If a gay couple uses a surrogate mother, who owns the fetus?

This isn't flamebait, really--but it is a challenge to the oft-stated belief that "It's in my body, therefore it's my property to dispose of as I wish."

If a gay couple uses a surrogate mother, and uses in-vitro fertilization with one of the partner's sperm and an egg from a bank, do they have rights over the fetus? Or does the fetus belong to the surrogate mother, to dispose of as she wishes, with or without the consent of the parents? Can she have an abortion without the couple's consent?

The point is, here is a case where it is clear that the fetus is not part of the woman's body, and really can't be considered her property.At the very least, it is the shared property of the parents and the surrogate mother. But it could also be supposed that the fetus is simply a person in its own right.

The pro-choice "Hands off my body" mantra could just as easily come from the developing mouth of the fetus, and the same arguments which gave equal rights to women, who were not always considered fully human, can be used on behalf of the unborn. And a person can see that connection and remain a Democrat, seeing the issue as part of the Democratic dream of civil rights for all.

post this question in another thread having to do with abortion, there are millions of them right now.

:eyes:

RL

One would think we've become Abortion Underground with all the underhanded anti-choice statements being posted today.

:eyes:

RL

This is getting OLD.

... Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

:cry: {wipes eyes from laughing too much}

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Oh sorry, son/miss, but you really are bad at this whole trolling thing. Like anything, you should study and practice first, before venturing out without training wheels. It really is an art form and you are currently just doing paint-by-numbers.

:+

The first rule of "flamebait" is don't mention "flamebait". Then there's a whole bunch of stuff about psychosis, Brad Pitt and soap... but that's for later. Ever watch/read "American Psycho" without realising it was satire? No? Your last name isn't "Bernardo" is it?

You should go do some research quickly, otherwise you might not get paid for your next post.

{Yes, I realise that I am circling the drain of bannination, but some of these really deserve a snarky response)

{Edit: I'm sorry that I kicked this POS, but I couldn't resist posting. Sorry.}

Your assumption that the fetus is a person in its own right can be made with ANY fetus, not just a surrogate mother's fetus.
You are right though, a person can see that connection and remain a Democrat. They cannot, however, remain pro-choice.

Yes, if she wanted to have an abortion, she could. There may legal ramifications in her contract as a surrogate mother, but it is still her body and her choice. (By ramifications, I am saying I think the gay couple could possibly sue to repaid any expenses already incurred by her because of the pregnancy.) The idea that the the "mantra" might come from the "developing mouth of the fetus" is the exact idea that anti-choice groups always use--they want us to think that a 2 week old embryonic fetus should have a say in what a woman does to her own body. A woman has the right to make reproductive choices regarding her own body. Period. Plain and simple. It is not the choice of any politician or any man or any governmental body or any sperm donor. It is her choice and should be made privately with the guidance of trained medical personnel.

gay rights into the debate when they don't have anything to do with each other.

First it was gay couple's rights to rent apartments, now it's right to an adoption.

What's next, I wonder?

attempt to get different groups at DU fighting amongst ourselves.

When you really think about it.

But that's what the poster would like - the abortion-rights crowd and the gay-rights crowd to fight.

Lovely that we get along. Probably because most of us are for abortion rights AND gay rights.

Does the surrogate mother have absolute right to abort the fetus?

If it hasn't happened already, I'm sure that a case like this will come up somewhere, with the gay couple arguing that they have control over the rights of the fetus. The point is, just because the fetus exists within a woman's body doesn't mean that the woman has the right to dispose of it as she pleases.

Would a gay couple arguing for the protection of their unborn child be "oppressing" the surrogate mother? Or would they be proving that they, and through them society at large, have a stake in the child?

This doesn't have to be flamebait. Thoughtful, reasoned answers might turn it into a discussion. And a discussion this Party needs to have.

you left a whole bunch unaddressed in your other "this is not flamebait" thread.

I wish you would please post in the ABORTION issue area and stop hijacking the main discussion with your rightwing crap. And stop bringing GAYS into every analogy.

