CA's "Babies For Sale!" Are Private Surrogacy Contracts The Same As Child-Trafficking?

[mdk]

I already answered your question. Try reading instead of spamming.

My bad. Here's what you said last page in a slew of posts you typically make that are usually ad homimens exclusively or predominantly. So, hence the skimming..

No, I don't believe it is necessary and neither does the state. Let's be honest, I know that is asking quite a lot from you, but I don't think you really care either way, this is just another line of attack in your endless anti-gay narrative.

So, you don't think anything could go wrong at all with what the New York Times called "an industry"...more to the point a "BOOMING industry" that is self-regulating which deals in the transfer of human life from a mother to other people? So as far as you're concerned, out with adoption agencies and screening at orphanages too? Are children protected with guardians ad litem or not? Which makes one child more protected than another?

That isn't what I saying about adoptions, that is what you're assigning to me. Who said children are not protected with guardians ad litems from time to time? That would be you and you alone. The court doesn't feel the need to appoint one in every single instance. If you feel that these children are in danger then you better make your case that the courts should appoint one in every instance. You haven't made your case. All you have done is stomp your feet and claim this is human trafficking. You wouldn't give two shit about this if gays were not using surrogates. This is just another horse for you to ride in your anti-gay narrative.

So point me in the direction if you would, of any adoption agency or orphanage that doesn't (as a requirement of law) appoint a custodian in charge of screening carefully who the prospective parents might be of the poor unfortunate child?

You would have to first establish that these children that are products of surrogacy are facing harm or are being disadvantaged en mass. You cannot...or won't. Then again, you believe all children of gay parents are being disadvantaged, despite the mountain of evidence that states otherwise. If you believe these children are being placed in harmful situations then make your case and get the law changed to have more governmental involvement. Again, you wouldn't even care about this issue if you couldn't use it to harm gay people, if you can't use these children you discard them like weeks old leftovers. That being said, I am done having this conversation with you b/c I really don't give a shit about what new approach you take to smear queers.

 

[Silhouette]

No, I don't believe it is necessary and neither does the state. Let's be honest, I know that is asking quite a lot from you, but I don't think you really care either way, this is just another line of attack in your endless anti-gay narrative.

So, you don't think anything could go wrong at all with what the New York Times called "an industry"...more to the point a "BOOMING industry" that is self-regulating which deals in the transfer of human life from a mother to other people? So as far as you're concerned, out with adoption agencies and screening at orphanages too? Are children protected with guardians ad litem or not? Which makes one child more protected than another?

That isn't what I saying about adoptions, that is what you're assigning to me. Who said children are not protected with guardians ad litems from time to time? That would be you and you alone. The court doesn't feel the need to appoint one in every single instance. If you feel that these children are in danger then you better make your case that the courts should appoint one in every instance. You haven't made your case. All you have done is stomp your feet and claim this is human trafficking. You wouldn't give two shit about this if gays were not using surrogates. This is just another horse for you to ride in your anti-gay narrative.

So point me in the direction if you would, of any adoption agency or orphanage that doesn't (as a requirement of law) appoint a custodian in charge of screening carefully who the prospective parents might be of the poor unfortunate child?

You would have to first establish that these children that are products of surrogacy are facing harm or are being disadvantaged en mass. You cannot...or won't. Then again, you believe all children of gay parents are being disadvantaged, despite the mountain of evidence that states otherwise. If you believe these children are being placed in harmful situations then make your case and get the law changed to have more governmental involvement. Again, you wouldn't even care about this issue if you couldn't use it to harm gay people, if you can't use these children you discard them like weeks old leftovers. That being said, I am done having this conversation with you b/c I really don't give a shit about what new approach you take to smear queers.

Nah, with over 2,000 posts, mostly on the topic of "gay rights", I hardly buy that you don't give a shit about it.

You're done with the conversation because you know the transfer of a child's custody from one set of adults to another requires a legal process with oversight and supervision by authorities charged with the welfare of children. That's why you're "done" talking about it. Because really from your position there isn't much more to say is there? Only "some" children get the benefit of a legal process with oversight and supervision by authorities as to their welfare....but not others?

That is an indefensable position.

 

[mdk]

No, I don't believe it is necessary and neither does the state. Let's be honest, I know that is asking quite a lot from you, but I don't think you really care either way, this is just another line of attack in your endless anti-gay narrative.

