-life, not only because God demands it, but I don’t think any woman has the right to end a pregnancy just because it’s inconvenient for them. Not when there are so many couples who want to adopt.
Thanks, Byron. I did forget one basic scenario in my discussion, however.
If the courts mandate that biological “parents” can be made to pay for children they do not want, then this would affect both sperm donors and egg donors.
If a couple used donated eggs to conceive and courts rule that biological origins trump contracts regarding financial obligations to children, couples might then seek economic compensation from the egg donor for care of the child. This prospect would also raise the high price for eggs substantially, making such parenthood unaffordable for many more people.
A few other wrinkles:
1. We have all heard of cases where labs switched embryos. In such a case, would the child be able to be compensated by his or her actual biological “parents”, even though they had no intention of such parenthood?
2. Surrogacy, sperm and egg donation are simplified by the idea that an embryo has one biological father and one biological mother. That will not always be the case. In our lifetimes I expect to see situations where DNA from multiple contributors creates a child. Many times this will be done to avoid certain diseases or further design offspring, perhaps to have certain advantages. So-called three parent embryos have already been created.
3. Although DNA is somewhat private today, government continues to head in the direction of DNA fingerprinting across society. As that occurs will children eventually be able to find out their biological parents and seek support regardless of today’s anonymity?
Forcing women to ‘use’ their wombs…a part of their person, in a manner they don’t agree with is heinous and will unravel much of what is considered ‘civilized’ in this society.
“I don’t believe that surrogates should be allowed to act on unilateral moral judgments without also assuming complete future responsibility for the acts.”
————————————————————-
In any act of co-creation, unilateralism is abhorent to at least 1 of the involved parties. Making babies is co-creative. Acts of unilateralism in co-creation are liken to rape.
I am pro-choice and agree with SwMom, no one should be forced to have an abortion. I also don’t believe anyone should be forced to carry an unwanted child to term. Despite all the airy discussion, the burden often falls on or is forced on the least likely able to carry it. That said, if a women knowingly sells her womb, how much say should she have in how it is used?
Bryon,
The law says differently…You cannot contract away the right of support for a minor child…this does have a different twist though….
James M:
if the surrogate violates her contract she should be the one to pay.
SwM,
The depraved side does arise….Suppose that the baby is carried to term…suppose the surrogate does not have first right of refusal…then the “Parents’ can take the child and then place him/her up for adoption and this cuts the rest of the conversation to shreds…
I am pro choice…very much so…but because the law has evolved so much…when will the male have the right to have a say….However, there are just some things this day and time that men can’t do….
Puzzling:
That was a great post, thank you.
As usual you are right on the money.
If the government can force the biological parents to pay it is as much an affront to individual rights as it would be to force the surrogate to have an abortion. Government has no business in the bedroom or in any sort of contractual agreement between 2 consenting adult parties*. If they can force this issue they can force any issue, it goes way beyond abortion and parental rights and to the fundamental nature and scope of government.
* unless of course redress is sought through the legal system.
Byron / Swarthmore mom,
“I am pro- choice, and I don’t think anyone should be forced to have an abortion.”
Me too. But I also don’t think it’s right to force a couple to be financially responsible for a child they don’t want. I’m OK with how the contract would have handled it (surrogate can choose to keep the baby, parents aren’t responsible for the child any more)
Byron We finally agree. Why do you support all these anti-choice republicans?
Swarthmore Mom:
“I am pro- choice, and I don’t think anyone should be forced to have an abortion.”
I agree.
Blouise,
If the father doesn’t have a will, any of his biological children (including the baby that had been intended to be adopted) would share half of his inheritance (the other half would go to his wife). With a will, the child would probably not inherit. Child support obligations normally terminate on the death of the father, and it would require a court order to enforce child support against the father’s estate. I’m not sure how routinely those are given out.
“It’s her body, her call, her responsibility. I don’t believe that surrogates should be allowed to act on unilateral moral judgments without also assuming complete future responsibility for the acts.”(culheath)
That is a point that strikes my “common sense” bell. May I put the same question to you that I put to James M. :
a hypothetical based on your last paragraph … does said child have the right to inherit from the biological father’s estate? (see James M’s post October 9, 2010 at 12:25 pm for reference)
James M.,
Thank you for the info
If I may … a hypothetical based on your last paragraph … does said child have the right to inherit from the biological father’s estate?
To me, it’s only sensible that if the surrogate mother who is basically acting as an organic vessel for the fetus dismisses the request to abort the pregnancy then she absolves the original contract and should assume all responsibility for the child.
It’s her body, her call, her responsibility. I don’t believe that surrogates should be allowed to act on unilateral moral judgments without also assuming complete future responsibility for the acts.