Australian surrogacy gone wrong

[nausicaa]

That whole interview was just odd. The weird fake-looking tears, the way that Gammy was referred to as "the" boy (why not "our" boy, or better still, as Gammy?).

And some of the answers were just non-answers, eg when he was trying to explain why they "had to" leave the country?

And a question for those who know about such things: They claimed to have tried IVF for 8 years. Do IVF providers screen prospective parents for sex offender status?

I like to think that I have some finely tuned creepdar, and these two are pinging mine so loudly.

Also, that interviewer has got her some steel ovaries! She was using techniques on calling him out on his crap that I've can't recall ever seeing an American interviewer use.

Asides, does anyone know how old the biological father is? And where the biological mother is originally from? And I know things tend to be more laid back in Australia, but is it generally acceptable to wear a screen printed Quiksilver teeshirt for a serious national TV interview?

[DGayle]

I don't condone the parents because apparently the father has a child abusing history, and I think they should have discussed abortion before.

However, I would have done the same thing in their place. If someone has has a problem, refuses to get rid of (abort) that problem while it is legal, then why should I be stuck with that problem for 18+ years. Or have to transfer that problem to my home country? Sure, you could say it's the punishment for not vetting the surrogate better, but I think that is harsh. And of course the parents would want the healthy girl, why wouldn't they? That's the reason they did this in the first place!

If you knew your biological child, who had been conceived because he was wanted, had been born, even if you didn't want it in the end, wouldn't you feel anything at all for that baby? We tell biological fathers to man the hell up and take responsibility for a baby they helped conceive, even if they don't want to be a parent to that baby, since the woman carrying it has the right. In this case, you'd be the father's shoes. Men don't get to bail. Why should you be allowed to?

[DGayle]

I'm sorry, but if I were pregnant, I absolutely would abort a fetus that would have lifelong impairments. I'm sorry, but I want a healthy child. Any surrogate of mine would be expected to terminate the pregnancy if I asked her to.

Since your love is conditional based on being perfect and healthy, I hope you never have kids. Not all lifelong impairments are apparent at or before birth. I have friends with disabled children. Only the child with Downs was known to be disabled before. That child has been a lot easier to take care of than another friend's child with extremely profound autism, or another friend's child who developed a disease that means he'll be living his life in and out of the hospital never able to walk, or another whose son was recently diagnosed with a degenerative disease that will land him in a wheelchair within a few years and has cut his life expectancy back to a few decades.

If you could not love a child for not being healthy, then you can not love any child. Love is unconditional, and it's horrifying that a child must be perfectly healthy to be worthy of you.

[2xx1xy1JD]

If you knew your biological child, who had been conceived because he was wanted, had been born, even if you didn't want it in the end, wouldn't you feel anything at all for that baby? We tell biological fathers to man the hell up and take responsibility for a baby they helped conceive, even if they don't want to be a parent to that baby, since the woman carrying it has the right. In this case, you'd be the father's shoes. Men don't get to bail. Why should you be allowed to?

Agreed.

Also, why are you referring to a living baby as simply "that problem"?

[DGayle]

I would hope that woman would take responsibility for the fetus & then the baby, as she decided that to disregard the wishes of the people who put the fetus in her in the first place.

Fathers are expected to step up even if the mother disregards his wishes. Her body, her choice.

I absolutely, 100% do not want to raise a developmentally disabled person. It's unfair to the person, it's unfair to the parents, it's unfair to society. It's completely different when the disability occurs during or after birth, as accidents happen. But to willfully bring a person into this world only to suffer is a terrible thing to do.

This is evil. Absolutely evil. How DARE you say that having a disabled child is unfair to society. Wow. Do you know who else thought disabled people were unfair to society? Or do you deny the Holocaust? No, it's not different when a disability is apparent after birth. It's still a disability, still has a cost to it, and you still see these people as burdens. Holy shit.

Also many healthy people suffer tremendously, and plenty of disabled people enjoy good lives. How sick do you have to be to think that good health means good life, and disability means your life sucks to the point of being better off not alive? I'm sure there are people on this forum with disabilities, or who have kids with them, who really appreciate learning this from you.

