Let's test abortion theory, what about a surrogate when the couple changes their mind....

[2aguy]

So...if the couple using a surrogate to have a baby.....if they change their mind, can they force the woman to abort the baby? Even if she will assume the responsibility?


I saw a column at American thinker about the abortion decision....and they mentioned the next step might be ordering surrogates to abort babies.......

Articles: Heart of Darkness: the Evil at the Core of Modern Liberalism

While women are often coerced by the men who use them to have abortions it is still illegal in the U.S., unlike China, to force a woman to have an abortion if she doesn’t want one -- though liberals are pushing to change that in surrogacy cases.





Read more: Articles: Heart of Darkness: the Evil at the Core of Modern Liberalism
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[2aguy]

Yeah..smiley face...it is an actual issue......

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

A surrogate mom who refuses to abort one of the triplets she’s carrying because the father only wants two of the kids filed a lawsuit Monday claiming that California’s surrogacy law is unconstitutional.

“I no longer view surrogacy arrangements in the same favorable light I once did. Children derive a special benefit from their relationship with their mother,” the woman, Melissa Cook, said in a statement to The Post.

“I now think that the basic concept of surrogacy arrangements must be re-examined, scrutinized and reconsidered.”

The Post reported on Cook’s heart-wrenching dilemma last November, when the intended father from Georgia threatened to financially ruin the 47-year-old surrogate mom by imposing monetary damages if she refused to abort one of the fetuses, citing a provision in their contract that allowed him to request a “reduction.”

----------------------

Cook’s lawsuit claims she is the legal mother of the triplets and seeks custody of at least one who was targeted for abortion. A custody hearing would determine the fate of the other two.

Cook retained lawyer Harold Cassidy, who represented the surrogate mom in the famous Baby M case in New Jersey a generation ago.

“The surrogacy contract in this case and the California Surrogacy Enabling Statute will not withstand constitutional scrutiny,” Cassidy said.

“The notion that a man can demand that a mother terminate the life of one of the children she carries by an abortion, and then claim that she is liable for money damages when she refuses, is cruel to the mother,” Cassidy said.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no ‘abortion theory,’ there’s nothing to ‘test.’

This is an utterly ignorant and ridiculous thread premise.

Privacy rights jurisprudence concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yeah..smiley face...it is an actual issue......

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

A surrogate mom who refuses to abort one of the triplets she’s carrying because the father only wants two of the kids filed a lawsuit Monday claiming that California’s surrogacy law is unconstitutional.

“I no longer view surrogacy arrangements in the same favorable light I once did. Children derive a special benefit from their relationship with their mother,” the woman, Melissa Cook, said in a statement to The Post.

“I now think that the basic concept of surrogacy arrangements must be re-examined, scrutinized and reconsidered.”

The Post reported on Cook’s heart-wrenching dilemma last November, when the intended father from Georgia threatened to financially ruin the 47-year-old surrogate mom by imposing monetary damages if she refused to abort one of the fetuses, citing a provision in their contract that allowed him to request a “reduction.”

----------------------

Cook’s lawsuit claims she is the legal mother of the triplets and seeks custody of at least one who was targeted for abortion. A custody hearing would determine the fate of the other two.

Cook retained lawyer Harold Cassidy, who represented the surrogate mom in the famous Baby M case in New Jersey a generation ago.

“The surrogacy contract in this case and the California Surrogacy Enabling Statute will not withstand constitutional scrutiny,” Cassidy said.

“The notion that a man can demand that a mother terminate the life of one of the children she carries by an abortion, and then claim that she is liable for money damages when she refuses, is cruel to the mother,” Cassidy said.

And you’re actually ignorant and ridiculous.

It’s an issue having nothing to do with a woman’s protected liberty of choice, prohibiting government from interfering with that choice.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah..smiley face...it is an actual issue......

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

A surrogate mom who refuses to abort one of the triplets she’s carrying because the father only wants two of the kids filed a lawsuit Monday claiming that California’s surrogacy law is unconstitutional.

“I no longer view surrogacy arrangements in the same favorable light I once did. Children derive a special benefit from their relationship with their mother,” the woman, Melissa Cook, said in a statement to The Post.

“I now think that the basic concept of surrogacy arrangements must be re-examined, scrutinized and reconsidered.”

The Post reported on Cook’s heart-wrenching dilemma last November, when the intended father from Georgia threatened to financially ruin the 47-year-old surrogate mom by imposing monetary damages if she refused to abort one of the fetuses, citing a provision in their contract that allowed him to request a “reduction.”

----------------------

Cook’s lawsuit claims she is the legal mother of the triplets and seeks custody of at least one who was targeted for abortion. A custody hearing would determine the fate of the other two.

Cook retained lawyer Harold Cassidy, who represented the surrogate mom in the famous Baby M case in New Jersey a generation ago.

