Another surrogacy case in the news

[Laurie4b]

I'm really not ready to say that an unrelated surrogate (these are babies conceived from his sperm and donor eggs) should have any claim to any of the children. She got paid. She did this for money, not out of the kindness of her heart. She claims to be pro-life yet she presumably was willing to put her signature on a document that (perhaps illegally) gave that right to the biological father. I would never sign something like that.

 

I don't think she should have to abort. But she also shouldn't be signing surrogacy agreements if she is prolife. She also shouldn't be a paid surrogate if she wants a child of her own to adopt.

 

I think putting some of the same restrictions on surrogacy as we have on abortion (can't be essentially a sale of a child) would help address some of these problems.

 

I can see why he wouldn't want to adopt out a child after birth even if there is more than he bargained for. If he can afford a surrogate (not even vaguely cheap) he can afford an extra child.

 

 

As the biological father, I seriously doubt that once the children are born he will be able to decide WHICH child to adopt out. And if he did opt to place one or more of the children up for adoption, it's his decision as to who, where and how, within the bounds of the law. He can not sell them as she basically sold her womb.

 

I would be very uncomfortable with a precedent that gives unrelated paid surrogates any claim to a child above the biological and legal parent.

 

If the argument is that it is traumatic for babies to be be separated from whoever gestated them (in this case, not the biological or legal mother) or that surrogates can't really consent to the terms of their contracts, then the solution would be to bar surrogacy, not to give paid surrogates parental rights. I seriously doubt that is a step we are willing to take as surrogacy helps many people build their families. Heck, since it is hard for the babies to be separated from whoever gestated them and their siblings, why not just let her have dibs on all of them? Because that's not what she signed up to do. Because he is the biological father.

 

These are his children. She doesn't get "dibs" to a human being she was willing to take money to gestate knowing full well she wasn't the legal or biological parent.

 

 

These arguments are viewing the issue solely through the lens of the rights of the adults involved. 

 

It seems most here who are responding rank the adult rights agree that in balancing the rights of the adult who is the bio father against the rights of the surrogate that her rights to bodily integrity take precedence over his right to decide how many children he wants.  No woman, even a surrogate, should be forced into an abortion she doesn't want, even if she thought it would be okay when she signed the contract. So her right's as a woman to bodily integrity trump the father's rights as biological father. Children in the womb don't get many rights. 

 

But when we get to the issue of a child who is now unwanted by the bio father, but wanted by the surrogate, my argument is that the baby who will be born also has rights. That child gestated with siblings, and we know that siblings form bonds in the womb. That child will be separated from those bonds. That child also formed bonds with the gestating mother. Unless she is an unfit parent, allowing her to adopt the child gives the child less trauma. That wins in my book. Child's rights to less trauma over biological father's rights to decide his or her fate. 

 

The loss of the biological mother, even when the child is adopted by loving parents, is starting to be addressed as a topic in adoption circles. Some children seem to have smooth sailing; some clearly indicate signs of grief. I say go with what's best for the child. 

 

And as SKL said upthread, the laws need to be changed to accommodate surrogates in instances in which the bio parents (or contracting parents if neither is bio)  no longer want a child and the surrogate does.

 

I think it can be argued that a woman not currently pregnant cannot give informed consent to an abortion that might be demanded in her future. A woman's consent is good only at the time of the procedure. A woman who changes her mind on the table has a right to get off. So I would argue contracts cannot specify that the woman would get an abortion. 

[MercyA]

 Personally, I would never be involved with a professional organization that uses bad grammar. There are multiple babies, not there's multiple babies. Sheesh. 

 

Yeah, I noticed that, too--and then repeated it. Corrected.  :o

[katilac]

She got paid. She did this for money, not out of the kindness of her heart. ore than he bargained for. 

 

 

He can not sell them as she basically sold her womb.

 

 

These are his children. She doesn't get "dibs" to a human being she was willing to take money to gestate  

 

 

Bluntly, I am not really fully comfortable with paid surrogacy. 

 

I get not fully being comfortable with paid surrogacy (which seems an understatement), but you are being terribly harsh on surrogate mothers, imo. 

 

They are only one player in the game, and not the one making the most money. Surrogate mothers aren't getting rich for what is a mighty long and difficult job. Being paid doesn't rule out them also wanting to help someone. 

 

Please note that I am not talking about the details of this case in particular, just surrogacy in general, and how the negative attitude often centers on the surrogate. If she is choosing to take money, then someone is choosing to offer it. And if the surrogate mother is selling her womb, then the contractual father is buying a child, yes? But it's so rarely expressed that way. 

[mamiof5]

Yeah, my sentiments exactly. Human beings being reduced to excess sprouts in a garden. What a sad world we live in.

It is a very sad world. These are children, human beings we are talking about. Not something you can dispose of at your convenience :(

[Katy]

You can't split up identical triplets.  It seems like genetic abuse to keep two together and adopt one.

[Innisfree]

Lesson number one about parenthood for this dad: you can't ever predict who your child(ren) will turn out to be or what needs they will have. Choosing to have children means accepting that uncertainty and the responsibility that accompanies it.