I don't think it's the surrogates right to hijack the fetus that doesn't belong to her. It's her body, but the fetus is not hers and she does not have the right to decide not to abort if the parents want her to. It's her uterus, and she chose to allow them to borrow it for the duration of the pregnancy. If they want to terminate the pregnancy, that's not her call at that point, IMO.

It's her body. PERIOD. The fetus doesn't have a right to hijack HER, right? Do you really think that a woman should be dragged in, against her will, and strapped down, if she says no? This is one of the most anti-woman things I've heard in a very, very long time, which is saying something considering the subject of this forum.

[DGayle]

I could easily agree to grow your baby, take money from you, and then abort it.

If surrogate aborts against IP wishes, she forfeits all fees.

If IPs want abortion, they pay all fees whether or not she follows through. It's the cost of walking away. Possibly child support too. We expect fathers to pay it. Why should a third-party woman be seen as less?

If decision is mutual, they still pay all fees.

[2xx1xy1JD]

This dad is a psychopath. The interviewer is fantastic... I'm paraphrasing but she's totally calling him on his lack of remorse for his sex crimes (this was noted by the judge). And then she asks him when he finally felt remorseful and he said when he became a parent, and she reminds him that he was already a parent when he offended and why didn't that seem to have mattered.

The interviewer is awesome. The couple's story makes absolutely no sense and it's hard to believe a word they say. He shouldn't be allowed around ANY child.

[DGayle]

Although Gammy's biological parents are definitely at fault for leaving him behind, his surrogate mother is by no means an angel either:

coloradonewsday.com/news/regional/72152-inside-the-life-of-gammy-s-birth-mother-behind-the-surrogacy-row.html

I nevertheless hope that he's well taken care of and that his mother isn't just using him as a tool for money and publicity.

I'm not seeing anything in there indicating the surrogate is a bad woman. There's a lot of poor-judging. She's "not doing it right" because she and 3 other people share a 1-room unit after living in her grandparents' restaurant for many years instead of living under a bridge somewhere. Moving into a whole bedroom to themselves is a step up! And oh my god, she bought some purses. Her rent is $74 a month, and she almost 190 months of rent for carrying the babies. For me, with my $1000/mo rent, that would be like getting $190,000. Shame on me if I spent a couple grand on myself after getting the start of a windfall what would ultimately open tons of doors for my kids?

She's not affluent, and it's really troubling that anyone is going shame on her for not being a properly impoverished person under a bridge with kids who don't have shoes. She's still far from rich, but shame on her for not being more poor.

[momof2treasures]

Dgayle you are so right. Bio dads don't get to back out and would be held 100% responsible for this baby, whether they wanted mom to get an abortion or not. No matter if the child is disabled or not.

[Katie_Bug]

I'm not seeing anything in there indicating the surrogate is a bad woman. There's a lot of poor-judging. She's "not doing it right" because she and 3 other people share a 1-room unit after living in her grandparents' restaurant for many years instead of living under a bridge somewhere. Moving into a whole bedroom to themselves is a step up! And oh my god, she bought some purses. Her rent is $74 a month, and she almost 190 months of rent for carrying the babies. For me, with my $1000/mo rent, that would be like getting $190,000. Shame on me if I spent a couple grand on myself after getting the start of a windfall what would ultimately open tons of doors for my kids?

She's not affluent, and it's really troubling that anyone is going shame on her for not being a properly impoverished person under a bridge with kids who don't have shoes. She's still far from rich, but shame on her for not being more poor.

I agree. I don’t really see the (negative) point of the article. OMG she bought some jewelry. OMG she moved into a 1br house. All I got out of that article was that they assume she got money for being a surrogate (duh) because she doesn’t make much at her job, and that she has spent the majority of the last week at the hospital with the baby. How does any of this make her a bad person?

[utter solitude]

If surrogate aborts against IP wishes, she forfeits all fees.

If IPs want abortion, they pay all fees whether or not she follows through. It's the cost of walking away. Possibly child support too. We expect fathers to pay it. Why should a third-party woman be seen as less?