So, you don't think anything could go wrong at all with what the New York Times called "an industry"...more to the point a "BOOMING industry" that is self-regulating which deals in the transfer of human life from a mother to other people? So as far as you're concerned, out with adoption agencies and screening at orphanages too? Are children protected with guardians ad litem or not? Which makes one child more protected than another?

That isn't what I saying about adoptions, that is what you're assigning to me. Who said children are not protected with guardians ad litems from time to time? That would be you and you alone. The court doesn't feel the need to appoint one in every single instance. If you feel that these children are in danger then you better make your case that the courts should appoint one in every instance. You haven't made your case. All you have done is stomp your feet and claim this is human trafficking. You wouldn't give two shit about this if gays were not using surrogates. This is just another horse for you to ride in your anti-gay narrative.

So point me in the direction if you would, of any adoption agency or orphanage that doesn't (as a requirement of law) appoint a custodian in charge of screening carefully who the prospective parents might be of the poor unfortunate child?

You would have to first establish that these children that are products of surrogacy are facing harm or are being disadvantaged en mass. You cannot...or won't. Then again, you believe all children of gay parents are being disadvantaged, despite the mountain of evidence that states otherwise. If you believe these children are being placed in harmful situations then make your case and get the law changed to have more governmental involvement. Again, you wouldn't even care about this issue if you couldn't use it to harm gay people, if you can't use these children you discard them like weeks old leftovers. That being said, I am done having this conversation with you b/c I really don't give a shit about what new approach you take to smear queers.

Nah, with over 2,000 posts, mostly on the topic of "gay rights", I hardly buy that you don't give a shit about it.

You're done with the conversation because you know the transfer of a child's custody from one set of adults to another requires a legal process with oversight and supervision by authorities charged with the welfare of children. That's why you're "done" talking about it. Because really from your position there isn't much more to say is there? Only "some" children get the benefit of a legal process with oversight and supervision by authorities as to their welfare....but not others?

That is an indefensable position.

I have over 6,000 thousands posts but reading has never your strong suit. You're the one trick pony in the conversation. I am done talking about this b/c you have displayed time and time again that you don't care about anything that doesn't buttress your anti-gay narrative, this issue included.

That being said, I take joy in knowing that your life's work as been an utter and miserable failure.

 

[Montrovant]

No, I don't believe it is necessary and neither does the state. Let's be honest, I know that is asking quite a lot from you, but I don't think you really care either way, this is just another line of attack in your endless anti-gay narrative.

So, you don't think anything could go wrong at all with what the New York Times called "an industry"...more to the point a "BOOMING industry" that is self-regulating which deals in the transfer of human life from a mother to other people? So as far as you're concerned, out with adoption agencies and screening at orphanages too? Are children protected with guardians ad litem or not? Which makes one child more protected than another?

That isn't what I saying about adoptions, that is what you're assigning to me. Who said children are not protected with guardians ad litems from time to time? That would be you and you alone. The court doesn't feel the need to appoint one in every single instance. If you feel that these children are in danger then you better make your case that the courts should appoint one in every instance. You haven't made your case. All you have done is stomp your feet and claim this is human trafficking. You wouldn't give two shit about this if gays were not using surrogates. This is just another horse for you to ride in your anti-gay narrative.

So point me in the direction if you would, of any adoption agency or orphanage that doesn't (as a requirement of law) appoint a custodian in charge of screening carefully who the prospective parents might be of the poor unfortunate child?

You would have to first establish that these children that are products of surrogacy are facing harm or are being disadvantaged en mass. You cannot...or won't. Then again, you believe all children of gay parents are being disadvantaged, despite the mountain of evidence that states otherwise. If you believe these children are being placed in harmful situations then make your case and get the law changed to have more governmental involvement. Again, you wouldn't even care about this issue if you couldn't use it to harm gay people, if you can't use these children you discard them like weeks old leftovers. That being said, I am done having this conversation with you b/c I really don't give a shit about what new approach you take to smear queers.

Nah, with over 2,000 posts, mostly on the topic of "gay rights", I hardly buy that you don't give a shit about it.

You're done with the conversation because you know the transfer of a child's custody from one set of adults to another requires a legal process with oversight and supervision by authorities charged with the welfare of children. That's why you're "done" talking about it. Because really from your position there isn't much more to say is there? Only "some" children get the benefit of a legal process with oversight and supervision by authorities as to their welfare....but not others?

