[The surrogate, McKenna] West, who did not respond to an interview request for this story, said in an interview this month with the former Fox News and current YouTube host Megyn Kelly that she did not support abortion and felt “trapped” by the surrogacy contract, which permitted the intended parents to end the pregnancy via abortion....
[Lincoln] Wilson, the lawyer for Ms. West, said that the legal case was not over and that Ms. West would continue to fight for custody of the boy, who must undergo weeks of surgeries “before he’s really in the clear.”
Here's that Megyn Kelly presentation:
Posts
103 comments:
I wonder how much she plans on getting paid for her services.
Is she going to sue to get paid for the surrogacy now?
When does the kickstarter go live?
These people are all so fake.
Good way for Paxton to lose.
Texas is now a sanctuary state protecting innocent lives? Where is Amnesty International? Where is Doctors Without Borders? Where are the NGOs?!?
Oh, the curious logic of political evolutionary changes!
Sounds like judicial rescission of the surrogacy contract is in order.
My body, my choice?
Is Paxton going to kiss the baby? That should get him a few million in campaign donations.
Abortion is such a bullshit issue. You have to be morally degenerate to make a hero out of someone who signed and broke a surrogacy contract so you can grift some cash.
Apparently the poor baby has maybe a 50-50 chance of survival, based on what's wrong with his heart.
No court is going to enforce an abortion clause, so she'll have the baby; the flight to Texas and the TV appearances are just grandstanding. The contract probably provides for some waiver of fees if she doesn't comply, but I'm not sure that's enforceable either. And the father is presumably liable for child support.
People do these things by contract because most states have not passed any laws either regulating or outlawing assisted reproduction. There's even a lot of legal uncertainty about basic IVF, let alone surrogacy. Those contractual agreements are an attempt to anticipate what might go wrong, but they can run up against other legal principles and third-party rights.
Paxton obviously thinks this helps him electorally, but the median voter may find it intrusive.
There are lots of things you can’t enforce a contract to do. Many of them are otherwise legal. For instance we have Shanghai laws that prohibit holding people to an overseas work contract. Third party abortion could just be one more thing that contract law doesn’t let you force someone to do. CC, JSM
Unfortunately abortion is the third rail for Republican candidates.
So "he'll be in the clear" after a few weeks? It wasn't life threatening?
West should have been clear during the contract negotiation that she would not support abortion. But since the parents wanted to abort (did both parents want to abort?), their parental rights should be considered ended. If West wants to keep the baby, she should be able to.
FredSays said...
Unfortunately abortion is the third rail for Republican candidates.
That is because they are moral cowards.
But moral coward is in any honest definition of politician.
Good way for Paxton to lose.
The media always tells us abortion is popular in Texas (remember Abortion Barbie?), while it's actually one of the most pro-life states in the union. Texas flat out bans abortion. And emergency contraception is widely available in the state. I think emergency contraception is a godsend for rape victims. So I'm completely on board with Texas laws on this topic.
Texans know what a woman is, and they know what a baby is. You think Talarico has a prayer? The man says God is "non-binary." He's literally criticizing Jesus for using the wrong pronouns. And he supports abortion all the way until birth.
I say this to James Talarico. "God calls on.us to love our children. And you are calling on people to deny their children and to terminate their children."
In some jurisdictions, pro-abortionists consider babies... persons with Down syndrome to be severely defective. A progressive path and grade.
It seems odd to me for the NYT to try and frame this story as "Anti-Abortion" activists vs the parents. I would assume that many Pro-Choice activists would balk at the idea of the surrogate being compelled to have an abortion.
Ya well contracts for murder are often carried out but there is no legal way to enforce them.
You have to be morally degenerate to make a hero out of someone who signed and broke a surrogacy contract so you can grift some cash.
I applaud her for loving her baby and violating her contract. Her heart's in the right place.
Your heel is showing, Achilles. Again.
Is there anyone more disingenuous than Megan Kelly?
At least Hasan Piker is clear about what he believes and why. He should be shipped to China or executed and we need to rescue his dog from him but at least he is honest.
Definitely some moral degeneracy on display here in the comments.
I read they are suing her for hundreds of thousands of dollars. She is a hero, Achilles. She's risking financial ruin to keep a baby alive.
