Woman Sues to Avoid Forced Abortion

[Zkribbler]

I am very curious about their contract, too. Such things should be explicitly described there. Like:

"[...]
3 (Three) fertilized eggs will be placed, which may result in zero to tree of them embedding.
If there are 0 embeddings, ....
If there is 1 embedding, ....
If there are 2 embeddings, ....
If there are 3 embeddings, ....
[...]
date, signatures."

There is. $30,000 for one kid. Bonus payment for each additional kid.
Apparently, there's also a provision which gives him the option of abortion.

At first, he was happy with the idea of three kids. But then he started counting his pennies, as realized that, as a single postal worker who's still living with hie parents he can only afford two. So, he ask her to abort.

She says no. She's pro-life, and so she offered to keep one.

IMHO, this seems reasonable. But he says no. If she doesn't abort, he's going to give one kid to be adopted. He'll withhold her $30,000 fee, and sue her for child support.

So, she suing on the grounds that California's surrogacy laws violate the fetuses's civil rights to equal protection, blah, blah, blah. The problem with this is that, under California law, fetus's are not people and thus have no civil rights. She's also claiming to have "bonded" with the fetuses. That happens all the time; the law doesn't care.

One interesting thing no one is pointing out is that neither of the litigants has any money. He still lives with his parents; she's a single mom of four. They can't afford to pay attorneys. So, if the attorneys are wise, they should work out a settlement pronto...unless they're total publicity hounds.

My best guess: she'll end up keeping one kid.

 

[Cheetah]

A 47-year old womb belonging to a single mom?
A single man still living with his parents?
Obviously not proper counseling beforehand.

How about suing the doctor who agreed to doing the IVF, and possibly removing their license??

 

[Daw]

IMHO, this seems reasonable.

It seems reasonable to me, too. I mean, if everything's medically fine, why not?

But he says no.

Yeah, and I'm very curious about his reasons. Besides, the article says she is 23-weeks pregnant now, so I am unsure if this option is still technically possible, and safe if it is.

My best guess: she'll end up keeping one kid.

So it seems. I really think it would be the most reasonable outcome.

Obviously not proper counseling beforehand.

How about suing the doctor who agreed to doing the IVF, and possibly removing their license??

Well, yes, that, too.

 

[Farm Boy]

A 47-year old womb belonging to a single mom?
A single man still living with his parents?
Obviously not proper counseling beforehand.

How about suing the doctor who agreed to doing the IVF, and possibly removing their license??

Huh. Weird. If I were to become single I would move in with my parents. This would improve their ability to manage certain tasks and it would improve my financial ability to care for my son. He and they are amazing together. Integral parts of his upbringing, his grandparents are. I'm not sure that's the silver bullet it sounds like at first judgement.

 

[Daw]

Huh. Weird. If I were to become single I would move in with my parents. This would improve their ability to manage certain tasks and it would improve my financial ability to care for my son. He and they are amazing together. Integral parts of his upbringing, his grandparents are. I'm not sure that's the silver bullet it sounds like at first judgement.

Your situation seems to be ideal, indeed. But it isn't always the case, especially when people live together not because they choose to, but because they have to.

Kids are not toys, and neither they are pets.

With the IVF, parents can be and must be sieved, and they are. But they should probably be even more thoroughly then they currently are.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Apparently, there's also a provision which gives him the option of abortion.

If true... /thread

 

[Farm Boy]

No, kids aren't pets. But an employed single parent maintaining familial ties and economic cooperation is not indicative of irresponsibility inhibiting the ability to raise a human. Now, his demands may well indeed be, but I do not buy that the one flows from the other. That just seems like misplaced scorn for non-Fordist family models? I'm generally more worried about the employed single parents that live without such family bonds, and society seems to be deciding that those are fine and dandy parents for fertilization treatments.

 

[Daw]

I do not buy that the one flows from the other.

And I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that IVF is a somewhat complex procedure. There's no way it can happen accidentally, through lack of caution or protection, or blown by a wind or anything. In fact, considerable efforts are made for it to work, and still there's no 100% guaranteed success.