If decision is mutual, they still pay all fees.

That's actually what I was arguing for....

Not "Child support too", tho, in the event the IP want to abort and the mother does not. At that point, imo, she's deciding she wants to raise the child. She has every right to do so, but it's not the same as requiring deadbeat dads to pay child support: it's like a father signing away his paternal rights.

I'm not a fan of the idea that the woman's decisions would get more weight than the IP, as it kind of sounds like the surrogate is doing the IP a huge favor and they should be ever so grateful if they end up with a child, regardless of the fact the woman is being paid.

What I am advocating is that these kinds of things be discussed before the pregnancy. Everyone can be on the same page, the big decisions can be fleshed out (ie, when/if there would be an abortion, payment and when its made, etc) and there's known consequences. For BOTH sides.

ETA: It just dawned on me that you were equating IP wanting abortions= deadbeat dads not taking care of children they created. However, it's not really the same situation, and I was thinking more of a "the baby has an issue we don't want to deal with situation". Besides, I have long argued that men who father children they don't want to pay for/raise/see need to sign away their rights and be done.

[nausicaa]

Since your love is conditional based on being perfect and healthy, I hope you never have kids. Not all lifelong impairments are apparent at or before birth. I have friends with disabled children. Only the child with Downs was known to be disabled before. That child has been a lot easier to take care of than another friend's child with extremely profound autism, or another friend's child who developed a disease that means he'll be living his life in and out of the hospital never able to walk, or another whose son was recently diagnosed with a degenerative disease that will land him in a wheelchair within a few years and has cut his life expectancy back to a few decades.

If you could not love a child for not being healthy, then you can not love any child. Love is unconditional, and it's horrifying that a child must be perfectly healthy to be worthy of you.

I'm not sure this argument is really fair if you are pro-choice (which I recall you are? If not, ignore the rest of this). Well, I suppose you could be pro-choice politically, but it does show a lot of judgment towards any woman has had an abortion.

Any woman who has an abortion has essentially decided that the potential child she is carrying is not worth the demands that will be placed on her, whether those demands be emotional, physical, or financial. Even a woman who has been raped has decided that she cannot deal with the emotional trauma of having her rapist's child. (FTR, I fully support a woman's right to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy, lest you think this is becoming a pro-life dialectic).

So by taking your statement (that a woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy because she cannot deal with the demands of a disabled child means that she can't love or raise any child) to its logical extent, any woman who has an abortion cannot love a child and should not raise one. Since maternal love has now been equated with keeping a pregnancy and if that love is never conditional, that woman has demonstrated that she lacks the "proper" love to be a parent. (An affliction you apparently feel comfortable diagnosing Maggie Mae with upon only being acquainted with her over the internet.)

[momof2treasures]

No one really knows all the facts of how this case played out . Down's syndrome is usually detected at the 20 week anatomy scan at the earliest. Unless you are doing geneti testing testing on embryos or cvs at 10. Contrary to what some people on this board think, those are not routine . Genetic testing of embryos is usually done when there is some reason to suspect a risk of a genetic defect. Often Down's syndrome is not detected until later scans or even at birth. If this surrogate was asked to abort at 20 weeks you are in essence aborting a baby that's nearly the age of viability. 24 weeks. A lot different than aborting at 10 weeks . My daughters diagnosis wasn't made until 23 weeks because after an abnormal ultrasound you have to go see a specialist and get a better more detailed ultrasound before they tell you for sure what's going on. No matter how you feel about abortion or surrogacy, aborting after 20 weeks is not reasonable in my opinion. Disability or not. And if you actively pursue parenthood in this manner it's absolutely unfair to dump the less than perfect baby who is a twin to the perfect one. It's absurd and heartless. If they loved this little girl, they would love their little boy too.

[momof2treasures]

Sorry for the book, this just makes me sick!

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'm not sure this argument is really fair if you are pro-choice (which I recall you are? If not, ignore the rest of this). Well, I suppose you could be pro-choice politically, but it does show a lot of judgment towards any woman has had an abortion.