Stop harassing people here. You have no desire to discuss anything, you want to lecture. And believe you me, you are no college professor my friend.

The OP author could have looked this up.

The surrogate can withdraw from that contract up until a certain time after the birth. It varies from state to state. Same with adoption.

So you're going to hear nothing from its "developing mouth."

Why not pay attention to the Bush budget?

It's going to cause more abortions!

Or is that what this stupid thread is about: distraction?

My thought's exactly. Same with your comment about Bu$h's budget. When will conservative idiots get it?

just a smokescreen. God where's Scott Peterson when we need him?

I alerted on one of these, and asked for a little General Discussion D&C to get this all moved to the proper forum.

I don't want to hit alert a dozen times all at once, but maybe some of you others recognizing what's going on could do the same when you see these threads, just ask to have it put in the choice and repro forum where it belongs.

How is that for an answer? Simple as that. The fetus cannot survive on it's own, and therefore is not a separate entity from it's mother. The pimple on my ass is as much alive as a fetus is.

The reproductive graft - which constitutes the amnion, chorion, umbilicus, embryo/fetus, placenta, and the other Human Gestational Materials (HGM) is, like every other graft, integrated at a molecular level and sustained by the body of the host organism. It is a part of the pregnant women - no matter what its origin - while she is gestating it. It becomes a separate entity at birth; or involuntary or voluntary abortion. With the spontaneous abortion or birth what actually happens is that her body rejects the reproductive graft.

- Further Reading -

- Eileen`s always in process page -


Eileen

:)

Been around a while but don't get much time to post.


Eileen

We are obligated to take care of people in comas. There may be circumstances when we pull the plug, but we have limits placed on what we can do. In the case of a coma, the closest relatives make the decision on behalf of the non-sentient patient in consultation with the doctor. We recogize the patient's rights even if he is not able to ask for them himself.

do they?

that's what those tubes do. And they rely on society to protect them from shutting off the tubes without their permission, through them or their representatives.

Apples and oranges, but you *knew* that.

Those tubes aren't a person, are they?

Who said anything about "viability" or "person"? There is only one person (meaning a legal human being entitled to rights) because there is only one organism. The pregnant woman is a single unit with a reproductive graft attached. We don't grant rights to parts of people!!

So there is no "person in a coma" to take care of and therefore no duty of care. As for your "closest relative" nonsense even if you were to "personify" a part of the reproductive graft then the closest relative is the one the graft is a part of and it is her choice whether to continue the relationship.

- Eileen`s always in process page -



Eileen

then it is NOT a separate part of the woman's body.

Your DNA argument is nonsense.

Full disclosure I am a gay pro lifer but I think that the majority of surrogate couples are straight not gay so I fail to see why gay would be involved here.

I don't understand what a surrogate situation has to do with this either. The poster just seems to feel like he/she needs to bring up this topic in as many ways as possible today.

yep

hmm. Those commies like the gays. Maybe if I make an analogogy between the baby killers and the gays, they'll become confused and stop the baby killing.

If your friends came to you with news that the woman they'd chosen as a surrogate mother was going to abort their child without their consent, would you really say, "Good! Keep your hands off her body!" or would you recognize that the fetus is not the woman's property to do with as she pleases? Wouldn't you tell your friends to fight the mother for the life of their unborn child?

Your attacks on me are clever, and your assumptions about my motives are very creative. Yay, you. Now that you've gotten that out of your system, you might want to address the question.

Why wasn't it a straight couple in the first place?

Tell you what, you answer all the questions that have been addressed to you, then I'll answer yours.

when it comes to surrogate motherhood. Thus, the gayness was there to accentuate the legal vulnerability of the couple. A straight couple making a case to become parents would have an easier time than a gay couple, so the gay couple makes a stronger example in this instance.

If a child is being carried by a surrogate, it is a *WANTED* baby - as are many aborted fetuses. Someone wanted to have a baby. If an abortion is considered in that case, it is because either a) the fetus has some problem or b) the surrogate's health is in danger.

