Thai surrogate mother keeps baby

[Rowan]

In case you hadn't heard, recently an elderly Australian couple went to thailand and payed a surrogate $16,000 to carry their child as they were unable to concieve.(The father had been a convicted pedo in his early 20s, which may be a reason why they had to go to thailand for the surrogacy). The elderly couple were told they were to have twins, one of whom was going to have downs syndrome. They claimed to have asked to abort the child with downs sydrome to which the surrogate refused, as it was against her religion to do so. The elderly couple took the little healthy girl and left the child with DS in Thailand. Heartbreaking for the child with DS, surely. But who is at fault here?

-On one hand, we have a woman paid $16,000 to perform a service at which she denied the parents the right to an abortion (a right of the parents, not the surrogate)
- The elderly parents for being heartless and leaving the child in Thailand
- The surrogacy agency for not enforcing proper regulations
- The elderly couple for possibly neglecting said surrogacy regulations? (perhaps they were told that abortions were not possible?)


What do you think? Should the surrogate have the right to refuse abortion based on her religious beliefs?

[Alpha]

-On one hand, we have a woman paid $16,000 to perform a service at which she denied the parents the right to an abortion (a right of the parents, not the surrogate)

Is abortion actually legal in Thailand? (I don't actually know).

And if you consider abortion to be a woman's right, then it is the right of the surrogate to exercise it or not. If the couple could force the surrogate to have an abortion against her wishes... then that's just as bad if not worse than disallowing people who want to from having abortions.

- The elderly parents for being heartless and leaving the child in Thailand

...because they considered the child to be "imperfect" or somehow less than human because of its disability. How ****ing dehumanising. When I first read about this story, that made me so upset. Disclaimer: I have a disabled sibling, and the idea of people aborting on the basis of disability just does not gel with me.

- The surrogacy agency for not enforcing proper regulations

I think it's for Thailand to set up proper regulations, and the parents to ensure that there should be a watertight contractual arrangement for all contingencies and which complies with all relevant laws of the jurisdiction in which the surrogacy is occurring. I don't blame the surrogacy agency at all.

What do you think? Should the surrogate have the right to refuse abortion based on her religious beliefs?

Yes, provided those paying for the surrogacy understand that an abortion is not possible.

But I don't think that's the real issue. Paying for children and "selecting" humans as though they are products on a shelf... yikes man. That's some Gattaca type shit. Is there actually a shortage of children up for adoption in the world that really justifies this?

[Rowan]

Yeah but sometimes abortion can be a kindness. Im not sure what disability your sibling has im sure he has a good quality of life, but down's syndrome can come with a lot of other health issues which severly lower quality of life for the individual. I've read about people knowing that their child wont live past 3 years of age, but yet they still have the child. While that is their right, it is ****ing cruel for a child to spend whatever short time they have in hospitals not knowing what is happening to them just for the sake of the parents minds thinking they are doing a kind thing. Sometimes its kinder to stop the suffering all together.

I see your point about adoption>surrogacy, but I can understanding wanting your 'own' child, that of your own genetics.

Also, Thailand government launched a massive investigation into this surrogacy agency and own amendment of its laws on surrogacy to ensure things like this dont happen agian.

Also, I agree forced abortion is messed, but there has to be some sort of discussion about that in case of something dramatic happening. Becuase essentially its a decision thats going to impact the parents for the rest of their lives, not the surrogate.

[Alpha]

I'm going to disagree very strongly on that first point. I don't think it is a kindness to anyone living with or potentially living with a disability to say that it is morally superior for them to be dead. I won't say much more because I'll just get angry and say something stupid. (Seriously, this is that ONE topic for me.)

Why wouldn't someone else's decision for the surrogate to have an abortion impact the surrogate for the rest of their life? In this specific case, where abortion is against the surrogate's own religious beliefs, how could it be just for someone else to tell them that their right to their own body and their freedom to practise their religion is trumped by the couple with the cash? Yes the surrogate agreed to be a surrogate, but I don't think that means they signed away their human rights.

[Rowan]

Yeah im thinking back, if the couple wanted a surrogate, they are the ones that have to be prepared for all of this, not the other way around. So the abortion is the right of the person carrying the child (not the mother in this case).