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

[Silhouette]

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.

People having natural children is something that won't be subject to criminal background checks. Unfortunately. But once a child is taken from its natural parents, all children must then be under the umbrella of oversight, background checks and gaurdians ad litem. ALL of them, not just some.

 

[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

.

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]

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.

People having natural children is something that won't be subject to criminal background checks. Unfortunately. .

'Unfortunately'- meaning Silhouette would like all parents to have to undergo criminal background checks.......

 

[Montrovant]

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.

People having natural children is something that won't be subject to criminal background checks. Unfortunately. But once a child is taken from its natural parents, all children must then be under the umbrella of oversight, background checks and gaurdians ad litem. ALL of them, not just some.

Surrogacy involves natural parents! Don't you yet understand that? A child is not being taken from its natural parents. The natural parents are using the womb of a surrogate to carry a child. That doesn't make the parents no longer the parents.

 

[Silhouette]

Surrogacy involves natural parents! Don't you yet understand that? A child is not being taken from its natural parents. The natural parents are using the womb of a surrogate to carry a child. That doesn't make the parents no longer the parents.

The womb of a surrogate....see, there's the problem. It's fine if there is a trail of checks on where the kid is going after it leaves the womb. Otherwise it starts to look like child trafficking. Or it certain could be manipulated to become child trafficking for cash. Think about it. How different is it to buy a child vs buying a child to be made in someone else's body? Can't gestate a child without a womb. If there's a custodial body overseeing this transfer for the child then fine. If not....loophole for child trafficking...

Your rebuttal?

 

[Montrovant]

Surrogacy involves natural parents! Don't you yet understand that? A child is not being taken from its natural parents. The natural parents are using the womb of a surrogate to carry a child. That doesn't make the parents no longer the parents.

The womb of a surrogate....see, there's the problem. It's fine if there is a trail of checks on where the kid is going after it leaves the womb. Otherwise it starts to look like child trafficking. Or it certain could be manipulated to become child trafficking for cash. Think about it. How different is it to buy a child vs buying a child to be made in someone else's body? Can't gestate a child without a womb. If there's a custodial body overseeing this transfer for the child then fine. If not....loophole for child trafficking...

Your rebuttal?

Why is there more chance of child trafficking with surrogacy than with more usual births?

How is it different? Because buying a child means the child is not yours. In surrogacy the parent or parents of the child are the ones who get the child after it is born. Surrogacy is not, I repeat, it is not about getting someone else's child. Surrogacy is about using someone's womb.

Why do the courts not appoint a guardian ad litem to every birth? Because biological parents have the responsibility of taking care of their child. That doesn't change just because a surrogate is used. It is no more child trafficking than paying for IVF, or paying for a midwife, or paying for a hospital stay to give birth. That money is exchanged for a service involved in pregnancy does not mean it is child trafficking.

It's amazing how twisted the paths must be that you use to get from point A to point B here. Surrogacy is child trafficking?

 

[Silhouette]

Why is there more chance of child trafficking with surrogacy than with more usual births?

How is it different?

"Usual births" have a close maternal bond with hormones involved in the mothering instincts. At least that gives the child a fighting chance. I mean, you're arguing for either all children to have transfer of custody from the natural birth parents without a paper trail or custodial oversight or none of them. My point is why do some kids have to have the adults getting them carefully screened, background checks etc. and others don't?

I know you know what I'm talking about. Why do adoption agencies even bother? Seems if someone shows up with money and signs a simple contract, voila! The orphan is theirs. No screening necessary beyond proving the means financially to pull it off. And in my book that translates to "children for sale". Sure, many people would have good intentions to children they didn't carry and have hormonal/gestational bonds with. But many may also not. With surrogacy sans oversight, we have no way of telling who is who.

I'm not saying surrogacy shouldn't exist. I'm just saying it needs the same oversight as with adoptions. Otherwise it's tiptoeing into child-trafficking territory.

 

[Montrovant]

Why is there more chance of child trafficking with surrogacy than with more usual births?

How is it different?

