Skip to main content

Surrogate mother had the right to choose

By Dan O'Connor, Special to CNN
March 7, 2013 -- Updated 1359 GMT (2159 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Dan O'Connor: Surrogate mom offered $10,000 to abort reveals our confused moral views
  • O'Connor: The legal tug of war shows we need to clarify what "right to choose" means
  • If we think she's obliged to terminate pregnancy, he says, it means money trumps principle
  • Surrogates can't be forced, he says; they have right to end or carry out pregnancies

Editor's note: Dan O'Connor is a research scholar and a member of the core faculty at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. Follow him on Twitter @drdanoconnor.

(CNN) -- If you can come up with a tale that better illustrates America's messed-up moral views on abortion, parenting and personal freedom than the story of Crystal Kelley -- the surrogate mother who was offered $10,000 by the parents to abort the fetus she was carrying for them -- then you've got a better imagination than I do.

Let's run through the story quickly: Kelley had agreed to be a surrogate and was being paid $2,222 a month by the parents for her trouble. But an ultrasound scan of the fetus showed serious abnormalities. Fearing that the child would never lead a normal life -- whatever that may be -- the parents asked Kelley to abort.

Although the surrogacy agreement contained a clause to this effect, Kelley refused. This is where things became, to put it charitably, unseemly.

Dan O\'Connor
Dan O'Connor

The parents offered Kelly an extra $10,000 to terminate the pregnancy. Although she said she was against abortion for religious and moral reasons, Kelley eventually thought she might be able to quash those ethical qualms if the parents paid her $15,000 -- $5,000 apparently being the difference between "against" and "fine with it." The parents refused, and Kelley says she regretted the offer.

How to keep your surrogacy conflict-free

Become a fan of CNNOpinion
Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.



From there, events degenerated into the default American setting for dealing with any disagreement: legal proceedings. Ultimately, Kelley decided to have the child, who was born with severe medical conditions and lives with adoptive parents.

Both Kelley and the parents who paid her to be a surrogate have been roundly criticized for their behavior -- let's be honest, no party haggling over the price of an abortion will ever win prizes for public morality. But in truth, neither Kelley nor the parents are to blame here. The problem stems from our conflicted understanding of what we mean when we say a woman has the right to choose what she does with her body.

A woman's right to choose is, of course, the founding principle of the pro-choice movement and its valiant campaign to keep abortion safe and legal -- no matter, for now, that the legality of abortion mostly rests on physician-patient privacy.

But as a principle, the right to choose doesn't just apply to abortion, it also underpins the ethics of surrogacy. The moment a woman isn't freely choosing to be a surrogate mother for someone else -- well, then we're into Victorian Gothic by way of "The Handmaid's Tale" and Ripley in "Alien," and nobody really wants to go there. The idea of someone forcing a woman to bear their child against her will is horrifying.

Of course, Kelley was not forced to be a surrogate. Indeed, she was being rather handsomely paid. Like most surrogates, she is not financially well-off; note the distinct lack of fully employed, millionaire surrogate mothers.

Meet the surrogate
'Surrogate' custody battle continues

The temptation is to imagine that it is the money that is morally significant. Kelley was being paid, right? So surely she is obliged to do what she is being paid to do? It's a basic capitalist principle: Money buys labor. There are terms and conditions, of course, but once agreed to, the labor must be carried out as agreed.

A tempting view, but one which insists that you equate being pregnant with any other type of work, from shelf-stacking to brain surgery. This is, of course, nonsense. Pregnancy is something that only happens to women. The whole reason that we embrace the ethical principle of the right to choose is that it goes some way to ensuring that a woman's biology does not come to define her life in a way that would never happen to men.

Surrogate mother: A new wrinkle in the abortion debate

It is a simple matter of justice: The right to choose goes a long way toward ensuring equal rights and opportunities for women. Turning pregnancy into work that can be bought and sold radically undermines that right. If we have any pretensions about defending a woman's right to choose, then we must defend that right even when, like Kelley, she chooses to change her mind. Even when, like Kelley, her reasoning doesn't always seem consistent.

The alternative is that women's bodies can be packaged up like any other consumer good and sold off to the highest bidder.

This might seem to leave parents who seek surrogacy in a difficult position. How can they be sure that their surrogate will not change her mind and have an abortion -- or, like Kelley, refuse to? The short and uncomfortable answer is that they cannot, although the vast, vast majority of surrogacies are completed to the satisfaction and delight of all sides.