The baby was born so the only question is what is to happen to the baby. It feels like a Dickensian plot device to have the baby go to the parents who wanted to compel the abortion of the baby.
Am I missing something? How is opposing a forced abortion upon the woman carrying the child supposed to be political loser in Texas? Sounds like both sides of the "choice" issue would agree on this one.
Saint Croix said...
You have to be morally degenerate to make a hero out of someone who signed and broke a surrogacy contract so you can grift some cash.
I applaud her for loving her baby and violating her contract. Her heart's in the right place.
Your heel is showing, Achilles. Again.
Oh god spare me.
Why did she sign the contract?
She signed the contract.
Now she is hero! for betraying an oath she never should have made.
Most of the Abortion debate would be moot if a critical mass of people on the pro-life side of the debate actually believed the words they say.
As pro-life Ann Coulter said, every time abortion bans are on the ballot as a referendum, it loses, red state or blue. Republicans have to face up to that. Pick some other issue.
Saint Croix said...
I read they are suing her for hundreds of thousands of dollars. She is a hero, Achilles. She's risking financial ruin to keep a baby alive.
I am assuming they paid for a lot of medical treatments, food, rent, and probably a fairly large advance after she SIGNED THE CONTRACT.
Really you just are not a serious person.
Guns need to be secured to save lives. Women need to be secured to save lives? We need reasonable reproductive control. Elective abortion or planned parenthood is a wicked solution. Think of the children! Bring back out fetuses. #BabyLivesMatter
She ran to Texas because she knew full well the parents, and the state of California, would have let that baby die.
Pro-lifers aren't just "anti-abortion," as the NYT so dishonestly frames us, we are also pro-baby. And we think doctors ought to save babies, not dump them in a corner until they die of dehydration.
No baby is viable if the adults in the room want the child to die.
Don't listen to the pagan mafia. Follow Christ and love your baby.
the left prefer dead babies.
and dead elderly.
Screaming at me in all-caps about property rights when we're talking about whether it's right to kill a baby or not. We all know where your heart is, sir.
look, Pro Choice is PRO CHOICE!
if your fetus has Downs Syndrome.. Choose to Abort!
if your fetus had a heart problem.. Choose to Abort!
if your fetus is not Blonde hair/blue eyes.. Choose to Abort!
if your fetus gets bad grades.. Choose to Abort!
if your fetus mouths off, or sasses back.. Choose to Abort!
if your fetus isn't 6'+, Choose to Abort!
keep in mind, a fetus is still a fetus as long as you Choose to Abort!
The left are PRO-ABORTION. Pro- dead baby.
From what I know, laws on surrogacy are a mess. I don't have a problem with surrogacy in principle, but the contract law needs to get cleaned up, particularly regarding what provisions are enforceable or not. If an abortion clause is not enforceable, it shouldn't be in the contract. If the surrogate mother (the one who gets pregnant) has the right to renege and keep the baby, that should be in the contract too. As it is now, it seems (to this outsider) to be very ad hoc.
The baby is a learning opportunity for all of us. If you are unaware, note how far advanced neonatal and even prenatal heart surgery is now. We do incredible things here in America. Most countries barely expend resources and effort on marginal cases like this but we do and we succeed often enough to learn how to save even lower percentage conditions.
You likely aren’t surprised to learn that these exact miracle surgeries are at the heart of the misleading “infant mortality” stats Bernie was using last week to demand “Medicare for all.” Other countries would not count this baby with a fatal defect as a “live birth” for statistical purposes. That’s a fact. And at the heart of why all WHO stats are untrustworthy for global health data.
heart defect.
I'm curious what the forced covid Jab history is.
They contracted to pay for her pregnancy, not for child support. They paid to secure rights to a baby, not a fetus. Pro-abortion apologies are a double-edged scalpel.
In many ways, I do think this is a good case for an AG to be involved, because it does touch on various aspects of the law: contract, abortion, reproductive rights, child support, interstate agreements. I don't have a problem with Paxton being involved and at some point, an AG decides the position the State will take. However, such cases are often used for political grandstanding, when they are best handled as serious legal questions to be resolved.