 

That said, I can understand a state of shock in a single father (or mother) contemplating newborn triplets. I hope he adjusts and rises to the challenge.

[TechWife]

You can't split up identical triplets.  It seems like genetic abuse to keep two together and adopt one.

 

No one said anything about them being identical. With the surrogacy, it is much more likely that they are fraternal. 

[melmichigan]

This article views it a little differently, and states that it was a medical concern.  Once she refused he "backed off".  

 

http://nypost.com/2016/01/04/surrogate-mom-carrying-triplets-sues-to-stop-forced-abortion/

 

I found it interesting that the surrogate is a mother of four, including a set of triplets.  I wonder how much is true and how much is fabricated, or being exploited.

 

 

[MedicMom]

I'm just wondering what sort of agency approved a 47 year old to be a surrogate.

I'm guessing none. Which is undoubtably part of the problem.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Techwife, the one article said "egg" not "eggs."  It suggests that they are identical triplets, not poor choices on how many to implant.  Putting in three when you aren't willing to parent three would be problematic; but dealing with the shock of a three way split is quite different.

 

ETA: However, I see in another article it did say they put in 3.  Sorry for the confusion.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Pamela H in Texas

[Guest]

Aren't identical triplets extremely rare?? Like reality tv worthy rare?

[BlsdMama]

Because it wasn't mentioned, I assume the doctors implanted three.  I wonder why that is a viable option in this scenario?  My sister recently went through IVF.  They would ONLY implant two.  That's it.  No third embryo option.  Now, obviously if one embryo splits, then you have three, but I suspect that would have been mentioned.

I saw the irony in this:

The father of Melissa Cook’s fetuses has stated that he believes singling one child out for adoption would be cruel"

Yes, cruel to adopt, but not cruel to inject, or poison, or vacuum extract, or cut apart?  Hm.  Has he thought that one through? The baby would never wonder, "Why did my daddy give me up?" that much is for certain. :/

I don't understand why implant more than two in IVF.  It seems ridiculously risky, especially when faced with surrogacy or potential reduction.  Frustrated.  Angry.  Sad.  

 

 

[BlsdMama]

 

These are his children. She doesn't get "dibs" to a human being she was willing to take money to gestate knowing full well she wasn't the legal or biological parent.

 

Adamantly pro-life, obviously, I don't even believe in using birth control, LOL, but I see the irony here.

 

For the most part, it is the left side that believes he should be able to demand she abort.

And yet, so their argument goes, "No one can tell me what to do with my body."   And even more so, the argument for pro-choice contends that the babies are essentially just parasites, unable to live on their own without the mother, so the mother can do what she likes with them before viability.  

 

I almost hope he wins.  Because it's a whole new can of worms in the pro-choice/pro-life debate.  All of a sudden her bodily rights are NOT pre-emptive.  It's an interesting twist... Too bad a real human life is at stake here. :(

[Danestress]

Other news sources report that three embryos were implanted.

 

No ethical doctor will perform an abortion without consent of the patient, and the implied consent of having signed the contract would not be good enough. Unlikely a court would ever order a healthy, complement woman to have an abortion.

 

So the father's only real option was to threaten financial ruin. He may have later chosen to sue for damages, including the costs of medical care for the babies.

[gardenmom5]

I agree, but don't they still sometimes divide after implantation?  Or do I have that wrong?

here are two cases where inplanting two eggs resulted in indentical twin quads.

 

there was a case in 2014. two sets of identical girls.. http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/29/living/feat-ivf-mom-gives-birth-quads/index.html

 

another in 2011. a set of boys, and a set of girls.  http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ivf-success-story-turns-quadruplet-surprise/story?id=13350702

 

I'm sure there are other cases out there.

 

Aren't identical triplets extremely rare?? Like reality tv worthy rare?

 

identical triplets aren't so unusual they'd get a reality show, and rarely commericals.  identical quads . . . yes are much more rare. it is a very high risk pregnancy because you've got four babies and one placenta.  (i did seen one set of identical quad boys who were in a commercial - for another commercial, the producers only wanted three of the boys.)  .

then there were the dionne quintuplets in 1934 in canada . . . . (the dr turned them into a money making machine for himself.  those poor girls.  the parents had to fight to get custody.)

[SKL]

Lesson number one about parenthood for this dad: you can't ever predict who your child(ren) will turn out to be or what needs they will have. Choosing to have children means accepting that uncertainty and the responsibility that accompanies it.

 

That said, I can understand a state of shock in a single father (or mother) contemplating newborn triplets. I hope he adjusts and rises to the challenge.

 

This reminds me of a fellow adoptive parent.  While in process for adoption, when their turn came up for a referral, it was twins, and they accepted.  Then they unexpectedly became pregnant.  In less than a year they went from hoping to adopt 1 kid to parenting 3 kids.  (They kept all three of them.)

 

I hope for this dad's sake that his kids are all healthy.  I was just reading the facebook page of a set of beautiful conjoined twins (inseparable) that were born to a poor family.  Surprise!  There are all sorts of surprises in parenthood.  The number of kids can be the least of a parent's worries.

