[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

In answer to the first question, society sees a benefit in surrogacy which, in most cases, grants a child to a couple who otherwise couldn't conceive. The other "lease"', in most cases, involves a form of slavery. I'm surprised you'd be unable to discern any difference.

This seems to be a pretty simple case of contract law gone wrong. One side thought a plain reading of "severe birth defect" applied. I have a hard time disagreeing with that. But the other side would have to undergo an abortion against their will. I also have a hard time saying that should have occurred.

Given the cluster F created by the contract dispute, who do you think should pay for the care if not the taxpayer?

Please expound