Sarchasm (n): The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it
too bad it's too late to abort HIM
Even worse, he is only demanding she abort one of them. I don't even know if that is possible.
"Well done. Here are the test results: You are a horrible person. I'm serious, that's what it says: 'A horrible person.' We weren't even testing for that."



Wow that's horrible!!!
If you google other articles on this it sounds like termination upon dad's request was in the contract. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
"There are different kinds of darkness. There is darkness that frightens, the darkness that soothes, the darkness that is restful. There is the darkness of lovers, and the darkness of assassins. It becomes what the bearer wishes it to be, needs it to be. It is not wholly bad or good."
- The Court of Mist and Fury
How bout he abort one of his nuts.
“Cook for him like a housewife, fuck him good like a nympho….pay the rent and the car note, he invests in me like crypto”





Yeah, you can't just abort one of the three like it's a milk run to the grocery store. He'd be risking the entire pregnancy as well as opening any surviving fetuses up to the possibility of injury/infection/defects. The womb is a very delicate environment. You can't selectively fuck with it that easily. If he didn't want more than one child, he shouldn't have implanted more than one embryo for heaven's sake. He'd better fully understand that if he's going to demand she abort one, because his chances of aborting all of them or causing harm is significant enough to note.
Also interesting are the snippets from the lawyer for the father. The NYP full article quotes from the lawyer's letter: "As you know, his remedies where you refuse to abide by the terms of the agreement, are immense [and] include, but are not limited to, loss of all benefits under the agreement, damages in relation to future care of the children [and] medical costs associated with any extraordinary care the children may need." The lawyer's letters have also included the statement that "[the father] understands, albeit does not agree, with your decision not to reduce." Another letter urges her to schedule her reduction surgery before day's end. I'm not finding any that show proof it was written into the contract that the father could force a reduction by the contract, so I'm just going off of what I'm reading.
Those are all SUGGESTIONS and THREATS. No where in the letters does it say that the father had it written into the contract that she must abort if there were more viable fetuses than he wanted (i.e. all three, since two is apparently fine). The way the articles and lawyer snippets are painting things, he has no legal recourse and is effectively trying to bully his surrogate with threats after choosing a course of action that had a chance of resulting in three children.
So, basically, that's a grade A asshole as far as I can tell.
Well if he thinks about abortion, why he does not think about give one or 2 for adoption? Very poor imagination he has!he got 3 for the price of one.





Well, close to the price of one. The contract apparently pays her $33,000 for one child and $6,000 for each additional child if it's a multiples pregnancy. Maybe he doesn't want to cough up the extra? But yes, I'm wondering why the topic of potentially adopting one of the children out hasn't been broached. I can understand not wanting to be a single father to three newborn children, since there's no discussion of a partner in parenting for any of this, but I can't really understand how a man desperate enough for children that he will use an egg donor and surrogate to carry would be willing to say 'okay, just randomly abort one of those fetuses because three is too fucking many,' and risk the entire pregnancy by introducing reduction surgery. Is he so neurotically untrusting of other people raising his biological children outside of himself that adoption just isn't an option for an unwanted one? And how the fuck does he explain to the other two kids someday that, 'hey, sorry, you almost had another sibling in the world, but I decided to abort them instead of giving them up for adoption/raising them with you two.' Is there an unreported medical concern that could endanger the pregnancy in his logic? It doesn't sound like it...
And I say this as a woman who, if I found out I was pregnant tomorrow, would very likely go the abortion route because kiddos aren't really in my life plan now or ever. It's like I'm opposed to the procedure on moral grounds. I just don't get why someone would pay very good money and go through a very time consuming process and procedure, implant three embryos, and then decide 'okay, I don't actually WANT three kids' when the test results come back. That's pretty far from an 'unintended pregnancy.'
I'm trying to find some way I can see this as a reproductive rights to his material argument and all that (because we all know I tend to swing in the interests of fairness around here) or even just a legal contract obligation, but I'm really struggling to find any defense of this man's reported actions, let alone some damned sympathy.
Because to donate a sperm is very easy just jizz into a jar. Donate an egg on another side much harder, but what would he know?after you have to impregnate some other woman with someone's egg and sperm. And after he can just say heyyyyyyy i dont want 3 kids.
I dont even find this whole situation someone healthy btw. Single man wants to have a child....he cant build a relatinship with man or woman but he wants a child...
If he cant affort 3 kids, 2 just same expensive.
He's an idiot! As far as i know, with ivf the standard procedure is to insert more than 1 embryo because if you do 1 and it doesn't take then you have to start all over. If you do ivf/surrogacy, you insert 3 embryos, then you pretty much expect to have 0,1,2, or 3 babies. Wtf?!?
The surrogate hit the nail on the head though "If you knew you only wanted two babies, then why put in three embryos?”. This broad already had a biological set of triplets and she's pregnant at 47 so her womb is in favor of the odds. This guy just not smart at all and the fertility clinics should have higher standards and screen their clients better. Then America wouldn't have these ridiculous legal issues.
He's probably going to pressure her and stress her so much he could cause her to miscarry. I hope they have a clause in the contract she still gets paid for the current amount of babies.
They should put that money in an escrow, not wait to give it to her at the end. Surprising it sounds like she hasn't collected the money for the surrogacy fee. I don't think something like that should be paid on the back end.
“Cook for him like a housewife, fuck him good like a nympho….pay the rent and the car note, he invests in me like crypto”





