07 October, 2010

Couple urged surrogate mother to abort fetus because of defect | Holy Post | National Post

Couple urged surrogate mother to abort fetus because of defect | Holy Post | National Post

1 comment:

  1. Whenever anyone enters into a transaction/legal contract with anyone else, they have to make sure that all the "t"s are crossed and the "i"s dotted -- in short, they must become contingency thinkers. And they must get used to the idea of spelling everything out, just in case something goes wrong. Because if they don't, you can bet it will. Murphy thrives on such.

    I'm a little amused at the attitudes of some people who will nod their heads in agreement with me until it comes to surrogacy, and then they haul on the brakes and say, "But that's different!"

    No, it's not.

    The surrogate should have covered her bases by insisting on a non-refund policy as well as insisting that her pregnancy be protected from the parents' change of heart, should it occur. She did not.

    The parents should have covered themselves by insisting that the incipient birth produce a healthy child, without incorrectable flaws (and YES, they are called flaws). They did not. Their refusal to consider accepting a DS child may have backfired on them; luckily for them it did not. Perhaps next time they will know better.

    And yes, I am aware that some people will accept parenthood of DS children. But not all will. And that is not a crime. Nor is it immoral.

    ReplyDelete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics