Mary Beth V. William And Elizabeth Stern Case Summary

There are many factors that are taken into consideration when determining if abortion is morally permissible, or wrong including; sentience of the fetus, the fetuses right to life, the difference between adult human beings and fetuses, the autonomy of the pregnant woman, and the legality of abortion. Don Marquis argues that abortion is always morally wrong, excluding cases in which the woman is threatened by pregnancy, or abortion after rape, because fetuses have a valuable future. Mary Anne Warren contends that late term abortions are morally permissible because birth is the most significant event for a fetus, and a woman’s autonomy should never be suspended.

Commercial surrogacy is the process in which a woman is paid a fee to carry and deliver a baby to term. Once the baby is delivered, the woman relinquishes all parental rights to the commissioning couple who exclusively raise the child as their own. Altruistic surrogacy, by contrast, is an arrangement where the surrogate receives reimbursement but only for the expenses that she may have incurred during the pregnancy. In this essay I will argue that commercial surrogacy should not be market-inalienable. I will start by outlining Elizabeth Anderson’s argument in “Is Women’s Labor a Commodity?” in which she offers a number of criticisms to commercial surrogacy. I will then outline objections to the argument and highlight how her argument is highly speculative and does not provide an adequate basis for the prohibition of commercial surrogacy.

In this paragraph I’m going to explain what the Judicial Branch thinks about a mother aborting her child that hasn’t been born yet. The court has ruled that a woman can terminate her pregnancy whenever she feels like it’s necessary. Some may disagree with many of the women today that choose to abort a child, but when it comes to what the mother wants, the mother has the main decision over keeping her child or not. In the late 1900’s the Supreme Court

Cases of this kind emphasise the tension between two significant policy goals: the child’s best interests, which must dominate the court’s determination as to whether to grant parenting orders, and the prohibition of commercial surrogacy. The former, naturally, prevails. In every published case, the Family Court relied on the evidence tendered by the intended parents indicating the foreign birth mother’s consent to the applications, even where some of that evidence was quite concerning; the birth mother’s lack of interest in parenting the child;and the satisfactory nature of the parenting arrangements achieved under the agreement, in concluding that the best interests of the child were served by making the parenting orders.The earliest published international surrogacy case is Re Mark (an application relating to parental responsibilities). The facts are fairly typical. A couple from Victoria entered into a surrogacy contract under which a woman in California agreed to bear a child for them; the ovum was supplied by an anonymous woman, and one of the applicants provided the

I read an article that was published on The Hasting Center Journal, called “The Case Against Surrogate Parenting”, by Herbert Krimmel, Krimmel takes a stand against surrogate motherhood arrangements because of the many ethical issues it causes, he argues surrogate motherhood, is a financial profit, there can be conflicts during the process, and is designed to separate in the mind of the surrogate mother. First, Krimmel argues that the reason a woman often or always undertakes the pregnancy is because of the money motive. He states, “The cause of this dissociation is some other benefit she will receive, most often money.' In other words, her desire to create a child is born of some motive other than the desire to be a parent. This separation

The procedures of surrogacy is a delicate and sensitive topic which raises many concerns in the public. As a result of this, Australian laws and courts of law must allow and regulate these practices to make it safe for all involved. Commercial forms of surrogacy agreements are illegal in most states, shown in Part 2, Division 2 in the Surrogacy Act 2010 NSW and Chapter 4 Part 1 in the Surrogacy Act Qld. However, in remaining jurisdictions, couples are allowed to deal in commercial agreements and therefore often turn to an overseas arrangement. It is here where Australian law becomes more obscure and less regulated. In any arrangement including altruistic surrogacy, there are no enforceable laws on the agreement, hence prompting multiple issues regarding the parentage of the child. When the child is born from the gestational carrier- the birth mother and father, according to the Status of the Children Act 1996, are the legal parents. It is when the intended parents apply for a parenting order and accepted by the birth mother that the child’s parentage is transferred- this situation is set out in the case of Re Michael

Purdy defends surrogate mothering from a consequentialist point of view. Her case is founded on two premises: firstly, that surrogacy is favourable (that is, it brings about pleasure and reduces pain), and secondly, that the practice is only non-traditional and not morally reprehensible. She thus concludes that "appealing to the sacrosanctity of traditional marriage or of blood ties to prohibit otherwise acceptable practices that would satisfy people 's desires hardly makes sense", and thus, surrogacy should be permissible (Purdy, 1999).