I think Althouse has stated something in the past about extreme cases being poor choices for which to base policy. That's likely the case here. My own thoughts are mostly focused on dissolution of the contract as well as parental obligations post birth. There are likely a number of good Samaritans that would help fund surgeries to try and save the baby's life. (aside, my manager just went through this with his daughter, who now has a new heart and good prospects). In the end, I think the donor parents should be able to sever their obligations if not allowed to abort and may be due a refund of previous payments. Perhaps that could have been done without an AG, but it doesn't seem either side is amicable to such a solution.
I'm with tim maguire @8:33: the parents relinquished their rights to the *baby* by attempting to have him aborted.
At that point, when West said no, I think *she* forfeited any remaining payment, however they might prorate it - she was pregnant with their permission and support for x months, and they owe her for that period; then they said "Get an abortion" and she said "No" and they are not liable for any more payment.
But I suppose that then opens questions of health insurance: were the "intended parents" (who no longer intended to be parents) paying her premiums? Could or should they be compelled to keep paying those premiums, at least, even if not any copays or whatever, sort of like a COBRA* arrangement in a severance package, until she gives birth, at which point they have no further liability? Or does she take on that expense as soon as she refuses the abortion?
* Or should it be *exactly* like COBRA and she automatically gets *access* to 18 months of the same health insurance but is, herself, fully responsible for the premiums?
Saint Croix said...
Screaming at me in all-caps about property rights when we're talking about whether it's right to kill a baby or not. We all know where your heart is, sir.
I actually want to reduce the number of abortions that occur.
You all just want to feel better about yourselves.
If you actually cared about reducing the number of abortions you would realize this case is a fucking disaster for the pro-life movement.
You are hitching your wagons to a grifter running away from her responsibility and letting a bunch of politicians and influencers grift money while they make the entire pro-life movement utterly repulsive to most normal people.
The fact that she signed a document that gave the "parents" the right to abort the pregnancy and took their money and then betrayed that contract she never should have signed makes her morally degenerate and we should never support that in any way.
People just cannot step back and look at the bigger picture. They are too focused on fluffing up what they see in the mirror.
This story feels connected to the AOC egg freezing story in the cultural zeitgeist. Both involve a couple or a woman going to extraordinary measures to try and have a child. But because of this it also comes with more risk and less control over the situation. I wonder how the left will react to this situation. Because there is the countervailing issue of trying to force the surrogate to have an abortion which flies against the principles of the Pro-Choice crowd. But there are a lot, and by a lot I mean millions, of women 30+ who assumed they would be married with children but are not. I wonder if this will cause them to empathize with the parents more because they wish they had more control over their own situation. I wish there were comments turned on for this story at the NYT. It would be interesting to see how they break down.
Jamie said...
I'm with tim maguire @8:33: the parents relinquished their rights to the *baby* by attempting to have him aborted.
Is the woman going to return the money the "parents" paid her after she broke the contract?
Tom T. said...
"..And the father is presumably liable for child support.."
the father? you mean; the Splooge Stooge?
I don't really grasp what the legal issues here really are- common sense should dictate that the surrogate is the only one who could make the decision to terminate the pregnancy even if she hadn't fled to Texas where abortion is illegal. Surely, even pro-abortionists agree with this, right? As for the contract, she breached its clause and so should lose any fees owed unless the biological parents do want the child.
**Achilles said...
"Jamie said...I'm with tim maguire @8:33: the parents relinquished their rights to the *baby* by attempting to have him aborted."
Is the woman going to return the money the "parents" paid her after she broke the contract?**
That's a separate and completely unrelated question. It is disturbing that you think there is some connection between those two things.
After watching women in lab coats clap like harbor seals for Massachusetts becoming the 10th state to legalize abortion up to the point the baby's crowning, I'm no longer in camp compromise.
Now we have a baby with a 50% chance to live. Hopefully he lives.
Then what?
Is the "mother" married? Do I even need to look up the answer? Would a married woman do something like this?
What are the outcomes for boys who are raised by single mothers?
Why are people making a hero out of this person and Ken Paxton for this?
Pro-life Republicans just lost 1% of the vote nationwide over this and they refuse to understand why.
how ghoulish we've become that killing an unborn child is the winning solution.
