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

[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....???

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?

I want a custodial process for ALL children born of a womb that intends to shuttle them off to other parents. Not to mention than when it comes to gays, this is manufacturing a child to be absent a mother or father 100% of the time.

And, comparative pyschologists would disagree with you on your item #1. Would you discard the entire field of comparative pyschology and deny that humans have any hormonal-pysiological-socio-pychological bonds with a child produced between their own loins? And vice versa for the child?

 

[Montrovant]

Feel free to try and change the laws regarding parental rights and responsibilities. I think you will have a hard time getting legislatures to agree that the biological parents of a child need government oversight before they are allowed to take custody of their children. The only process that might have a chance at being put into law, IMO, would be some sort of screening process for the prospective surrogate.

What would psychologists disagree with? That the actions of farm animals do not directly relate to surrogacy, or that fathers do not go through the same physical connection of pregnancy that a mother does? I'm guessing that the majority of psychologists in the world would prefer you not speak for them.

 

[Silhouette]

Feel free to try and change the laws regarding parental rights and responsibilities. I think you will have a hard time getting legislatures to agree that the biological parents of a child need government oversight before they are allowed to take custody of their children. The only process that might have a chance at being put into law, IMO, would be some sort of screening process for the prospective surrogate.

What would psychologists disagree with? That the actions of farm animals do not directly relate to surrogacy, or that fathers do not go through the same physical connection of pregnancy that a mother does? I'm guessing that the majority of psychologists in the world would prefer you not speak for them.

Surrogacy contracts have been voided in several states. So it's not just me concerned about money-for-womb-babies in the States. In Europe some countries are fighting it for exactly the type of loopholes it creates for child-trafficking. I'm not the first person to conjure up the idea that rented wombs are going to lead to exploitation of children.

Why would we encourage children to be born out of wedlock anyway? This movement seems to be gravitating quite rapidly away from "sterile father/mother married couples who were desperate for a child" to "Two dudes denying that women are important to child raising...just wanting kids because...you know..I guess they have their reasons." And single people are copping out of marriage altogether saying "oh, I'll just create this kid and raise it without all the hassels of someone else weighing in on how it's raised by me." The main theme seems to be this is all about the adults wants and not the child's needs. When a society gets that equation backwards like that, danger to children is pretty much guaranteed.

These situations leave open child exploitation. Where will we draw the line? Maybe that's a better question for you Montro, because you seem to be in favor of there not being ANY lines drawn in the transfer of children from the womb to...wherever...for cash...

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly, grow up or leave this conversation...

Silhuoette- stop lying and I will stop pointing out your lies

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

 

[Syriusly]

Feel free to try and change the laws regarding parental rights and responsibilities. I think you will have a hard time getting legislatures to agree that the biological parents of a child need government oversight before they are allowed to take custody of their children. The only process that might have a chance at being put into law, IMO, would be some sort of screening process for the prospective surrogate.

What would psychologists disagree with? That the actions of farm animals do not directly relate to surrogacy, or that fathers do not go through the same physical connection of pregnancy that a mother does? I'm guessing that the majority of psychologists in the world would prefer you not speak for them.

Why would we encourage children to be born out of wedlock anyway? .

We are neither encouraging them- or discouraging children to be born out of wedlock.

Again- surrogacy is unrelated to wedlock.

 

[Montrovant]

Feel free to try and change the laws regarding parental rights and responsibilities. I think you will have a hard time getting legislatures to agree that the biological parents of a child need government oversight before they are allowed to take custody of their children. The only process that might have a chance at being put into law, IMO, would be some sort of screening process for the prospective surrogate.

What would psychologists disagree with? That the actions of farm animals do not directly relate to surrogacy, or that fathers do not go through the same physical connection of pregnancy that a mother does? I'm guessing that the majority of psychologists in the world would prefer you not speak for them.

Surrogacy contracts have been voided in several states. So it's not just me concerned about money-for-womb-babies in the States. In Europe some countries are fighting it for exactly the type of loopholes it creates for child-trafficking. I'm not the first person to conjure up the idea that rented wombs are going to lead to exploitation of children.

Why would we encourage children to be born out of wedlock anyway? This movement seems to be gravitating quite rapidly away from "sterile father/mother married couples who were desperate for a child" to "Two dudes denying that women are important to child raising...just wanting kids because...you know..I guess they have their reasons." And single people are copping out of marriage altogether saying "oh, I'll just create this kid and raise it without all the hassels of someone else weighing in on how it's raised by me." The main theme seems to be this is all about the adults wants and not the child's needs. When a society gets that equation backwards like that, danger to children is pretty much guaranteed.