All parties involved in surrogacy have legal rights. Ones that should not be over looked. For instance, all parties involved in surrogacy have a right to confidentiality. The right to privacy and confidentiality should be underlined in the contract drawn. The intended parents of the child as well as the surrogate mother must keep all information private. While information

Mary Anne Warren (p.195-196) points out the exceptional circumstances of pregnancy; where one human is entirely biologically reliant on another and where it is impossible for complete personhood rights to not be in conflict between the foetus and the mother. Consider the following case. A mother and an expecting mother both express an intent to kill their child or unborn child respectively. Services are available to take the postnatal children from their mother without affecting her body. Yet to protect the foetus, one would have to imprison the mother until birth, or worse, force a caesarean on her. Warren (193) points out that forced caesareans are not merely a hypothetical

“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is what comes to mind when we are in court or thinking about the constitution. That was not the case in the Dred Scott V. Sanford decision because Dred Scott was African American and a slave suing for his freedom. Dred Scott was an early, persistent steadfast, fighter for African American civil rights. “The Dred Scott decision declares two propositions—first, that a Negro cannot sue the U.S. Courts; and secondly, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the Territories.” Dred Scott forced the Supreme Court to fully articulate its stance on slavery; the results of which had long standing effects. His case in the Supreme Court brought heated opinions from both the North and the South regarding states’ rights and slave rights. Both sides had a huge debate both regarding the issue using very valid arguments towards the Dred Scott case.

The Dred Scott vs. Sanford case is one of the most important cases that have ever been tried in the United States of America and was heard in the Old Courthouse of St. Louis.   This case that is usually known as the Dred Scott Decision was a ruling by the Supreme Court of America that African people imported into the country and detained as slaves were not protected by the U.S Constitution and could never be American citizens.

In the history of the United States Supreme Court, there are a multitude of cases that have left an indelible mark in the tapestry of American history, culture, and society. Among these landmark disputes may be found issues as divisive as reproductive health, fundamental economic freedoms, the power of the Supreme Court and, of course, race. Among these, Dred Scott v. Sanford occupies a special place. Often called as the “worst decision made by the Supreme Court”, Dred Scott v. Sanford provided an impetus for slavers to continue an injustice that had existed since the colonial era . By deciding the way it did, the United States Supreme Court also created a divide between the northern and southern states – a divide so great that it eventually led to the American Civil War. Such an enormous effect on the sentiment of the times warrants a closer look at the decisions of the justices involved in the Dred Scott decision. Doing so will also shed light into the intricate logic behind the justices’ decisions – essentially the reasons why they concurred or dissented from the main opinion written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. The process of interrogating the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution will also reveal the fundamental societal sentiment regarding slavery and African Americans at the time.

Proponents of punishing pregnant women, who put their fetuses at risk, have highlighted some pertinent legal and ethical issues. One is that a viable fetus (fetus after 27 weeks gestation) has certain rights and privileges. They are of the opinion that as soon as the fetus is viable and can survive independently from it mother, it becomes a

All the arguments and examples above substantiate that, the couple is not morally permitted to purchase Mary Beth's agreement to be a surrogate mother, and Mary Beth is the legal and biological mother of Baby M, doubtlessly. In summary, Mary Beth deserves this identification for three reasons: First and foremost, the contract was not made in the perfect information -- Mary Beth could not predict how deep her love would be to the child, and therefore the contract was not legally acceptable and could not be enforced in any time, as is perfectly elaborated and remarked by Professor Michael Sandel. Secondly, even though the court concede the point of the validity of the contract, the Sterns could not legitimately purchase either the right of Mary Beth to her child, or her reproductive capacity even though they signed the pact voluntarily then.

From my clients’ perspective, the clearly ethical dilemma here would be; Should Jamie be allowed parental rights to the baby, even if he is paying child support.