Paxton’s handling of the surrogacy fight may generate headlines but could be a liability in the Senate race, turning a personal family dispute into a political cudgel that shifts focus from Texans’ priorities to his grandstanding. For voters, the question may be less about abortion policy than whether they want a senator who treats every controversy as a stage.
" My own thoughts are mostly focused on dissolution of the contract as well as parental obligations post birth."
As someone who considers themselves moderately Pro-Life and is happy there was no abortion in this case, it would seem monumentally unjust to force financial obligations of the child on the parents who hired the surrogate in the first place. I also feel it would be unjust to compel them to pay the surrogate for carrying the child.
The surrogate mother was not living in Texas - she fled to Texas after the biological parents requested that she get an abortion because Texas law would recognize her as the baby's legal mother and her home state (Alaska) apparently would have recognized the biological mother as the legal mother. This was important because the baby would require surgery almost immediately after birth to live, and that surgery would require consent and further decision-making of the legal parent. Paxton's intervention was not about the abortion side of it, but instead was to see that the child, once born, received medical care.
Also, it is not clear to me based on reading a few different reports whether the surrogacy contract allowed the biological parents to force an abortion on the woman - it is described as having a "provision allowing termination in the event of a foetal anomaly" (this is from a British source, hence the spelling), which suggests to me that the surrogate would be allowed to abort rather than carry a non-viable fetus to term more than to make the determination exclusively that of the biological parents.
I don't see this as a liability for Paxton. I obviously can't say for sure, but it's likely a majority of Texans are not comfortable with late-term prophylactic abortion because the baby is "imperfect." I doubt they will care very much about the nuances of contract law. In any case, contracts get broken all the time, which invariably throws the dispute into courts, unless one or both parties decide to walk away.
I fail to see how any state could enforce an unwanted abortion.
So, the child is born, and has a chance at life. Now, the parties involved must figure out what to do. It is implied, by what I've read, that the contracting couple would elect to not have the required surgeries performed, effectively killing him.
Also, clearly, money should be returned to the contracting couple, if the child is not delivered to them.
“We do incredible things here in America. Most countries barely expend resources and effort on marginal cases like this but we do and we succeed often enough to learn how to save even lower percentage conditions.”
Lucky baby.
rhhardin said...
As pro-life Ann Coulter said, every time abortion bans are on the ballot as a referendum, it loses, red state or blue. Republicans have to face up to that. Pick some other issue.
They don't need to pick another issue.
They need to believe what they say and act on it.
The time to stop abortion is before the woman gets pregnant. Stop rewarding men and women for acting like whores and animals. Raise adults who realize that children are the ones that matter.
Bring back shame and shotgun weddings.
Revoke voting rights for deadbeat men and women who have abortions.
People who don't put children first shouldn't be deciding the future of the country.
'...Texas flat out bans abortion....' Well, no. Texas bans abortions after 6 weeks, as per the 'heartbeat' law, and still allows them in cases where the mother's health is in danger. Not taking a position on that either way.
My point was, Paxton is punching himself in the face in front of the voters, and then asking for sympathy for a bloody nose. Stupid politics.
James K said...
I don't see this as a liability for Paxton. I obviously can't say for sure, but it's likely a majority of Texans are not comfortable with late-term prophylactic abortion because the baby is "imperfect."
It obviously isn't a liability for Paxton. He is able to grift some cash and politicize the event and he will benefit personally.
But the pro-life movement will suffer. It will look morally hollow as we hold an oath breaker single mom up as a hero.
Meanwhile the boy is born with 2 strikes against him.
And the system will just keep degenerating until the core issues are addressed.
Calls to Planned Parenthood abort the contract and sequester obligations on a forward basis as a fetus... feature of an unwanted, inconvenient pregnancy.
I will say that the person who wrote this article is described as, "the Texas bureau chief for The Times, based in Houston." Presumably being based in Houston he is at least somewhat aware of political feelings Texans at large. Talarico is polling much higher than many Republicans would have expected. Maybe it is his sense that this story will move a lot of Texans' views on the upcoming Paxton, Talarico election. It will be interesting to see how the Talarico campaign treats this story.
that she did not support abortion and felt “trapped” by the surrogacy contract, which permitted the intended parents to end the pregnancy via abortion
Sorry, but a contract that allows Person X to require Person Y to commit an act that is illegal in Person Y's State of Residence is not in fact an enforceable contract.