"Usual births" have a close maternal bond with hormones involved in the mothering instincts. At least that gives the child a fighting chance. I mean, you're arguing for either all children to have transfer of custody from the natural birth parents without a paper trail or custodial oversight or none of them. My point is why do some kids have to have the adults getting them carefully screened, background checks etc. and others don't?

I know you know what I'm talking about. Why do adoption agencies even bother? Seems if someone shows up with money and signs a simple contract, voila! The orphan is theirs. No screening necessary beyond proving the means financially to pull it off. And in my book that translates to "children for sale". Sure, many people would have good intentions to children they didn't carry and have hormonal/gestational bonds with. But many may also not. With surrogacy sans oversight, we have no way of telling who is who.

I'm not saying surrogacy shouldn't exist. I'm just saying it needs the same oversight as with adoptions. Otherwise it's tiptoeing into child-trafficking territory.

Wow. So you still don't understand what surrogacy is? A 'transfer of custody from the natural birth parents'? The biological parent or parents are the ones who end up with the baby. The surrogate is not the child's mother. It is not the surrogate's egg. If she were the mother, it wouldn't be surrogacy, simply a pregnancy. So your entire premise is bunk.

Why do adoption agencies bother? Because it is not the child's parents. Our laws give the responsibility for children to the biological parents first and automatically. And as far as gestational bonds, are you saying that fathers should not have rights to their children? They don't get pregnant, if a mother dies, should a father need to be screened before getting custody of his child? Does a father need to adopt in the absence of the mother who carried the child to term?

What you are saying is basically that you still have no idea what surrogacy is. The child in a surrogacy goes to one or both biological parents. There is no sale, no transfer, no trafficking. Unless you are arguing that only mothers who carry their children in pregnancy should have any default rights to their children, your argument is senseless.

 

[Syriusly]

Why is there more chance of child trafficking with surrogacy than with more usual births?

How is it different?

"Usual births" have a close maternal bond with hormones involved in the mothering instincts. At least that gives the child a fighting chance. I mean, you're arguing for either all children to have transfer of custody from the natural birth parents without a paper trail or custodial oversight or none of them. My point is why do some kids have to have the adults getting them carefully screened, background checks etc. and others don't?

I know you know what I'm talking about. Why do adoption agencies even bother? Seems if someone shows up with money and signs a simple contract, voila! The orphan is theirs. No screening necessary beyond proving the means financially to pull it off. And in my book that translates to "children for sale". Sure, many people would have good intentions to children they didn't carry and have hormonal/gestational bonds with. But many may also not. With surrogacy sans oversight, we have no way of telling who is who.

I'm not saying surrogacy shouldn't exist. I'm just saying it needs the same oversight as with adoptions. Otherwise it's tiptoeing into child-trafficking territory.

Wow. So you still don't understand what surrogacy is? A 'transfer of custody from the natural birth parents'? The biological parent or parents are the ones who end up with the baby. The surrogate is not the child's mother. It is not the surrogate's egg. If she were the mother, it wouldn't be surrogacy, simply a pregnancy. So your entire premise is bunk.

Why do adoption agencies bother? Because it is not the child's parents. Our laws give the responsibility for children to the biological parents first and automatically. And as far as gestational bonds, are you saying that fathers should not have rights to their children? They don't get pregnant, if a mother dies, should a father need to be screened before getting custody of his child? Does a father need to adopt in the absence of the mother who carried the child to term?

What you are saying is basically that you still have no idea what surrogacy is. The child in a surrogacy goes to one or both biological parents. There is no sale, no transfer, no trafficking. Unless you are arguing that only mothers who carry their children in pregnancy should have any default rights to their children, your argument is senseless.

You are trying to have a rational conversation- pointing out the facts- to Silhouette.

Silhouette is impervious to the facts- a bullet can go through steel easier than a fact can penetrate Silhouette.

She is fixated on this nonsensical idea of hers- and just continue to lie about it.

 

[Silhouette]

These "facts" are being debated legally Syriusly. They are by no means concrete and accepted across the states. Will you have your buddies in SCOTUS issue an ill-thought mandate on this too so your cult can "get on with" the baby industry?

