Even if she is a surrogate and is carrying the baby to term for someone else, at the end of the day it is her body and it is her choice what she does with it. If she does not want to abort the baby that is inside of her, she shouldn't.
Yes, Crystal Kelly had a right to choose whether she would have an abortion or not. As long as she was carrying the fetus, her bodily autonomy was at stake. That gives her the right to make decisions about the life of the fetus. This is not an issue of contractual obligations, but of personal bodily integrity. Whether the biological parents have a responsibility to the child post birth is a separate issue, one which should be governed by the surrogacy contract.
There is most certainly a relationship there. She is carrying that baby, but it still does not have genetic ties to her. But in terms of whether or not she should have an abortion, that is something that impacts her body. It can impede upon her body in a negative way if not done properly. She does have that right to choose.
Yes, she did have a right to choose because it is still her body that is being used. Just because Crystal Kelly was carrying the biological child of two other people did not give them ownership to her body and the choices she makes with it. Just because they parents decided they didn't want the baby with medical issues doesn't mean they can tell her she has to get rid of it if she doesn't want to. It is their choice to give the child up, but not dictate he surrogate's body.
The contract she willingly signed stated that she agreed to have an abortion in the event that the fetus she carried had deformities or abnormalities. Her right to choose was exercised at that point. When she entered into the contract she was making a legal and personal decision. Backing out of the contract was very irresponsible and will likely hurt women entering into surrogacy contracts in the future.