They are fine tuning their trolling methods, and there will come a time in the next few months where we'll be forced to do the same to them.

Oh, and by the way, I have to say :wtf: over throwing homosexuality into the mix.

You may disagree with me, but I am not a troll, and I am not an intentional disrupter. I voted for Clinton and Kerry, and even worked the polls election day. I recently got up at the ungodly hour of 7AM to join hundreds in a protest against Bush during his trip to Omaha. I want the Democratic party to be more inclusive, and I am working to make it better by opening up what I think is an important discussion.

The fact is that disruptors use certain tactics to drive a wedge between otherwise united groups. I don't know you, you don't know me. What is glaringly obvious, though, is that the issues you are bringing up are in direct opposition to the majority on this board.

As I see it, we didn't lose on abortion. We probably didn't lose at all. If anything, we lost because of fear mongering and federally funded churches proseletyzing to bigots who can't stomach the idea of two men holding hands. (Even the latter point is a stretch.)

You have made your position known on the board. I find it highly unlikely that you'll make anyone switch their view on abortion here. We are an opinionated bunch.

Check out the link. Many gay couples use this agency.

http://www.growinggenerations.com/

but given that straights outnumber gays around 10 to 1 (probably closer to 15 to 1), they would have to be between 10 and 15 times more likely to use surrogates than straights to make up a majority. I don't believe that is true, especially given that lesbians couples almost never would use surrogates.

Your very question asks who "owns" the fetus. Since it is illegal to own another person, it seems to me that the fetus is not a person, but a collection of cells, own, by proxy, by the woman. Therefore, she can terminate the pregnancy if she so desires. If she has a contract, then she would be in breech of contract and could be sued.

Why is this even a question? What does this have to do with the abortion debate?

This example is an attempt to discuss whether a fetus is the woman's property simply because it is in her body. I think it demonstrates that the fetus is not the woman's property, and from that example, I would go on to say that a fetus is never a woman's property simply because it exists in her body.

the fetus can't survive without the woman's body. She doesn't have to give up her body. If someone were paying and the woman decided not to rent out her body after all, then it would be fair that the people wouldn't have to pay the rental fee.

...if she wants to carry the fetus to term or terminate the pregnancy.

She is the one putting her life and livelihood at risk in the process.

A fetus is a fetus. It is not a human, but more a pre-human. The rights' of the woman always trump its rights. Don't like abortion, don't have one. If you are a man, then don't have sex and risk getting a woman pregnant...homosexuality...the only true way to end abortion!

Yup, not flamebait at all.

:eyes:

RL

In which, coincidentally, abortion was discussed. A single mother who had seen several of her friends have serial abortions shared her belief that abortion was killing. She would benefit most from voting Democratic, but is she going to get the same kind of reception I get here for this one heartfelt belief which might keep her forever voting against her own economic interests? Or are we going to listen to her story and find a place for her?

Because of the nature of your posts. Not because you are pro-life. We actually do have quite a few of those, here.

for being pro life. I am not saying you have done this but anyone who is pro life on this board can relate an experience of being treated like dirt on this site for being so.

I remember one incident when McGreevey came out and in a thread where I had the temerity to defend him I was told "since you are pro life all you think women are good for is bearing kids". This is one incident of dozens I could relate.

with ridiculous arguments and scenarios like the other poster has. However, I do not doubt that you've had some pretty negative and snarky responses regarding your view on abortion. I'm sure it's not the easiest position to hold here at DU.

which is my point. I honestly doubt he would be getting much less venom if he had just posted one post. I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

The majority of pro choicers are decent and honorable on this board but there is a minority of them who are down right hateful and sadly the majority virtually never calls them on it. Thus, they end up presenting an utterly intolerent front on this issue.

I think he's getting more of it in proportion to his posts.

Even though I may not be rude about it, it is an intolerant issue for me. I simply won't stand for my rights being stripped away. Sometimes people do get nasty about that. But, it's because it is such an important issue. People get very testy and defensive of their rights.