Fair enough, but the process of screening and selecting a donor and then a surrogate as well as paying for them both is no laughing matter. An egg donation can run $10,000+ and the surrogate was at least $33,000 + $6,000 for each multiple.
I mean, who knows what his motivations are in wanting to become a father? Maybe he's not interested in having a long term life partner, but still wants children. Being demisexual myself, I could see that possibility. Being a single man doesn't mean he's weird for wanting kids or not having a partner to raise them.
I agree on the expense point. I'm guessing he's more overwhelmed by the time commitment of three children all at once. Raising a single child is hard enough. Multiples exponentially increase the amount of time/energy required. My friends with twins have all said it was way more than twice as hard to raise two at once than one. Maybe he isn't prepared for three?





Agreed to putting it escrow. The problem in the past legally has been surrogates who also acted as egg donors refusing to give up the child. Pay them up front and you might not even end up with a baby by the end of things. Stuff like that can be sticky, so the non-surrogate parents may elect to keep the cash until the end as a bargaining chip to ensure the surrogate doesn't change her mind about giving up the child. But that's a whole other unpleasant surrogacy experience that's had prior media coverage...
Yeah I wonder what happens to the money if the surrogate has a miscarriage (like does being pregnant, sacraficing your time and body, and coping with a miscarriage deserve financial compensation as well) or if the person who pays the surrogate cant or won't pay her at the end.
“Cook for him like a housewife, fuck him good like a nympho….pay the rent and the car note, he invests in me like crypto”





My understanding of surrogacy contracts (because they are legally binding contracts) is that it's a tiered payment system. In normal cases, the surrogate's medical costs for pre- and post-natal care as well as hospital stays are all covered at the cost of the parent. Then, the surrogate is given a certain amount for going through the fertility and implantation process. If the implantation is successful, another sum is added to her final payout. At the time of birth the remainder or lump sum is then paid out. So, even if the pregnancy doesn't take or there is a miscarriage, the surrogate will be compensated in ways previously outlined in the contract. I'm not sure about miscarriage clauses. My understanding is that the contract also places strict restrictions on the surrogate--for example, a surrogate cannot drink, smoke, engage in risky behaviors, etc., that could harm the fetus. Anything that results in damage or miscarriage and is directly caused by the surrogate invalidates the contract and can even end in her owing damages. These things are more ironclad than pre-nups and divorce paperwork, I swear. When I looked into donating my own eggs (it pays very well!), the legal contracts and screening process alone were nearly overwhelming in their detail.
Actually, that's what makes me so curious about the father effectively begging/threatening the surrogate to abort one of the fetuses. Surrogacy contracts are drawn up by lawyers and reviewed by both parties (accompanied by legal representation), meaning if the father did have legal recourse he probably would have already utilized it. No doctor would've implanted three healthy embryos into a surrogate unless the contracted stated something to the effect of 'both parties are aware that we are implanting three embryos and that means you can expect anywhere from 0-3 successful zygotes to develop.' I'm pulling from a few documentaries I watched in the last two or three years for all of this, but the father wouldn't have been unaware of how many embryos were going in OR of the possibility of up to 3 successful implants/children (more, if those eggs spontaneously split into further identical multiples!).
Frankly, sounds like a case of buyer's remorse, wherein the remorse involves a pregnant woman carrying non-related children for the biological buyer. What a shit show.
Why not stab her in the heart instead? Someone should shove a watermelon up his ass and tell him to abort..
You're fucking with life here, nothing always goes as planned.




I think in other situations the 'reduction' is normal, like when there are 7 or something, but the guy is definitely a dick for threatening all this bs, I mean 3 is not the end of the world. Sounds like tighter screening is required in the surrogate market....is it implying she may keep all three.........
Dunno where you guys are getting other info, but one of the big google hits is 'lifenews' so put your critical thinking hat on before reading that site...........
Bookmarks