Any woman who has an abortion has essentially decided that the potential child she is carrying is not worth the demands that will be placed on her, whether those demands be emotional, physical, or financial. Even a woman who has been raped has decided that she cannot deal with the emotional trauma of having her rapist's child. (FTR, I fully support a woman's right to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy, lest you think this is becoming a pro-life dialectic).

So by taking your statement (that a woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy because she cannot deal with the demands of a disabled child means that she can't love or raise any child) to its logical extent, any woman who has an abortion cannot love a child and should not raise one. Since maternal love has now been equated with keeping a pregnancy and if that love is never conditional, that woman has demonstrated that she lacks the "proper" love to be a parent. (An affliction you apparently feel comfortable diagnosing Maggie Mae with upon only being acquainted with her over the internet.)

That argument is a real stretch, and doesn't make much sense.

I made a similar comment to what DGayle said.

A woman may make a particular decision based on her particular feelings and her particular situation, regarding medical or any other type of termination.

That's a bit different to having a blanket view that you would only be willing to have a healthy child, or that you would be unwilling to raise a child with a developmental disability, or that you would only see a child with a disability as being "that problem". You can do what you can to increase the odds of having a healthy child, you can test for some specific problems, but there are absolutely no guarantees and plenty of issues for which no prenatal tests exist. If someone honestly believes that they would not be able to accept a child that wasn't perfect, it would be better for that person to remain child-free. Otherwise, there's a risk that a child would be brought into the world, only to be rejected and deprived of the unconditional love of a parent that every child deserves.

[2xx1xy1JD]

That's actually what I was arguing for....

Not "Child support too", tho, in the event the IP want to abort and the mother does not. At that point, imo, she's deciding she wants to raise the child. She has every right to do so, but it's not the same as requiring deadbeat dads to pay child support: it's like a father signing away his paternal rights.

I'm not a fan of the idea that the woman's decisions would get more weight than the IP, as it kind of sounds like the surrogate is doing the IP a huge favor and they should be ever so grateful if they end up with a child, regardless of the fact the woman is being paid.

What I am advocating is that these kinds of things be discussed before the pregnancy. Everyone can be on the same page, the big decisions can be fleshed out (ie, when/if there would be an abortion, payment and when its made, etc) and there's known consequences. For BOTH sides.

ETA: It just dawned on me that you were equating IP wanting abortions= deadbeat dads not taking care of children they created. However, it's not really the same situation, and I was thinking more of a "the baby has an issue we don't want to deal with situation". Besides, I have long argued that men who father children they don't want to pay for/raise/see need to sign away their rights and be done.[/color]

And I've long argued the opposite. Once the children are born, they don't simply disappear because a parent don't want them. Those children exist, they have needs and they need to be supported. From a public policy POV, adoption is an exception, because the parent is assigning their legal rights and responsibilities to someone else, so there is no gap in who is responsible for the child.

From the interview in this case, the Australian couple claimed that they didn't know about the DS diagnosis until it was too late to do anything about it. They were upset with the agency, but they didn't give any instruction to abort at any time that abortion was still a realistic option.

[It'sFunToRun]

No one really knows all the facts of how this case played out . Down's syndrome is usually detected at the 20 week anatomy scan at the earliest. Unless you are doing geneti testing testing on embryos or cvs at 10. Contrary to what some people on this board think, those are not routine . Genetic testing of embryos is usually done when there is some reason to suspect a risk of a genetic defect. Often Down's syndrome is not detected until later scans or even at birth. If this surrogate was asked to abort at 20 weeks you are in essence aborting a baby that's nearly the age of viability. 24 weeks. A lot different than aborting at 10 weeks . My daughters diagnosis wasn't made until 23 weeks because after an abnormal ultrasound you have to go see a specialist and get a better more detailed ultrasound before they tell you for sure what's going on. No matter how you feel about abortion or surrogacy, aborting after 20 weeks is not reasonable in my opinion. Disability or not. And if you actively pursue parenthood in this manner it's absolutely unfair to dump the less than perfect baby who is a twin to the perfect one. It's absurd and heartless. If they loved this little girl, they would love their little boy too.