If you want your surrogate to agree to an abortion, dont' hire one from Texas.
I fail to see how any state could enforce an unwanted abortion.
The attorneys attempted to coerce an abortion by threatening her with damages if she failed to uphold her surrogacy contract. $250,000 was the number I saw mentioned.
This reminds me of mayor Bloomberg, before he was mayor of New York, trying to coerce one of his pregnant employees to abort her baby because he needed her back at work.
Money, money, money, as Achilles might say.
In general, the left is very sensitive to accusations of coercion when it comes to sexual relations. But all that sensitivity disappears when it's abortions that are coerced.
AI says that peer-reviewed public health studies estimate that roughly 14% to 24% of women in abortion clinics describe their procedure as unwanted or explicitly coerced.
You'd think fans of "autonomy" would be upset about this large number of coerced abortions. They are not.
"If you want your surrogate to agree to an abortion, dont' hire one from Texas."
As I noted earlier, the surrogate was not from Texas - she travelled to Texas to take advantage of Texas law regarding which of the two women - her or the biological mother - would get to make medical decisions once the baby was born.
Biological parents? Political congruence? Surrogate womb? IVF?
The parents are still obligated to pay for rent while the child was deemed a viable choice.
This is a bad case for pro-abortionists and social liberals.
Achilles said...
I actually want to reduce the number of abortions that occur.
You all just want to feel better about yourselves.
If you actually cared about reducing the number of abortions you would realize this case is a fucking disaster for the pro-life movement.
So what you're saying is that you're a complete moron. Ok, got it. I'll use small words then to explain it to you.
1: For anyone who is "pro-choice", the idea that person A could force person B to have an abortion is anathema. So this is a great case for the pro-life side
2: The idea of parents:
A: Buying a woman to carry their baby to term
B: Then ordering her to kill the baby because he will have "too many" medical expenses
Will cause ordinary decent human beings (of which you clearly are not one) recoil in horror
That you insist on seeing a "grifter" rather than a "mother protecting her baby", marks you again as a morally wretched failure of a human being.
Cases don't get much better for the pro-life community than this
It is currently the law that if a woman gives a man a condom that she's poked holes into, swears she had her tubes tied, they have sex, and she gets pregnant, he's on the hook for 18 years of child support.
I've yet to run across members of the "pro-choice community" who make the argument that the existence of abortion means that the sperm donor can simply say "I want an abortion", and get out of any "child support" requirements if the mother refuses to have one.
The parents chose to engage in surrogacy. They are the ones who created the "defective" baby. They hired teh surrogate. If they wanted to be able to order an abortion at will, they should have hired a surrogate who was a pro-abortion activist.
I do not see how any sane human being can side with them. But that's ok, because I don't see anyone making an even remotely sane argument in favor of them
So I just read the story and abortion is a redherring. The issue is whether they should let the baby die upon birth or whether to perform a heart operation that would leave the child with lifelong disabilities. It's not about abortion at all.
James K writes: “I don't see this as a liability for Paxton“
Paxton’s intervention may look like political overreach, but I’m not convinced it will be much of a liability. Texans have repeatedly had opportunities to hold Ken Paxton accountable for his scandals, including his impeachment by the Texas House and years of legal troubles, and he has still remained politically resilient, winning reelection and surviving a difficult 2022 primary challenge. If his record hasn’t sunk him by now, it’s hard to assume this latest controversy will suddenly do the trick.
James K is correct- laws on surrogacy are a mess. But he doesn't have a problem with surrogacy. I do. It's simply the buying and selling of human life.
So who here APPROVES of the buying and selling of human life?
I don't. Surrogacy should be banned, as slavery is. Human life isn't something to be bought and sold. We're neither cattle nor purebred pets.
Triple D Boob
The parents tried to coerce their surrogate to have an abortion against her will.
"The issue is whether they should let the baby die upon birth or whether to perform a heart operation that would leave the child with lifelong disabilities. It's not about abortion at all."
You say that, but things like this tend to bleed into emotional space of abortion. Because for many people abortion isn't really about a woman being able to control her own body it is about not having a child around that is not wanted. For support of this I cite former Democratic Governor of Virginia Ralph Northam,
“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
DDDriver (10:04): “It's not about abortion at all.” Reading this post offers a testament to the monstrous indifference to the life of a preborn child that characterizes pro-aborts. Of course it’s about abortion. Abortion takes an innocent human life. End of story.
