Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Surrogate offered $10,000 to abort baby


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,462 posts
  • LocationGitmo

Posted 05 March 2013 - 11:29 AM

----

(CNN) -- Crystal Kelley ran through the calendar once again in her head.
It was August, and if she got pregnant soon, she could avoid carrying during the hot summer months -- she'd done that before and didn't want to do it again. There was no time to lose.
But there was one problem: She had no one to get her pregnant.
Kelley picked up the phone and called a familiar number. What about the nice single man who'd inquired before -- would he be interested? No, the woman told her. She hadn't heard from him in weeks.
Surrogate mom offered $10K to abort baby
Disappointed, Kelley asked if there was anyone else who would hire her. She'd had two miscarriages herself and wanted to help someone else with fertility problems. Plus, she really needed the $22,000 fee.
Hold on, the woman said, let me see.
Yes, she said, there was a couple who wanted to meet her. Was she ready to take down their e-mail address?
Absolutely, Kelley answered.
A playground meeting
Most surrogacies have happy endings, and this one should have too -- with a couple welcoming a new baby into their home and Kelley enjoying her fee, plus the satisfaction that she'd helped another family.
Instead, it ended with legal actions, a secretive flight to another state, and a frenzied rush to find parents for a fragile baby.
After speaking with the surrogacy agency, Kelley, then 29, arranged to meet the couple at a playground near her home in Vernon, Connecticut, a suburb of Hartford. When she arrived, she liked what she saw. The couple was caring and attentive with their three children, who were sweet and well-mannered and played nicely with her own two daughters. The couple desperately wanted a fourth child, but the mother couldn't have any more babies. Yes, Kelley told them right then and there. Yes, I will have a child for you.
CNN made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the couple by phone and e-mail.
The couple had conceived their children through in-vitro fertilization and had two frozen embryos left over. Doctors thawed them out and on October 8, 2011, put them in Kelley's uterus.
About 10 days later, a blood test showed she was pregnant -- one of the embryos had taken.
Kelley and the parents were thrilled, and over the next few weeks, the mother was attentive and caring. When Kelley had morning sickness the mother called every day to see how she was feeling. She gave Kelley and Kelley's daughters Christmas presents. When Kelley couldn't make rent, the mother made sure she got her monthly surrogate fee a few days early.
"She said, 'I want you to come to us with anything because you're going to be part of our lives forever,' " Kelley remembers.
The highs and lows of foreign surrogacy
'There's something wrong with the baby'
"Congratulations! You made it half through!" the mother emailed Kelley on February 6.
It was one of the last friendly e-mails between Kelley and the woman who'd hired her.
A few days later, Kelley, five months pregnant, had a routine ultrasound to make sure the baby was developing properly. The ultrasound technician struggled to see the baby's tiny heart and asked her to come back the next week when the baby would be more developed.
At that next ultrasound, the technician said it was still hard to see the heart and asked Kelley to go to Hartford Hospital, where they could do a higher-level ultrasound.
Apparently, there was more to it than that.
As Kelley was driving home, her cell phone rang. It was the baby's mother.
"She kept saying, 'There's something wrong with the baby. There's something wrong with the baby. What are we going to do?' " Kelley remembers. "She was frantic. She was panicking."
Then the midwife called. She told Kelley the ultrasound showed the baby had a cleft lip and palate, a cyst in her brain and serious heart defects. They couldn't see a stomach or a spleen.
The next ultrasound was three days away, and Kelley grew increasingly anxious with each passing day. By the time she walked into Hartford Hospital on February 16, 2012, she was 21 weeks pregnant and "absolutely terrified" of what the ultrasound would show and what the parents' reaction would be.
An emotional standoff
With the parents standing behind her, the ultrasound technician at the hospital put the wand on Kelley's stomach. The test confirmed her worst fears: It showed the baby did have a cleft lip and palate, a cyst in the brain, and a complex heart abnormality.
The doctors explained the baby would need several heart surgeries after she was born. She would likely survive the pregnancy, but had only about a 25% chance of having a "normal life," Kelley remembers the doctors saying.
In a letter to Kelley's midwife, Dr. Elisa Gianferrari, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Hartford Hospital, and Leslie Ciarleglio, a genetic counselor, described what happened next.
"Given the ultrasound findings, (the parents) feel that the interventions required to manage (the baby's medical problems) are overwhelming for an infant, and that it is a more humane option to consider pregnancy termination," they wrote.
Kelley disagreed.
"Ms. Kelley feels that all efforts should be made to 'give the baby a chance' and seems adamantly opposed to termination," they wrote.
----

http://www.cnn.com/2...ttle/?hpt=hp_c1

#2 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,557 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 05 March 2013 - 11:41 AM

I don't understand people sometimes...

#3 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,897 posts
  • Locationfresh out the grave

Posted 05 March 2013 - 12:03 PM

what a collosal *****

(the surrogate)

#4 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,557 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 05 March 2013 - 12:38 PM

what a collosal *****

(the surrogate)



So other people should tell her what to do with her body ?