That is an indefensable position.

Do you understand how surrogacy works, Sil? You make it sound as though the biological parents of the child do not end up with custody; that the new parents are merely strangers who decided to buy a baby. You do know that isn't what happens, don't you? I'll be honest, I can never quite tell how much of what you post is real and how much is bullshit.

 

[Syriusly]

That is an indefensable position.

No- just your imagination.

 

[Syriusly]

No, I don't believe it is necessary and neither does the state. Let's be honest, I know that is asking quite a lot from you, but I don't think you really care either way, this is just another line of attack in your endless anti-gay narrative.

So, you don't think anything could go wrong at all with what the New York Times called "an industry"...more to the point a "BOOMING industry" that is self-regulating which deals in the transfer of human life from a mother to other people? So as far as you're concerned, out with adoption agencies and screening at orphanages too? Are children protected with guardians ad litem or not? Which makes one child more protected than another?

That isn't what I saying about adoptions, that is what you're assigning to me. Who said children are not protected with guardians ad litems from time to time? That would be you and you alone. The court doesn't feel the need to appoint one in every single instance. If you feel that these children are in danger then you better make your case that the courts should appoint one in every instance. You haven't made your case. All you have done is stomp your feet and claim this is human trafficking. You wouldn't give two shit about this if gays were not using surrogates. This is just another horse for you to ride in your anti-gay narrative.

So point me in the direction if you would, of any adoption agency or orphanage that doesn't (as a requirement of law) appoint a custodian in charge of screening carefully who the prospective parents might be of the poor unfortunate child?

You would have to first establish that these children that are products of surrogacy are facing harm or are being disadvantaged en mass. You cannot...or won't. Then again, you believe all children of gay parents are being disadvantaged, despite the mountain of evidence that states otherwise. If you believe these children are being placed in harmful situations then make your case and get the law changed to have more governmental involvement. Again, you wouldn't even care about this issue if you couldn't use it to harm gay people, if you can't use these children you discard them like weeks old leftovers. That being said, I am done having this conversation with you b/c I really don't give a shit about what new approach you take to smear queers.

Nah, with over 2,000 posts, mostly on the topic of "gay rights", I hardly buy that you don't give a shit about it.

You're done with the conversation because you know the transfer of a child's custody from one set of adults to another requires a legal process with oversight and supervision by authorities charged with the welfare of children. That's why you're "done" talking about it. Because really from your position there isn't much more to say is there? Only "some" children get the benefit of a legal process with oversight and supervision by authorities as to their welfare....but not others?

That is an indefensable position.

Do you understand how surrogacy works, Sil? You make it sound as though the biological parents of the child do not end up with custody; that the new parents are merely strangers who decided to buy a baby. You do know that isn't what happens, don't you? I'll be honest, I can never quite tell how much of what you post is real and how much is bullshit.

She both knows- and doesn't know. I think she really is as batshit crazy as she sounds, but also willingly and knowingly lies.

If homosexuals were not also using surrogacy she would not even know what surrogacy is, nor would she care.

For her- a tragedy such as 'child trafficking' is just another tool to use to attack homosexuals.

 

[Silhouette]

You're the one trick pony in the conversation. I am done talking about this b/c you have displayed time and time again that you don't care about anything that doesn't buttress your anti-gay narrative, this issue included.

That being said, I take joy in knowing that your life's work as been an utter and miserable failure.

...no...something's fishy about this conversation...there's a reason besides your "being tired of it" why you're pulling away. I think it's the quesiton I asked you. It was this one, from post #39..

"So point me in the direction if you would, of any adoption agency or orphanage that doesn't (as a requirement of law) appoint a custodian in charge of screening carefully who the prospective parents might be of the poor unfortunate child?"

Or these from post #37..

"So, you don't think anything could go wrong at all with what the New York Times called "an industry"...more to the point a "BOOMING industry" that is self-regulating which deals in the transfer of human life from a mother to other people? So as far as you're concerned, out with adoption agencies and screening at orphanages too? Are children protected with guardians ad litem or not? Which makes one child more protected than another?"

