An interesting phenomena is occurring in the abortion arena. The spectators are either pro-life or killing the baby. If you are in the latter, what is a baby? Surely I jest, well not really. When considering a large segment of our population cannot define “what is a woman”, can we assume they know “what is a baby”? Or, that men can have babies.
Currently there is an argument being posed in the courts of a couple that contracted with a “woman” to be a surrogate mother for their “baby”, and the baby was diagnosed with a heart issue. So the contracting party wants the surrogate mother to abort the “baby”. Well, the surrogate mother did not want to have an abortion, moved to Texas, and had a baby boy.
The contracting party paid $60,000 to the surrogate mother, and in that contract provided for abortion of the “baby” should there be issues with the “baby’s” health. Now that the baby has been delivered and alive, the contracting party is suing the surrogate mother for $100,000 for emotional distress or whatever, but not for the child.
So the court will first have to decide was the “baby” really just a bunch of cells, or a fetus, or any other label other than a “baby” (ie; a living human). And since the contracting party doesn’t want the “baby”, and wanted it killed, what is to be done with the child? The contract was for a “baby” not a “lump of cells”, but even it were for a lump of cells both parties understood it was a living human life.
The question that lingers in the mind is, is artificial insemination different than natural in the creation of a child. If the process accomplishes the same results, then this should be a big problem for the abortion industry. And a Texas court should negate the contract portion referencing aborting the baby. In doing so, the court recognizes life begins at conception.
