Intended Parents Who Sought Abortion Should Lose Custody to the Surrogate Who Saved the Child
Source: Auguste Meyrat. "Parents Who Wanted to Abort Their Children Shouldn't Get Custody." September 18, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that because the intended parents wanted to abort their baby when they learned he had a heart condition, they've proven they don't truly love him and shouldn't get to raise him. Instead, custody should go to the surrogate mother who refused to abort him and fought to save his life, since her actions prove she genuinely cares about him.
Conclusion
Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed should not have custody of the child (Gabriel/Rumi); custody should instead go to surrogate McKenna West.
Premises
- Gilkar and Ahmed demanded that the surrogate abort the child upon discovering a treatable heart condition, demonstrating they were willing to have the child killed for being 'defective.'
- When the abortion did not occur, Gilkar and Ahmed demanded a refund, showing they viewed the child as a commodity rather than a person to be loved.
- McKenna West refused the abortion demand, fled to Texas, and fought to secure life-saving medical treatment for the baby, demonstrating genuine care and sacrifice.
- Actions demonstrating love and sacrifice (West's) are more morally credible than verbal claims of love (Gilkar's) that are contradicted by prior conduct.
- If the baby is returned to California with Gilkar and Ahmed, there is less legal/social pressure to ensure continued medical treatment, increasing risk to the child's welfare.
- Commercial surrogacy lacks the rigorous vetting given to adoptive parents, allowing morally unfit or exploitative individuals to obtain custody of children.
- The legal logic permitting late-term abortion (that the unborn lack personhood) is the same logic that could justify denying medical treatment to infants after birth, making Gilkar and Ahmed's mindset dangerous to the child's ongoing welfare.
Assumptions
- A person's past willingness to have a child killed is a reliable and sufficient indicator of their unfitness as a parent, regardless of subsequent claims of love or change of heart.
- Demonstrated sacrifice and risk-taking on behalf of a child is the appropriate legal/moral standard for determining custody, similar to the Solomon parable.
- Custody determinations should be influenced by a parent's prior stance on abortion/personhood, not just their current stated intentions or legal parental status.
- Surrogacy arrangements inherently commodify children in a morally objectionable way.
- The intended parents' behavior (wanting abortion, demanding refund) is representative of their true character and future parenting, rather than a situational reaction to distressing circumstances (e.g., fear of a difficult medical situation).
- Legal parentage (as established by contract and courts) is less morally weighty than biological/gestational connection combined with demonstrated care.