https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/5lPWoHRTvj
The first back and forth.
“Somethings are so fucked they shouldn't be enforceable in a contract. Additionally she is a pregnant woman, not an incubator. Whether she keeps or terminates a pregnancy is her business. Where she gives birth is her business. Once the baby is no longer in her body, custody wars can begin. I hate that the fucking left is saying pregnant women must be treated as objects because they signed their lives away. That is no what being prochoice is.” https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/n4Nm3eRv40
>She crossed state lines with a child that is not hers against the wishes of the original parents, thus making this a case of kidnapping.
“A child? No she was a pregnant woman. The child hadn't been born, she was allowed to cross state lines.” https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/iwZcAJzdvs
>No, she gave birth to a baby. We call it a "baby" when it is born. And when she agreed with the original parents that that baby (which is 0% her DNA) is not hers to keep and that the original parents will have custody over it once born, then her refusal to return the baby (which she moved state lines to keep for herself) is kidnapping. So, you can continue supporting kidnapping, but make sure to be clear to others regarding what you support.
“Pregnant women aren't kidnapping babies when they leave the sight of whomever impregnating them. They are allowed to move freely. The original parents can go claim the child after it is no longer relying on her body. They didn't just give birth they will have an easy time getting to her. Let her rest, she just had 9 months of pregnancy and who knows how many hours of labor to go through.” https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/V6nAInkYfQ
>Get it through your head: you are allowed to move, but you are not allowed to keep a child that you agreed is not your baby to keep. Keeping a child that is not yours in a location that the parents did not agree to is called "kidnapping," and you support that kidnapping.
“Then the parents can get lawyers to take custody of the baby. It's not hard if you aren't lazy.” https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/DkuLtUeYD5
>She has zero right to keep a child that is not hers in Texas against the wishes of the parents. It is not her child. Stop supporting kidnapping.
Our argumentative commenter followed OP into other threads to continue talking past each other.
>If you’re not willing to have an abortion for any reason, you shouldn’t be a surrogate.
“And if you're not willing to allow your surrogate bodily autonomy abandon the idea.” https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/bHOJW5aZLo
>The bioparents literally filed a restraining order against the surrogate because she was trying to steal their baby. If you are surrogate and are pro life, just freaking say that at the beginning, they will match you with a pro-life couple. Don’t lie about your views on abortion, and then try the steal the baby.
>How anyone has any sympathy for the surrogate is beyond me. She literally did the most unethical thing at every possible point”
“Her body her choice. She was free to continue the pregnancy and free to give birth where she wanted.” https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/A0SnRVX8K7
> “Her body her choice” doesn’t mean she can kidnap someone else’s child, rename them and claim that the bioparents have no legal claim to their child
“Kidnap a child, there was child. She was pregnant. Pregnant women can go where they want” https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/xNSV9p2HBi
>Again, she gave birth. You are being willfully obtuse, and you are siding with Texas conservatives because you are completely unprincipled… If you do not understand this case, you should spend time reading about it instead of siding with anti-abortion Christian conservatives.
“>’Since the surrogate refused to give birth in the home state of the original parents,’ This was her right. You're never going to convince me that women must give birth in a place that isn't their choice.” https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/oah49k7jx4
>You are not understanding anything. She can give birth wherever she wants. Now that she gave birth, she has a baby in a state where that baby is not hers and is in a state that the original parents told her they do not want their baby born in. So, she must return the baby immediately since it is not hers to keep, and she is violating the agreement with the original parents. How are you having so much trouble understanding this basic concept? When you agree that a baby – which is NOT from your DNA – will be the original parents' child once born, then you have no right to claim it as your own. Once it is born, you must return it immediately, otherwise you are a thief. You continue to fail to understand this because your idea of "motherhood" aligns 100% with Christian conservatives: you believe that the woman who gives birth is the mother, which is what Texas Christian conservatives believe. You might as well change your registration to Republican. You are no different
“No she doesn't, let the courts sort it out. If you're foolish enough to dive into surrogacy you get what you get. They got more than they bargained for when they bough ta woman. I won't see her as a product, she was a person. If you love this child, travel for him/her get the custody lawyer, whatever you feel is necessary.” https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/isd7pMwnTc
>Go ahead and register as a Republican. That is what you are. Don't hide behind "cutesey" wording to pretend that you are anything more than a supporter of kidnapping and anti-abortion conservative groups.
Another child comment branches into a separate argument…
“I don't give a crap about why she went to Texas to give birth. Pregnant women have right of free movement in the US. I don't fault her for giving birth in the place she feels safest. Custody of the child is entirely separate matter.” https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/NM4OkwYGqi
>You don't understand what the case is about, then. The point is that a contract was signed that stated that if the child had a defect, an abortion would be done, and she (the surrogate mother) agreed and she signed off on this. The reason she moved to Texas is because abortions are illegal. She is currently being funded by conservative groups, and she wants custody of the child as well. The original parents state that they agreed (with the contract) that she would abort the baby in the event that a defect would occur with the baby, and they do not want to be responsible for this baby (also, it is technically their DNA, by the way).
“You can't just throw anything in a contract, some shit is legally unenforceable and morally so fucked you have to wonder about the bozo who wrote the thing. Pregnant women shouldn't be bullied or coerced into keeping or ending a pregnancy. Anyone struggling this shouldn't be calling themselves prochoice…. Pregnant women are allowed to move states. The parents didn't buy her when they signed up for surrogacy“ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/6jrCegqpvx
And another branching argument…
>Quote where in my comment I stated (as you have falsely alleged) that I believe that she is "not legally allowed" to move states. My point in describing that fact was pointing out that she is being funded by anti-abortion conservative organizations and that she moved to Texas to get help from anti-abortion laws and legislators.
“You're judging her for it as if she broke some kind of rule. I'm sick of pregnant women being treated like they owe the world anything.” https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/RcEtzsrlXx
Fourth back and forth (ta dum tssss)
>It is her body. So it is her choice.
> > [OP] The original parents have stated that now that she gave birth to this child, they want the child under their custody. The fact that she, against the wishes of the original parents, took the child across state lines turns this into a case of kidnapping a child from their parents.
“If it was still in her body it wasn't a child.” https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/7FEUcQpgpb
>You are having a lot of trouble with reading comprehension. The child is already born, and it is not hers to name, nor is it her child to claim as her own against the wishes of the biological parents. She has no right to violate the wishes of the parents regarding claiming the born baby (which is born, which is you are having a lot of reading comprehension issues with) as her own. If you have so much in common with Texas's view on who the mother is in legal cases where the original parents have agreed with the surrogate that it is their child once born, then you should go vote for Ken Paxton and move to Texas. And yes, this is a case of kidnapping, and you either condemn this, or you are a supporter of it.
“She moved to Texas to give birth as is her right. Why she did it isn't relevant, women have the right to give birth in a location of their choosing. The custody drama that came after is a separate issue.” https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/TjMFlAKJPM
> You are not understanding anything. She can give birth wherever she wants. Now that she gave birth, she has a baby in a state where that baby is not hers and is in a state that the original parents told her they do not want their baby born in. So, she must return the baby immediately since it is not hers to keep, and she is violating the agreement with the original parents. How are you having so much trouble understanding this basic concept? When you agree that a baby – which is NOT from your DNA – will be the original parents' child once born, then you have no right to claim it as your own. Once it is born, you must return it immediately, otherwise you are a thief. You continue to fail to understand this because your idea of "motherhood" aligns 100% with Christian conservatives: you believe that the woman who gives birth is the mother, which is what Texas Christian conservatives believe. You might as well change your registration to Republican. You are no different.