 

Edited February 21, 2016 by SKL

[Paige]

I think Dad had a right to request selective abortion (although I am personally against it), but no right to demand it, contract or not. If the mother has already had healthy triplets, they will likely do pretty well.

 

I also think it's in the baby's best interest to go to the surrogate if Dad won't take her. I doubt the surrogate wanted another baby in the first place, but I could see her desperately wanting one if she thought it was unwanted. It's one thing to give a baby up to a loving family that you know and trust. It's another to send it out to limbo or to an unknown random family. With epigenetics and newer things we're learning about how gestational carriers affect the baby's growth, it's not a stretch to say that she is in some way the birth mom and does have a type of genetic connection. The same embryos in a different womb would probably develop a little differently. 

 

 

 . yes are much more rare. it is a very high risk pregnancy because you've got four babies and one placenta. 

 

With identical quads you could have anywhere from 1-4 placentas. All scenarios would be very high risk.

 

 

[Corraleno]

Adamantly pro-life, obviously, I don't even believe in using birth control, LOL, but I see the irony here.

 

For the most part, it is the left side that believes he should be able to demand she abort.

And yet, so their argument goes, "No one can tell me what to do with my body."   And even more so, the argument for pro-choice contends that the babies are essentially just parasites, unable to live on their own without the mother, so the mother can do what she likes with them before viability.  

 

I almost hope he wins.  Because it's a whole new can of worms in the pro-choice/pro-life debate.  All of a sudden her bodily rights are NOT pre-emptive.  It's an interesting twist... Too bad a real human life is at stake here. :(

 

 

The father is not suing the surrogate to compel an abortion — that was never the case. There will be no abortion. 

 

The surrogate has filed a lawsuit asking the state of California to invalidate the selective reduction clause of her contract, so that she can collect the full $45,000 fee despite breaching the contract.

 

I don't believe that anyone should ever be compelled to have an abortion against her will, and I don't know a single person who would advocate that. However, I think she should not have signed a contract agreeing to selective reduction if she was morally opposed to it; that's dishonest.

 

This is not her first surrogacy contract — she has already had another child as a surrogate, as well as four children of her own, so it's not as if she had no idea how she would feel about the prospect of selective reduction. If she didn't want to accept that possibility, then she should not have signed a contract that included that clause. 

[gardenmom5]

This reminds me of a fellow adoptive parent.  While in process for adoption, when their turn came up for a referral, it was twins, and they accepted.  Then they unexpectedly became pregnant.  In less than a year they went from hoping to adopt 1 kid to parenting 3 kids.  (They kept all three of them.)

 

I hope for this dad's sake that his kids are all healthy.  I was just reading the facebook page of a set of beautiful conjoined twins (inseparable) that were born to a poor family.  Surprise!  There are all sorts of surprises in parenthood.  The number of kids can be the least of a parent's worries.

 

 

or the young couples who have everything all planned out.  do__, do__, do __, then get pg with 1 ___ so it's born in __ month. then after x months, get pg with number 2. . . .

 

oh, to be so young and idealistic (re: naive) . . . . .

 

 

 

 

With identical quads you could have anywhere from 1-4 placentas. All scenarios would be very high risk.

 

the one I was following was 1-placenta.

[StephanieZ]

This guy has paid for a surrogate pregnancy, a fertilization procedure that has a known risk of producing multiples. He obviously understood that as a single parent, he would likely face some child care costs (if not full time day care). I say, in for a penny, in for a pound. He should be responsible for all of them. I will get flamed but he went into this eyes wide open. If he only wants 2, I think he should not only allow the surrogate to adopt, but he should also pay child support for the third that the surrogate keeps.

 

I completely agree. 

 

That the state won't enforce a contract it deems unenforceable does not make the state responsible for the outcomes. It simply clarifies the law that you CAN NOT make certain contracts legally. This happens all day long. In some states, non-compete clauses are unenforceable. Someone can still write and sign such a contract, but if it goes to court, it's not going to be enforced. You could write and sign a contract selling your child or yourself into slavery, but that's illegal, so it won't be enforced. Etc, etc. 

 

This area of law is obviously evolving and fuzzy, but it seems plain wrong to me to have any contract that can force any woman to have an abortion ever. Period. (And, FTR, I am firmly pro-CHOICE. That does NOT mean pro-ABORTION.) IMHO, folks who choose surrogacy should have to accept that they can't force a woman to have an abortion. If the man had made his baby in the typical way with a partner, he would be stuck with all three babies too . . . as no man can force a wife (or girl friend or whoever) to have an abortion either. 

 

I feel very uneasy about surrogacy, honestly. I don't believe I could do it from EITHER side. I have a close friend who used donor eggs to get pregnant and has been very blessed. I'm pretty OK with donor eggs and sperm (and hearts and kidneys and blood), but the whole surrogacy thing creeps me out as some sort of slavery. I had a (homeschool mom) acquaintance who was a repeat-surrogate. I think she was on #2 or 3 when I knew her, and she planned to have one surrogacy for each of her (2 or 3) own kids plus one more -- planning to save each fee for college funds for each kid and then a big family vacation/around the world trip. It was maybe 12 years ago, and IIRC, she was being paid 40-50k or so each pregnancy. It was big money. It really creeped me out, thinking of her own kids watching her grow and then give away the babies . . . but she seemed pretty normal and happy with it all. Another acquaintance used a surrogate to have a 2nd child when birth complications from her first left her unable to carry another . . . But none of these women have been intimate friends, so I really have never known someone close enough to know how it works in their heads. I can totally see the side of the women "buying" the babies, but I can't fathom the selling part . . . Certainly not for the one woman I did know, who lived in a nice area in a nice home with a high earning spouse . . . I can see it happening in desperation (which is very tragic), but for convenience and college funds? So, obviously, some of the women that are surrogates must not feel as shattered as I would in their shoes. (I likewise cannot myself fathom giving up a baby nor aborting one under any circumstances . . . despite me being firmly pro-choice and pro-adoption)

 

So, anyway, I'm sure my feelings color my thoughts on the contracts, but, to me, I do think there are some really shady moral aspects of surrogacy, and I do not think courts should enforce the shadier aspects of them. 

Edited February 21, 2016 by StephanieZ

[StephanieZ]

Adamantly pro-life, obviously, I don't even believe in using birth control, LOL, but I see the irony here.

 

For the most part, it is the left side that believes he should be able to demand she abort.

And yet, so their argument goes, "No one can tell me what to do with my body."   And even more so, the argument for pro-choice contends that the babies are essentially just parasites, unable to live on their own without the mother, so the mother can do what she likes with them before viability.  

 

I almost hope he wins.  Because it's a whole new can of worms in the pro-choice/pro-life debate.  All of a sudden her bodily rights are NOT pre-emptive.  It's an interesting twist... Too bad a real human life is at stake here. :(

 

FWIW, I am so far left (on this board), that I think I fall off the left side of the computer screen while viewing these boards. And, I am firmly pro-CHOICE. 

 

I absolutely disagree with the assertion that left-leaning folks would lean towards enforcing the abortion clause in the contract. Honestly, I'd expect the exact opposite. To me, this sort of contract is more about the powerful (man with $$$) using the less powerful (surrogate), and basic human freedom, which I don't believe you should be able to contract away. And, to me, being on the "left" is largely about trying to equal the playing field by empowering those with less power. 

 

Many (IME, the vast majority) of us on the left are pro-CHOICE as a lesser of evils, believing that abortion is inevitable in any modern culture (and probably any ancient one as well), and that it should be safe, legal, and RARE. I'd always been firmly "never for me" for abortion while still feeling it is vital for it to be safe and legal. I have had hundreds to thousands of conversations about abortion with other "left" friends (and "right" friends too) over the decades, and I have never, ever, once heard a live human being dismiss abortion as anything but a tragedy. The one friend I've known who chose it did so in pain and with great deliberation and distress (due to grave birth defects and with already having one adult daughter with serious life-time medical needs and two additional children). Believing that abortion should be safe and legal is not remotely equivalent with feeling it is a routine thing without moral consequences. I am sure there are people out there who think abortion is not a big deal, but I've never met a single one of them. 

Edited February 21, 2016 by StephanieZ

[Tsuga]

As a side note, I do wish adoption felt like more of an option for people in this man's position. Sure, he wants a bio child, but there are many even babies, older infants who need parents. It would be so, so much more responsible to adopt a child than to end up in this situation. I so appreciate seeing the "older" single people I know who have adopted. I really think it's a lovely thing, for both parties.

 

I think it could be extremely hard for a single man at age 50 to adopt a child, for various cultural reasons and prejudices.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The father is not suing the surrogate to compel an abortion — that was never the case. There will be no abortion. 

 

The surrogate has filed a lawsuit asking the state of California to invalidate the selective reduction clause of her contract, so that she can collect the full $45,000 fee despite breaching the contract.

 

I don't believe that anyone should ever be compelled to have an abortion against her will, and I don't know a single person who would advocate that. However, I think she should not have signed a contract agreeing to selective reduction if she was morally opposed to it; that's dishonest.

 

This is not her first surrogacy contract — she has already had another child as a surrogate, as well as four children of her own, so it's not as if she had no idea how she would feel about the prospect of selective reduction. If she didn't want to accept that possibility, then she should not have signed a contract that included that clause. 

 

There you go again with facts and such.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Adamantly pro-life, obviously, I don't even believe in using birth control, LOL, but I see the irony here.

 

For the most part, it is the left side that believes he should be able to demand she abort.

And yet, so their argument goes, "No one can tell me what to do with my body."   And even more so, the argument for pro-choice contends that the babies are essentially just parasites, unable to live on their own without the mother, so the mother can do what she likes with them before viability.  

 

I almost hope he wins.  Because it's a whole new can of worms in the pro-choice/pro-life debate.  All of a sudden her bodily rights are NOT pre-emptive.  It's an interesting twist... Too bad a real human life is at stake here. :(

 

Please cite a source for your outrageous claim.