 

[Silhouette]

Wow. So you still don't understand what surrogacy is? A 'transfer of custody from the natural birth parents'? The biological parent or parents are the ones who end up with the baby. The surrogate is not the child's mother. It is not the surrogate's egg. If she were the mother, it wouldn't be surrogacy, simply a pregnancy. So your entire premise is bunk.
Why do adoption agencies bother? Because it is not the child's parents. Our laws give the responsibility for children to the biological parents first and automatically..

1. I understand that the genetic material used in surrogacy is other people's DNA.

2. I also understand the hormones and bonding that a mother has with any infant she bears. I run a ranch and if you IVFed a zebra baby into a mare's body, she would treat that foal exactly like it was hers and defend it to the death, whereas other foals (even her own genetics IVFed into another mare)she would drive off from her udder. These residual instincts are present in human mothers as well.

3. A mother, of any genetic combination placed insider her is still a mother, and instinctively will bond closer than others to the child if allowed the time just after birth....a crucial time for infants too...which are ripped away at that moment and ushered into the customers'...er...um...I mean "genetic parent (not both in the case of gays, only one) arms.

4. Also on my ranch, oddly enough, the act of sex seems to bond the sire to the young. I was running a couple of rams for awhile and they always seemed to know which get was theirs. They always seemed to gravitate towards the young of the ewes they bred and nudged away or butted the lambs born to ewes from the other ram. This entire process is shitcanned in favor of ripping these infants away from those hormonal socio-sexual bonds of the parents.

5. I understand that there are orphans and adoptions necessary. But they are always a second choice to natural childbearing for all the reasons I mentioned.

6. Even orphans have a better paper trail than surrogate infants, and more oversight. Just because Charles Manson may have enough money to buy a surrogate child, doesn't mean he should be able to without an oversight process.

 

[Montrovant]

Wow. So you still don't understand what surrogacy is? A 'transfer of custody from the natural birth parents'? The biological parent or parents are the ones who end up with the baby. The surrogate is not the child's mother. It is not the surrogate's egg. If she were the mother, it wouldn't be surrogacy, simply a pregnancy. So your entire premise is bunk.
Why do adoption agencies bother? Because it is not the child's parents. Our laws give the responsibility for children to the biological parents first and automatically..

1. I understand that the genetic material used in surrogacy is other people's DNA.

2. I also understand the hormones and bonding that a mother has with any infant she bears. I run a ranch and if you IVFed a zebra baby into a mare's body, she would treat that foal exactly like it was hers and defend it to the death, whereas other foals (even her own genetics IVFed into another mare)she would drive off from her udder. These residual instincts are present in human mothers as well.

3. A mother, of any genetic combination placed insider her is still a mother, and instinctively will bond closer than others to the child if allowed the time just after birth....a crucial time for infants too...which are ripped away at that moment and ushered into the customers'...er...um...I mean "genetic parent (not both in the case of gays, only one) arms.

4. Also on my ranch, oddly enough, the act of sex seems to bond the sire to the young. I was running a couple of rams for awhile and they always seemed to know which get was theirs. They always seemed to gravitate towards the young of the ewes they bred and nudged away or butted the lambs born to ewes from the other ram. This entire process is shitcanned in favor of ripping these infants away from those hormonal socio-sexual bonds of the parents.

5. I understand that there are orphans and adoptions necessary. But they are always a second choice to natural childbearing for all the reasons I mentioned.

6. Even orphans have a better paper trail than surrogate infants, and more oversight. Just because Charles Manson may have enough money to buy a surrogate child, doesn't mean he should be able to without an oversight process.

Again, fathers do not go through the same physical connection as a pregnant mother. Are you saying biological fathers should not have automatic rights to their children if, for some reason, the mother is unavailable? Should fathers have a guardian ad litem assigned to them in the absence of mothers? Should fathers have to adopt their own children in the absence of mothers?

You continue to compare surrogate children to adoptions despite not only being told why they are different but admitting to why they are different yourself. A surrogate child is the biological child of one or both parents who end up with custody/control of the child. By your reasoning being the biological parent of a child should grant no particular rights or responsibilities. I'm sorry, but that is not the way our laws on the matter work.

