Surrogate offered $10,000 to abort.

[ploomf]

What a tragic story.

Surrogate offered $10,000 to abort baby - CNN.com

[annewandering]

It was tragic but there was no way for it not to be considering the birth defects.

[prisonchaplain]

I guess it is sad in some aspects, but there were several heroes in the story, as well.

[annewandering]

I guess it is sad in some aspects, but there were several heroes in the story, as well.

It is true that people made some very hard choices. Even the biological father has relented and sees the baby now. Oddly now the baby has five parents instead of the regular two. It is a blessing to these people to have learned compassion.

[Just_A_Guy]

The - what do you call it? - pseudo bio mom does seem to at least have been sincere, if misguided, in believing that abortion would end needless suffering.

This is a result of that "culture of death" that His Holiness John Paul II used to talk about.

[Backroads]

I'm still trying to organize my thoughts on it. Fascinating story, though. Thanks for sharing.

[Jennarator]

Bottom line. We can't "Play God." When we try, we make messes like this. Sad story, but with some very well intending people. I am glad the baby has been giving a fighting chance.

Surrogatecey is an amazing miracle, but with stories like this I am very torn that we should be playing with this kind of fire.

[annewandering]

Honestly, I think it would be very hard to be the parents of this baby with all the financial and emotional drains. Yes abortion is not the answer but it would throw you. Some people recover from those shocks much faster than others. While recovering it is not unusual to try to figure out a way to fix the problem. Our society gives abortion as an option. I am sure a lot of people would have chosen that option. Every person in this story considered that option but the final adoptive mom and she was only indirectly involved till after the birth.

[Guest]

Bottom line. We can't "Play God." When we try, we make messes like this. Sad story, but with some very well intending people. I am glad the baby has been giving a fighting chance.

Surrogatecey is an amazing miracle, but with stories like this I am very torn that we should be playing with this kind of fire.

Are you saying surrogacy contributed to the baby's problems? Or IVF? Or what? Because medically, neither thing would make these kinds of defects much more likely than your average old-fashioned pregnancy. As far as the legal and moral battle, I can see the problem with surrogacy there. . . though I still know of no counsel against it. The only thing the Brethren have said is that donor eggs/sperm are strongly discouraged. As far as I'm aware, anyway, and as far as we were counseled when looking at fertility options about 12 years ago.

As for the story, it's sad that culturally we place less value on a life that we deem imperfect. To see murder as "compassionate" and to have that an acceptable view says a lot about where we are as a society.

[MarginOfError]

The - what do you call it? - pseudo bio mom does seem to at least have been sincere, if misguided, in believing that abortion would end needless suffering.

This is a result of that "culture of death" that His Holiness John Paul II used to talk about.

I think it's a bit unfair to characterize pseudo-bio-mom's belief misguided. There are incredible stresses and emotions that go into these issues.

To give a little of my background, the OBGYN group I work for delivers 10,000 newborns every year. We have built a large Maternal Fetal Medicine program with a section devoted to high risk pregnancies and pregnancies with abnormalities. Our program is so good that we have patients referred from places like Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania because they aren't equipped to deal with the abnormalities that we can deal with. Last year, we opened a Special Delivery Unit where newborns are delivered and often whisked away into surgery.

Right now, I'm in the middle of preparing annual reports. One of the metrics I need to prepare is the number of pregnancies that were medically/surgically terminated. It happens pretty regularly. Some of these defects happen in fewer than 1 in 10,000 pregnancies. They are rare and very challenging. Treatment is expensive. The quality of life for the child and the parents is very poor.

The conditions themselves are poorly understood. They happen so rarely that it is hard to get a group large enough from which to gain any real scientific knowledge. Even when we do have a large enough group of newborns, it is considered unethical to poke and prod at infants for scientific research (and rightfully so). Also, so few of them survive to an age and developmental stage that they can communicate with researchers that there is very little hope for improving our knowledge of these conditions.