[Tsuga]

 

 

For the most part, it is the left side that believes he should be able to demand she abort.

 

This is absolutely not true.

 

I don't see that ANYONE here thinks that he should be able to make that demand. I think SKL, who strikes me as pro-life generally, certainly moderate conservative in general-- I don't know her position--is the most empathetic to the man's rights, but at the same time she still isn't saying he has any rights over her body.

 

I am very pro-choice and I absolutely think this is her choice. I think Katie's hit the nail on the head that this is where surrogacy contracts fall apart.

 

At the same time, I would say that it should simply be illegal to make an extra-judicial surrogacy arrangement. Maybe they should be done through the courts like parenting plans.

 

But no, I do not see any pro-choice individuals suggesting that the father has rights over her body or rights to demand an abortion of one or more. That would lead to disastrous consequences. I recognize that for many, legal abortion is already a disaster, so for them this would be disaster upon disaster.

[Katy]

nm

Edited July 22, 2016 by Katy

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Autonomy! That's the word I was looking for earlier. She has bodily autonomy even after signing a contract. That's why we don't have indentured servitude any more. Have they changed the laws in all states? I seem to remember something in the news when I was a kid where surrogacy was legally considered adoption despite who the genetic parents were, so a surrogate who wanted to keep a child was legally allowed to do so.

Read Corraleno's post.

[ktgrok]

I know a woman who is about to become a surrogate for the 2nd time. She loves it. I couldn't do it. 

 

I did hear one person, on tv, say that it isn't giving a baby up, it's giving the baby back. That kind of helped me to understand it. That they were caring for another person's baby and just giving it back. 

 

But I couldn't do it and think there are some grave moral issues surrounding it. I don't want to outlaw it. I don't judge her. But man....so morally and ethically complicated. As this shows. And because babies do form attachments in the womb....it isn't ideal at all. Maybe it's the best scenario in a world of bad options, I don't know. But...I'm super not comfortable with it. 

[SKL]

Surrogacy isn't ideal, but it may be the most ideal of the choices that the people involved have.  The same could be said about most ways of building a family (or all of them depending on the context).

 

I agree, it's giving a baby back.  Being a foster parent is excruciatingly hard too, yet most people would agree that it is not morally questionable.  Being a NICU nurse is even hard on the day a long-admitted baby goes home, but nobody questions the nurse's character for being able to handle it.

 

I don't know if I could personally do it or not, but I am honestly glad that some people can.  I mean, that some people can do something that is so intimate that it inevitably forms a bond, and then walk away from that bond when the beneficiary's "forever family" comes to take him home.

[eternalsummer]

A foster parent or a nurse in the NICU is not *creating* a situation that is fraught with attachment problems for the child (and potentially the surrogate).

 

This is the problem I have with surrogacy: there is a world of difference between adopting a child who for whatever reason cannot live with his/her birth parents and purposefully creating a child who cannot know his/her birth parents.  

 

It is an awful thing, I am sure, to be unable to have biological children of your own with a spouse.  I think it might be a more awful thing to try to solve that lack by creating children who are unable to know their biological parents; you're just substituting their grief for yours.

[SKL]

A foster parent or a nurse in the NICU is not *creating* a situation that is fraught with attachment problems for the child (and potentially the surrogate).

 

This is the problem I have with surrogacy: there is a world of difference between adopting a child who for whatever reason cannot live with his/her birth parents and purposefully creating a child who cannot know his/her birth parents.  

 

It is an awful thing, I am sure, to be unable to have biological children of your own with a spouse.  I think it might be a more awful thing to try to solve that lack by creating children who are unable to know their biological parents; you're just substituting their grief for yours.

 

Well I don't know, but over time we will see the results of these decisions and we'll be able to study them.

 

I assume you are including anonymous donors as well as surrogates, since they all result in kids who have biological parents they don't know.

 

There are many choices families make that "create" situations that can be problematic, and we usually don't judge them so harshly.  I think we're just not used to this kind of family choice yet.

 

Since we have come this far already, I think we should let the children who are born from these arrangements decide if their existence was on balance a positive outcome.

 

[Daria]

I feel as though the media is being unfair to the father in this situation.

 

First of all, I think that there's no doubt that the pregnant woman makes the final decision about terminating or continuing the pregnancy, and that nothing she signs before becoming pregnant takes away her right to change her mind.  The law is quite clear on that matter. I think that any lawyer drafting a surrogacy agreement knows that clauses that require a woman to make a specific decision are not enforceable. Hopefully, this was explained to the father before he entered into the contract. My guess is that this language was included as a way to ensure that the parent and surrogate were on the same page. It doesn't protect against a surrogate changing her mind once the pregnancy is reality, but it does help ensure that, at least before the beginning of the pregnancy, the surrogate and genetic parents have similar views on abortion and selective reduction. 

