March 6, 2013 - I think I made a joke about saying Star isn't a role model. This guy isn't either. It's not that hard to talk about feelings.
More related to abortion is this pretty interesting story about a surrogate refusing to abort a pregnancy suffering from disabilities that the biological parents (well... parent, read the whole thing to see what I'm talking about) asked her to terminate. This kinda exposes a lot of the murky gray area regarding women's reproductive rights. The contract all parties signed clearly wasn't specific enough regarding the surrogates responsibilities and its definition of disabilities. Furthermore the rights to the pregnancy are ill-defined by society at large, varying from state to state. I think a strong argument can be made that the surrogate was in breach of contract, meaning she would likely need to sacrifice at least a portion of the money she received for carrying the pregnancy (again, a lot of this scenario seems poorly defined. i really don't think she should have to return all or even most of it), and the idea that the family would offer her additional funds to have an abortion is absolutely ridiculous considering it's stipulated in the contract. Everyone (except the family that did take in "Baby S.") looks pretty bad in this story. Obviously, parents paying a surrogate to carry a pregnancy should have some rights to such a pregnancy, but once the parents decide they no longer want a pregnancy, I feel it should revert completely to the surrogate (and she still has rights to how to deal with the pregnancy if it threatens her life or livelihood a LOT of which need to be worked out beforehand). Problems arise though from how sustainable is being a surrogate as something to do as a job. The article indicates the surrogate needed the money, and for whatever reason during the pregnancy didn't or couldn't find a sustainable job. What needs to change to make this no longer the case?
I don't have answers to any of this. But it's certainly something to think about. There are plans to eventually do a storyline looking more in depth at surrogacy. Maybe I'll have more to say about the subject then.
Meanwhile there's an essay circulating critical of Mother Theresa's humanitarianism. I'm always torn on my opinion of her. Her statements regarding abortion, specifically her willingness to take in unwanted children, seem admirable but it fails to acknowledge the reality that she isn't actually doing that or ensuring women don't face career hardships when they become pregnant. Now, it seems she wasn't even helping the sick to the best of her abilities, and though hopefully she did inspire more people to volunteer, many people do seem to have been possibly hurt by her actions. It'll be interesting to see how all of this affects her legacy.
-D
More related to abortion is this pretty interesting story about a surrogate refusing to abort a pregnancy suffering from disabilities that the biological parents (well... parent, read the whole thing to see what I'm talking about) asked her to terminate. This kinda exposes a lot of the murky gray area regarding women's reproductive rights. The contract all parties signed clearly wasn't specific enough regarding the surrogates responsibilities and its definition of disabilities. Furthermore the rights to the pregnancy are ill-defined by society at large, varying from state to state. I think a strong argument can be made that the surrogate was in breach of contract, meaning she would likely need to sacrifice at least a portion of the money she received for carrying the pregnancy (again, a lot of this scenario seems poorly defined. i really don't think she should have to return all or even most of it), and the idea that the family would offer her additional funds to have an abortion is absolutely ridiculous considering it's stipulated in the contract. Everyone (except the family that did take in "Baby S.") looks pretty bad in this story. Obviously, parents paying a surrogate to carry a pregnancy should have some rights to such a pregnancy, but once the parents decide they no longer want a pregnancy, I feel it should revert completely to the surrogate (and she still has rights to how to deal with the pregnancy if it threatens her life or livelihood a LOT of which need to be worked out beforehand). Problems arise though from how sustainable is being a surrogate as something to do as a job. The article indicates the surrogate needed the money, and for whatever reason during the pregnancy didn't or couldn't find a sustainable job. What needs to change to make this no longer the case?
I don't have answers to any of this. But it's certainly something to think about. There are plans to eventually do a storyline looking more in depth at surrogacy. Maybe I'll have more to say about the subject then.
Meanwhile there's an essay circulating critical of Mother Theresa's humanitarianism. I'm always torn on my opinion of her. Her statements regarding abortion, specifically her willingness to take in unwanted children, seem admirable but it fails to acknowledge the reality that she isn't actually doing that or ensuring women don't face career hardships when they become pregnant. Now, it seems she wasn't even helping the sick to the best of her abilities, and though hopefully she did inspire more people to volunteer, many people do seem to have been possibly hurt by her actions. It'll be interesting to see how all of this affects her legacy.
-D
comments powered by Disqus