 

[Silhouette]

Do you understand how surrogacy works, Sil? You make it sound as though the biological parents of the child do not end up with custody; that the new parents are merely strangers who decided to buy a baby. You do know that isn't what happens, don't you? I'll be honest, I can never quite tell how much of what you post is real and how much is bullshit.

I'm exploring the topic too Montrovant. And I'm not alone. Many states are expoloring the topic. The legal mess is a brand new one. Many states have passed laws causing surrogacy contracts to be void. You act as if this is a "done deal". I'm saying it's not. And there are a lot of people who agree with me on that one. You folks really are devoted to shutting down conversations. This one remains open.

And on that note, how is one child's welfare any less important than another's? If there are situations where private parties can arrange baby-transfers without an intermediate authority watching for signs of danger for that child, why do adoption agencies require such a rigorous screening process for their children? Either all children are placed on an unregulated free market or all of them get rigorous oversight. Which one are you in favor of?

...no..wait...let me guess...

 

[Silhouette]

Well? All protected or none?

 

[Montrovant]

Do you understand how surrogacy works, Sil? You make it sound as though the biological parents of the child do not end up with custody; that the new parents are merely strangers who decided to buy a baby. You do know that isn't what happens, don't you? I'll be honest, I can never quite tell how much of what you post is real and how much is bullshit.

I'm exploring the topic too Montrovant. And I'm not alone. Many states are expoloring the topic. The legal mess is a brand new one. Many states have passed laws causing surrogacy contracts to be void. You act as if this is a "done deal". I'm saying it's not. And there are a lot of people who agree with me on that one. You folks really are devoted to shutting down conversations. This one remains open.

And on that note, how is one child's welfare any less important than another's? If there are situations where private parties can arrange baby-transfers without an intermediate authority watching for signs of danger for that child, why do adoption agencies require such a rigorous screening process for their children? Either all children are placed on an unregulated free market or all of them get rigorous oversight. Which one are you in favor of?

...no..wait...let me guess...

You didn't answer my question. You appear to have made up some other question and answered that. Do you know what surrogacy is? Do you realize that it is not simply baby buying, but rather the use of a third party woman's womb to carry a baby? If someone buys a baby, that is not surrogacy.

Who said anything about one child's welfare being less important? Adoption and surrogacy are two very different things. The former is about completely unrelated people taking over care of a child, the latter is about biological parents using someone else's womb to carry their child. In neither case are 'children are placed on an unregulated free market'. Children cannot be bought and sold as commodities. That is, quite clearly, illegal. It is also not what surrogacy means.

There may be questions about the legality and ramifications of surrogacy, but your insistence that is somehow a matter of buying babies is, as so much you post, mindless drivel. Feel free to show us evidence that surrogacy is a matter of buying babies rather than women allowing their wombs to be used to carry someone else's babies, if you think you actually know what you are talking about.

 

[Syriusly]

Tempted to reply to Silh but her posts speak for herself- batshit crazy homophobia.

 

[Silhouette]

Homosexuals aren't the only ones doing unregulated child-swapping Syriusly..

Do you understand how surrogacy works, Sil? You make it sound as though the biological parents of the child do not end up with custody; that the new parents are merely strangers who decided to buy a baby. You do know that isn't what happens, don't you? I'll be honest, I can never quite tell how much of what you post is real and how much is bullshit.

I'm exploring the topic too Montrovant. And I'm not alone. Many states are expoloring the topic. The legal mess is a brand new one. Many states have passed laws causing surrogacy contracts to be void. You act as if this is a "done deal". I'm saying it's not. And there are a lot of people who agree with me on that one. You folks really are devoted to shutting down conversations. This one remains open.

And on that note, how is one child's welfare any less important than another's? If there are situations where private parties can arrange baby-transfers without an intermediate authority watching for signs of danger for that child, why do adoption agencies require such a rigorous screening process for their children? Either all children are placed on an unregulated free market or all of them get rigorous oversight. Which one are you in favor of?

...no..wait...let me guess...