 

I also think that presenting selective reduction in this case, as being about wanting or not wanting 3 kids is unfair.  Triplet pregnancies are high risky. Triplet pregnancies where the woman is 47 are probably even riskier.  It is not uncommon for a woman carrying triplets to lose all 3.  Even when the pregnancy continues to viability, triplets are almost always born early, and almost always face long NICU stays.  Complications related to prematurity are common in triplets, and often lead to permanent disabilities. Some people choose selective reduction as a way to increase the odds of delivering healthy babies at or close to term.  Adoption doesn't increase those odds, so it's not a solution to the problem.  

 

Finally, it appears that even though the father preferred selective reduction, he is doing the right thing.  He's preparing to parent all three babies, and he's continuing to pay the surrogate throughout the pregnancy.  

[SKL]

The article I read made it sound like the dad's biggest issue was the cost of raising 3 kids vs. 2.  His comment about "adopting out one of them would be cruel" has nothing to do with birth risk or NICU.  But maybe he was misquoted.  It happens.

[Daria]

The article I read made it sound like the dad's biggest issue was the cost of raising 3 kids vs. 2.  His comment about "adopting out one of them would be cruel" has nothing to do with birth risk or NICU.  But maybe he was misquoted.  It happens.

 

The article linked above mentions health concerns twice.  It counters them by saying that the woman carrying the triplets says they're all "healthy", which is somewhat ridiculous, given that most of the health issues with triplets are due to prematurity and aren't known at 25 weeks. 

[goldberry]

I don't believe that anyone should ever be compelled to have an abortion against her will, and I don't know a single person who would advocate that. However, I think she should not have signed a contract agreeing to selective reduction if she was morally opposed to it; that's dishonest.

 

 

Yeah, I don't get that either.  

[JadeOrchidSong]

Surrogacy creates dilemmas that we aren't even close to resolving culturally or legally. It's illegal to buy and sell children. I'm not wholly sure how paid surrogacy is any different than that.

Not a fan of surrogacy either, paid or unpaid. If one is infertile, adoption is always an option.

[JadeOrchidSong]

A foster parent or a nurse in the NICU is not *creating* a situation that is fraught with attachment problems for the child (and potentially the surrogate).

 

This is the problem I have with surrogacy: there is a world of difference between adopting a child who for whatever reason cannot live with his/her birth parents and purposefully creating a child who cannot know his/her birth parents.

 

It is an awful thing, I am sure, to be unable to have biological children of your own with a spouse. I think it might be a more awful thing to try to solve that lack by creating children who are unable to know their biological parents; you're just substituting their grief for yours.

I agree with you 100%. Deliberately creating a child while at the same time depriving it of one parent to fill one's want of a child is selfish and cruel at once. Adoption would be the loving thing to do.

[Bluegoat]

As the biological father, I seriously doubt that once the children are born he will be able to decide WHICH child to adopt out. And if he did opt to place one or more of the children up for adoption, it's his decision as to who, where and how, within the bounds of the law. He can not sell them as she basically sold her womb.

 

I would be very uncomfortable with a precedent that gives unrelated paid surrogates any claim to a child above the biological and legal parent.

 

If the argument is that it is traumatic for babies to be be separated from whoever gestated them (in this case, not the biological or legal mother) or that surrogates can't really consent to the terms of their contracts, then the solution would be to bar surrogacy, not to give paid surrogates parental rights. I seriously doubt that is a step we are willing to take as surrogacy helps many people build their families. Heck, since it is hard for the babies to be separated from whoever gestated them and their siblings, why not just let her have dibs on all of them? Because that's not what she signed up to do. Because he is the biological father.

 

These are his children. She doesn't get "dibs" to a human being she was willing to take money to gestate knowing full well she wasn't the legal or biological parent.

 

I think these are some of the fundamental problems of surrogacy.  A surrogate may not have provided the genetic material for the child, but to say she isn't biologically related is IMO completely anti-scientific.  She has made the substance of their bodies, there are all kinds of interactions between the mother and the baby that make the baby who he or she is, and which impact the mother over her lifetime - they are part of each other forever.  To try and reduce that to genetics is reductive.

 

And we know it is not ideal for children to be separated from the person who gestated them, if we can help it - whereas in surrogacy we are creating that situation on purpose.

[Bluegoat]

I agree, but don't they still sometimes divide after implantation?  Or do I have that wrong?

 

Yes, they can, but that should be taken into account.  In many countries with laws around embryo implantation, they limit the number that may be transfered specifically keeping in mind the possibility of dividing.

[MercyA]

I also think that presenting selective reduction in this case, as being about wanting or not wanting 3 kids is unfair.  Triplet pregnancies are high risky. Triplet pregnancies where the woman is 47 are probably even riskier.  It is not uncommon for a woman carrying triplets to lose all 3.  Even when the pregnancy continues to viability, triplets are almost always born early, and almost always face long NICU stays.  Complications related to prematurity are common in triplets, and often lead to permanent disabilities. Some people choose selective reduction as a way to increase the odds of delivering healthy babies at or close to term.  