Now, allow me to illustrate what awaits families who make the choice not to abort. There is a family in my ward who had a baby girl last year. (Abortion wasn't an option for them as the defect wasn't detected until after the birth). The girl was born with a deformity that affected four chambers in her heart. From what I can gather, it appears that this was one of the worst defects of this kind that anyone had seen. First they said they would do surgery at 6 months. Then 4 months. Then, abruptly, it became next week. They were instructed never to let her cry, because her heart couldn't support the stress. Mom was up at all hours, chronically exhausted, and dealing with post partum depression at the same time. The other three children had to limit their play in the house so as not to upset or excite the baby. By the time the day of surgery came, the evidence was bad enough that I was convinced she would die in surgery. By some miracle, she survived. Her condition has improved, and, if they're lucky, they can avoid the second surgery to repair the two smaller deformities that they couldn't operate on without killing her the first time.

Since the surgery, the family has had to make choices about whether or not to go to all the doctor's appointments they are supposed to because they can't afford the copays. The mother stopped taking medication for her own health problems in order to pay for the medication for the baby. Until they were able to negotiate a barter, they almost had to pull one of their other children out of preschool because they could no longer afford it. Did they get to have presents at Christmas, you ask? Forget that...they wouldn't have had food for Christmas if not for gifts of charity. And keep in mind, this family will continue to pay down the bills for their daughter's medical care for years, and they will probably watch her go into surgery again.

Oh, and they were the lucky ones...their child is going to live past the age of two years. A fair amount of these deformities would be lucky to live to see two months.

So I'm not comfortable calling the belief that aborting would prevent unnecessary suffering "misguided," especially since D&E's and D&C's are far safer for the mother than a normal delivery.

(At the same time, I don't wish to say that aborting is the correct choice. It's a highly individual and personal choice that should be made on the merits of each situation.)

Are you saying surrogacy contributed to the baby's problems? Or IVF? Or what? Because medically, neither thing would make these kinds of defects much more likely than your average old-fashioned pregnancy. As far as the legal and moral battle, I can see the problem with surrogacy there. . . though I still know of no counsel against it. The only thing the Brethren have said is that donor eggs/sperm are strongly discouraged. As far as I'm aware, anyway, and as far as we were counseled when looking at fertility options about 12 years ago.

I interpreted this to be more about the fact that surrogacy is a legal minefield. Stepping into this mess is asking for trouble.

As for the story, it's sad that culturally we place less value on a life that we deem imperfect. To see murder as "compassionate" and to have that an acceptable view says a lot about where we are as a society.

This statement rests on the assumption that abortion is murder. That isn't an assumption shared by everyone.

[annewandering]

When our first son was born we discovered very fast that it is very hard on not only the parents but the medical personnel. Our son was taken care of by 2 nurses that had a total of two babies to care for. How can you live with caring for a baby and knowing its going to die no matter what you do? Day in and day out. The burn out is very high. You can never know the stresses in this till you have been there as a caretaker or a parent or sibling. You can say what you want but when its you and your baby it is very real and very immediate. At the top of the list of suffering is the baby. If you know your baby is going to die very soon with no chance of living anything but a short life then what do you do? I will tell you right now that whatever you just said in your mind is useless till it happens to you.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think it's a bit unfair to characterize pseudo-bio-mom's belief misguided. There are incredible stresses and emotions that go into these issues.

But surrender at birth is always an option--and indeed, it's apparently what the bio dad and semi/pseudo-bio mom planned to do once they realized abortion was off the table. They didn't want the child, and later tried to make darned sure that she wouldn't wind up raising the child either. All parties--including the surrogate--at some point wanted the kicking, flailing, wriggling, thumb-sucking, heart-beating Baby S. sliced, diced, and sucked out of the womb for her own good; not because they felt they couldn't face the staggering physical, emotional, and financial drain that her existence would mean for whoever chose to raise her.

The quality of life for the child and the parents is very poor.