Whatever legal uncertainties exist surrounding surrogacy, they have nothing to do with babies being sold. That is already quite illegal and not what makes surrogacy. With all your talk of the bonding that goes on, rather than a guardian ad litem, perhaps what there needs to be is a good screening process of the surrogates to ensure they don't cause problems for the actual parents or try to keep the child which is not theirs.

That you equate 'genetic parent' to 'customer' shows how incredibly twisted your reasoning is.

Charles Manson cannot buy a surrogate child. Surrogate children are not bought and sold. That is illegal. Again.

Well, if a zebra doesn't wouldn't take her child born from another animal's womb, we should disallow any children from being raised by any parents that didn't birth them, shouldn't we?

Surrogacy is NOT BUYING AND SELLING CHILDREN. You can have surrogacy without any exchange of money. Surrogacy is the use of a third party's womb to carry a child. No one is bought! The woman who carries the baby to term is not the mother, it is not her child. The surrogate rents her womb, basically. If you have problems with that, fine, but your arguments about buying babies are, as with so much else you post, nothing but made up drivel.

 

[Silhouette]

1. Again, fathers do not go through the same physical connection as a pregnant mother. Are you saying biological fathers should not have automatic rights to their children if, for some reason, the mother is unavailable? Should fathers have a guardian ad litem assigned to them in the absence of mothers? Should fathers have to adopt their own children in the absence of mothers?

2. You continue to compare surrogate children to adoptions despite not only being told why they are different but admitting to why they are different yourself. A surrogate child is the biological child of one or both parents who end up with custody/control of the child. By your reasoning being the biological parent of a child should grant no particular rights or responsibilities. I'm sorry, but that is not the way our laws on the matter work.

3. Whatever legal uncertainties exist surrounding surrogacy, they have nothing to do with babies being sold....

1. It's true the males seem less connected of all the different species I handle at the farm. But uncannily they do seem able to drive off other male's offspring, so they know somehow. Just because we haven't fully grasped how they remember or cognizate that, doesn't mean the phenomenon doesn't exist. And, they are quite protective towards young they see as their own. The fathers can even be dangerous to work around near their young. They have that level of innate protectiveness. And so do we. Texas dad kills man molesting daughter after hearing her scream - NY Daily News

2. A surrogate child needs parents as protective of them as they can be. Private contracts with distant wombs is not the best way to promote that. See #1 for details. You go on and on and on about "the rights of adults" what if? what if? what if a man doesn't have a wife to bear him children??! Well, for the sake of the children he should go get a wife he loves and cares about so that his children may have the best shot at life. These aren't Dolce & Gabbana accessories. These are living beings with their own rights to the best protective parenting they can have. And if a man is gay, he accepts that his sexual activity will never beget children. We all make choices and have to live with the consequences. What are gay men wanting with children anyway, ultimately? If a mother is a disposable concept to them? What are they teaching those children by example about women in general?

3. That is exactly what we are debating here. You say it has nothing to do with babies being sold. But I say it has to do with renting distant wombs to produce babies...for which money is exchanged...without a guardian ad litem...so....???

 

[Skylar]

1. Again, fathers do not go through the same physical connection as a pregnant mother. Are you saying biological fathers should not have automatic rights to their children if, for some reason, the mother is unavailable? Should fathers have a guardian ad litem assigned to them in the absence of mothers? Should fathers have to adopt their own children in the absence of mothers?

2. You continue to compare surrogate children to adoptions despite not only being told why they are different but admitting to why they are different yourself. A surrogate child is the biological child of one or both parents who end up with custody/control of the child. By your reasoning being the biological parent of a child should grant no particular rights or responsibilities. I'm sorry, but that is not the way our laws on the matter work.

