@Karalora: The former case makes a good argument for putting in escape clauses into the contract in the first place; if it says she can change her mind due to a change in fortunes, she'd have an out.
The latter makes a good argument for not signing away your reproductive rights in the first place. That's not a one-off arrangement, that's signing away one of your fundamental rights potentially for life. It's a stupid contract for the woman to sign. Surrogacy is a one-time arrangement that doesn't hamper your ability to have your own kids later.
edited 8th Nov '10 8:02:28 AM by Yamikuronue
BTW, I'm a chick.
@Kara: 1 yes, 2 no.
Both are not the best situations to be in, but the first contract is at least legally enforceable (both parties are getting something) and the second is not (the woman gets nothing from the contract).
There are requirements for a contract, you know. If both parties don't get something out of it I am 90% sure the contract is not legally binding.
EDIT: I am correct.
EDIT 2: Also, I'd like to point out the everyone that forcing the contract to go through is not the only way judges can remedy breach of contract. There's also forcing the breacher to pay back everything they got to the other party (as well as a fuckton of other things), and I would say that that would generally be a better idea in nearly all cases mentioned in this topic.
edited 8th Nov '10 5:04:33 PM by BlackHumor
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
Not Actually Indie
Presumably both parties do get something out of the marriage contract. The issue is that the woman is in a situation where she has reason to consider violating a clause of it. That doesn't mean she isn't getting, or hasn't gotten, anything out of the arrangement.
Although if the man would sue her for violating the marriage contract in such a situation, I don't think it bespeaks a very healthy marriage.
...eventually, we will reach a maximum entropy state where nobody has their own socks or underwear, or knows who to ask to get them back.
Is there any data out there saying that the surrogates are in fact young, poor women, and often single? Because I've heard it the other way around.
On the other hand I also heard that the compensation for surrogacy is kept deliberately low so that while no-one makes a "profit" expenses are at least taken care of.