I find aborting after 20 weeks to be totally reasonable. At 20 weeks, a woman still has 20 more weeks of carrying around a fetus she doesn't want, that might be endangering her own life, that might have a medical condition that would be incompatible with life outside the womb, or quality of life that the woman decides in unacceptable. Maybe she has very irregular periods and didn't realize she was pregnant until 20 weeks. Maybe her health didn't start declining until 20 weeks. Maybe she didn't realize the fetus had Down syndrome until 20 weeks. Totally reasonable to abort in all of those situations. Her body = her choice.

[It'sFunToRun]

That argument is a real stretch, and doesn't make much sense.

I made a similar comment to what DGayle said.

A woman may make a particular decision based on her particular feelings and her particular situation, regarding medical or any other type of termination.

That's a bit different to having a blanket view that you would only be willing to have a healthy child, or that you would be unwilling to raise a child with a developmental disability, or that you would only see a child with a disability as being "that problem". You can do what you can to increase the odds of having a healthy child, you can test for some specific problems, but there are absolutely no guarantees and plenty of issues for which no prenatal tests exist. If someone honestly believes that they would not be able to accept a child that wasn't perfect, it would be better for that person to remain child-free. Otherwise, there's a risk that a child would be brought into the world, only to be rejected and deprived of the unconditional love of a parent that every child deserves.

I agree with nausicaa25. What is the difference between saying "if you aren't willing to have a child with Down Syndrome, you shouldn't have kids" and saying "if you aren't willing to have a baby, you shouldn't have (protected) sex"? I doubt you'd say the second, but the chance of having a fetus with Down Syndrome is much smaller (for women in their twenties at least) than the chance of birth control failing.

[nausicaa]

That argument is a real stretch, and doesn't make much sense.

I made a similar comment to what DGayle said.

A woman may make a particular decision based on her particular feelings and her particular situation, regarding medical or any other type of termination.

That's a bit different to having a blanket view that you would only be willing to have a healthy child, or that you would be unwilling to raise a child with a developmental disability, or that you would only see a child with a disability as being "that problem". You can do what you can to increase the odds of having a healthy child, you can test for some specific problems, but there are absolutely no guarantees and plenty of issues for which no prenatal tests exist. If someone honestly believes that they would not be able to accept a child that wasn't perfect, it would be better for that person to remain child-free. Otherwise, there's a risk that a child would be brought into the world, only to be rejected and deprived of the unconditional love of a parent that every child deserves.

If DGayle is defining "proper" maternal love as completing a pregnancy no matter the demands it brings with it, then yes, to some extent I feel she is condemning women who have abortions in general, even if she may not be conciously aware of doing so.

I think that there's a difference between someone saying she would like a healthy child and would most likely abort if there is a pre-existing condition that comes to light during the pregnancy to increase the chances of having a healthy child, and someone rejecting a child who is already born and is diagnosed with or develops a disability for whatever reason. Conflating the two reminds me of arguments that people against abortion use when comparing abortion and infanticide. I do see your concern that there are people who want designer babies and seem unprepared for the surprises that parenting brings, but I think DGayle's condemnation of Maggie Mae is a bit over the top. And I always flinch on this board when one poster tells another they should never have children or are incapable of loving a child.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I agree with nausicaa25. What is the difference between saying "if you aren't willing to have a child with Down Syndrome, you shouldn't have kids" and saying "if you aren't willing to have a baby, you shouldn't have (protected) sex"? I doubt you'd say the second, but the chance of having a fetus with Down Syndrome is much smaller (for women in their twenties at least) than the chance of birth control failing.

You can be as healthy as possible, do everything right, following every guidelines and do every test - and still have a child with a disability. I'm all for minimizing risks and doing what you can to have a healthy child, but there are far more causes of problems than just Down Syndrome. 18.5% of children in the United States under 18 had special needs in 2005.