Until that, it's just a potential investment.

to do with gays, and has gone thru courts

It really depends on what state everything takes place in. I live in Florida and it would be illegal for me to enter into a surrogacy with a gay (or single for that matter) couple. That being said, while looking into being a gestational surro (which is what you are talking about here)I was told (by lawyers) that from the moment of conception the fetus was considered the child of the intended parents. Now this doesn't effect choices I made for my own body (what I ate, if I exercise, etc) although all those things COULD be written into the contract. The law is just so that the intended parents are immediately the parents at birth, where as in other states all those involved may have to do an adoption after the birth. I'm not sure how the law is for traditional surrogates here though.

I'm really not understanding your last paragraph. Surrogates CHOOSE to enter into the situation with the expectation of getting pregnant. It's not about fetus' rights, but about choice of all those involved. A surrogate CHOOSES to get pregnant, the intended parents CHOOSE to use a surrogate. A 20-year-old on birth control pills that fail (I have 2 kids due to this exact thing) does not CHOOSE to get pregnant.

Also you can't really compare surrogacy as an answer to your "pro-life" veiws.....Many of those fertilized eggs are not used, many are just created with only a 15% chance of implanting. Seems kind of silly to use for your argument.

So, whether or not I have yet proved that a fetus is a person, I have shown, and you have shown, that there are circumstances in which a fetus (or at least its parents) has rights which outweigh the right of the mother to have an abortion. Just because the fetus is inside a woman's body doesn't mean she can legally dispose of it as she wishes.

Thus, the "My body, my choice," argument falls down here.

That's absurd. Shall we send our used tampons to the State? What about miscarried blighted ovums?

Not until it is viable, does the State have any say. PERIOD. Women's right to privacy extends over her body. This right ends ONLY when it begins to infringe on another HUMAN BEING'S rights. A human being means a DEVELOPED humanbeing, not a zygote that may or MAY not develop into a being. An ACTUALIZED human not a POTENTIAL of a human with an unknown probability for development.

Just because your Bible tells you so, doesn't make it FACT or REALITY.

If you choose faith over Science, then DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION! NO ONE WILL FORCE YOU TO! But don't force your religion on me.

was this directed at me? I was just stating what I was told when I was looking into gestational surrogacy in Florida, nothing more. Did I mention religion in any of the post?

:eyes:

And then, though entirely off topic... I believe that the mother (of the born child) should still be given the option to break the contract right after birth.

How many threads on abortion are you going to start?

Starting thread after thread with the SAME message in attempt to flame.

This author should have looked up some facts on this subject if he really wanted to understand how surrogacy works. But that is not his point, is it?

BTW, the surrogate mother can have an abortion if she so chooses!

I am presenting these ideas in good faith for open discussion. You have fun cutting people down, but in fact, you're wrong in my case. I want to help create a place in the party for people like me.

I think that a couple suing to protect their baby from being aborted by a surrogate mother is a pretty likely scenario, if it hasn't happened already. And such a case would be based on making the legal point that the fetus is not the woman's property to do with what she will. And that legal precedent will affect the status of all fetuses.
Really. It will. If that's too complicated for you, wait for the Law and Order episode which will make the issue simpler for you.

Surrogacy contracts are had enough to enforce when the baby is born. I think the most a judge would do is compell the woman to give back any money she had taken.

and still is.... is spam. You KNOW that this is flamebait. If you are sincere in your mission to convince anyone of something YOU believe in, why would you not contain it in one thread? You ARE spamming this forum.

That is hardly spam. I wanted to bring up a different aspect that didn't seem to quite fit in the other thread. I am not responsible for any of the other threads on this topic.

of whether a fetus is a woman's property, and I set up an example to suggest that it isn't. It was a smaller part of that topic, yes, but one I wanted to discuss in more detail. How many threads make spam? Don't other people ever set up two genuine threads without being attacked as spammers?

tsk tsk... I know that you know that. Don't pretend innocence, it just makes the intent all the more obvious.

How dare you bring gays into this discussion of yours anyway? Why not straight couples, who use more surrogates than gay men? Your intent is pretty obvious.

