For those interested, he goes on to say he now describes himself as "begrudgingly pro-choice" after learning in the past two years(!) more about gestation and "seeing the left fetishise it" (referring to "Shout Your Abortion" amongst other things).
He goes on to conclude two main things:
(1) that abortion up to 12 weeks is the optimal compromise between the rights of the individual (mother, the baby) and public policy/ "duty to protect the life of the unborn" (but he'd allow later than that where mother or foetus life was in jeopardy or for severe abnormality); and
(2) that if, early in the surrogate pregnancy, he and his husband found out that their baby was going to be severely disabled and unable to live an independent life, he and his husband decided that, "we would terminate the pregnancy".
Which rather begs the question - Would you, indeed?
For those wondering, apparently he and his husband have spent hours discussing how severe disability would affect them, the child themselves, and their extended families. Apparently the decision to terminate would be an impossibly difficult one he would wrestle with the consequences of for years afterwards.
No such thought appears to have been extended to the surrogate, what would happen if their surrogate declines to terminate, whether she has the right to do so (or generally where that falls in his views on women's reproductive rights), how they would enforce their decision if she doesn't, or how any part of either a normal or abnormal pregnancy might affect her.
I'm not sure I'd have read it through that lens if you hadn't brought it up here, so thank you. Now I've seen it, the incredible sleight of hand in erasing the mother and the underpinning sense of self-regarding entitlement is hard to un-see.