When a Canadian couple found out that the child their surrogate was carrying had Down syndrome, they wanted her to abort. The surrogate was determined to carry the pregnancy to term. Under the agreement they signed, if the surrogate wanted to continue with the pregnancy, she would have to raise the child herself.
This is really...complicated. Jezebel:
Abortion in cases of assisted reproduction is always controversial, in part because at some point, the parents involved did want a child — passionately enough to pay a lot of money, go through invasive treatments, and potentially contract with a third party. We tend to be especially hard on parents who change their minds after going through so much. But this case is even more complex than, say, selectively aborting fetuses conceived through IVF, because it involves another adult, who some would argue should also get a say in what she does with her body.
My first inclination would be to say that since the fetus is the genetic offspring of the couple, it is their decision on what happens to it. Then again, since I'm pro-choice, I also believe that a woman should have complete control over what happens to her body- which of course includes not having an abortion if she is anti-abortion. Legally, it seems there is some work to be done regarding these situations:Prof. Guichon speculated that courts likely would not honour a surrogacy contract, drawing instead on family law that would require the biological parents to support the child.
It appears no surrogacy contract has actually been contested in a Canadian court, however, leaving the transactions in some legal limbo.
In the end, the woman had an abortion, partly because of her own family obligations (she had two children of her own). It's unfortunate that she had to go through with something she was against, but it seems hard to think of another option. Maybe she could have carried the pregnancy to term, paying for the costs of carrying the baby herself, and tried to give it up for adoption.
