03-05-2013, 04:32 PM
(03-05-2013, 04:14 PM)Duchess Wrote:
I've been reading more about this story. I don't like the surrogate, she was a very poor choice, that's just my opinion, she was much too needy. Anyway...she signed the contract agreeing to "abortion in case of severe fetus abnormality." Do any of you disagree that the issues this child has constitutes severe fetus abnormality? The genetic parents had every right to expect the contract to protect their interests.
I think that Crystal was a bad choice as well.
Yes, the severity of the condition constituted severe fetus abnormality in this child. While the parents might have been right in expecting that the contract would protect their legal interests, the fact is that the abortion clause is unenforceable.
I feel badly for this couple if they're truly struggling with this child's suffering, but they exercised their right to walk away from any responsibility to care for the baby. They're back where they started, less $22k. The couple had other options and engaged in an ill-advised situation in attempt to have a fourth child. Imo, they bear some responsibility for their situation too.