“Letting the baby die at birth….” (10:04) It is homicide, just as abortion is homicide, just as starving a child to death is homicide.
Contract or not it’s “her body.” Where are the feminists on this? Silent. As always.
"James K is correct- laws on surrogacy are a mess. But he doesn't have a problem with surrogacy. I do. It's simply the buying and selling of human life."
Once you define it that way, it's easy, but others may see it differently. One can also see it as just a mother who is medically unable to be pregnant getting help from someone who can, and compensating her. Yes, they can adopt, in theory, but in practice adoption is very challenging.
I know a couple in that situation. They were fortuitously able to adopt a newborn (the dad is a doctor, and a woman came into the hospital, gave birth, and said she didn't want the child). They then had a second child via surrogacy. That doesn't provoke any great moral outrage from me, but others' MMV.
Beautiful rage bait post, Althouse.
Achilles is attempting to throw the baby out but not the bath water.
“ For voters, the question may be less about abortion policy than whether they want a senator who treats every controversy as a stage.”
Really? That is the job description of a Senator, that is their primary responsibility!
"..It's simply the buying and selling of human life."
"..Once you define it that way, it's easy, but others may see it differently. One can also see it as just a mother who is medically unable to be pregnant getting help from someone who can, and compensating her.."
Let's say someone is DYING to get a kidney.. but is "unable" to.
how about that person "getting help from someone who can, and compensating her"
serious question.. IF i can't be "compensated" for donating a kidney (or even a pint of blood..);
HOW IN FUCK is it 'legal' for me to sell someone an entire human body? I mean, SURE, they want that little person..
to pick cotton or tobbaco or cook them food..
but HOW IS IT LEGAL?
A lot of you guys are gross.
It's good Paxton is getting involved because surrogacy should probably been banned in most instances. The more women choose to break contracts, the easier it will be. And yes, I don't see SCOTUS enforcing contract law for forced abortions.
You would have to be a true qhoul to tie a woman down and perform an abortion on her but I would believe that California would do it, or just refuse to feed the baby.
The Solomon approach would be for the contracting parents to stop payment on the contract as of the date of the medical finding, they are responsible for costs until it is apparent that an issue has occurred, did they get a guarantee that the baby would be perfect? Then the woman and her child can go on Medicaid. And the contracting parents rights to the child are voided upon non payment.
The contracting parents are refusing to accept defective merchandise and thus do not have title.
This is a little like When Worlds Collide for the my body my choice people.
And no one has yet mentioned that the surrogate is Black!
Yes! They wanted the Black woman to abort her "defective" child.
Just like the old days.
Paxton is another Trump endorsed MyPillow candidate. Trump actually endorsed a politician who was so corrupt that his own Republican Party impeached him.
I hope Paxton frames this as an effort to prevent coercion of the surrogate mom. If the reports are accurate that she was threatened with having to repay compensation for refusing an abortion, that’s disgusting. Minimum 80/20 issue for Paxton.
Best wishes to baby
Dems are desperately trying to flog ABORTION as a relevant, energizing issue when it is becoming less so every day.
"serious question.. IF i can't be "compensated" for donating a kidney (or even a pint of blood..);
HOW IN FUCK is it 'legal' for me to sell someone an entire human body?"
Per Google AI:
The law explicitly allows for the coverage of legitimate, out-of-pocket costs so that donating a kidney does not financially hurt the donor. Permitted financial assistance includes:
Medical Expenses: The recipient's health insurance covers all of your pre-donation evaluations, the transplant surgery, and post-operative medical care.
Travel and Lodging: Reimbursement for flights, gas, hotels, and meals if you must travel to a distant transplant center.
Lost Wages: Compensation for the income you lose while taking time off work to recuperate from surgery.
Dependent Care: Financial help to cover babysitting or adult care while you are in the hospital or recovering.
Though not common, it is also not illegal to be compensated for donating blood. People do receive compensation for donating plasma.