These situations leave open child exploitation. Where will we draw the line? Maybe that's a better question for you Montro, because you seem to be in favor of there not being ANY lines drawn in the transfer of children from the womb to...wherever...for cash...

Oh, stop making shit up.

Once again, surrogacy is not transferring newborns to whomever has money. The children go to one or both biological parents. Where do I draw the line? When the children do not go to biological parent(s).

And guess what? If gays want to use surrogacy, they no longer have to do so out of wedlock.

People have had children for all kinds of reasons, including bad ones, throughout time. You only seem to care about it if gays want to have children. The straight couples and single parents who have far, far, far more children appear to be of no concern to you.

So please, stop trying to appear to care about anything other than that gays are getting married and having or adopting children. It's clear to anyone reading your posts that is the real problem for you.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, stop making shit up.

Once again, surrogacy is not transferring newborns to whomever has money. The children go to one or both biological parents. Where do I draw the line? When the children do not go to biological parent(s).

And guess what? If gays want to use surrogacy, they no longer have to do so out of wedlock. .

And which man is the mother; a thing which is VITAL to a child? And which man will teach a child in their gay home how "intrinsically important women are in an adult functioning world"? There are damaging psychological issues to children in this situation which you just give a complete pass to. As if a motherless child was a celebrated institution with no lasting damage done.

What I am not making up is that a gay male home is physically-incapable of providing a mother for a child 100% of the time.

Issues for a male child growing up in that home by daily example:

1. Women are unimportant. They are merely wombs to be rented and then cast aside.

2. Sex is between men, not men and women.

Issues for a female child growing up in that home by daily example:

1. Women (you) are unimportant/not vital. Who would find you desireable? (shattered self esteem)

2. Sex is between men and men, not men and women.

3. Zero ability to role model all the dozens of issues intrinsic to a female child's maturation process.

 

[Montrovant]

Oh, stop making shit up.

Once again, surrogacy is not transferring newborns to whomever has money. The children go to one or both biological parents. Where do I draw the line? When the children do not go to biological parent(s).

And guess what? If gays want to use surrogacy, they no longer have to do so out of wedlock. .

And which man is the mother; a thing which is VITAL to a child? And which man will teach a child in their gay home how "intrinsically important women are in an adult functioning world"? There are damaging psychological issues to children in this situation which you just give a complete pass to. As if a motherless child was a celebrated institution with no lasting damage done.

What I am not making up is that a gay male home is physically-incapable of providing a mother for a child 100% of the time.

So is a single father home. The law of this country is not based on what you consider optimal for child rearing.

 

[Silhouette]

So is a single father home. The law of this country is not based on what you consider optimal for child rearing.

I beg your pardon? The laws of this country most certainly do default to what's best for a child. Now I see the essence of the problem. You really do believe in your "heart" of "hearts" that children do not qualify for protection or advancement of their best interests... AT ALL. It couldn't be more obvious in what you just said.

 

[Syriusly]

So is a single father home. The law of this country is not based on what you consider optimal for child rearing.

I beg your pardon? The laws of this country most certainly do default to what's best for a child. Now I see the essence of the problem. You really do believe in your "heart" of "hearts" that children do not qualify for protection or advancement of their best interests... AT ALL. It couldn't be more obvious in what you just said.

As he pointed out-
The law of this country is not based on what you consider optimal for child rearing.

And he is right.

You would have children ripped from the homes of their gay parents based upon your idea of 'what is best for the children'.

You would let children rot in foster care and then dumped on the street - rather than adopted by a gay couples- based upon what your idea of 'what is best for children'.

Luckily- we don't listen to nutjobs like yourself when doing what is best for children.

 

[Montrovant]

So is a single father home. The law of this country is not based on what you consider optimal for child rearing.

I beg your pardon? The laws of this country most certainly do default to what's best for a child. Now I see the essence of the problem. You really do believe in your "heart" of "hearts" that children do not qualify for protection or advancement of their best interests... AT ALL. It couldn't be more obvious in what you just said.

I'll repeat : Stop making shit up.

What I said is that the laws in this country are not based upon what you......YOU......consider optimal for child rearing. Even when the law is based on what is best for children, your, Silhouette's, opinion is not the determining factor.

 

[Montrovant]

So is a single father home. The law of this country is not based on what you consider optimal for child rearing.

I beg your pardon? The laws of this country most certainly do default to what's best for a child. Now I see the essence of the problem. You really do believe in your "heart" of "hearts" that children do not qualify for protection or advancement of their best interests... AT ALL. It couldn't be more obvious in what you just said.

Some laws are based on what is best for children. Some are not. You seem to act under the assumption they all are.

 

[Silhouette]

So is a single father home. The law of this country is not based on what you consider optimal for child rearing.

