Since we don't stop convicted pedophiles from reproducing without a surrogate, I don't see what the issue is. If you think convicted pedophiles should be prevented by law from reproducing, then that would apply to surrogates too. But that's a law about a convicted pedophile's right to reproduce, not a law about surrogacy.
We don't have laws about people who are convicted of serious crimes or with serious mental or physical disabilities which would prevent them from being able to adequately raise a child. We shouldn't, probably. That doesn't mean that it isn't a potentially serious issue.
The other issue you raise is: what if the parents want to abort the child if it has a mental or physical defect? Well, what if parents want to do that right now? Presumably you don't have a problem with a couple deciding to abort if they find out their child will be severely or profoundly disabled? So what's the difference?
In this case, and in potentially many other cases, attempting to force or pressure the surrogate into aborting. I believe that it is as wrong to force a person to abort as it is to force a person to carry a pregnancy she doesn't wish to carry.
Some situations are probably easier than others: suppose the fetus was discovered to carry a lethal defect, one which would not be compatible with life for more than a few hours outside of the womb. Probably most surrogates would be ok with terminating in those circumstances, but in this case, terminating for any reason violated the surrogate's deeply held beliefs. Most cases would not be as serious: what if the child had Downs or some other chromosomal anomaly? What if the child would have cystic fibrosis? Tay Sachs? Dwarfism? A heart defect? Ambiguous genitalia? What if the child would be deaf? Blind? Have serious medical issues? Some of these are much easier to deal with than others; some would require very major medical intervention and would involve a shortened life span, perhaps very much shorter. Who decides? What if surrogate and prospective parents disagree? Sure, there would be a contract but with any other job, you can quit.
As for the actual terms of the surrogacy, that's between the people paying and the surrogate mother. If the people paying want a contract that says 'I want the right for the baby to be aborted within the limits of the law as I see fit, for any reason or no reason at all', then they can put that in the contract. If the surrogate mother objects to abortion, she shouldn't choose that contract. Of course, I'd expect financial terms be built in for 'time already served'. I get paid in arrears each fortnight and I don't see why surrogates shouldn't.
Because people can and do change their minds. With respects to your job, if you have a disagreement with your employer, you can quit or you can be fired and while it would be unpleasant, I am sure, you would bear no physical risks. Your employer cannot insist you leave your kidney behind, even if your corporate paid insurance paid for the transplant giving you the kidney. It's much ambiguous when you are talking about the use of a person's body, and especially when that use will have long term physical, health and perhaps emotional consequences.
Of course, no contract can specify terms that are against the law (e.g. if abortion is banned in the country that the surrogate lives in, she can hardly be required to abort the baby).
Nor is it moral or ethical, imo, to force her to abort. Or to refuse her the option to abort. Ethically, that decision can only belong to the pregnant woman. Which means that the prospective couple is very vulnerable to manipulation, etc. as well. However, because of the great economic disparity, usually those paying call the shots. It's not a level playing field.
While I doubt that many prospective parents are convicted pedophiles or otherwise criminal or mentally unfit as parents, the vast inequality between those who resort to commercial surrogacy and those who are able to foot the bill for the procedure, necessary travel, medical care, compensation, legal work, etc. makes it easy to see how the surrogate can be unfairly and unjustly exploited and pressured into procedures she does not wish to have, etc. What happens if during the course of the pregnancy, the surrogate has justifiable qualms about the prospective parents?
What if she does? If they really are unfit parents, one would hope the State would take the child away from them in any case.
But let's take the example from the story. What if the woman had found out, halfway through, that the father was a convicted pedophile, and had she known that, she would not have entered into the surrogacy? If she made good faith efforts to find out about criminal convictions, and those convictions were hidden from her or dishonest, she's got a good case for damages against the surrogates. But if she didn't try to find out, well, does she really have a case?
How many resources do you suppose poor Thai or poor Indian or Malaysian women have at their disposal to spend 'researching' prospective clients? How many do you suppose even contemplate that such a person as a convicted pedophile would be allowed to use surrogacy? Keep in mind that these are young women.
What if they prospective parents wish the surrogate to undergo an elective c-section, an abortion, or if the fetus has a medical issue which can be resolved by in utero surgery that puts the surrogate's health at risk?
If the contract specifies those, follow the contract. If the contract is silent on those issues, I would rely on case law to help shape what the 'reasonable expectations' are.
There is scant case law for such cases. And as someone who has delivered more than one child, I can tell you as an absolute fact that what one thinks at early stages of a pregnancy can change dramatically by the end of the pregnancy, even and especially during labor and delivery.
What if the surrogate develops a medical condition which makes it extremely risky to carry the pregnancy? What if she dies? What if the baby dies? Can the prospective parents mandate that the surrogate follow a certain diet? Abstain from sex? Abstain from all alcohol consumption? Alter her meds?
Yes, why not? If she doesn't want to do it, she does not have to accept the surrogacy does she?
Note: the surrogate's medical status has changed as a result of the surrogacy in this scenario. She's already begun the pregnancy when she develops an unforeseen complication: perhaps suddenly she has very high blood pressure or develops gestational diabetes or is diagnosed with cancer.
Please note that often different people, especially from different cultures, have vastly differing ideas about what constitutes a healthy diet and even what constitutes being a vegetarian. Or submitting to all necessary and usual medical exams.
What if the surrogate is left with medical issues post partum? What if her future fertility is lost or compromised? What if the prospective parents change their minds because the baby isn't the ' right' gender? Or has some minor--or not minor birth defect? What if the surrogate simply absconds with the baby in utero, and doesn't relinquish the baby, claiming the child as her own? What if it turns out the baby isn't the genetic offspring of the prospective parents?
A million contracts are made every day without either party foreseeing all possibilities. That doesn't mean we ban all voluntary agreements between people, whether for money or not.
That is correct. However it is a wise person who understands the limitations of contract law. In the case of surrogacy, what might be specified in a contract might violate medical practice or ethics. An obstetrician is the doctor for the pregnant woman first and then the baby. Medical ethics mandate that they advocate for their patient, not the person paying the bills.
Well yes, but buying a house is a lot more complicated than paying a builder $X who will deliver a house in 9 months. That doesn't mean we should ban it.
Having a baby involves entirely different issues, risks,costs and benefits than does building a house. The two are not at all comparable.
