First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Hypothetical Situation
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/22/09
A young woman and her husband desperately want to have children. However, the wife in question is of poor health and cannot physically handle the stress of a pregnancy. She asks her sister to be a surrogate mother and the sister agrees. She signs a contract and promises to carry the pregnancy through till childbirth. However many months later she decides, forget her obligation she doesn’t want to be pregnant anymore and wants to get an abortion. Should she be allowed to attain this abortion?

I think we should take a case like this to the Supreme Court.
8356 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / NY
Offline
Posted 7/22/09
"She signs a contract and promises to carry the pregnancy through till childbirth"

She has a previous binding contract stating she obliged to carry through with the pregnancy, To get an abortion would be to break the contract. She's in the wrong, and should have to continue through on her promise...If she was competent enough to sign a contract then she was competent enough to understand the hardships of pregnancy, it's her own fault for jumping into something without being fully committed to it. This is really not a case for the supreme court in my opinion.
30807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Brick, NJ
Offline
Posted 7/22/09
It would have to be 3 months. You cannot legally get an abortion after 3 months in most places. Because they believe the baby is officially a baby. When you sign a contract, you have to go through with it, and there are normally consequences for breaching it But then you have to take family into consideration. If a family really cares for one another, I doubt the sister would betray such a word. And if she were, say the birth was giving her problems either mentally or physically I am sure her family would understand.

But if you are looking at it in a non compassionate way. She signed the contract, she knew what she was getting into, if she does get an abortion she should pay probably damages and the loses to would-be mother of the child. Especially if the egg and sperm that made her pregnant were not her own. Things like that are horribly expensive, and aren't hers. I think she should be allowed to get an abortion, but should have consequences for breaking her word, breaking the hearts of her family, and wasting money.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/22/09 , edited 7/22/09
What is the philosophical decision behind it though? If abortion is legal because a woman has a right to her own body and pregnancy (which I would argue isn't right) then who is this woman's sister that she deny her the "right" to an abortion? It would be like giving physical sovereignty over to someone else and owning her sister's womb as her property, which is the same principal as slavery. In my opinion I think the woman should have the baby, she signed a contract. But regardless, she doesn't have the right to abort the child even if the contract was void.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/22/09 , edited 7/22/09
Well if she got the abortion already, there is nothing anyone can do, it's already been done. But I think she should be able to get the abortion, it's her body after all, not her sisters, so if she doesn't want her sisters kid, that she shouldn't have to have her sisters kid, the sister can just adopt if she wants a kid that badly. So she has the right to abort the child.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/22/09 , edited 7/22/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

A young woman and her husband desperately want to have children. However, the wife in question is of poor health and cannot physically handle the stress of a pregnancy. She asks her sister to be a surrogate mother and the sister agrees. She signs a contract and promises to carry the pregnancy through till childbirth. However many months later she decides, forget her obligation she doesn’t want to be pregnant anymore and wants to get an abortion. Should she be allowed to attain this abortion?

I think we should take a case like this to the Supreme Court.


No.

Simple: she ought not make promises if she cannot keep them.
Revolver Dogelot
72988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / somewhere that is...
Offline
Posted 7/22/09
She signed a contract stating she would go through with it, game over. She does not have the "abortion" option now unless there is some extenuating circumstance, such as a health risk to herself or the baby. She should have known what she was doing when she signed and had plenty of time to back out before the procedure was done I am sure. So unless there is a great reason a legal crap storm will rain down on her head and she will deserve it too.
Posted 7/23/09 , edited 7/23/09
Her fault for signing such a contract without giving it a second thought.

Personally I would never sign such a contract because I'd probably end up in conflict with my position in this whole situation. You have to carry this child for ~9 months in your womb. Life will drastically change during that time as pregnancy brings its ehm....well effects on you with it.
At the end of the day my question would be: Is it my child? Is it not? But I gave birth to it. But it wasn't my egg cell, etc etc etc etc....

Too stressful.
Posted 7/23/09
I see that most people already stated what I was about to say.
Why, yes, she can't void a contract while in the middle of it nor if she haven't finish it. Unless it's written in there itself, that she's allowed to cancel everything and abort the child while whistling away.

And to answer your question about this, being in the Supreme Court; No.
4295 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Youtube!
Offline
Posted 7/24/09
If there's a good reason behind it, for example bearing the child would make her horribly sick, then I think it could be overlooked... however, she signed a contract.
17767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / some where heaven...
Online
Posted 7/24/09
i think she was're fool and stupid.......sign contract witout think twice,how can someone give pregnan to someone else...ciss what the fool
14395 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / the great northwest
Offline
Posted 1/2/10
no....
didn't she signed a contract?
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/6/10
You are confusing a legal and a moral issue. The latter question is stillborn, we will not reach consensus and the former is evident. If she dishonours her contractual obligations, damages will lie. Considering the nature of the loss, damages will be restricted to pain and suffering, and there wasn't a lot of either. Frankly, if I was to advise the pregnant woman, I'd say just go for it and pay a dinner's money in damages.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 1/6/10

Joushio wrote:

"She signs a contract and promises to carry the pregnancy through till childbirth"

She has a previous binding contract stating she obliged to carry through with the pregnancy, To get an abortion would be to break the contract. She's in the wrong, and should have to continue through on her promise...If she was competent enough to sign a contract then she was competent enough to understand the hardships of pregnancy, it's her own fault for jumping into something without being fully committed to it. This is really not a case for the supreme court in my opinion.


Yes true.. The only way she could brake the contract is if she can prove her health has taken a steady decline, or if she can prove her state of mind at the time of signing the contract was not that of a sane person. Other wise she is obliged to go through with her obligations.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/6/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


Joushio wrote:

"She signs a contract and promises to carry the pregnancy through till childbirth"

She has a previous binding contract stating she obliged to carry through with the pregnancy, To get an abortion would be to break the contract. She's in the wrong, and should have to continue through on her promise...If she was competent enough to sign a contract then she was competent enough to understand the hardships of pregnancy, it's her own fault for jumping into something without being fully committed to it. This is really not a case for the supreme court in my opinion.


Yes true.. The only way she could brake the contract is if she can prove her health has taken a steady decline, or if she can prove her state of mind at the time of signing the contract was not that of a sane person. Other wise she is obliged to go through with her obligations.


That is not entirely true or inherently wrong. It will depend on the jurisdiction in question. Forcing her, if otherwise abortion would be available, to deliver will raise many human rights issues, and in this regard the situation greatly differs from the sale of goods, for example. In many countries, but almost certainly in EU member states, the issue would fall to be decided in favour of the pregnant woman with damages for the repudiation being awarded to the other party. The question, as I have said before is one of jurisdiction.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.