I beg your pardon? The laws of this country most certainly do default to what's best for a child. Now I see the essence of the problem. You really do believe in your "heart" of "hearts" that children do not qualify for protection or advancement of their best interests... AT ALL. It couldn't be more obvious in what you just said.

I'll repeat : Stop making shit up.

What I said is that the laws in this country are not based upon what you......YOU......consider optimal for child rearing. Even when the law is based on what is best for children, your, Silhouette's, opinion is not the determining factor.

Quoting you isn't making up what you said. What you said is evident upon its face.

I am one of 300 million voices who make up the laws of this country. Shall we take a referendum on how the majority feels about gay men usuing money for surrogacy to rope children into their motherless homes? Would you be in agreement that this country should have a vote on how this situation might be subject to regulation and oversight or not? Would you then be arguing 1. The "civil rights" of gay men to deprive a child of a mother in "marriage" or 1. The civil rights of children to a mother in marriage?

I think I can guess with you it would be #1. Know how? Because I can read what you're writing and can comprehend it.

 

[Syriusly]

So is a single father home. The law of this country is not based on what you consider optimal for child rearing.

I beg your pardon? The laws of this country most certainly do default to what's best for a child. Now I see the essence of the problem. You really do believe in your "heart" of "hearts" that children do not qualify for protection or advancement of their best interests... AT ALL. It couldn't be more obvious in what you just said.

I'll repeat : Stop making shit up.

What I said is that the laws in this country are not based upon what you......YOU......consider optimal for child rearing. Even when the law is based on what is best for children, your, Silhouette's, opinion is not the determining factor.

Because I can read what you're writing and can comprehend it.

There is absolute no evidence to support your claim.

 

[Montrovant]

So is a single father home. The law of this country is not based on what you consider optimal for child rearing.

I beg your pardon? The laws of this country most certainly do default to what's best for a child. Now I see the essence of the problem. You really do believe in your "heart" of "hearts" that children do not qualify for protection or advancement of their best interests... AT ALL. It couldn't be more obvious in what you just said.

I'll repeat : Stop making shit up.

What I said is that the laws in this country are not based upon what you......YOU......consider optimal for child rearing. Even when the law is based on what is best for children, your, Silhouette's, opinion is not the determining factor.

Quoting you isn't making up what you said. What you said is evident upon its face.

I am one of 300 million voices who make up the laws of this country. Shall we take a referendum on how the majority feels about gay men usuing money for surrogacy to rope children into their motherless homes? Would you be in agreement that this country should have a vote on how this situation might be subject to regulation and oversight or not? Would you then be arguing 1. The "civil rights" of gay men to deprive a child of a mother in "marriage" or 1. The civil rights of children to a mother in marriage?

I think I can guess with you it would be #1. Know how? Because I can read what you're writing and can comprehend it.

That's right, what I said is evident. Despite that, you continue to lie about it, despite it being right in front of you.

So having a mother is a civil right....are single fathers then violating the civil rights of their children? Should the government step in and provide a state-mandated 'mother' for every child that does not currently have one? Let's do the same for all children without any parents.

I don't think you have any idea how the majority of people would feel about your silly, loaded questions. Many probably wouldn't want the federal government to have any say in it at all, leaving it to state or local laws. And gay men have the same rights as straight men, so the argument cannot be whether gay men can have children but rather, whether men can have children without women, legally. Clearly women can, so you'll have a hard time arguing that men should be denied the same based on their gender. For that matter, since a lesbian couple are denying the 'civil rights of children' to a father in marriage, I guess you think the law should prevent anyone from having a child out of heterosexual wedlock. That does seem to be the logical conclusion to your arguments, yes?

Yeah, let's take a vote in the country to see if the majority think having children should be legally limited to heterosexual married couples. I think I have an idea about how that would go.

 

[Silhouette]

That's right, what I said is evident. Despite that, you continue to lie about it, despite it being right in front of you.

So having a mother is a civil right....are single fathers then violating the civil rights of their children? Should the government step in and provide a state-mandated 'mother' for every child that does not currently have one? Let's do the same for all children without any parents.
Yeah, let's take a vote in the country to see if the majority think having children should be legally limited to heterosexual married couples. I think I have an idea about how that would go.

Unfortunate situations do not dictate a rule to go by. And certainly not a standard to set as "equal to having both a mother and father". The manipulations of standards can result in direct proximate harm to children. Aren't you concerned about that at all?

 

[Montrovant]

That's right, what I said is evident. Despite that, you continue to lie about it, despite it being right in front of you.

