There are two parts to that question. Should the genetic parents have the right to make the decision? Secondly, knowing her medical condition now, was it right to give birth to her with her very uncertain future and, I hate to say it, the medical costs?

Thoughts?


A woman paid $22,000 to have a Connecticut couple's baby fled across the country and had the child after refusing their instructions to abort it when ultrasound scans revealed a series of disabilities.
Five months into the pregnancy last year, surrogate mother Crystal Kelley was told the bad news by doctors - beginning a tragic and heartbreaking ordeal for her and the baby's parents.
Following a legal battle with the parents, Crystal, 29, flew to Michigan to give birth, leaving the child to be fostered, instead of being raised by either herself or the intended parents.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z2MgV6z3nM

One thing for sure...bless the couple that adopted that baby. I couldn't do it.

I think that the biological mother, Crystal, is an idiot.

She first said that she wouldn't consider an abortion because she was deeply religious. I could respect that. But, then when the donor parents offered her $10k to abort, she demanded $15k. When she didn't get that, she fled to a surrogate-friendly state and said she was going to keep the child, only to change her mind and say she was going to foster the child. She has no credibility to me. But, sounds like she does have the original $22,000 she received from the donor parents.

I can't answer whether this child should have been born or not, but I question the bio mom's motives. I do think this child is in the right hands with the unrelated foster parents. Crystal already has 2 children and no income. The donor parents have 3 children with some medical problems. I hope the foster parents have the time and love to cherish this child. Her medical problems are so severe, it will be a full time job parenting her for as long as she lives.

P.s. I do think that the biological mother has the right to decide whether to abort or not though, even as a surrogate. Her body.

She's not the bio mom (IIRC). She was carrying an embryo from the couple that paid her. She was only a surrogate.

My bad. I've seen "bio mom" used synonymously with "birth mom", even when the surrogate is implanted with an egg fertilized by others. I think that's why Crystal went to Michigan to be recognized by law as the mother, and that the genetic dad (not the genetic mom) had to legally give up parental rights. But, then I've also seen "bio mom" used synonymously with "genetic mom" (who would be the donor).

I should have just used "birth" or "surrogate" or "genetic" mom when referring to Crystal.

To clarify, I think that Crystal, the surrogate mom, seems flaky. I think the genetic parents had the right to ask for an abortion since it's their genetic child. But, I don't think that a forced abortion, even in the case of where the woman is implanted with a fertilized egg, is right.

Huh? I get birth or surrogate but that woman is in no way genetically related to that baby (again IIRC...I need to read the article again).

IMO she violated the contract she had with the parents. There was a clause in there about them having the right to require a pregnancy termination in the event of significant genetic problems.

(03-05-2013, 02:02 PM)username Wrote: Huh? I get birth or surrogate but that woman is in no way genetically related to that baby (again IIRC...I need to read the article again).

IMO she violated the contract she had with the parents. There was a clause in there about them having the right to require a pregnancy termination in the event of significant genetic problems.

I get what you're saying and I'll just call Crystal the "surrogate mom". I think that you're right and technically "bio" and "genetic" are synonymous.

Terminology aside, while Crystal violated the contract, I don't think forced abortion is an option in reality. I can't see anybody forcibly taking a pregnant woman to have an abortion against her will without being charged with kidnapping and possibly other crimes. JMO. Interesting story.

Yeah, I can't see that either but at the minimum I think the bio parents have a case for breech of contract.

(03-05-2013, 02:19 PM)username Wrote: ...at the minimum I think the bio parents have a case for breech of contract.

I agree. But, I don't think the genetic parents would have much luck getting the $22k back even if they thought it was worth (emotionally and financially) pursuing it legally. Sad situation for them all the way around.

I now get why you asked, "huh?". I don't know why I added "genetic" to this statement I posted upthread:
"I should have just used "birth" or "surrogate" or "genetic" mom when referring to Crystal."

I will steal from Jodi Arias and just say that my brain is scrambled and a fog has set in.

(03-05-2013, 02:25 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I will steal from Jodi Arias and just say that my brain is scrambled and a fog has set in.

Haha! Probably my fault for the way I posed the question. "Huh?" is pretty aggressive.

(03-05-2013, 02:02 PM)username Wrote: IMO she violated the contract she had with the parents. There was a clause in there about them having the right to require a pregnancy termination in the event of significant genetic problems.

By fostering the child, the contracting parents essentially experienced the same outcome as a pregnancy termination . . . NO KID UNDER THEIR ROOF.

What were the other terms of the contract?

(03-05-2013, 02:41 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(03-05-2013, 02:02 PM)username Wrote: IMO she violated the contract she had with the parents. There was a clause in there about them having the right to require a pregnancy termination in the event of significant genetic problems.

By fostering the child, the contracting parents essentially experienced the same outcome as a pregnancy termination . . . NO KID UNDER THEIR ROOF.

What were the other terms of the contract?

IDK, they just referenced the one point. It's still different though. If their concern really was that the baby would suffer and it was more humane that the child not be born, they didn't get that. The baby is out there facing multiple surgeries and may not survive regardless (or may never walk or talk).

I have mixed feelings. I'm not advocating for abortions but in the case of severe health issues with a fetus...it makes it more complicated.

Fuck 'em.

Adoption wasn't good enough for them . . . instead they created a deformed genetic monster in an attempt to satisfy their egos.

Angelina Jolie is not happy.

(03-05-2013, 01:30 PM)username Wrote: She was carrying an embryo from the couple that paid her. She was only a surrogate.

I feel the couple had the right to make the decision regarding the abortion, the surrogate was nothing more than an incubator.

(03-05-2013, 03:05 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: Fuck 'em.

Adoption wasn't good enough for them . . . instead they created a deformed genetic monster in an attempt to satisfy their egos.

Angelina Jolie is not happy.

Oh no you didn't. Are you saying infertile couples shouldn't take advantage of technology and are responsible for adopting the unwanted children of the world?

I do agree in some ways though. Apparently some of their other kids have medical issues. They should have known the risk.

(03-05-2013, 02:50 PM)username Wrote: I'm not advocating for abortions but in the case of severe health issues with a fetus...it makes it more complicated.

Especially when you have two mothers involved and they're at odds regarding the abortion issue. Complicated x 2.

Everyone's different, of course. But, if I had 3 children already and was physically unable to conceive a 4^th, I'd consider adoption before surrogacy. There are unknowns and risks with both, but here we have a child who was intentionally created where neither the genetic parents nor the birth mom is prepared to care for her while an existing child somewhere is waiting for parents.

I've also read about several cases over the years where the surrogate mother changed her mind and fought legally to keep the child (sometimes successfully); not sure if all of them were the genetic moms. So many potential complications and heartaches from such an agreement.

I agree with Tiki: if the contracting parents don't keep the kid and don't have a previous clause detailing abortion, then they have no legal standing. In fact, they almost can be seen as breaching the contract themselves, since the surrogate went through the physical stress of pregnancy and they decided to change their minds because the kid was not perfect. Fuck those arrogant scumbags. There are people everyday who give birth to kids with problems and these cunts don't deserve to rear offspring. I hope they both die alone and penniless.

(03-05-2013, 03:13 PM)username Wrote: Oh no you didn't. Are you saying infertile couples shouldn't take advantage of technology and are responsible for adopting the unwanted children of the world?

Oh yes I did!

And "No" . . . I'm not dissing octomom doctors and their technology nor am I suggesting infertile couples have the sole responsibility for the orphans and castaway children of the world.

I'm questioning why a perfectly healthy and unwanted child was not good enough for them.

BTW - Madonna thinks you're shallow and selfish.

There was a clause about terminating the pregnancy.

(03-05-2013, 03:21 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(03-05-2013, 03:13 PM)username Wrote: Oh no you didn't. Are you saying infertile couples shouldn't take advantage of technology and are responsible for adopting the unwanted children of the world?

Oh yes I did!

And "No" . . . I'm not dissing octomom doctors and their technology nor am I suggesting infertile couples have the sole responsibility for the orphans and castaway children of the world.

I'm questioning why a perfectly healthy and unwanted child was not good enough for them.

BTW - Madonna thinks you're shallow and selfish.

That family that has 18 (or is it 19?) natural children are selfish.