The Blaze86%

On surrogacy, conservatives must speak the truth: ‘You can be a really good dad, but you’ll never be a mom’ 76%

By BlazeTV Staff94%

8/2/2026, 11:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Anecdotal, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 20.9% saturation with 98 hits. Analysis detected 1,232 faulty-reasoning hits from 468 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.4% and a BS Rank of 76% (7,451 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.60% of the article peer group.

Fox News political analyst Guy Benson is receiving congratulations from across conservative media after announcing the birth of his daughter, Madison Halsey. 
“She’s here, and she’s perfect,” Benson wrote in a post that quickly racked up more than 10,000 likes. 
“We are blessed and overjoyed to welcome Madison Halsey into the world and into our family. 
Our hearts are filled to the brim. 
A baby girl. 
We are just so thankful.” 
However, BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey doesn’t share his excitement. 
“You’ve heard my spiel on surrogacy a lot, but when we create these children, especially in this situation where you are buying the eggs from one woman, you are renting the womb from another woman," she says. 
“So you’re taking a child away from their biological mother, you are placing them in an unrelated woman whose smell and touch and heartbeat and body they get to know, they call home for nine months," she continues. 
“And then you immediately take that child after birth away from the only home, the only smell, the only regulator, the only woman they have ever known and away from the biological mom with whom they share half of their DNA. 
We are treating that child worse than we treat kittens and puppies,” she adds. 
For kittens and puppies, the natural bond between a mother and her litter is respected. 
“But for some reason, when it comes to human babies who are much more fragile, who are much less resilient, and of course as Christians, we believe are made in God’s image and so matter infinitely more than a cat or a dog, we say, ‘Eh, it’s probably fine,’” Stuckey says. 
“It is the prioritization of adult wants over children’s needs,” she adds. 
But it’s not just purposely taking children away from their biological mother that bothers Stuckey, noting that the entire process has “physical consequences for the child.” 
“It’s much more risky for the embryo. 
It’s much more risky, or riskier, for the baby as well during conception, during transfer and implantation, during gestation,” she explains. 
“But then of course, you’re creating this emotional and psychological, physiological risk too,” she continues, before playing a TikTok video of a man in a homosexual relationship claiming his son cries for his “mommy” despite never knowing his mother. 
“This is very common. 
This is natural. 
This is instinctive. 
Somewhere deep inside, we want to know where we came from. 
We want our mom. 
That does not mean that two men who are raising a child don’t love their child,” she says. 
“It means that they’re not a mom. 
You can be a really good dad, but you will never be a mom,” she adds. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 7.0%Blaze Media: 5.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%BlazeTV Staff: 4.7%Blaze Media: 2.9%Availability Heuristic9.2%This article: 5.6%BlazeTV Staff: 1.8%Blaze Media: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic5.6%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.2%Blaze Media: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%BlazeTV Staff: 2.8%Blaze Media: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias4.5%This article: 7.7%BlazeTV Staff: 9.3%Blaze Media: 8.4%Framing Effect7.7%This article: 7.9%BlazeTV Staff: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.5%Loss Aversion7.9%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.0%Blaze Media: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.5%BlazeTV Staff: 2.5%Blaze Media: 1.6%Pessimism Bias20.5%This article: 20.9%BlazeTV Staff: 9.1%Blaze Media: 9.0%Negativity Bias20.9%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.1%Blaze Media: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.2%Blaze Media: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%BlazeTV Staff: 4.1%Blaze Media: 2.3%In-Group Bias4.3%This article: 3.8%BlazeTV Staff: 4.4%Blaze Media: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 5.1%Blaze Media: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.8%Blaze Media: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.7%Blaze Media: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.9%Blaze Media: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 2.0%Blaze Media: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 11.8%BlazeTV Staff: 3.1%Blaze Media: 1.1%Straw Man11.8%This article: 10.9%BlazeTV Staff: 3.3%Blaze Media: 3.1%Appeal to Authority10.9%This article: 9.2%BlazeTV Staff: 3.6%Blaze Media: 2.3%False Dilemma9.2%This article: 8.1%BlazeTV Staff: 1.7%Blaze Media: 1.3%Slippery Slope8.1%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.6%BlazeTV Staff: 13.5%Blaze Media: 7.6%Hasty Generalization9.6%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.8%BlazeTV Staff: 1.4%Blaze Media: 0.7%Bandwagon3.8%This article: 15.6%BlazeTV Staff: 11.4%Blaze Media: 7.6%Appeal to Emotion15.6%This article: 2.6%BlazeTV Staff: 1.5%Blaze Media: 1.2%Begging the Question2.6%This article: 13.9%BlazeTV Staff: 2.3%Blaze Media: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.9%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.1%Blaze Media: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 11.5%BlazeTV Staff: 1.0%Blaze Media: 0.2%Appeal to Nature11.5%This article: 3.2%BlazeTV Staff: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.3%Composition/Division3.2%This article: 16.5%BlazeTV Staff: 7.0%Blaze Media: 2.5%Anecdotal16.5%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.9%BlazeTV Staff: 1.9%Blaze Media: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.9%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.7%Blaze Media: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.1%BlazeTV Staff: 2.6%Blaze Media: 2.5%Unattributed Quote8.1%This article: 7.9%BlazeTV Staff: 2.6%Blaze Media: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection7.9%This article: 14.7%BlazeTV Staff: 10.0%Blaze Media: 8.8%Biased Writer Voice14.7%This article: 8.8%BlazeTV Staff: 7.1%Blaze Media: 3.8%Indoctrination8.8%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.7%BlazeTV Staff: 11.3%Blaze Media: 6.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias14.7%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 6.2%Blaze Media: 2.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

468 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers85%attributed speech70writer words
Selected voice

Allie Beth Stuckey

98%flagged-word coverage
367 attributed words92% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Indoctrination-22.8 ptsWriter: 28.6%Allie Beth Stuckey: 5.7%5.7%Biased Writer Voice-15.2 ptsWriter: 28.6%Allie Beth Stuckey: 13.4%13.4%Politically Right Leaning +18.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Allie Beth Stuckey: 18.8%18.8%Unattributed Quote+10.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Allie Beth Stuckey: 10.4%10.4%Quote-first Misdirection+10.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Allie Beth Stuckey: 10.1%10.1%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.