Posted on 07/03/2023 8:17:04 AM PDT by Twotone
A disturbing report from the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network suggested that a gay couple in California wanted the surrogate mother carrying their child to abort after the woman was given a grim cancer diagnosis.
According to CBC president and founder Jennifer Lahl, the unnamed woman agreed to carry a child for an unidentified gay couple in California. The woman is a married mother of four who had already volunteered to be a surrogate mother once before and had a good experience, so she decided to try and help again.
This time, the experience went horribly wrong, starting when she was about 24 weeks along. At that point, according to the woman's aunt, she received a "very very bad" breast cancer diagnosis. The cancer had metastasized so aggressively that those treating her advised her to abort the baby because she needed medicine that was not safe for an unborn child.
The woman refused an abortion and actively sought a hospital which would allow her to deliver the baby early so that she could begin treatment for the cancer. However, California law — which refers to surrogate mothers as "gestational carriers" — considers the "intended parents" the child's parents and states unequivocally that "the surrogate, and the surrogate's spouse or partner, is not a parent of, and has no parental rights or duties with respect to, the child or children."
The gay "intended parents" in this case reportedly wanted the surrogate to abort the baby. They did not want the baby to be born early because the baby would likely require intense medical care and may have continued severe medical needs throughout his or her life. They also did not want anyone else adopting the child, even the surrogate herself, because they did not want their "DNA out there" being raised by someone else.
According to the woman's aunt, the baby would become the "property" of the gay "intended parents" who apparently no longer intended to be the baby's parents. The aunt also claimed that the gay couple refused to agree to lifesaving care for the child, should the child be born alive, and requested a "death certificate" in that case. Lahl speculated that the men may have wanted a death certificate to prove legally that the surrogacy contract was null and void since the "intended parents" would not be receiving a baby.
"These 'parents' are freaking despicable," the aunt wrote in an email to Lahl, according to a screenshot. "They'd rather watch (or rather they probably won't be around) their baby die than allow it to be saved as best as possible and given to a family."
Several prospective adoptive parents had stepped forward, including the surrogate's aunt, but to no avail. The gay "intended parents" refused to consent.
The surrogate's family sought help from various agencies, including an attorney, Child Protective Services, and law enforcement, but all claimed there was little that could be done. Deputies with the local sheriff's office were reportedly "sympathetic" to the family's crisis but claimed that there was no law that would have allowed them to intervene.
The surrogate ultimately found a hospital willing to induce labor and deliver the baby. The woman underwent a vaginal birth, but sadly, the baby died shortly thereafter. Her current condition and prognosis are unknown, though the aunt stated in an email composed sometime this year, according to a screenshot, that her niece was "literally fighting for her life."
Under the 13th Amendment, isn’t ownership of humans as property by the gay couple illegal?
$30k for 9 months of pain and suffering is not worth it.
Don't forget the fake virtue of being able to say the hetero couple support gayness with more than just words.
…”It’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature”…
To some people, children are fashion accessories. The don’t want to love a child, they only want show them off.
This young woman lacked the wisdom to know this and has suffered immensely.
mental illness on parade once again, this is all it is
Oh, that's right, reality says, real men, cannot have babies.
THEY (both) would not have their DNA out there. A gay couple cannot produce a child. There has to be some other party involved to provide either the sperm or the egg.
Perhaps the woman carrying the baby provided the egg, but maybe not. Nevertheless, who ever donated what to make that child possible, should also have a say in that child's life.
Sad to say, it's probably for the better that that poor baby didn't make it since it was being already treated by the alleged parents as a commodity with less value than an old shoe.
But to place your Wife’s body (uterus & all) on top of the
altar to all things PC? That’s a big sacrifice just to score points.
The oldest of their four children may be privately wondering: “Aren’t we good enough for Mom and Dad to be happy?
I thought we were done dealing with Baby Stuff.”
Giving up your child to a gay couple is wrong to begin with. The rest is moot.
~~~~~~
Amen! Add that California’s schizophrenic law was passed before this woman signed her surrogacy contract. The only victim here is the murdered baby.
AMEN. what was she thinking?
my kids friend got 50k she already had 3 kiddos and went on to have twins. she did it for the $$$$ to buy a house.
it is border line criminal
Amen, teeman8r.
The child is in paradise and will never be sick or unhappy. The “gay couple” may not ever have that opportunity.
My mother had cancer in 1959 while she pregnant with me.
?????
I guess you didn’t bother reading the article.
“Several prospective adoptive parents had stepped forward, including the surrogate’s aunt, but to no avail. The gay “intended parents” refused to consent.”
Those two loathsome human beings should be charged with murder.
Asinine use of pronouns, or evidence of illegal gene splicing human experiments?
I wouldn't put the latter past that crowd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.