I think it very troubling that the medical profession wants me to not have an opinion about whether no life at all is somehow superior to a poor "quality of life" (whatever that means), especially as it may apply to a specific person who cannot speak for him or herself. The earlier comment about "playing god", in this context, doesn't seem too far off the mark.

The conditions themselves are poorly understood. They happen so rarely that it is hard to get a group large enough from which to gain any real scientific knowledge.

Well, and let's not tiptoe around this. As I understand it, a huge portion of kids who are diagnosed with these conditions are aborted before they're even given a shot at life--frequently at the doctor's suggestion. I acknowledge the remarkable cost-effectiveness of that approach and trust it will gain in popularity as the knowledge of how fiscally unsustainable our dearly beloved new health care system really is. But I seem to have missed the memo--when did medical science decide that it's ethical to "cure" a disease by destroying all of the people who are diagnosed with it? What other diseases will we be able to eradicate--and amongst which classes of people?--in this brave new world of medical ethics that we seem to have entered?

Perhaps someday we'll be able to selectively abort future pedophiles, or manic depressives, or people with violent tendencies.

Heck, maybe we'll even end homosexuality.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[annewandering]

I acknowledge the remarkable cost-effectiveness of that approach, but I seem to have missed the memo--when did medical science decide that it's ethical to "cure" a disease by destroying all of the people who are diagnosed with it?

Perhaps if we had a better health care system more parents would chose to care for severely damaged children. If they knew they would have help, both financially and physically, they would feel they could survive the otherwise staggering costs and drain to their families. The way things are now it could easily put most any family out on the streets. How could they care for the babies then?

We need a new way of thinking. If we want these babies to live we have to figure out how to make it possible. Just saying no abortions for them is not solving the problem.

[Just_A_Guy]

Perhaps if we had a better health care system more parents would chose to care for severely damaged children. If they knew they would have help, both financially and physically, they would feel they could survive the otherwise staggering costs and drain to their families. The way things are now it could easily put most any family out on the streets. How could they care for the babies then?

We need a new way of thinking. If we want these babies to live we have to figure out how to make it possible. Just saying no abortions for them is not solving the problem.

The trouble with that reasoning, Annewandering, is that (as far as I know) every state in the Union allows surrender. Ideally, yes; the state would let you keep your kid and help with the fees--in fact, in many states (Utah included), Medicaid/CHIP will cover this kind of thing.

But even without state assistance, the option for surrender means that no woman is ever going to be reduced to the choice of letting the child live and being forced to pay emotionally and financially, versus aborting the fetus. And I got the impression from the article that the adoptive family was getting a healthy dose of support from their state.

[annewandering]

The trouble with that reasoning, Annewandering, is that (as far as I know) every state in the Union allows surrender. Ideally, yes; the state would let you keep your kid and help with the fees--in fact, in many states (Utah included), Medicaid/CHIP will cover this kind of thing.

But even without state assistance, the option for surrender means that no woman is ever going to be reduced to the choice of letting the child live and being forced to pay emotionally and financially, versus aborting the fetus. And I got the impression from the article that the adoptive family was getting a healthy dose of support from their state.

Why would we want the state to 'let' parents keep a child? States should never have the option of taking a child in order to get help for their health care. I know this has been done in the past over any number of family financial crisis'. It is a poor solution if not flat out evil.

We need encouragement and problem solving, which I would hope didnt focus on surrendering children.

I also had the impression the state was helping the adoptive parents. Did they do anything to help the biological parents? Or did they feel that recommending abortion was sufficient? If I remember right they already had one child with problems so they were probably quite aware of the issues they would be dealing with.

[Guest]

This statement rests on the assumption that abortion is murder. That isn't an assumption shared by everyone.

That was precisely my point. Though I won't say it's always murder and I don't claim to have all the answers, I think that the majority of elective abortions are murder, and I am sad that our society has reached a point where life is so optional.

