Image via WikipediaWestern women have been busy aborting their babies under the "right to choose" (what exactly is being chosen is rarely articulated) and the right to control their bodies. The fact that exercising these lofty rights entailed the death of the fetus was viewed almost as an incidental side-effect.
When a B.C. couple discovered that the fetus their surrogate mother was carrying was likely to be born with Down syndrome, they wanted an abortion. The surrogate, however, was determined to take the pregnancy to term, sparking a disagreement that has raised thorny questions about the increasingly common arrangements.What is clear in this case is what was at stake was not a woman's right to control her body or choose to terminate her pregnancy -- what she (and her colluding partner) really wanted was the right to kill her unwanted offspring.
“The child is seen by the commissioning parents as a product, and in this case a substandard product because of a genetic condition,” Prof. Baylis said.The fact that they would seek to extend the right to abort an unborn child to another woman's womb shows the poverty of the "controlling my body" rhetoric; what is usually wanted in an abortion is not merely the termination of a pregnancy but the death of the innocent unborn child. And, so much for the other woman's "right to choose".
As the prophet Jeremiah said, "the heart of man is desperately wicked". The dishonesty of abortion rhetoric only adds to its wickedness.