IT'S NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.

since we would be paying for the judge who would enforce or not enforce the contract.

it still isn't any of your business because this is a personal decision.

Unless, of course, you're like some of those people who sue to keep people on life support when the family doesn't want it - in other words, butting in where your opinions aren't wanted or needed, all in the name of some kind of 'morals'. And, of course, who don't do diddly-squat to actually help the family of the person - just enough to cause them more pain.

as is divorce law. While the details of this one case wouldn't necessarily be my business, the dispostion of cases like it surely would be. It is absurd to say that people have no business knowing if a contract can or can't be enforced. What point would there be in having them if we didn't know one way or the other.

can do in the privacy of their own home? Once again, your double standard for women's rights and gay men's rights shines through.

No where did I say that the judge would or should enforce the contract. But when one does enter into a contract, no matter what the contract may be, and then goes to a judge to vacate or enforce it, it becomes our business. BTW divorce cases habitually decide things based on what conscenting adults do or have done in their own homes. But as usual you never, ever read a post before making a snarky remark to me on this issue. BTW I clearly stated, on this thread, that I thought the most a judge would do is make the woman give back any money she got. But of course, you didn't read that as you never, as in not ever, read my posts before you behave in a snarky manner.

On edit It is society's business whether or not a contract is enforceable. If two men made a contract with each other that if one of them was unfaithful he would forgo palimony, then it would become our business if that contract could be enforced. If for no other reason than that other people may wish to enter into a contract like that one.

So, would you tell the couple to pursue the case to protect their child from abortion, or would you support the surrogate mother's absolute right over what she does with her body?

I really don't think this is an unlikely scenario. And it would legally establish whether a fetus is a part of a woman's body.

her own body because she signed a contract. I thought I had heard everything.

And on edit... since I read your earlier post, now you're just confusing me... seems like you're contradicting yourself. One post says that she would just have to pay remunerations, and the other that she signed a contract (insinuating that she'd be bound to it.)

I actually stated in this thread, and now on two occasions, that I believe a court would make her give back the money. But it is our business REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE JUDGE DECIDES TO DO. If the contract isn't enforceable THEN THAT IS OUR BUSINESS. If it is then THAT IS ALSO OUR BUSINESS. WHEN YOU ENTER INTO CONTRACTS AND THEN TRY TO VACATE OR ENFORCE THEM THAT IS OUR BUSINESS. Again, for the willfully slow, the item which is our business, and again what I clearly stated was our business, is whether or not the contract WILL BE ENFORCED. Do you hear me now?

On edit

Here are the words I typed.

actually it would be all our business


since we would be paying for the judge who would enforce or not enforce the contract.



Please state where, with specificitiy, I stated that the contract should be enforced. Note the words the contract should be enforced should appear in what you quote.

You are contradicting yourself.

and with specificity, where did I state THE CONTRACT SHOULD BE ENFORCED? Again those words should appear in the quote.

and of course you can't quote the words because you made them up.

anything... :eyes: man.... bedtime for me... night night

But my post doesn't even infer it either.

change the original.... do NOT go around acusing me of that sort of shit, or you don't know what you're in for.

how is that not insinuating that it is NOT your business?

I truly don't see how you can pretend that your post was not insinuating that.

Whether or not a contract will be enforced is indeed our business. Anytime a judge decides which contracts will be or won't be enforced it is our business. To take a goofy example, If some judge decided that all marriages are void if they occur in Satanic temples, that would be nice to know if you were going to get married in a Satanic temple. Saying that doens't imply, infer, or state that one is in favor of or against voiding marriages in Satanic temples.

You're a riot.

I didn't say she should have to pay renumeraions (which would imply paying non economic damages) I did say, and think even the most pro choice person would agree, that she should pay back any and all money she was given by the couple for entering into the contract.

On the second matter, the fact a contract is involved makes its enforcement of vacation a matter of public interest. If the contract is unenforceable, and it most certainly would be in regards to specific performance, then that is our business. That is what I said. It wasn't confusing, or anything else.

and her blood is nourishing it. Will you please give up this nonsense??