There was a period of time when you couldn't escape the phrase "my body, my choice." It was a clever bit of marketing by leftist activists to make the abortion argument seem as if preventing someone from murdering their child was akin to stripping someone of their agency. It was a strategy that saw an unbelievable number of American women become single-issue voters.
Moreover, it cemented the Democrats as the "Party of Women." The ones that truly cared about the rights and well-being of the females of our species.
This idea is the central theme around a book that would later become a show, which would then become the feminists' preferred way to pretend like their rights are actually under attack: "The Handmaid's Tale."
The show takes place in an alternate version of America, where a Christian theocracy has finally become the law of the land, and women who can bear children immediately lose their bodily autonomy. Now, these capable childbearing persons—or whatever the left is calling women today—must submit their wombs to the rich and powerful while their wives hold their wrists down and their husbands impregnate these "handmaids."
If that sounds like it's a plot that feels like it would sit comfortably on the "spicy" obsessed "BookTok" list, then you're not the only one with a raised eyebrow, but I digress.
The point is that the dystopia that is the world of "The Handmaid's Tale" with all its lack of "my body, my choice" is a bit more real than one might believe, only it's not those dastardly Christian Conservatives trying to rob women of their rights to decide; it's gay men.
According to the New York Post, a gay couple is suing the woman who carried to term a baby they were going to adopt because she refused to abort it when it was discovered the baby had a cleft palate:
A Canadian same-sex couple is suing the woman who carried their now 2-year-old son because she refused their demand to abort the fetus because of a minor birth defect and a cleft lip.
According to the suit, filed in Ontario Superior Court in May and obtained by the National Post, the parents claim the surrogate didn’t adequately keep them informed about the baby’s health, put the child at risk, violated confidentiality and caused them emotional distress.
The exact dollar figure was not mentioned in the filing, but the mother, whom the outlet does not name, said the couple has indicated they’re seeking around $600,000.
The report effectively tells the story of a woman who was looking to be an incubator for money, and when the cleft palate surfaced, it was requested by the gay couple that she kill the child. She refused, saying she wasn't going to abort a child 22 weeks into gestation over a birth defect.
I want to say that this is really great of her to do, but as the report goes on, I start to get the sense that this was more about money, not virtue:
But tensions flared again between the surrogate and the parents when she insisted on a home birth performed by midwives rather than in a hospital, as the parents requested due to the cleft lip.
The child had breathing difficulties during delivery but recovered when he was given oxygen, and that an ambulance was summoned to take him to the hospital, the report said.
After their child got treatment, the parents took the child home and ceased contact with the surrogate, who asked them to cover around $10,000 in outstanding expenses, lost wages, transportation costs and skipped contributions to her pension plan.
The parents ignored her, leading her to take them to small-claims court, where she learned her contract required arbitration to settle any such disputes. She was then slapped with the lawsuit.
You can read the rest if you want, but those are the important parts that I think lead to some very damning conclusions.
For starters, it would appear that both parties don't actually care about the child. There were indications that the child had complications, and yet, the mother decided to push through in what appeared to be the cheapest way possible. After delivery, she started demanding thousands more than what was agreed upon in the deal.
The gay couple clearly didn't care about the child either, and that's pretty evident by the fact that they wanted it dead when they found out it had a minor defect that can be fixed easily with modern medical technology. This tells me this child wasn't about expanding the family; it was there for vanity reasons. They wanted a good-looking, pristine baby, not one that looked damaged out of the box, and might potentially make their virtue-signalling pictures look less than perfect.
Grossed out? Me too. I think this gets worse, though.
Because what we're now seeing is something being set up in a legal capacity that would make it easier to sue a woman if she doesn't kill a baby like she's told to. There is no "my body, my choice" here. You are an incubator for the needs of others. Nothing more. Whether or not your child survives turns on the whims of others.
And that, to me, is the most disturbing part. A baby in the womb lives or dies based on its looks, not its value as a human being deserving of love and being cherished. It serves the purpose of being a prop, not a person. It will grow up as an object meant to make its guardians look better and more picturesque.
I realize this woman made a contract where the murder of the child, if it wasn't perfect, was part of the deal, but boiling down two miracles—a womb and a baby—into business transactions that can be terminated at any moment just feels less than human. This dehumanization extends to both the woman and the baby. They're mere tools now.
And if I remember correctly, that's kind of what "The Handmaid's Tale" was trying to say was a bad thing.
The left is oddly silent about all of this, but perhaps I shouldn't use the word "oddly." A baby wasn't murdered, and it seems that, for them, any day that doesn't happen is a bad one.