Those who seek surrogacy should understand that it is only possible because we believe in a woman's right to choose. I don't for a moment wish to underestimate the needs and desires of those couples, but I do think it is important for us to recognize that, as an ethical issue, a woman's right to control her body far outweighs anyone's rights to have the child they want.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Dan O'Connor.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 2311 GMT (0711 HKT)
President Obama has been flexing his executive muscles lately despite Democrat's losses, writes Gloria Borger
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 1951 GMT (0351 HKT)
Jeff Yang says the film industry's surrender will have lasting implications.
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 2113 GMT (0513 HKT)
Newt Gingrich: No one should underestimate the historic importance of the collapse of American defenses in the Sony Pictures attack.
December 10, 2014 -- Updated 1255 GMT (2055 HKT)
Dean Obeidallah asks how the genuine Stephen Colbert will do, compared to "Stephen Colbert"
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 1734 GMT (0134 HKT)
Some GOP politicians want drug tests for welfare recipients; Eric Liu says bailed-out execs should get equal treatment
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 1342 GMT (2142 HKT)
Louis Perez: Obama introduced a long-absent element of lucidity into U.S. policy on Cuba.
December 16, 2014 -- Updated 1740 GMT (0140 HKT)
The slaughter of more than 130 children by the Pakistani Taliban may prove as pivotal to Pakistan's security policy as the 9/11 attacks were for the U.S., says Peter Bergen.
December 17, 2014 -- Updated 1600 GMT (0000 HKT)
The Internet is an online extension of our own neighborhoods. It's time for us to take their protection just as seriously, says Arun Vishwanath.
December 16, 2014 -- Updated 2154 GMT (0554 HKT)
Gayle Lemmon says we must speak out for the right of children to education -- and peace
December 17, 2014 -- Updated 1023 GMT (1823 HKT)
Russia's economic woes just seem to be getting worse. How will President Vladimir Putin respond? Frida Ghitis gives her take.
December 17, 2014 -- Updated 0639 GMT (1439 HKT)
Australia has generally seen itself as detached from the threat of terrorism. The hostage incident this week may change that, writes Max Barry.
December 12, 2014 -- Updated 2020 GMT (0420 HKT)
Thomas Maier says the trove of letters the Kennedy family has tried to guard from public view gives insight into the Kennedy legacy and the history of era.
December 15, 2014 -- Updated 1456 GMT (2256 HKT)
Will Congress reform the CIA? It's probably best not to expect much from Washington. This is not the 1970s, and the chances for substantive reform are not good.
December 15, 2014 -- Updated 2101 GMT (0501 HKT)
From superstorms to droughts, not a week goes by without a major disruption somewhere in the U.S. But with the right planning, natural disasters don't have to be devastating.
December 15, 2014 -- Updated 1453 GMT (2253 HKT)
Would you rather be sexy or smart? Carol Costello says she hates this dumb question.
December 14, 2014 -- Updated 2253 GMT (0653 HKT)
A story about Pope Francis allegedly saying animals can go to heaven went viral late last week. The problem is that it wasn't true. Heidi Schlumpf looks at the discussion.
December 14, 2014 -- Updated 1550 GMT (2350 HKT)
Democratic leaders should wake up to the reality that the party's path to electoral power runs through the streets, where part of the party's base has been marching for months, says Errol Louis
December 13, 2014 -- Updated 2123 GMT (0523 HKT)
David Gergen: John Brennan deserves a national salute for his efforts to put the report about the CIA in perspective
December 12, 2014 -- Updated 1426 GMT (2226 HKT)
Anwar Sanders says that in some ways, cops and protesters are on the same side
December 11, 2014 -- Updated 1439 GMT (2239 HKT)
A view by Samir Naji, a Yemeni who was accused of serving in Osama bin Laden's security detail and imprisoned for nearly 13 years without charge in Guantanamo Bay
December 14, 2014 -- Updated 1738 GMT (0138 HKT)
S.E. Cupp asks: How much reality do you really want in your escapist TV fare?
December 11, 2014 -- Updated 1828 GMT (0228 HKT)
Rip Rapson says the city's 'Grand Bargain' saved pensions and a world class art collection by pulling varied stakeholders together, setting civic priorities and thinking outside the box
December 13, 2014 -- Updated 2310 GMT (0710 HKT)
Glenn Schwartz says the airing of the company's embarrassing emails might wake us up to the usefulness of talking in-person instead of electronically
December 12, 2014 -- Updated 2233 GMT (0633 HKT)
The computer glitch that disrupted air traffic over the U.K. on Friday was a nuisance, but not dangerous, says Les Abend
ADVERTISEMENT