I believe that bringing a child into the world is an awesome responsibility, and that every child deserves unconditional parental love and support. I've seen what happens to children with special needs who are rejected by parents, and it is truly disgusting.

For that reason, I believe in comprehensive sex ed and teen health clinics that can be accessed without parental notification. I believe that having sex should be a deliberate, fully informed decision. If someone is prepared to take on the responsibilities of being a parent, great, go make babies. Otherwise, we should be teaching everyone about the "double Dutch" method - using at least 2 reliable forms of birth control at the same time, which dramatically reduces the risk of an unplanned pregnancy. I would also tell any man that regardless of what he may have wanted or planned, if one of his swimmers ends up making a baby, he is legally and morally responsible for the child. I don't support fundie-style abstinence-only education for the simple reason that it is remarkably ineffective and actually seems to increase the risk of teen pregnancy.

[Maggie Mae]

I had a very nice apology and further explanation of my post, which was obviously short sighted and poorly conveyed my ever-evolving thoughts on this issue. Then I closed my browser and it is gone.

Anyway, pretty much everything I would say has been said by other people. But, in short, I'm sorry that I wasn't very effective in conveying my thoughts. I do not support eugenics. I realize that what I say now isn't going to be what I necessarily do if this situation ever comes up. I would not reject a child born with a disability, however, I do plan on minimizing the risks. I might come back in a bit and further flesh this out some more, but I'm very disappointed that I worked on this most of the day and it's gone. (by most of the day, I mean I would write some, edit, go back to working on my paid job, then come back and .. you know)

[treemom]

I am offering the following as a person who:

1. lived in a state with restrictive abortion laws, but not so restrictive that I couldn't legally obtain the abortion when needed

2. Live in a city that limited my ability to obtain said legal abortion because of how far along I was.

3. Did not get a hint of anything wrong until 20 week u/s. triple screen did not trigger any concern.

4. Spent several days getting additional u/s and meeting with medical advisors to get a handle of what reality looked like.

5. Spent several days after that thinking about what to do and discussing with a couple we were close to just to get all the thoughts and emotions out.

6. Realized a law passed regarding how live births are handled in an effort to fear monger about abortion completely eliminated one of our options.

7. Realized I can't get an abortion this late anywhere in Tennessee

8. Called the Kansas clinic, booked airline tickets, and tried to keep everything completely quiet from nearly everyone as I had heard exactly what people think of women who have a late term abortion.

9. Had it done in Kansas.

10. Returned, made up a lie to explain how I was neither pregnant nor had a baby anymore

Even if you are 100% sure. Even when you never encounter a doubt about your choice (I did, it was a wanted pregnancy and every option sucked) it isn't easy. The time and the appts force you to think about things you wouldn't.

After my experience well over a decade ago I can say I absolutely believe a women should be able to abort up to delivery. It's none of my business why, that's between her medical provider and who she chooses to discuss it with. It doesn't actually say anything that dramatic about how we view those with disabilities. It says what one woman choice in one unique to her situation.

We can have discussions all we want all day long about it theoretical. But my choice to terminate (or any other women's) isn't commentary on anyone else. I don't see children with the same condition as my daughter as lacking value in this world. I think all the choices women make regarding abortion and not abortion are right. They get to decide and it's not commentary on someone else's choice.

That said, I believe a surrogate and IP should be completely aligned about abortion. And I believe a surrogate should be able to legally obtain and abortion and moral judgment suspended in general if she does even if the IP do not agree with it. I think the surrogate should consider those choice with even more diligent thought than another women, but ultimately she should be able to terminate.

In this specific situation it sounds like things are way more questionable and wonky and possibly the surrogate was not well informed about the IP's desires before the surrogacy began and generally the whole thing is questionable.

In the US and in most parts (note most) you don't just waddle up at your local abortion clinic to get your post 20 week abortion.

[Blahblah]

:cray-cray:

I like to think that I have some finely tuned creepdar, and these two are pinging mine so loudly.

Also, that interviewer has got her some steel ovaries! She was using techniques on calling him out on his crap that I've can't recall ever seeing an American interviewer use.

Asides, does anyone know how old the biological father is? And where the biological mother is originally from? And I know things tend to be more laid back in Australia, but is it generally acceptable to wear a screen printed Quiksilver teeshirt for a serious national TV interview?

The interviewer, Tara Brown, is indeed brilliant. She deserves major accolades for this. Hers was the only genuine emotion on display in that whole interview and she kicked arse.

The wife in the interview is not the biological mother. The wife is Chinese I think and they used a Chinese egg donor. So the true biological mother is unknown.

As for the daggy t-shirt, please don't assume that Aussies generally conduct themselves like this horrible, horrible man. No, it is not acceptable to wear a t-shirt in those circumstances. It just goes to the nature of him that he couldn't bring even a smidgen of gravitas to such a deadly serious situation.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I am offering the following as a person who:

1. lived in a state with restrictive abortion laws, but not so restrictive that I couldn't legally obtain the abortion when needed

2. Live in a city that limited my ability to obtain said legal abortion because of how far along I was.

3. Did not get a hint of anything wrong until 20 week u/s. triple screen did not trigger any concern.

4. Spent several days getting additional u/s and meeting with medical advisors to get a handle of what reality looked like.

5. Spent several days after that thinking about what to do and discussing with a couple we were close to just to get all the thoughts and emotions out.

6. Realized a law passed regarding how live births are handled in an effort to fear monger about abortion completely eliminated one of our options.

7. Realized I can't get an abortion this late anywhere in Tennessee

8. Called the Kansas clinic, booked airline tickets, and tried to keep everything completely quiet from nearly everyone as I had heard exactly what people think of women who have a late term abortion.

9. Had it done in Kansas.

10. Returned, made up a lie to explain how I was neither pregnant nor had a baby anymore

Even if you are 100% sure. Even when you never encounter a doubt about your choice (I did, it was a wanted pregnancy and every option sucked) it isn't easy. The time and the appts force you to think about things you wouldn't.

After my experience well over a decade ago I can say I absolutely believe a women should be able to abort up to delivery. It's none of my business why, that's between her medical provider and who she chooses to discuss it with. It doesn't actually say anything that dramatic about how we view those with disabilities. It says what one woman choice in one unique to her situation.

We can have discussions all we want all day long about it theoretical. But my choice to terminate (or any other women's) isn't commentary on anyone else. I don't see children with the same condition as my daughter as lacking value in this world. I think all the choices women make regarding abortion and not abortion are right. They get to decide and it's not commentary on someone else's choice.

That said, I believe a surrogate and IP should be completely aligned about abortion. And I believe a surrogate should be able to legally obtain and abortion and moral judgment suspended in general if she does even if the IP do not agree with it. I think the surrogate should consider those choice with even more diligent thought than another women, but ultimately she should be able to terminate.

In this specific situation it sounds like things are way more questionable and wonky and possibly the surrogate was not well informed about the IP's desires before the surrogacy began and generally the whole thing is questionable.

In the US and in most parts (note most) you don't just waddle up at your local abortion clinic to get your post 20 week abortion.

Thank you once again for sharing your story - as hard as it is - with us.

You provide some of the perspective that life can throw us situations that are not easy and clear-cut, where none of the choices are really good and it's simply a question of choosing the least bad option.

I agree that surrogate and IP should be aligned in their views on abortion, but ultimately a surrogate needs to have the right to control her own body. There are unforeseen circumstances that can make continuing to term extremely difficult. There are also circumstances, like late diagnosis of an issue, where a late term abortion may be technically possible but extremely difficult from both a practical and emotional POV. That's why her right to choose must be preserved.

Just to be clear - I didn't mean to imply that choosing to have a termination due to prenatal diagnosis of a problem means that someone can't value a child with a disability. My comment was simply meant to say that prenatal diagnosis cannot identify all problems, so that if someone felt that they would be 100% unwilling or unable to care for a special needs child, they could not rely on prenatal diagnosis to eliminate the risk and could end up with a child with special needs anyway.

[shedemei]

Every time I see this thread I think of axolotl tanks from Dune.