“The surrogacy contract in this case and the California Surrogacy Enabling Statute will not withstand constitutional scrutiny,” Cassidy said.

“The notion that a man can demand that a mother terminate the life of one of the children she carries by an abortion, and then claim that she is liable for money damages when she refuses, is cruel to the mother,” Cassidy said.

And you’re actually ignorant and ridiculous.

It’s an issue having nothing to do with a woman’s protected liberty of choice, prohibiting government from interfering with that choice.

Where exactly did I state anything about the government, asswipe? I am testing the abortion theory of those who post here on U.S.message twit. Do you think that the surrogate should be made to abort one of the babies? Or not....asswipe?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It would all depend on contract language.

 

[Kat]

What a horrid thought.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Feminism and their abortion advocacy are today's version of Dred Scott. The reaffirmation that blacks were only proportionately human is the same proportionality feminists put on a human fetus. Just as whites determined the value of a black, feminists give women the same leverage over a (man's) potential child.
Pretty sick and hypocritical.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The baby murder advocates here will justify forcing the surrogate to be sent to those unregulated abortion clinics. where the SCOTUS said unqualified doctors working in unsanitary conditions are allowed to rip the baby from her womb.

 

[alang1216]

Much ado about nothing. The dad likely has no legal standing since NY doesn't recognize surrogacy.

when Cook refused, the dad respected Cook’s wishes and backed off. He did not pursue legal action for breach of contact and continues to make medical payments to her, Walmsley said.
“Let’s move on,” the lawyer said.​

 

[alang1216]

The baby murder advocates here will justify forcing the surrogate to be sent to those unregulated abortion clinics. where the SCOTUS said unqualified doctors working in unsanitary conditions are allowed to rip the baby from her womb.

I doubt anyone would force a surrogate to have an abortion against her will for any reason. The likely outcome would be that the surrogate assumes custody.

As to SCOTUS, that is exactly NOT what they decided, they just refused to go along with the TX charade.

 

[JoeMoma]

It would all depend on contract language.

Illegal contracts do not have to be enforced.

 

[rightwinger]

Dumbest thread in months

 

[JoeMoma]

The baby murder advocates here will justify forcing the surrogate to be sent to those unregulated abortion clinics. where the SCOTUS said unqualified doctors working in unsanitary conditions are allowed to rip the baby from her womb.

I doubt anyone would force a surrogate to have an abortion against her will for any reason. The likely outcome would be that the surrogate assumes custody.

As to SCOTUS, that is exactly NOT what they decided, they just refused to go along with the TX charade.

And the surrogate could possibly sue for child support.

 

[JoeMoma]

Dumbest thread in months

Tell that to the guy that has "reductions" covered in the surrogate contract, but is not getting his way.

 

[alang1216]

And the surrogate could possibly sue for child support.

Sperm donors are protected so the parents could be likewise protected.

 

[WillowTree]

Yeah..smiley face...it is an actual issue......

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

A surrogate mom who refuses to abort one of the triplets she’s carrying because the father only wants two of the kids filed a lawsuit Monday claiming that California’s surrogacy law is unconstitutional.

“I no longer view surrogacy arrangements in the same favorable light I once did. Children derive a special benefit from their relationship with their mother,” the woman, Melissa Cook, said in a statement to The Post.

“I now think that the basic concept of surrogacy arrangements must be re-examined, scrutinized and reconsidered.”

The Post reported on Cook’s heart-wrenching dilemma last November, when the intended father from Georgia threatened to financially ruin the 47-year-old surrogate mom by imposing monetary damages if she refused to abort one of the fetuses, citing a provision in their contract that allowed him to request a “reduction.”

----------------------

Cook’s lawsuit claims she is the legal mother of the triplets and seeks custody of at least one who was targeted for abortion. A custody hearing would determine the fate of the other two.

Cook retained lawyer Harold Cassidy, who represented the surrogate mom in the famous Baby M case in New Jersey a generation ago.

“The surrogacy contract in this case and the California Surrogacy Enabling Statute will not withstand constitutional scrutiny,” Cassidy said.

“The notion that a man can demand that a mother terminate the life of one of the children she carries by an abortion, and then claim that she is liable for money damages when she refuses, is cruel to the mother,” Cassidy said.

Well that throws the whole " it's her body her choice" bullshit meme right out the windo doesn't it?

 

[JoeMoma]

And the surrogate could possibly sue for child support.

Sperm donors are protected so the parents could be likewise protected.

Very different situations. Mom usually never knows who the Sperm donner is because the donation is processed through a Sperm bank. But you still may be right. The courts will someday decide.

 

[Mr Natural]

Dumbest thread in months

Consider the source.

 

[Agit8r]

Another OP from the short bus.