 

An article from the Journal of Perinatology states:

 

"Selective fetal reduction is a procedure that has been widely employed over the last 15 years to reduce the risk of complications related to multiple gestation, and correspondingly improve pregnancy outcome.Many investigators have compared the outcome of triplets with reduced and nonreduced twins with conflicting results. Studies in the early 1990s suggested that reduction of triplet pregnancies improved outcome. However, more recent studies have failed to demonstrate adverse outcome in triplet births when compared with reduced and even nonreduced twins. We propose that recent advances in both neonatal and obstetric care have greatly improved outcome for younger and lighter neonates, and thus the perceived benefits of performing fetal reduction in order to improve neonatal outcome may no longer exist.

 

During the early 1990s, studies suggested a benefit in neonatal outcome and survival if triplet pregnancies were reduced to twins. For example, one series demonstrated that neonatal survival improved from 79 to 97% if triplet pregnancies were reduced to twins. However, this perceived benefit in neonatal survival has not been maintained in studies published more recently. In a study reported in 2000, there was no difference in neonatal survival when 81 sets of triplets were compared with 46 sets of triplets reduced to twins. In addition, a 1999 study comparing 25 sets of triplets with 19 sets of reduced twins reported no difference in overall neonatal survival.

 

[in this study] complications of prematurity in triplets were seen infrequently. Chronic lung disease was diagnosed in 3% of cases, necrotizing enterocolitis in 3%, and there were no cases of intraventricular hemorrhage and periventricular leukomalacia, or advanced retinopathy of prematurity. The mean length of hospital stay was 23 days, with a median of 19 days. Triplet survival to hospital discharge was 96%."

 

Source: http://www.nature.com/jp/journal/v23/n5/full/7210950a.html

 

Note that this study was published in 2003, and I assume outcomes have further improved since then.

 

Regardless, however, killing living human beings because they might die later or because they might experience health problems is morally wrong. 

Edited February 21, 2016 by MercyA

[Daria]

Not a fan of surrogacy either, paid or unpaid. If one is infertile, adoption is always an option.

 

Except that adoption isn't always an option.  A 50 year old man with a disability, even one like deafness that does not impact his ability to be a good parent, is going to find it very very difficult, or maybe impossible, to adopt.  

 

Plus adopted children deserve parents who want them, and who have decided that for them, the biological or genetic connection with a child is not the most important thing.  That isn't to say that a parent can't first pursue the idea of having a biological or genetically related child, and then move on to adoption, but it often takes some grieving and thought before one is ready to make that shift, and some people never do make that shift.  For those people, adoption isn't the right option.

[HS Mom in NC]

I have an extended relative who had triplets 23 years ago.  The hospitalization cost during the last part of the pregnancy, delivery and postpartum was over a million dollars THEN. None of the triplets had long term health issues related to being premature, but I worked at a daycare center a few years before that after high school and we had several significantly special needs kids whose disabilities were directly related to being born very prematurely.  So, let's not assume the father is being a jerk because he prefers 2 to 3. In his mind, he may have genuinely been motivated to abort one to give two a much healthier start.  Not a view I share, but I'm a grown up and can intellectually follow an argument I strongly disagree with.

As probably one of the few posters here who seriously considered hiring a surrogate as one possibility for growing my family, I know why people are tempted to implant 3 or more.  12 years ago when we considered it, it was horrendously expensive to do IVF and the success rate was not high.  If you're taking about $20,000 out of pocket for each IVF attempt 9this doesn't include the surrogacy fee) and each attempt has about a 30% chance at most (give or take based on factors related to the surrogate and each genetic component) of success, you're going to see people with limited funds implanting as many embryos as their ethics will allow in each attempt. I have no idea what the success rates currently are.

On a related note, why a 47 year old woman was chosen as a surrogate is beyond me. ?!?!??!?!?  I suspect the poster up thread was right about this being a shadier arrangement. 

Having looked into state fostadopt and international adoption (we decided to adopted from S. Korea in 2005-2006) I'm aware that there's little chance a single man would be allowed to adopt very many places-especially in his late 40s and early 50s.  I think Russia was a country that allowed it briefly with some highly publicized cases that were everyone's worst nightmare. If I'm wrong about which country, then I apologize to the country of Russia and those in charge of its former international adoption policies.

As a pro-lifer, I decided at 14 weeks to continue with that was believed to be a potentially life threatening pregnancy to both me and my middle daughter, (We both were a few minutes from dying during delivery due to a spontaneously rupturing Fallopian tube and a complete placental abruption. Even the doctor said it was a miracle from God we made it. ) I can't even wrap my brain around someone signing a contract that included the possibility of selective abortion.  It's going to be a possibility unless the person hiring the surrogate was only looking specifically for someone opposed to abortion in all situations. Similarly fuzzy language like "severe" health problems or "serious" deformity are problematic.  What is severe and serious to one person is manageable to another. There isn't an intellectual argument I can follow for a pro-lifer, just set pile of philosophical contradictions. A decent contract would have to include a list of every known scenario people have had to deal with in pregnancy and while I haven't read their contract, I suspect it wasn't meticulously done that way.

