A biological father is threatening to sue and financially ruin a surrogate mother who refuses to “selectively reduce,”–meaning abort–one of three babies she is carrying. From the NY Post story:

A surrogate mom who refuses to abort one of the triplets she’s carrying because the father only wants two of the kids filed a lawsuit Monday claiming that California’s surrogacy law is unconstitutional.
“I no longer view surrogacy arrangements in the same favorable light I once did. Children derive a special benefit from their relationship with their mother,” the woman, Melissa Cook, said in a statement to The Post. “I now think that the basic concept of surrogacy arrangements must be re-examined, scrutinized and reconsidered.”
The Post reported on Cook’s heart-wrenching dilemma last November, when the intended father from Georgia threatened to financially ruin the 47-year-old surrogate mom by imposing monetary damages if she refused to abort one of the fetuses, citing a provision in their contract that allowed him to request a “reduction.”

A contract clause forcing a woman to abort–take a nascent human life–should be void and against public policy in the same way as an agreement selling oneself into slavery can’t be enforced.

Ditto one that could financially ruin her for bringing a baby to birth. That’s coercion. You pays your dime and you takes your chances, as the old saying goes.

This is what happens when you special order a kid. You can come to think of it as a product that can be returned.

For those opposed to commercial (or all) surrogacy, the Center for Bioethics and Culture offers the best and most detailed arguments of which I am aware. Check it out.