Should biological parents have the right to choose if a surrogate should have an abortion?

  • Yes, biological parents have the right because it is still their child.

    Yes, it is the surrogate's body. However, it is the biological parents child. If the surrogate wanted to have an abortion then she should not have became a surrogate in the first place. She is carrying their child. She cannot just choose to have an abortion just because she feels like it. She has to think about the biological parents. It would be selfish to have an abortion.

  • Yes, it would depend on the circumstances of the contract.

    This a strange relationship that would typically involve a legal contract. If the biological parents made a stipulation that they had the prerogative to request an abortion, then they certainly have the right to demand the surrogate have an abortion performed. However, enforcing such a demand would be a separate matter.

  • Yes they do.

    If having the biological parents want to abort their child, they should. If the surrogate disagrees it's her fault- she signed a contract. The surrogate may claim First Amendment of the Constitution, but if it were deemed unconstitutional to begin with, then this part of the contract would be non-existent

  • Yes, yes, Yes!

    If there was something wrong with one of the babies, like a severe deformity, then yes, the parents should be able to have the choice on whether or not they want to take on that responsibility. However, this is not the situation here, just that there's more kids to care for than expected. Which, I wont lie, they should be able to decide how many they want to care for. Abortion is necessary. The surrogate should have no say unless there's a high health risk for her. But no, other than that, the surrogate should have no say because when those babies are born, she walks and leaves her choices on someone else to deal with. That is just FUCKED up.

  • But theres a catch

    If the life is at risk or there is a severe defect in the baby the mom has a right to choose. But if she has an abortion at her discresion (anotherwords against the wishes of the biological parents) for reasons other than medicsl she needs to pay back the money the biological parents put into the pregnancy.

  • I say NO

    It is because it is our body it is our choice and decision about that abortion things.. The biological parents is out of this already because they can't force anyone to abort an unborn child and also why would they abort the child if they are the ones who told the surrogate mother to carry the baby..

  • Surrogacy =/= Abortion

    When signing up to be a surrogate the expectation is to bring these parents who do not have the ability to have a child on their own into the world through the use of your uterus. There is no expectation of terminating a pregnancy - the aim is to bring the pregnancy to term. If the biological parents change their mind or the child has a disability or its more than the number of children desired this does not change the aim of the Surrogacy - and a woman who was willing to go through pregnancy should not be forced into going through an abortion which was not in the aim of the pregnancy.

  • No no NO

    It's interesting to me that pro choice advocates use the argument "my body my choice" but when using a surrogate it's not about their body it's about another woman's body and the baby she carries and they think they should still have a say!. Um hello?! If you use the argument "my body my choice" you can't dictate what a surrogate does. And if you are going to terminate the baby then why not let the surrogate raise the child if she so chooses or place the child for adoption? Why abort? My head hurts from trying to understand the utter stupidity behind this.

  • Not a chance

    The surrogate has full rights to HER OWN BODY. She also would be the birth mother. The "genetic" parent(s) don't have a say and the surrogate can also decide to keep the baby for herself. Doesn't matter what these little "pro lifers" say, the law is in fact the law.

  • But theres a catch

    If the life is at risk or there is a severe defect in the baby the mom has a right to choose. But if she has an abortion at her discresion (anotherwords against the wishes of the biological parents) for reasons other than medicsl she needs to pay back the money the biological parents put into the pregnancy.

  • No because I just feel that way

    Many like to support abortion by stating the very fact that a mother has the right to her body to do as she wishes. The mother in this case may or may not be considered the surrogate or the owner of the ovum that was placed inside the surrogate. Before I start into anything, I say no because I feel they shouldn't force a surrogate to have an abortion if the surrogate would like to take care of the child if lets say the parents decided they didn't want the child. Or in the case where a surrogate wanted the abortion but the biological parents still wanted it, I feel in that case the biological parents overrule the surrogate. My overall opinion is against abortion to be honest, I think to end the life of a child is immoral. Lets first start off though with the argument that a mother has the right to do with her body what she wants. People do not in fact completely own their body. Yes you can run off into the wilderness and then do as you wish but as long as you are in an American society, you do not have complete ownership. Can a women decide she wants to use her body for prostitution? In America, absolutely not... It's against the law. Can an individual pump herself full of heroin or snort cocaine? Nope, still against the law. So overall in saying that a female has the right to do with her body what she wishes is obviously a flawed generalization. However in respects to that, an individual should not be forced to do something to her body if she doesn't want to. She should not be forced to abort a fetus or another example... She should not be forced to have vaccinations pumped into her body if she doesn't want them for whatever reason. What if someone else decided that you were a match as a kidney donor and they really needed a kidney, it would be ethical if you decided to give them one of your kidneys but morally unethical if they took you to court because you didn't want to and forced you to turn one of your kidneys over to them. Nobody would, in their right mind, agree that someone in this case should be forced to provide a kidney... So why should someone be able to force someone else to abort an unborn child? Overall I feel that your body is your property when it comes to keeping others from doing things to you such as rape, forcing abortion, etc.. But it is not your property when you decide completely what to do with it.. Such as aborting life, illicit-drug use, prostitution, etc.

  • Her body, her choice.

    No one should ever be told what they can and cannot do when it concerns their body. I do not believe a person should have an abortion unless it involves rape, incest, or if the pregnancy would endanger the lives of the baby and/or the mother. Just because a surrogate is not the "biological" parent, she should still have the right to make a choice in what happens to her body. Abortion has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts and tendencies. It is a fact that should not be looked over just because someone decides they do not want the unborn child that they provided the sperm/egg for. If the biological parents do not want the child, then they should forfeit any rights they have to it and leave the decision up to the surrogate mother on whether or not she wishes to keep the child, place it up for adoption, or terminate the pregnancy.

  • No, for two reasons.

    I'm pro-life, so I don't think a mother should be allowed to have an abortion herself, much less should she be allowed to force somebody else to have one. But even if I were pro-choice, I would still not think a mother should be allowed to force a surrogate to have an abortion. The whole premise of the pro-choice position is the bodily sovereignty of the woman, and a woman would have sovereignty over her own body whether she were carrying her own young or somebody else's.

  • No, it is still her body.

    This is a tough question because the surrogate isn't the actual parent and the child is in no way truly hers. However, it is her body, so ultimately I do not believe the biological parents should have the right to tell her to get an abortion because it could potentially have negative consequences on the surrogate.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.