[Wordnerd]

I have to say this story has really made me upset. The bio parents really are "playing God" with their children, and the surrogate. It's all about what they want, they seem to feel they can purchase human life, and if it isn't what they wanted they can throw it away. Is it ok to conceive life in a test tube from another persons eggs, have the child carried by a third party, and then try to force an abortion on that person because the baby has special needs? I don't have much sympathy for anyone in this story except the child, and the adoptive parents, who alone seem to recognize that every person has intrinsic value.

[Jennarator]

Are you saying surrogacy contributed to the baby's problems? Or IVF? Or what? Because medically, neither thing would make these kinds of defects much more likely than your average old-fashioned pregnancy. As far as the legal and moral battle, I can see the problem with surrogacy there. . . though I still know of no counsel against it. The only thing the Brethren have said is that donor eggs/sperm are strongly discouraged. As far as I'm aware, anyway, and as far as we were counseled when looking at fertility options about 12 years ago.

As for the story, it's sad that culturally we place less value on a life that we deem imperfect. To see murder as "compassionate" and to have that an acceptable view says a lot about where we are as a society.

Not at all. Saying it caused so much legal mess.

[MarginOfError]

But surrender at birth is always an option--and indeed, it's apparently what the bio dad and semi/pseudo-bio mom planned to do once they realized abortion was off the table. They didn't want the child, and later tried to make darned sure that she wouldn't wind up raising the child either. All parties--including the surrogate--at some point wanted the kicking, flailing, wriggling, thumb-sucking, heart-beating Baby S. sliced, diced, and sucked out of the womb for her own good; not because they felt they couldn't face the staggering physical, emotional, and financial drain that her existence would mean for whoever chose to raise her.

I think you're oversimplifying a lot of emotions here...as did the article and legal arguments presented. There's nothing about this situation that isn't heartbreaking and tragic. All I'm saying is that to spout off against dad and pseudo-mom for wanting to abort the child is inappropriate. (and, for the record, in this situation, the Church would agree).

Now, if you want to criticize their tactics for trying to force the surrogate into an abortion, you'll have my full support. It seems like, per the contractual agreement, as soon as the surrogate declined to abort, the contract would have been been breached and the drama should have been over. Unfortunately, the legal structure around surrogacy is so muddy that, in order to not be saddled with the responsibility of caring for a child they would not have cared for had they been carrying themselves, they had to fight.

I think it very troubling that the medical profession wants me to not have an opinion about whether no life at all is somehow superior to a poor "quality of life" (whatever that means), especially as it may apply to a specific person who cannot speak for him or herself. The earlier comment about "playing god", in this context, doesn't seem too far off the mark.

It isn't just about quality of life for the child, but also the parents. And you may not buy into the quality of life measures, but there is a growing body of evidence that shows medical outcomes are well correlated to quality of life metrics.

Well, and let's not tiptoe around this. As I understand it, a huge portion of kids who are diagnosed with these conditions are aborted before they're even given a shot at life--frequently at the doctor's suggestion. I acknowledge the remarkable cost-effectiveness of that approach and trust it will gain in popularity as the knowledge of how fiscally unsustainable our dearly beloved new health care system really is. But I seem to have missed the memo--when did medical science decide that it's ethical to "cure" a disease by destroying all of the people who are diagnosed with it? What other diseases will we be able to eradicate--and amongst which classes of people?--in this brave new world of medical ethics that we seem to have entered?

On the first issue of improving research of rare deformities, putting an end to their termination wouldn't help. As stated before, a lot of them won't live long past birth. The rest of them that do can't be subjected to study or experimentation. There are ethical restrictions against studies on children and mentally inhibited persons.

Perhaps someday we'll be able to selectively abort future pedophiles, or manic depressives, or people with violent tendencies.

Heck, maybe we'll even end homosexuality.

If you can provide evidence that any of those groups have low survival beyond birth, inhibited mental capacity, and are unlikely to ever function as independent individuals, then we'll talk.

[MarginOfError]

That was precisely my point. Though I won't say it's always murder and I don't claim to have all the answers, I think that the majority of elective abortions are murder, and I am sad that our society has reached a point where life is so optional.

