MATT WALSH (HOST): OK. So, to review, a surrogate contractually signs her uterus over to a third party. That third party can contractually require her to kill the child in her womb. The third party controls what she says about her pregnancy. They control what she buys with the allowance that she's given. And then when the nine months are up, she delivers the child and hands them over to the third party, never to see him again. The contract has been fulfilled. Now, if you hear all of that, how human bodies are rented for money, babies are exchanged as part of contractual agreements, and you think to yourself, wow, that sounds an awful lot like human trafficking, well, that just means you're more perceptive than the average moderate conservative who is always on hand to wish a hearty congratulations to gay couples who engage in this trafficking. Because it is indeed human trafficking by definition. The end result is that a child is immediately torn away from the woman who birthed him and raised intentionally motherless or fatherless as the case may be. The child will be deprived of what he needs, which is both a mother and a father, so that the gay couple can get what they want. This is the essence of the whole practice -- exchanging the needs of the child for the wants of grown adults.
Now, if you are not the perceptive sort, you might listen to all this and say, well, this is unfair to gay couples. What if they want to have children? What -- what are they supposed to do? Don't we need to have some kind of system in place to help them achieve their parenthood dreams? The answer to that question is, no, we don't. Homosexual unions are sterile by their nature. It's not an exception to the rule when they are. It's not the result of sickness or genetic defect when a homosexual couple is unable to have children. None of them are able or have ever been able or ever will be able. That is a sign from nature, about as glaring and obvious as signs as you can ever see, that gay couples are not meant to have kids. They're not meant to have kids because they cannot ever have kids because kids are meant to have both a mom and a dad.
Now, it's true that plenty of kids end up with just one of those or sometimes none, but this just means that something went wrong. In that case, you do your best -- the best you can to compensate. But with surrogacy, we are designing children from the outset to be motherless or fatherless. We are intentionally depriving them of what they are supposed to have.
You know, it's true that some children grow up with one arm or no arms, but that obviously doesn't make it any more horrific, or any less horrific or barbaric to intentionally chop a child's arm off. You know, the fact that some children end up that way does -- yes -- but a child is supposed to have two arms at birth. And you -- to intentionally design a child to only have one, we would all agree is like -- it's like mad scientist horror. But this is essentially what we're doing with commercial surrogacy. And -- only it's worse because it's far better for a child to be raised lacking one of his arms than to be raised lacking one of his parents. And that's why I will never applaud and cheer when we get these birth announcements from gay couples, because I'm more concerned about what the child needs than what those men want.