Given that, parents can be filtered as they apply for IVF, and their background and reasons investigated. Case by case.

And that apparently does not happen [enough]. Otherwise, such legal issues would not have existed.

 

[Farm Boy]

Legal issues will always exist. People who are sometimes amazing are also sometimes sacks of crap. Which is why professional sacks of crap to stand proxy in courtroom combat are so perpetually necessary!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

A 47-year old womb belonging to a single mom?
A single man still living with his parents?
Obviously not proper counseling beforehand.

How about suing the doctor who agreed to doing the IVF, and possibly removing their license??

I question the common sense of a 47-year-old woman opting for pregnancy regardless of whether it's her biological offspring or not.

I have no problem with a "single man still living with his parents" - that's something that both my dad and his cousin did. They saved on living expenses and were available to do all kinds of chores and repairs and other things for their parents (my grandparents and great-aunt/uncle) that they would otherwise have had to hire people to do.

What I do have a problem with is the man's dog-in-the-manger attitude about the third fetus. He doesn't want it but won't allow the surrogate to raise it either (not sure whether he's a heartless <unmentionable> or just doesn't want to risk having to pay child support since he is the biological father). He's made it clear that he'd prefer that the fetus be aborted, but if that doesn't happen, he'd prefer that a total stranger adopt it.

Sounds like it's all about the $$$$$$$. That's not what I'd consider a good candidate for parenting.

And I'm wondering why, if he wants two kids so much, he didn't just do it the normal way. Why at his age (50)? Does he genuinely want children, or are they intended as an "investment" to care for him in 20 years' time, as he may be doing for his own parents? Are they pressuring him for grandchildren?

My own mother wouldn't shut up about grandchildren until I finally told her very bluntly that I considered myself too old (I was 40-ish at the time) and she'd have to accept that the only grandchildren she'd ever have would be by adoption and they'd have four legs, whiskers, and cat hair.

 

[Ryika]

(not sure whether he's a heartless <unmentionable> or just doesn't want to risk having to pay child support since he is the biological father). He's made it clear that he'd prefer that the fetus be aborted, but if that doesn't happen, he'd prefer that a total stranger adopt it.

I could see just wanting to make sure that no contact can exist as another reason for this. She knows his name, she knows his address, she knows the whole story... that could become very, very complicated if she decides to go rogue later in life if things don't work out for her and she decides to make sure that third child gets onto him. I can't imagine he plans to tell them that there was a third child that he didn't keep... (that whole thing would of course still be selfish, I'm not defending him.)

 

[Valka D'Ur]

At this point he's going to have to completely change his identity if he expects his future kids to never find out about this. All they'd have to do would be to Google his name and they'd know (or whatever might replace Google in 20 years).

 

[BvBPL]

I question the common sense of a 47-year-old woman opting for pregnancy regardless of whether it's her biological offspring or not.

So is the questionable nature of her choice to perform this act a sufficient reason to force her to undergo an unnecessary and invasive medical procedure like abortion?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So is the questionable nature of her choice to perform this act a sufficient reason to force her to undergo an unnecessary and invasive medical procedure like abortion?

Read my previous posts. I'm not in favor of her being forced to abort the fetus. Two reasons: First, it's her body, so it's her decision. Second, she's in the third trimester at this point, and that's when a fetus could survive outside the womb if advanced medical care were available. The only time when I'd be okay with a third trimester abortion would be if the mother's life was at risk or the fetus was nonviable or found to be severely deformed and unlikely to have any chance of that condition improving.

What I did say regarding her age is that I think a 47-year-old woman is nuts to voluntarily undergo pregnancy for any reason. I'd even question a 37-year-old's wisdom in doing so.

 

[Zkribbler]

First, it's her body, so it's her decision.

The problem is, she contracted that right away to the father.

Indeed, if I were her lawyers, I'd be attacking the legal viability of any such contractual provision. But they're off on some silly civil rights crusade.

 

[BvBPL]

You'd attack both but only one argument if the two would get press.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

<snip>