While considering abortion to be a serious sin, the Church has stated

So far as is known, he has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness.

I understand where your opinion comes from and that it is heartfelt. But I do feel it is important to show that it is important to disagree on the matter. (not that I hope to persuade you to think differently, but for others who may be reading)

[MarginOfError]

Lastly, I just want to clarify that I do not believe the surrogate mother did anything wrong by choosing not to abort. My concern about what is happening in this thread is that some people are criticizing the parents who wanted to terminate a pregnancy because of birth defects. I think we'd do a lot better if our first reaction was compassion and not righteous indignation.

[Jennarator]

I have to say this story has really made me upset. The bio parents really are "playing God" with their children, and the surrogate. It's all about what they want, they seem to feel they can purchase human life, and if it isn't what they wanted they can throw it away. Is it ok to conceive life in a test tube from another persons eggs, have the child carried by a third party, and then try to force an abortion on that person because the baby has special needs? I don't have much sympathy for anyone in this story except the child, and the adoptive parents, who alone seem to recognize that every person has intrinsic value.

THIS is what I am saying. :)

[Just_A_Guy]

Why would we want the state to 'let' parents keep a child? States should never have the option of taking a child in order to get help for their health care. I know this has been done in the past over any number of family financial crisis'. It is a poor solution if not flat out evil.

Agreed; but my focus was primarily to point out that the "abort or keep and pay" dichotomy is a false one. If a person doesn't mind giving up a fetus to an abortion clinic, why is it so hard to wait a couple more months and then give it up to a hospital or fire station?

I also had the impression the state was helping the adoptive parents. Did they do anything to help the biological parents? Or did they feel that recommending abortion was sufficient? If I remember right they already had one child with problems so they were probably quite aware of the issues they would be dealing with.

Can't speak as to the article or that specific state government; but my general experience is--"yes", help is available.

All I'm saying is that to spout off against dad and pseudo-mom for wanting to abort the child is inappropriate. (and, for the record, in this situation, the Church would agree).

Is it not also inappropriate to try to silence those who disagree with a kind of behavior by finding someone who indulges in the behavior and then acting like anyone who still disagree with the behavior is attacking the individual personally?

It isn't just about quality of life for the child, but also the parents.

Not in this case, it wasn't.

And you may not buy into the quality of life measures, but there is a growing body of evidence that shows medical outcomes are well correlated to quality of life metrics.

And if you woke up tomorrow unable to speak for yourself, you would be comfortable letting a third party administer those metrics and protocols to your own everyday life--even ending your life if necessary--in a world where (hypothetically speaking) no one had an emotional attachment to you of any kind, and your existence was nothing but a burden to pretty much everyone?

On the first issue of improving research of rare deformities, putting an end to their termination wouldn't help. As stated before, a lot of them won't live long past birth.

How old is Baby S. again?

The rest of them that do can't be subjected to study or experimentation. There are ethical restrictions against studies on children and mentally inhibited persons.

MoE, I doubt you meant this to come across the way that it does. There may be some restrictions; but if children and the disabled are always closed for medical research--period--then why did my two autistic nephews ages 11 and 9 just participate in a clinical study up in the Pacific Northwest?

If you can provide evidence that any of those groups have low survival beyond birth, inhibited mental capacity, and are unlikely to ever function as independent individuals, then we'll talk.

Were those the criteria that applied universally five years ago? Ten? Fifty? Two centuries ago?

That's the trouble with crossing the bright-line standards set by those fuddy-duddy conservatives. Once you've breached them, there's no going back. "Right" and "wrong" ultimately degenerate into, as Thrasymachus argued, the mere interest of the stronger.

[Wingnut]

If a person doesn't mind giving up a fetus to an abortion clinic, why is it so hard to wait a couple more months and then give it up to a hospital or fire station?

Clearly you've never experienced pregnancy or childbirth firsthand.

[Just_A_Guy]

Clearly you've never experienced pregnancy or childbirth firsthand.

I'm told I experienced my own childbirth, but I consider the source unreliable.