Don’t use Pro-Lifers as surrogate mothers, people!

Don’t use Pro-Lifers as surrogate mothers, people!

Let me give you a nightmare scenario: because of medical complications, you and your spouse decide to employ a surrogate mother to bring your baby to term. After the massive contract fees and the cost of in vitro fertilization, the pregnancy takes and everything is hunky-dory. For a while. Then, in the 2nd trimester, an ultrasound reveals the baby is having serious development problems. The doctor concludes there is a 75% chance the baby could die at an extremely young age, and an almost 100% certainty that if it survives, it will need to be in the hospital most of its life, having dozens of costly surgeries to repair whatever organs came out all fucked up.

Unfortunately for you, your surrogate is a ‘right to lifer’, and despite your insistence that she terminate the pregnancy, she decides instead to bring it to term. The baby is born with all manner of defects and genetic problems, and now, as the biological parents, the responsibility of caring for the child is entirely up to you, not the surrogate. Sounds like a nightmare situation, right?

Well, unfortunately for a couple in Connecticut, that’s exactly what happened. When the doctor discovered their unborn child would be born with a serious medical condition that would affect her internal organs, her brain, and even her physical features, they desperately offered 10K to the surrogate, which she refused, and instead tried to extort them for an extra 5K (the surrogate claims this was a moment of weakness). Realizing the situation was lost, the couple moved to Michigan, since in Connecticut, they would have been legally obliged to take care of the infant. Michigan state, however, considers the surrogate to be the biological parent.

When the baby was born, it was worse than the doctors had feared. Her myriad medical complications, ranging from a brain disorder where the left and right hemisphere failed to split, to having organs in the wrong places, the baby has to be fed via a tube in her stomach. Doctors estimate there’s a 50% chance she will never walk. Her tiny face also has a serious cleft palate, and her ears are deformed and mostly non-functional. The baby, in other words, will spend the rest of her life in the hospital.

In the end, the baby was given to adoptive parents, with the biological parents making the occasional visit. It’s a nightmare scenario brought to you by the self righteous assholes who think every unborn life is somehow more sacred than living, breathing human beings.These people – who live in a bubble of delusion – think their actions are mandated by God, when in fact their sanctimonious, reality-denying ideals imprison the rest of us to a life devoted to the infirm. How else can you explain the relentless efforts of the right to prevent all forms of abortion, even when the life of the child will undoubtedly be more miserable and painful?

You can check out the surrogate’s sanctimonious blog here

[Note: It was the surrogate mother who moved, not the couple. Thanks for the correction, Mike!]

Spread the outrage

Comments (5)

  • avatar

    Fuzzy Hats

    It seems like your view is far too simplistic. The real issue is with the CT law. The surrogate mother should have the rights (since let’s be honest, she’s the one taking the biggest risk) to not terminate the pregnancy since it is her body. I don’t see how you can be pro-choice and force a woman to have an abortion with the child that she is carrying.

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    The real fucked up thing in this situation is that the biological parents are still responsible for caring for the child, so it’s no longer their decision. If the contract speculates that in the case of severe disability, then they wish to abort, it’s pretty fucking black and white. Not to mention how she tried to extort the family out of an extra 5 grand. What a principled stance!

    If she wants that right, it’s her baby as far as I’m concerned.

  • avatar

    Danielle Crawford

    I agree with you Jacob. When you become a surrogate, the baby in your body is not yours, so asking a family to keep a child with these kinds of health problems is up to the family who is keeping and raising the baby, not the “mother”. IVF is still fraught with imperfections, because it isn’t the natural process of creating a baby, and has many more complications than the natural way. When you become a surrogate, you are giving up your body for another family, and if you aren’t okay with the family dictating to you what to do with your body, DON’T BE A SURROGATE. It is basically prostitution anyways, but you are being rented for a little less than a year, instead of just for an hour.

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    That’s a good point Danielle. She did get paid for this, so it is a service. If she didn’t want to honor the terms, then she shouldn’t have taken the money.

  • avatar

    Mike

    This story is backward. . . I read it in the news a few days ago, and the SURROGATE mother moved to Michigan, not the couple. She moved to Michigan because the couple had a legally enforceable contract with her forcing her to have an abortion, so she moved to Michigan to have the baby, then subsequently give it up for adoption instantly.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top