Gay Parents Are Unnatural! Surrogates Are Fine Though…on September 25, 2012 at 10:57 am
People have been making a big deal out of Mitt Romney’s son, Tagg, having an abortion clause in his contract with a surrogate mother. TheRomneys claim it was an oversight and point to the previous surrogate contract, with the same woman, which did not include that provision. I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. It really doesn’t make sense that they didn’t want the clause the first time but wanted it later.
What’s been overlooked here is that Romney and the rest of the GOP have spent years trying to convince America that two women (or men) having children is “unnatural.” Yet, we’re supposed to accept that Romney’s children (three of them if I’m not mistaken) used artificial means of conception. Tagg used a “gestational surrogate” which could mean that both the egg and sperm belonged to the Romneys or just the egg or sperm or neither. The fact that they had twins leads to me to suspect that they used in vitro fertilization and that means it was probably solely the Romneys’ genetic material. That would also mean that fertilized eggs were destroyed. That’s OK, though. In vitro “abortion” doesn’t count because…well, there’s no reason at all other than the right doesn’t want to alienate large swathes of the public with their extremism.
Now, as someone who is about to be a donor myself, I obviously have no problem with alternate methods of conception. I’m just pointing out the blinding hypocrisy of calling other people’s families “unnatural” when utilizing far more extreme methods of conception to start their own.
But what else can I expect from conservatives? Particularly rich ones. Good for me, not for thee.