re: Surrogate offered 10K to abort.

Quoting Sanveann:" How do you know they wouldn't? They seemed to think a good solution, at one point, was surrendering ... [snip!] ... the one who went out and found an adoptive family because she was concerned she wouldn't get decent care in the foster system."

That was AFTER she refused to abort. They were left with no other option. If you read, they went back and forth in a lot of ways.

Quoting October2011:" i think we all understand the severity of this baby's problems.. But the thing is..She's been born. So she's no longer a choice to be made but a child to care for."

Right, already born against the parents wishes.
and they did not wish to bring a child into the world with no quality of life.

What is your point?

Quoting .Colleen.:" Right, already born against the parents wishes. and they did not wish to bring a child into the world with no quality of life. What is your point? "

That is my point..that their daughter is here. And their choice not to parent her is a smurffy one..in my opinion.

Quoting Just Ames:" That was AFTER she refused to abort. They were left with no other option. If you read, they went back and forth in a lot of ways. "

No, they could have tried to find an adoptive family. Just handing a medically fragile infant over to the foster system was NOT their only, or best, option.

And as for having "no quality of life," that certainly doesn't seem to be what's described in the article.

Quoting October2011:" The child in question here is no longer a fetus."

I know that.

What does that have to do with the current debate about abortion due to birth defects?

Quoting Mel & a girl named Pey:" Everyone keeps saying the bio parents but didn't they eventually say they had donor eggs? "The legal ... [snip!] ... -- they'd used an anonymous egg donor." Should she have gotten as much say as the bio father in your eyes? Just curious!"

Yes. I'm a donor egg recipient and those babies still in cryo are my babies.

Quoting Sanveann:" No, they could have tried to find an adoptive family. Just handing a medically fragile infant over to ... [snip!] ... or best, option. And as for having "no quality of life," that certainly doesn't seem to be what's described in the article. "

The baby is alive. That is all.

Quoting Sanveann:" How do you know they wouldn't? They seemed to think a good solution, at one point, was surrendering ... [snip!] ... the one who went out and found an adoptive family because she was concerned she wouldn't get decent care in the foster system."

right and it was also "the surrogate" who birthed the child against the parents wishes.

Isn't she just wonderful?

<blockquote><b>Quoting October2011:</b>" That is my point..that their daughter is here. And their choice not to parent her is a smurffy one..in my opinion."</blockquote>




Maybe they could not financially care for another sn child for their entire life? I agree it is smurffy but I'm sure there was a reason thy felt they could not do it.

Quoting Just Ames:" The baby is alive. That is all. "

That's not true. Did you read the description of her in the article? Furthermore, I have a friend in common with the adoptive family who tells me this little girl is positively thriving.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Sanveann:</b>" No, they could have tried to find an adoptive family. Just handing a medically fragile infant over to ... [snip!] ... or best, option. And as for having "no quality of life," that certainly doesn't seem to be what's described in the article. "</blockquote>




That is because the article was written after te child was born! They were originally told the baby would have no quality of life before birth, and made a decision based on that. Yes some children defy the odds but most do not.

Quoting October2011:" That is my point..that their daughter is here. And their choice not to parent her is a smurffy one..in my opinion."

Well since you dont know WHY they made that decision, there is no way for you to pass judgement.

If a family did not have the emotional, financial or medical means to support this type of disability, it certainly is in the best interests of the child for them not to parent the child.

Quoting .Colleen.:" I don't think I am getting your point I mean, if you have a severe sn child at 30, you are still caring for them at 40 and at 50........."

Right but the younger you are, the more time you will have to take care of them (generally). I'm just saying mine and my husband's ages would factor into a decision not to parent a child who will never be independent if it were ever presented to us.

Quoting Sanveann:" No. I'm just saying that people who go into parenthood with the idea that they'll only accept a physically ... [snip!] ... accept a physically perfect, neurotypical child should probably do a LOT of thinking about what parenthood can really be like."

It's not just about the parents wanting a perfect child, it's about wishing to prevent human suffering as well.

Quoting .Colleen.:" Well since you dont know WHY they made that decision, there is no way for you to pass judgement. ... [snip!] ... means to support this type of disability, it certainly is in the best interests of the child for them not to parent the child. "

 
Esp if they already have two other SN's children.