You didn't answer my question. You appear to have made up some other question and answered that. Do you know what surrogacy is? Do you realize that it is not simply baby buying, but rather the use of a third party woman's womb to carry a baby? If someone buys a baby, that is not surrogacy....Who said anything about one child's welfare being less important? Adoption and surrogacy are two very different things. The former is about completely unrelated people taking over care of a child, the latter is about biological parents using someone else's womb to carry their child. In neither case are 'children are placed on an unregulated free market'. Children cannot be bought and sold as commodities. That is, quite clearly, illegal. It is also not what surrogacy means...There may be questions about the legality and ramifications of surrogacy, but your insistence that is somehow a matter of buying babies is, as so much you post, mindless drivel. Feel free to show us evidence that surrogacy is a matter of buying babies rather than women allowing their wombs to be used to carry someone else's babies, if you think you actually know what you are talking about.

Actually, I think that's a very gray area legally speaking that is currently under debate. And hence, this thread.

 

[Montrovant]

Homosexuals aren't the only ones doing unregulated child-swapping Syriusly..

Do you understand how surrogacy works, Sil? You make it sound as though the biological parents of the child do not end up with custody; that the new parents are merely strangers who decided to buy a baby. You do know that isn't what happens, don't you? I'll be honest, I can never quite tell how much of what you post is real and how much is bullshit.

I'm exploring the topic too Montrovant. And I'm not alone. Many states are expoloring the topic. The legal mess is a brand new one. Many states have passed laws causing surrogacy contracts to be void. You act as if this is a "done deal". I'm saying it's not. And there are a lot of people who agree with me on that one. You folks really are devoted to shutting down conversations. This one remains open.

And on that note, how is one child's welfare any less important than another's? If there are situations where private parties can arrange baby-transfers without an intermediate authority watching for signs of danger for that child, why do adoption agencies require such a rigorous screening process for their children? Either all children are placed on an unregulated free market or all of them get rigorous oversight. Which one are you in favor of?

...no..wait...let me guess...

You didn't answer my question. You appear to have made up some other question and answered that. Do you know what surrogacy is? Do you realize that it is not simply baby buying, but rather the use of a third party woman's womb to carry a baby? If someone buys a baby, that is not surrogacy....Who said anything about one child's welfare being less important? Adoption and surrogacy are two very different things. The former is about completely unrelated people taking over care of a child, the latter is about biological parents using someone else's womb to carry their child. In neither case are 'children are placed on an unregulated free market'. Children cannot be bought and sold as commodities. That is, quite clearly, illegal. It is also not what surrogacy means...There may be questions about the legality and ramifications of surrogacy, but your insistence that is somehow a matter of buying babies is, as so much you post, mindless drivel. Feel free to show us evidence that surrogacy is a matter of buying babies rather than women allowing their wombs to be used to carry someone else's babies, if you think you actually know what you are talking about.

Actually, I think that's a very gray area legally speaking that is currently under debate. And hence, this thread.

There is no gray area that buying and selling human beings is illegal and has been for quite some time.

Again, there is a large difference between surrogacy and adoption. Adoption generally involves non-related adults becoming the legal parents of a minor. Surrogacy involves biological parent(s) using a third party woman's womb to carry a child, usually because that isn't possible for the parents I would assume.

Whatever legal gray areas exist involving surrogacy have nothing to do with buying babies. I doubt the sexual orientation of the parents has much to do with it either, at least directly.

 

[Skylar]

Homosexuals aren't the only ones doing unregulated child-swapping Syriusly..

Do you understand how surrogacy works, Sil? You make it sound as though the biological parents of the child do not end up with custody; that the new parents are merely strangers who decided to buy a baby. You do know that isn't what happens, don't you? I'll be honest, I can never quite tell how much of what you post is real and how much is bullshit.

I'm exploring the topic too Montrovant. And I'm not alone. Many states are expoloring the topic. The legal mess is a brand new one. Many states have passed laws causing surrogacy contracts to be void. You act as if this is a "done deal". I'm saying it's not. And there are a lot of people who agree with me on that one. You folks really are devoted to shutting down conversations. This one remains open.

And on that note, how is one child's welfare any less important than another's? If there are situations where private parties can arrange baby-transfers without an intermediate authority watching for signs of danger for that child, why do adoption agencies require such a rigorous screening process for their children? Either all children are placed on an unregulated free market or all of them get rigorous oversight. Which one are you in favor of?

...no..wait...let me guess...