 

It was the abortion issue that caused me to reject surrogacy as an option my our situation.  I've been the person who decided to risk myself to keep a child alive and wasn't willing to gamble that someone carrying my baby might say one thing in the contract, then choose to do otherwise if her health or life was on the line. What could a court do if she decided to abort?  Make her return the money.  There's no way they're going to prosecute her for having an abortion because we don't do that in America.  Life threatening pregnancies are extremely rare in America, but I've lived the reality of being that rare situation, so I don't minimize the possibility.  Plan for the worst and hope for the best. How is it that the people involved in this situation didn't manage to think through the worst case scenarios and decide they weren't a good match?

 

[HS Mom in NC]

Not a fan of surrogacy either, paid or unpaid. If one is infertile, adoption is always an option.

 

Who told you that?  There are age, income, health, and other restrictions, fewer countries are allowing international adoptions, fostadoption has varying degrees of difficulty depending on their severance and extended family placement policies it most certainly is not always an option.  Add to that the social acceptance of single motherhood, grandparents willing to take custody of unplanned grandchildren, wide use of birth control and legalization of abortion, less than 1% of unplanned pregnancies result in babies who are placed for private adoption.

 

Placing a child for adoption is always an option.  Being able to adopt a child is not always an option. Please stop spreading this commonly held myth.

 

[JadeOrchidSong]

Who told you that? There are age, income, health, and other restrictions, fewer countries are allowing international adoptions, fostadoption has varying degrees of difficulty depending on their severance and extended family placement policies it most certainly is not always an option. Add to that the social acceptance of single motherhood, grandparents willing to take custody of unplanned grandchildren, wide use of birth control and legalization of abortion, less than 1% of unplanned pregnancies result in babies who are placed for private adoption.

 

Placing a child for adoption is always an option. Being able to adopt a child is not always an option. Please stop spreading this commonly held myth.

 

It still does not justify artificially producing a child and intentionally depriving it of one or both biological parents.

[HS Mom in NC]

It still does not justify artificially producing a child and intentionally depriving it of one or both biological parents.

 

I didn't say, imply or suggest that it did.

 

You made a statement that is not true whether surrogacy is done well, badly or not at all.  There are devastated people in America who believed that anyone who wasn't a criminal would be able to adopt any time they wanted but found out otherwise. 

 

[JadeOrchidSong]

I didn't say, imply or suggest that it did.

 

You made a statement that is not true whether surrogacy is done well, badly or not at all. There are devastated people in America who believed that anyone who wasn't a criminal would be able to adopt any time they wanted but found out otherwise.

 

I stand corrected. Thank you.

My close friends adopted both domestically and internationally. They had to go through a lot of challenges to adopt. One couple in their early 30s has adopted three children and is going to adopt a fourth. Friends and families donate to their funds.

[LucyStoner]

And if the surrogate mother is selling her womb, then the contractual father is buying a child, yes? But it's so rarely expressed that way.

Note I said clearly that I don't think babies should be commodities to be bought and sold. I have no brighter view of the father but most of the criticism on this thread was focused on the dad and I wanted to highlight that this is not merely the case of a nice prolife surrogate refusing an abortion procedure. The father was called a jerk, selfish and IIRC a few more salty words.

 

That I am not fully comfortable with paid surrogacy doesn't mean that I think it should be illegal or that others are wrong for choosing it. It is usually the result of IVF however which is not strictly speaking a view in sync with prolifism. I don't see why this is a blind spot for so many in the prolife movement.

 

There's no way to resolve many of dilemmas that result from paid surrogacy in a way that feels positive for both sides when (if) conflicts arise. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Edited February 22, 2016 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

It still does not justify artificially producing a child and intentionally depriving it of one or both biological parents.

Yet, with the shoe on the other foot, adoption also "deprives it of one or both biological parents." I am not at all opposed to adoption but it is not a panacea for people wanting to have kids who for some reason are not able. Adoption is costly, sometimes comes with emotional risks and is not realistic for every family. Even those I know who have adopted older kids via the foster system have run into high costs and some other, more difficult, barriers.

[eternalsummer]

Again, adoption does not deliberately create a child that will not know one or both biological parents.  

 

eta: but I definitely agree that it is not a panacea; unfortunately there are some people who cannot, for whatever reason (biological or social or whatever), have children.  That is a terrible thing.

 

That doesn't mean that we should as a society allow people to go to any lengths to create a child for themselves, regardless of the issues the creation of that child might raise.

 

And yes, we do in general stigmatise other child-producing situations where both biological parents aren't available as "not ideal."  They are seldom situations where the original intention was to create a child who would not know his/her parents, so we tend to give people more grace, but I would say most societies, and most parts of our society, speak about ways to reduce the rate of single motherhood, or out of wedlock births, or divorce; these are not ideal situations in any sense.

Edited February 23, 2016 by ananemone

[JadeOrchidSong]

Yet, with the shoe on the other foot, adoption also "deprives it of one or both biological parents." .

n

Surrogacy is intentionally planned to exclude one or both bio parents and definitely the surrogate mom.

Adoption is in totally another category.