How Evalgelical Republican of you.

#5 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 05 March 2013 - 12:46 PM

everyone would do well to read the rest of the article.

#6 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,897 posts
  • Locationfresh out the grave

Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:06 PM

So other people should tell her what to do with her body ?

How Evalgelical Republican of you.

everyone would do well to read the rest of the article.

.

#7 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,289 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:08 PM


A couple of things...

The surrogate should have been bound by the contract she signed... I'm against abortion, but those problems did seem like they met the contract stipulations of "severe".

This couple that used the surrogate obviously weren't very smart... they'd already lost other children with pre-natal problems... why not just adopt?

The whole situation is screwed up and that poor little girl is in the middle... at least they found a loving couple to take care of her.


This is the thing that gets me about abortion...

Her adoptive parents know some people look at her and see a baby born to suffer -- a baby who's suffering could have been prevented with an abortion.


To me there's no difference in abortion in utero and killing this little girl now... just my opinion.

#8 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,557 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:09 PM

.


how evangelical republican of you.



#9 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,897 posts
  • Locationfresh out the grave

Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:26 PM

didn't even have to say much of anything before kurb starts to infer sh*t

not surprising if you look at his first response

#10 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,023 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:33 PM

All of this surrogate mother bullshit is not good science.

It is my opinion that 'un-natural' pregnancies, although could be perfected in the future... are not quite complete science yet. The strongest sperm gets to the egg first in natural conception. Their is a reason for this I believe, so that the baby has strong healthy genes from both parents.

If you just use a sperm 'sample' there is no guarantee that is the healthiest and most genetically complete sample is used, as opposed to the competitive environment the sperm is introduced to during natural conception.

Anyway, there are plenty of healthy and sick babies and children around the world to be adopted and loved. Why do people go through all of this just in a vain attempt at genetic offspring?

#11 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,556 posts

Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:47 PM

Why do people vainly continue to have children when it's obvious that we really don't need to increase the population at all?

We're slaves to our natural desires.

#12 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,499 posts

Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:57 PM

Not really any of your business.

#13 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 05 March 2013 - 04:00 PM

A couple of things...

The surrogate should have been bound by the contract she signed... I'm against abortion, but those problems did seem like they met the contract stipulations of "severe".

This couple that used the surrogate obviously weren't very smart... they'd already lost other children with pre-natal problems... why not just adopt?

The whole situation is screwed up and that poor little girl is in the middle... at least they found a loving couple to take care of her.


This is the thing that gets me about abortion...



To me there's no difference in abortion in utero and killing this little girl now... just my opinion.




regarding the morality of abortion in this scenario, the question (imo) is: "is ANY life (regardless of circumstance) better than no life?"

the legal quagmire notwithstanding, do we believe that being trapped in a broken body is better than no life at all?

IMO, this isn't about killing a little girl, this is about human dignity... looking at death and honestly asking yourself if that was you... would you want someone to keep you alive? Because the reality is, she'd already be dead without modern medicine. From a religious standpoint, God killed her already.

#14 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,289 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 05 March 2013 - 04:19 PM

regarding the morality of abortion in this scenario, the question (imo) is: "is ANY life (regardless of circumstance) better than no life?"

the legal quagmire notwithstanding, do we believe that being trapped in a broken body is better than no life at all?

IMO, this isn't about killing a little girl, this is about human dignity... looking at death and honestly asking yourself if that was you... would you want someone to keep you alive? Because the reality is, she'd already be dead without modern medicine. From a religious standpoint, God killed her already.


That's a question I'm not sure I can answer. Would I personally prefer to be dead (aka not exist at all if killed by abortion) than living the life she's living? I don't know that I can answer that. My first response is that no I probably wouldn't, but can you make that decision for someone else, anyone else, everyone else? I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that if asked that question would have a different answer than mine and yours. Is it fair to make that decision for them?

Plus that brings up a whole lot of other things... how much deformity is too much? What is an "acceptable" existence?

...and I'm certainly not looking at this from a religious standpoint. I'm sure there are many that will though.

#15 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 05 March 2013 - 04:29 PM

That's a question I'm not sure I can answer. Would I personally prefer to be dead (aka not exist at all if killed by abortion) than living the life she's living? I don't know that I can answer that. My first response is that no I probably wouldn't, but can you make that decision for someone else, anyone else, everyone else? I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that if asked that question would have a different answer than mine and yours. Is it fair to make that decision for them?

Plus that brings up a whole lot of other things... how much deformity is too much? What is an "acceptable" existence?

...and I'm certainly not looking at this from a religious standpoint. I'm sure there are many that will though.


but haven't you made the decision already? allowing medicine to keep her alive IS the decision. they wouldn't have had to abort for this child to have died... that would've been done to lessen the pain both physical and psychological of all parties... The decision HAS to be made for them, just like many of us have or will face the decision of pulling the plug on our parents/significant others, and just like someone will have to decide for us. It isn't fair to cast judgement on those who've made what is probably the hardest decision of their lives and then defer your own answer.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com