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

[Silhouette]

Two men renting wombs..teaching the children in the home by wrote that females are "non-essentials"...both boys and girls learn this lesson into their bone marrow..
...and all without a custodial paper trail...and for money...to the detriment of children...
...and HOW is this intrinsically different from trafficking? If two gay men can do this with a womb, why not a single one? If he makes enough money?
etc....etc....etc...

How is it different from trafficking? You are a fool. Trafficking involves the selling or exploitation of children, forcing them to work for the adults involved. Surrogacy is using someone else's womb to carry your child. Are the children of surrogacy somehow being forced into sweat shops unbeknownst to those around them? Does surrogacy somehow provide a form of camouflage that doesn't exist in the average pregnancy? Are the children of surrogacy being sold to anyone?..

Trafficking involves the selling of children. It doesn't have to mean forcing them to work. It can mean other things...
Surrogacy is a woman selling the use of her womb to people who physically could never produce children, in the case of gay men. Not ever. You could have two completely fertile men, their sperm count count could be tops. But they could never ever produce a child together, nor can they ever ever provide a child in their home with a mother. A child going into that situation needs a guardian ad litem. Period. Especially if there's money involved. Otherwise that situation is tiptoeing dangerously on the edge of trafficking.

And yes, gay men do up to 40% of all molestations of children..being at only 2% of the overall population. So we have a propensity in that demographic. If they are selecting or preferring only boys from surrogacies..then that's another huge red flag. Guardian ad litem or no deal. I don't make up the facts, the surveys exist and the raw data supports these disturbing trends.

We aren't talking about "child work" in the conventional sense of sweat and toil. We are talking about the use of children for something else.

http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

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

same link...

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

 

[Montrovant]

Two men renting wombs..teaching the children in the home by wrote that females are "non-essentials"...both boys and girls learn this lesson into their bone marrow..
...and all without a custodial paper trail...and for money...to the detriment of children...
...and HOW is this intrinsically different from trafficking? If two gay men can do this with a womb, why not a single one? If he makes enough money?
etc....etc....etc...

How is it different from trafficking? You are a fool. Trafficking involves the selling or exploitation of children, forcing them to work for the adults involved. Surrogacy is using someone else's womb to carry your child. Are the children of surrogacy somehow being forced into sweat shops unbeknownst to those around them? Does surrogacy somehow provide a form of camouflage that doesn't exist in the average pregnancy? Are the children of surrogacy being sold to anyone?..

Trafficking involves the selling of children. It doesn't have to mean forcing them to work. It can mean other things...
Surrogacy is a woman selling the use of her womb to people who physically could never produce children, in the case of gay men. Not ever. You could have two completely fertile men, their sperm count count could be tops. But they could never ever produce a child together, nor can they ever ever provide a child in their home with a mother. A child going into that situation needs a guardian ad litem. Period. Especially if there's money involved. Otherwise that situation is tiptoeing dangerously on the edge of trafficking.

And yes, gay men do up to 40% of all molestations of children..being at only 2% of the overall population. So we have a propensity in that demographic. If they are selecting or preferring only boys from surrogacies..then that's another huge red flag. Guardian ad litem or no deal. I don't make up the facts, the surveys exist and the raw data supports these disturbing trends.

We aren't talking about "child work" in the conventional sense of sweat and toil. We are talking about the use of children for something else.

http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

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

same link...

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

In other words, you have no actual answer as to how surrogacy is trafficking. You will keep saying it as though it is true, of course.

And haven't you been shown that the article by Hall and Hall specifically states that their finding are not meant to imply that homosexuals are more often pedophiles? It's right there at the link, page 459, bottom left side of the page. But you'll ignore that and cut the quote off before it gets to that part again.

You do actually make up facts. You make them up all the time. It's what you are best at.

 

[Skylar]

Two men renting wombs..teaching the children in the home by wrote that females are "non-essentials"...both boys and girls learn this lesson into their bone marrow..
...and all without a custodial paper trail...and for money...to the detriment of children...
...and HOW is this intrinsically different from trafficking? If two gay men can do this with a womb, why not a single one? If he makes enough money?
etc....etc....etc...

How is it different from trafficking? You are a fool. Trafficking involves the selling or exploitation of children, forcing them to work for the adults involved. Surrogacy is using someone else's womb to carry your child. Are the children of surrogacy somehow being forced into sweat shops unbeknownst to those around them? Does surrogacy somehow provide a form of camouflage that doesn't exist in the average pregnancy? Are the children of surrogacy being sold to anyone?..

