As happens so frequently, I saw this story about a woman, a “surrogate mother,” who is being sued (by the “intended parents,” i.e. the parents) to force her to abort the baby she’s carrying, and ran straight here to post it – only to find Peter had gotten there first.

Here’s an aspect of the story I don’t want to go unnoticed:

Torres decided to go public to warn other would-be surrogates to avoid the heard-wrenching pitfalls she has encountered.

“I want other women not to be put in this situation,” Torres said . “They shouldn’t be forced to do something they don’t want to.”

Abortion is apparently bad only if the woman carrying the child doesn’t want it. Why, then, doesn’t Torres want it? If she would just want it, then on the view she expresses here, all would be plain sailing.

Something seems to be missing here, but what could it be? She says her goal in going public is to defend other surrogate mothers. Is there anyone else that her instincts might be moving her to protect?

In the presidential address at this year’s meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, outgoing president Scott Rae emphasized that artificial fertilization techniques carry many dangers – physical and moral – that couples typically aren’t alerted to until it’s too late. He called upon pastors to be educated about these and other bioethical concerns, and equip the laity to understand them. It is a much needed call.

Image: NY Post