3. Whatever legal uncertainties exist surrounding surrogacy, they have nothing to do with babies being sold....

1. It's true the males seem less connected of all the different species I handle at the farm. But uncannily they do seem able to drive off other male's offspring, so they know somehow. Just because we haven't fully grasped how they remember or cognizate that, doesn't mean the phenomenon doesn't exist. And, they are quite protective towards young they see as their own. The fathers can even be dangerous to work around near their young. They have that level of innate protectiveness. And so do we. Texas dad kills man molesting daughter after hearing her scream - NY Daily News

2. A surrogate child needs parents as protective of them as they can be. Private contracts with distant wombs is not the best way to promote that. See #1 for details. You go on and on and on about "the rights of adults" what if? what if? what if a man doesn't have a wife to bear him children??! Well, for the sake of the children he should go get a wife he loves and cares about so that his children may have the best shot at life. These aren't Dolce & Gabbana accessories. These are living beings with their own rights to the best protective parenting they can have. And if a man is gay, he accepts that his sexual activity will never beget children. We all make choices and have to live with the consequences. What are gay men wanting with children anyway, ultimately? If a mother is a disposable concept to them? What are they teaching those children by example about women in general?

3. That is exactly what we are debating here. You say it has nothing to do with babies being sold. But I say it has to do with renting distant wombs to produce babies...for which money is exchanged...without a guardian ad litem...so....???

What does any of this have to do with your pseudo-legal fantasy that surrogacy is 'child trafficking'?

 

[Montrovant]

1. Again, fathers do not go through the same physical connection as a pregnant mother. Are you saying biological fathers should not have automatic rights to their children if, for some reason, the mother is unavailable? Should fathers have a guardian ad litem assigned to them in the absence of mothers? Should fathers have to adopt their own children in the absence of mothers?

2. You continue to compare surrogate children to adoptions despite not only being told why they are different but admitting to why they are different yourself. A surrogate child is the biological child of one or both parents who end up with custody/control of the child. By your reasoning being the biological parent of a child should grant no particular rights or responsibilities. I'm sorry, but that is not the way our laws on the matter work.

3. Whatever legal uncertainties exist surrounding surrogacy, they have nothing to do with babies being sold....

1. It's true the males seem less connected of all the different species I handle at the farm. But uncannily they do seem able to drive off other male's offspring, so they know somehow. Just because we haven't fully grasped how they remember or cognizate that, doesn't mean the phenomenon doesn't exist. And, they are quite protective towards young they see as their own. The fathers can even be dangerous to work around near their young. They have that level of innate protectiveness. And so do we. Texas dad kills man molesting daughter after hearing her scream - NY Daily News

2. A surrogate child needs parents as protective of them as they can be. Private contracts with distant wombs is not the best way to promote that. See #1 for details. You go on and on and on about "the rights of adults" what if? what if? what if a man doesn't have a wife to bear him children??! Well, for the sake of the children he should go get a wife he loves and cares about so that his children may have the best shot at life. These aren't Dolce & Gabbana accessories. These are living beings with their own rights to the best protective parenting they can have. And if a man is gay, he accepts that his sexual activity will never beget children. We all make choices and have to live with the consequences. What are gay men wanting with children anyway, ultimately? If a mother is a disposable concept to them? What are they teaching those children by example about women in general?

3. That is exactly what we are debating here. You say it has nothing to do with babies being sold. But I say it has to do with renting distant wombs to produce babies...for which money is exchanged...without a guardian ad litem...so....???

Luckily for us all, the laws of this country are not based on what you think is the ideal situation.

1. What animals on a farm do is not directly relevant to what humans do in this discussion. And you seem to be inconsistent here; is the carrying of the developing child necessary, or not? Fathers do not, yet you seem to be defending their ability to be good parents without oversight. If carrying the child to term is not a necessary ingredient, what is the point of your argument?

2. Distant wombs? Who says the surrogate must be distant? And thanks to human ingenuity, a physical barrier to having a child can often be overcome. You would prefer that anyone naturally infertile remain that way, it seems. Of course, what you really mean is you don't want gays to have children. I am confident you don't actually have any problem with infertile heterosexual couples finding alternate ways of having children, so long as the gays don't get to.

3. Renting a womb is entirely different from selling a child.

Let me use phrasing you might employ to make a point : Tell us Sil, why do you want to deny couples the chance to have children?

