No I don't think so.
If you say yes to being a surrogate mother then I would hope you had put enough thought into it and not change your mind

The simple reason that I say you can't do that is because it costs something roughly around $6000 (i think, it's a lot anyway) to preform the operation and the couple would pay for that.

Because it is such an expensive investment I think there should be some form of contract drawn up to begin with so that the woman cannot legally abort the unborn child

not on an abortion debate stance, but simply from the fact that the couple have put a lot of trust, time, money and possibly even love into the situation and therefore it would just simply not be fair.

No- just because she's breaking the deal! I'd be mad if I paid for someone to be a surrogate for me and she stopped.

It'd be like if you hired someone to make you a wedding cake, but they took the money and ate the cake. Lawsuit, please!!

I realizes that dehumanizes the experience but it is a legal/financial agreement....

Mm... I honestly feel no, as by becoming a surrogate mother she really kind of "sold" or "loaned" her body to the other couple and their baby.

I think of it in this way, and I know there are holes:

If a woman is pregnant with her own baby, it is her choice to abort because it is her body and she conceived it, whether on purpose or not.

If a woman is a surrogate, the baby was conceived on purpose by other people and she promised to let that fetus be in her body until it was time to be born.

I don't feel she has the right to electively abort someone else's potential child.

Now, if she talked to the family and they agreed as well, then by all means, go for it. But I just can't feel right about a surrogate mother aborting someone else's child.

I know, I know, it conflicts with the basic pro-choice edict of "her body, her choice". But I feel that when you become a surrogate, it's not your body any more.

That is majorly tricky.

I'm going to go with no. However, I think that in this sort of process, a woman should have to sign something so she is completely aware of what she can and cannot do. Abortion being one of those things.

I agree. I wouldn't be concerned for moral reasons, and if the couple who hired her were ok with it then I'd be fine with it.

But otherwise she's breaking the deal.

Right! Yes *laugh*

As others have said - and me too, just in a less eloquent way, she'd be breaking the contract, wasting a lot of money... and breaking the hearts of a couple.

I say yes.. it she doesn' t want that parasite in her and felt she made a mistake she should have every right to abort it..

Just kidding.. I think No..

IT IS still HER BODY!

Surrogacy or not. That is what pro choice is about.. The WOMAN'S BODY..

Now is it mean? YES

Should she have to pay the family back their expenses? YES

It is still inside of her body though

She should have to pay that family more than just the expenses of the procedure and all the money she was getting for being a surrogate. She should have to pay for their emotional trauma. That, I would say, is the ultimate price.

And she hasn't aborted her child. She aborted someone else's child. If she'd kicked a pregnant woman in the stomach and caused a miscarriage, these days they could very well try that in court as manslaughter. I see it no different.

When it's a child/zef YOU conceived (whether on purpose or not), yes you have that choice. But it is not her child in any way shape or form, so I don't believe it is her right to choose to abort it.

Let's not bring in maternal mortality to this; since it was stated in the original post that this is ONLY for "elective" abortions.

AS far as abortion goes, it does not matter WHOSE embryo it is.


Abortion is not about 'Who owns the fetus', it is about the womans body, the woman who is indeed pregnant.

I feel there are cases where your body doesn't matter anymore.

Those parents BOUGHT her body to carry their child. That's how I view surrogacy. I don't think it's wrong, I think it's wonderful; but legally that's what it is.

I absolutely do not think she should have the abortion, BUT I think she has the RIGHT to have it. I think it is close to being a crime though, and would go so far as saying it is so inconsiderate and antisocial that maybe a little prison time would be in order. I know people go to prison for a lot less than that and it would most likely cut down on the women that do abort a surrogate child midway.

This is sort of a flip flop for pro-choicers.. who usually say it is her body.. now it is her body but she shouldn't, can't abort?? isn't that sort of like cherry picking as done in religions? Pick out the parts you want? You either feel it is her body to do as she wants or you don't.. Not pick and choose.. I guess we all do it...
FLIP FLOP..

I know this is off topic and i'm sorry but yeah.
Just wanted to see that's exactly how i see it in the whole "mens rights for abortion" thing. it's not just the womans body once she's pregnant, it's hers, the babies and whoever else is involved in the situation for the 9 months.

I'm with cambion, it's the woman carrying the pregnancy who is the legal mother, regardless of biologically hers or not so she should be able to abort. However, I think women getting into a surrogacy relationship should be prepared to go full term as that's the agreement but it's still her choice whether or not to abort

Moo, I haven't replied to this topic yet...but perhaps you've read my mind.

I also feel a surrogate mother should have the right to abort, regardless of what wanna-mom and wanna-dad want. It's the surrogate mother's body, not the biological mother's, and if the surrogate suddenly has an issue with the arrangement, then too bleedin' bad for the parents because it's not her body. But, a lot of thought needs to go into the decision to let people use your body as an incubator. But...if we make it illegal for one group of women (albeit very small) to get abortions, this may very well open the door for the banning of abortions for other groups of women. We really should not put ideas into the heads of the pro-lifers.

Yeah, it would suck if the surrogate backed out and aborted, but perhaps the parents who bought her could demand a refund from her if it was that big of a blasted deal. Or...maybe the wannabe parents could accept the blasted fact that, if they can't conceive naturally, they aren't meant to spawn and should move on with their lives and donate that $6000 to children's charities instead of being selfish and bringing yet another kid into the world.

Let me pose another question based on the one the OP asked...what if the child the surrogate was carrying had some kind of defect (Down's syndrome, enecephaly (spelling?), missing organs, deformities, etc.)? What if she wanted to abort, but the parents using her body did not want her to? Or vice versa? What if the biological parents want to abort and the surrogate wants to carry to term?

Yes, except that being pro-choice isn't a religion, it's an idea, and as the great movie Dogma said, "ideas can change".

We don't have to always feel the same way on every situation to be pro-choice. We can have different opinions in different cases.

I see nothing wrong with that. Trying to say that a pro-choicer must be pro-choice in all cases no matter what is once again trying to turn the world black and white, which is what pro-choice fights against on a daily basis!!!


As I have said dozens of times: Extremism on EITHER side shows a complete lack of common sense.

Abortion is ALWAYS okay: Bad concept.
Abortion is ALWAYS wrong: Bad concept.

There are times where abortion is just plain sick and wrong.

There are cases where abortion is the absolute best decision.

So abortion can't always be right and it can't always be wrong.

Get some common sense people. Stop being extremists. You're just as bad as the other side when YOU refuse to compromise.

So are you saying if a person has a religion they should abide by it or is there room for choice? Pick and choose? or stay solid to their belief? Por-choice is a belief just like a belief in a religion.. You believe, but there is room for choice. But if a person has a religion they can’t have any choice? I don't see that as a lack of common sense.

Can you at least comment a little on my claims of extremism being bad for both sides? That was the WHOLE POINT of my post. You nit-picked one sentence to my knowledge. Got anything to say about the rest of my post?