So having a mother is a civil right....are single fathers then violating the civil rights of their children? Should the government step in and provide a state-mandated 'mother' for every child that does not currently have one? Let's do the same for all children without any parents.
Yeah, let's take a vote in the country to see if the majority think having children should be legally limited to heterosexual married couples. I think I have an idea about how that would go.

Unfortunate situations do not dictate a rule to go by. And certainly not a standard to set as "equal to having both a mother and father". The manipulations of standards can result in direct proximate harm to children. Aren't you concerned about that at all?

That's right, what I said is evident. Despite that, you continue to lie about it, despite it being right in front of you.

So having a mother is a civil right....are single fathers then violating the civil rights of their children? Should the government step in and provide a state-mandated 'mother' for every child that does not currently have one? Let's do the same for all children without any parents.
Yeah, let's take a vote in the country to see if the majority think having children should be legally limited to heterosexual married couples. I think I have an idea about how that would go.

Unfortunate situations do not dictate a rule to go by. And certainly not a standard to set as "equal to having both a mother and father". The manipulations of standards can result in direct proximate harm to children. Aren't you concerned about that at all?

No. I am not concerned that changing standards are having a direct harmful effect on children. Despite your bloviating, I have not seen any compelling evidence that that is the case. Your argument is based on the idea that the makeup of the people caring for a child is a hugely important, perhaps the most important, factor in how that child grows. I think the truly important thing is that whoever raises a child cares for that child. Whether that is the mother and father, a single parent, gay parents, grandparents, adoptive parents, is far less important than that those people provide a loving, supportive environment. I think it is more important for a child to have a roof over their heads, good food to eat, and clothing to wear than whether the child has 2 fathers.

You want to start regulating who can or cannot have children. Not who adopts, or fosters children, but who can have their own biological children. Good luck with that.

 

[Syriusly]

And just to remind everyone- Silhouette lies.

She lied in this thread and is hoping that that my response to her lie just dies away- but I think it is worth reminding everyone of how she does lie

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

 

[Silhouette]

No. I am not concerned that changing standards are having a direct harmful effect on children. Despite your bloviating, I have not seen any compelling evidence that that is the case. Your argument is based on the idea that the makeup of the people caring for a child is a hugely important, perhaps the most important, factor in how that child grows. I think the truly important thing is that whoever raises a child cares for that child. Whether that is the mother and father, a single parent, gay parents, grandparents, adoptive parents, is far less important than that those people provide a loving, supportive environment....

What you or I think is less important than what the majority thinks. The majority is the custodian-at-Large in all manners of regulations involving the welfare of children. Is your next plan to put that before your pocket Justices on the Supreme Court to make just 5 people in DC the rulers of all things child-welfare?

You my friend are in a completely tiny minority, itty bitty teeny weeny tiny minority. I would put the number of people who believe that a mother and father are the most healthy parenting situation running about 90% or more. And if you doubt me, let's put it to a referendum, shall we? Or no? And if not, why not?

 

[Montrovant]

No. I am not concerned that changing standards are having a direct harmful effect on children. Despite your bloviating, I have not seen any compelling evidence that that is the case. Your argument is based on the idea that the makeup of the people caring for a child is a hugely important, perhaps the most important, factor in how that child grows. I think the truly important thing is that whoever raises a child cares for that child. Whether that is the mother and father, a single parent, gay parents, grandparents, adoptive parents, is far less important than that those people provide a loving, supportive environment....

What you or I think is less important than what the majority thinks. The majority is the custodian-at-Large in all manners of regulations involving the welfare of children. Is your next plan to put that before your pocket Justices on the Supreme Court to make just 5 people in DC the rulers of all things child-welfare?

You my friend are in a completely tiny minority, itty bitty teeny weeny tiny minority. I would put the number of people who believe that a mother and father are the most healthy parenting situation running about 90% or more. And if you doubt me, let's put it to a referendum, shall we? Or no? And if not, why not?

Whether a mother and father is the healthiest situation is not the point. We don't limit parenting to the 'best' situation. Anyone is physically capable of becoming a parent can do so. Nowadays, thanks to advancements in technology, people who would otherwise not be physically capable of becoming a parent can. The vast majority of people in this country seem just fine with pretty much anyone becoming a parent, legally speaking. You think I'm in a tiny majority there?

I never said that having the biological parents raise a child isn't the ideal situation. You are, once again, making shit up. In case you missed it the many times you have been told before, what you consider the ideal is not the basis for law in this country. In the case of parentage, what is considered the ideal by the majority is still not the basis for law. I would guess that the majority of people would say that having drunks as parents is not the ideal, yet there are no restrictions on drunks having children. The same is true of convicted criminals, members of various religions, people of any given political beliefs, etc. etc.

So again, if you think the vast majority of adults in this country agree with your stance, go try and have the laws changed. Good luck with that.