You didn't answer my question. You appear to have made up some other question and answered that. Do you know what surrogacy is? Do you realize that it is not simply baby buying, but rather the use of a third party woman's womb to carry a baby? If someone buys a baby, that is not surrogacy....Who said anything about one child's welfare being less important? Adoption and surrogacy are two very different things. The former is about completely unrelated people taking over care of a child, the latter is about biological parents using someone else's womb to carry their child. In neither case are 'children are placed on an unregulated free market'. Children cannot be bought and sold as commodities. That is, quite clearly, illegal. It is also not what surrogacy means...There may be questions about the legality and ramifications of surrogacy, but your insistence that is somehow a matter of buying babies is, as so much you post, mindless drivel. Feel free to show us evidence that surrogacy is a matter of buying babies rather than women allowing their wombs to be used to carry someone else's babies, if you think you actually know what you are talking about.

Actually, I think that's a very gray area legally speaking that is currently under debate. And hence, this thread.

There is no gray area that buying and selling human beings is illegal and has been for quite some time.

Again, there is a large difference between surrogacy and adoption. Adoption generally involves non-related adults becoming the legal parents of a minor. Surrogacy involves biological parent(s) using a third party woman's womb to carry a child, usually because that isn't possible for the parents I would assume.

Whatever legal gray areas exist involving surrogacy have nothing to do with buying babies. I doubt the sexual orientation of the parents has much to do with it either, at least directly.

Of course it doesn't. As is almost always the case, Sil has no idea what he's talking about. None of his sources back any of his 'child trafficking' claims.

Sil has a rather illustrious history of making claims and then citing sources that have nothing to do with them. Studies that never even mention what he claims they prove, rulings that never mention what he insists they affirm, polls that never mention what he insists they measure.

Hallucination is an intregal part of Sil's reasoning process.

 

[Syriusly]

Homosexuals aren't the only ones doing unregulated child-swapping Syriusly..
.

Silhouette- if Homosexuals were not doing surrogacy just like heterosexuals- you would never have started this- another in the series of your homophobic meltdown threads.

 

[Skylar]

Homosexuals aren't the only ones doing unregulated child-swapping Syriusly..
.

Silhouette- if Homosexuals were not doing surrogacy just like heterosexuals- you would never have started this- another in the series of your homophobic meltdown threads.

Of course not. Read the OP. There's more time dedicated to gays and lesbians than there is surrogacy. This is just another horse for Sil to ride to feed his obsession.

And obsession that he's alrteady admitted is damaging his health, his mental well being and impacting his life to such an extent that he insists he has to stop posting.

 

[Silhouette]

Homosexuals aren't the only ones doing unregulated child-swapping Syriusly..
.

Silhouette- if Homosexuals were not doing surrogacy just like heterosexuals- you would never have started this- another in the series of your homophobic meltdown threads.

Of course not. Read the OP. There's more time dedicated to gays and lesbians than there is surrogacy. This is just another horse for Sil to ride to feed his obsession.

Yes, of course my focus is on gays circumventing Christian adoption agencies in order to find loopholes to bring children into "marriages" that are either fatherless or motherless. Of course! But the issues regarding surrogacy as being a form of child trafficking also apply to those who are heterosexually-oriented too. Remember, gays and straights both molest and endanger children. It's just that statistically, gays do so more often proportionate to heterosexuals:

Mayo Clinic Special Article 2007

Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles by whether they are attracted to only male children (homosexual pedophilia), female children (heterosexual pedophilia), or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia).3,6,10,29 The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

That is "the percentage OF ALL MOLESTATIONS" are done in 9-40% range (wide variance because boys are 10 times as likely not to report having been molested by men than girls by men) by homosexuals who have focused their "age appetite" on boy children. So let me say that again. At around 2% of the ENTIRE POPULATION, homosexual men commit up to 40% OF ALL molestation against children. That's what you call a predisposition, and a reason to be EXTRA CONCERNED about homosexuals using the surrogacy process to gain access to children without all those pesky oversight processes involved with adoption agencies or state ward programs. Pay a struggling poor mom to bake your little bun in the oven and avoid all the red tape.

Of course there are a number of surrogacies that don't end up in children being put (sold) to abusive homes. It's the ones that do end up getting abused that could have been prevented by say, criminal background checks, etc. (like, are you a registered sex offender? yes/no?) or other screening processes/guardian ad litems that I'm concerned about here.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course not. Read the OP. There's more time dedicated to gays and lesbians than there is surrogacy. This is just another horse for Sil to ride to feed his obsession.