 

[Skylar]

1. Again, fathers do not go through the same physical connection as a pregnant mother. Are you saying biological fathers should not have automatic rights to their children if, for some reason, the mother is unavailable? Should fathers have a guardian ad litem assigned to them in the absence of mothers? Should fathers have to adopt their own children in the absence of mothers?

2. You continue to compare surrogate children to adoptions despite not only being told why they are different but admitting to why they are different yourself. A surrogate child is the biological child of one or both parents who end up with custody/control of the child. By your reasoning being the biological parent of a child should grant no particular rights or responsibilities. I'm sorry, but that is not the way our laws on the matter work.

3. Whatever legal uncertainties exist surrounding surrogacy, they have nothing to do with babies being sold....

1. It's true the males seem less connected of all the different species I handle at the farm. But uncannily they do seem able to drive off other male's offspring, so they know somehow. Just because we haven't fully grasped how they remember or cognizate that, doesn't mean the phenomenon doesn't exist. And, they are quite protective towards young they see as their own. The fathers can even be dangerous to work around near their young. They have that level of innate protectiveness. And so do we. Texas dad kills man molesting daughter after hearing her scream - NY Daily News

2. A surrogate child needs parents as protective of them as they can be. Private contracts with distant wombs is not the best way to promote that. See #1 for details. You go on and on and on about "the rights of adults" what if? what if? what if a man doesn't have a wife to bear him children??! Well, for the sake of the children he should go get a wife he loves and cares about so that his children may have the best shot at life. These aren't Dolce & Gabbana accessories. These are living beings with their own rights to the best protective parenting they can have. And if a man is gay, he accepts that his sexual activity will never beget children. We all make choices and have to live with the consequences. What are gay men wanting with children anyway, ultimately? If a mother is a disposable concept to them? What are they teaching those children by example about women in general?

3. That is exactly what we are debating here. You say it has nothing to do with babies being sold. But I say it has to do with renting distant wombs to produce babies...for which money is exchanged...without a guardian ad litem...so....???

Luckily for us all, the laws of this country are not based on what you think is the ideal situation.

1. What animals on a farm do is not directly relevant to what humans do in this discussion. And you seem to be inconsistent here; is the carrying of the developing child necessary, or not? Fathers do not, yet you seem to be defending their ability to be good parents without oversight. If carrying the child to term is not a necessary ingredient, what is the point of your argument?

2. Distant wombs? Who says the surrogate must be distant? And thanks to human ingenuity, a physical barrier to having a child can often be overcome. You would prefer that anyone naturally infertile remain that way, it seems. Of course, what you really mean is you don't want gays to have children. I am confident you don't actually have any problem with infertile heterosexual couples finding alternate ways of having children, so long as the gays don't get to.

3. Renting a womb is entirely different from selling a child.

Let me use phrasing you might employ to make a point : Tell us Sil, why do you want to deny couples the chance to have children?

Not 'couples'. 'Gay couples' and 'lesbian couples'.

Read the OP. He spends more time bashing gays and lesbians than talking about his pseudo-legal 'child trafficking' gibberish.

 

[Syriusly]

These "facts" are being debated legally Syriusly.

What facts are being debated legally?

You are simply making crap up, and using the very real tragedy of child trafficking to attack homosexuals.

Again.

 

[Syriusly]

These "facts" are being debated legally Syriusly. They are by no means concrete and accepted across the states. Will you have your buddies in SCOTUS issue an ill-thought mandate on this too so your cult can "get on with" the baby industry?

Not facts- you have explicitly lied in this thread- and I pointed that out- and will continue to point that out

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

 

[Skylar]

These "facts" are being debated legally Syriusly. They are by no means concrete and accepted across the states. Will you have your buddies in SCOTUS issue an ill-thought mandate on this too so your cult can "get on with" the baby industry?

Not facts- you have explicitly lied in this thread- and I pointed that out- and will continue to point that out

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

Sil already knows that. Its been pointed out to him a dozen times. But Sil doesn't want us to know that.

Which speaks volumes.

 

[Silhouette]

Syriusly, grow up or leave this conversation...