I respect the views of people who find surrogacy abhorrent and outrageous, but I do not see it as akin to "buying and selling a human." I would find it abhorrent for someone to use surrogacy as a convenience, but not for someone who cannot get pregnant herself. I do think the compensation should be similar to the above limits for kidney donation.
I believe that King Solomon issued a precedent decision in a similar case.
Greg The Class Traitor said...
Achilles said...
I actually want to reduce the number of abortions that occur.
You all just want to feel better about yourselves.
If you actually cared about reducing the number of abortions you would realize this case is a fucking disaster for the pro-life movement.
So what you're saying is that you're a complete moron. Ok, got it. I'll use small words then to explain it to you.
1: For anyone who is "pro-choice", the idea that person A could force person B to have an abortion is anathema. So this is a great case for the pro-life side
2: The idea of parents:
A: Buying a woman to carry their baby to term
B: Then ordering her to kill the baby because he will have "too many" medical expenses
Will cause ordinary decent human beings (of which you clearly are not one) recoil in horror
That you insist on seeing a "grifter" rather than a "mother protecting her baby", marks you again as a morally wretched failure of a human being.
Cases don't get much better for the pro-life community than this
Explain to me why you are supporting a woman who signed a contract to carry a baby where the people she made a contract with reserved the right to terminate the pregnancy?
She signed the contract.
It looks like you are you just a moral grand stander who doesn't believe a single word he says.
Howard said...
Achilles is attempting to throw the baby out but not the bath water.
All I see here is a bunch of people arguing over some stupid bullshit while a boy has been born that nobody seems to give a shit about except as a prop to own da libs.
This issue goes to human life treated as property to be aborted, transformed, enslaved, and the Diverse motives to be inclusive of the underlying culture of liberal excess and social dysfunction.
Achilles said, “Explain to me why you are supporting a woman who signed a contract to carry a baby where the people she made a contract with reserved the right to terminate the pregnancy?”
She didn’t have a baby growing inside her then. You’re the one who talked about the changes in men when they see their own babies as opposed to other babies.
You also said “The time to stop abortion is before the woman gets pregnant.”
100% agree.
Republicans need to reframe the abortion around cultural health: whether a society that trivializes sex, undermines marriage and family, and treats pregnancy as a catastrophe is genuinely healthy - or genuinely good for women - and men.
the abortion issue
MAMA: Make America Morally Alivr
The underwater, frozen fetus... asset issue is correlated with RAAT doctrine. Abort one, sequester the other, and have a gay old time.
or MAMA Make America Mentally Aware
Mamas, just let your babies grow up!!!
*Paxton is another Trump endorsed MyPillow candidate. Trump actually endorsed a politician who was so corrupt that his own Republican Party impeached him.*
It takes a special kind of stupid to turn this subject into another rant about Trump.
Grok came up with these:
Make America Morally Anchored
Mothers Against Moral Apathy
And btw - whether he's running for Senate or not - isn't it the job of the state's Attorney General to get involved in cases like this?
Howard said...
Achilles is attempting to throw the baby out but not the bath water.
Damn, Howard, that was actually funny
Achilles said...
Explain to me why you are supporting a woman who signed a contract to carry a baby where the people she made a contract with reserved the right to terminate the pregnancy?
I "sign a contract" every time some web page tosses some user agreement at me.
And when they toss an unenforceable UA at me, I sign it, knowing that if they try to push it on me they'll be laughed out of court.
The requirement that the surrogate have an abortion if the DNA donors demanded it is such a garbage term, and she properly ignored it.
As I said above, if they wanted to be able to demand an abortion, they should have gotten an abortion activist to carry the kid.
Now, do explain how a woman who says "I'm not going to let you murder the baby I carried in my body for 9 months" is a "grifter" for doing so. I'll confess I'm moderately curious
OK, I like
Make America Morally Anchored
addresses the voting cheating, the Medicare stealing, petty crime in California, family integrity
so? James K?
you're saying that You Think that the surrogate was ONLY receiving
"Reimbursement for flights, gas, hotels, and meals if you must travel
Lost Wages: Compensation for the income you lose while taking time off
Dependent Care: Financial help to cover babysitting "
???
that is what you are saying?
i'm saying that you are a liar.. or REALLY dumb..
do YOU WANT to continue to pretend that surrogates are compensated like kidney doners?
DO YOU?
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.