Yes, of course my focus is on gays circumventing Christian adoption agencies in order to find loopholes to bring children into "marriages" that are either fatherless or motherless. Of course! But the issues regarding surrogacy as being a form of child trafficking also apply to those who are heterosexually-oriented too. Remember, gays and straights both molest and endanger children. It's just that statistically, gays do so more often proportionate to heterosexuals:

Mayo Clinic Special Article 2007

Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles by whether they are attracted to only male children (homosexual pedophilia), female children (heterosexual pedophilia), or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia).3,6,10,29 The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

[/QUOTE]

And let me point out once again- you are a big FAT LIAR. And you are willing to harm children in order to injure homosexuals.

The article you are quoting- written by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall does contain that quote- but Dr. Halls specifically point out that homosexual pedophiles are not homosexuals- you know this- and specifically left out that line- because you are a liar.


Here is the quote- including the line you purposely left out- in order to lie to us

Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range
and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles
by whether they are attracted to only male children (homo-
sexual pedophilia), female children (heterosexual pedo-
philia), or children from both sexes (bisexual pedo-philia).
3,6,10,29

The percentage of homosexual pedophiles
ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20
times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other
adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality
of 2%-4%).5,7,10,19,29,30

This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a
larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual
in orientation to children.19

The very article you quote says that the article does not say that homosexuals are more likely to molest children- that is entirely your
BIG FAT LIE

 

[Syriusly]

Homosexuals aren't the only ones doing unregulated child-swapping Syriusly..
.

Silhouette- if Homosexuals were not doing surrogacy just like heterosexuals- you would never have started this- another in the series of your homophobic meltdown threads.

Of course not. Read the OP. There's more time dedicated to gays and lesbians than there is surrogacy. This is just another horse for Sil to ride to feed his obsession.

And obsession that he's alrteady admitted is damaging his health, his mental well being and impacting his life to such an extent that he insists he has to stop posting.

Considering how much Silhouette is willing to lie in order to attack homosexuals, I can't even imagine what toll that amount of lying does to her.

 

[Montrovant]

Homosexuals aren't the only ones doing unregulated child-swapping Syriusly..
.

Silhouette- if Homosexuals were not doing surrogacy just like heterosexuals- you would never have started this- another in the series of your homophobic meltdown threads.

Of course not. Read the OP. There's more time dedicated to gays and lesbians than there is surrogacy. This is just another horse for Sil to ride to feed his obsession.

Yes, of course my focus is on gays circumventing Christian adoption agencies in order to find loopholes to bring children into "marriages" that are either fatherless or motherless. Of course! But the issues regarding surrogacy as being a form of child trafficking also apply to those who are heterosexually-oriented too. Remember, gays and straights both molest and endanger children. It's just that statistically, gays do so more often proportionate to heterosexuals:

Mayo Clinic Special Article 2007

Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles by whether they are attracted to only male children (homosexual pedophilia), female children (heterosexual pedophilia), or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia).3,6,10,29 The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

That is "the percentage OF ALL MOLESTATIONS" are done in 9-40% range (wide variance because boys are 10 times as likely not to report having been molested by men than girls by men) by homosexuals who have focused their "age appetite" on boy children. So let me say that again. At around 2% of the ENTIRE POPULATION, homosexual men commit up to 40% OF ALL molestation against children. That's what you call a predisposition, and a reason to be EXTRA CONCERNED about homosexuals using the surrogacy process to gain access to children without all those pesky oversight processes involved with adoption agencies or state ward programs. Pay a struggling poor mom to bake your little bun in the oven and avoid all the red tape.

Of course there are a number of surrogacies that don't end up in children being put (sold) to abusive homes. It's the ones that do end up getting abused that could have been prevented by say, criminal background checks, etc. (like, are you a registered sex offender? yes/no?) or other screening processes/guardian ad litems that I'm concerned about here.

Again, you seem to not understand surrogacy. Unless we implement laws requiring a criminal background check for having children, your screening process in not going to happen. Surrogacy involves biologic parents, not strangers buying babies! Are you advocating screening of all prospective parents before they can legally have children? No, it is only screening gays which you want. Dress it up in other subjects like surrogacy all you like, anyone who's read some of your threads knows that what you really are saying is that gays are evil and you want children kept away from them. Surrogacy is just a new way to come at that same refrain.