Trafficking involves the selling of children. It doesn't have to mean forcing them to work. It can mean other things...
Surrogacy is a woman selling the use of her womb to people who physically could never produce children, in the case of gay men. Not ever. You could have two completely fertile men, their sperm count count could be tops. But they could never ever produce a child together, nor can they ever ever provide a child in their home with a mother. A child going into that situation needs a guardian ad litem. Period. Especially if there's money involved. Otherwise that situation is tiptoeing dangerously on the edge of trafficking.

And yes, gay men do up to 40% of all molestations of children..being at only 2% of the overall population. So we have a propensity in that demographic. If they are selecting or preferring only boys from surrogacies..then that's another huge red flag. Guardian ad litem or no deal. I don't make up the facts, the surveys exist and the raw data supports these disturbing trends.

We aren't talking about "child work" in the conventional sense of sweat and toil. We are talking about the use of children for something else.

http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

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

same link...

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

In other words, you have no actual answer as to how surrogacy is trafficking. You will keep saying it as though it is true, of course.

And haven't you been shown that the article by Hall and Hall specifically states that their finding are not meant to imply that homosexuals are more often pedophiles? It's right there at the link, page 459, bottom left side of the page. But you'll ignore that and cut the quote off before it gets to that part again.

You do actually make up facts. You make them up all the time. It's what you are best at.

And that's Sil in a nutshell. Its the first rule in dealing with him: recognizing that Sil genuinely has no idea what he's talking about and will gladly make shit up or shamelessly misrepresent his sources.

 

[Silhouette]

In other words, you have no actual answer as to how surrogacy is trafficking. You will keep saying it as though it is true, of course.

And haven't you been shown that the article by Hall and Hall specifically states that their finding are not meant to imply that homosexuals are more often pedophiles? It's right there at the link, page 459, bottom left side of the page. But you'll ignore that and cut the quote off before it gets to that part again....You do actually make up facts. You make them up all the time. It's what you are best at.

1. More importantly, YOU have no actual answer to how surrogacy ISN'T trafficking. Remember, there is a quesiton mark in the title of this thread. The onus is equally upon you.

2. I didn't make up the quotes from the Mayo Clinic or the CDC via the Clinical Psychology periodical. They exist separate from anything I did.

3. Speaking of making things up all the time, why when your ilk keeps insisting how popular the LGBT movement is, did you have to take the power away from the majority to decide whether or not you could deal the final death blow to the nuclear family by institutionalizing and rewarding with tax breaks fatherless/motherless "marriage"? That's where the facts don't line up with what's being chanted like a mantra....and in your case the mantra has always been "fake it till you make it"..

 

[Skylar]

In other words, you have no actual answer as to how surrogacy is trafficking. You will keep saying it as though it is true, of course.

And haven't you been shown that the article by Hall and Hall specifically states that their finding are not meant to imply that homosexuals are more often pedophiles? It's right there at the link, page 459, bottom left side of the page. But you'll ignore that and cut the quote off before it gets to that part again....You do actually make up facts. You make them up all the time. It's what you are best at.

1. More importantly, YOU have no actual answer to how surrogacy ISN'T trafficking. Remember, there is a quesiton mark in the title of this thread. The onus is equally upon you.

He doesn't need an answer. Its you who made the claim. You need to factually establish it. And you can't. You don't know what child trafficking is. You can't factually establish your claim that surrogacy is child trafficking.

As usual....you just make shit up while having no idea what you're talking about.

2. I didn't make up the quotes from the Mayo Clinic or the CDC via the Clinical Psychology periodical. They exist separate from anything I did.

You intentionally misrepresented your source. As the very article you are citing explicitly contradicts your 'homosexuals are pedophiles' narrative. Saying that the very passage you are citing doesn't even *imply* that homsexuals are more likely to be pedophiles. You know you're lying.

And now so do we.

3. Speaking of making things up all the time, why when your ilk keeps insisting how popular the LGBT movement is, did you have to take the power away from the majority to decide whether or not you could deal the final death blow to the nuclear family by institutionalizing and rewarding with tax breaks fatherless/motherless "marriage"? That's where the facts don't line up with what's being chanted like a mantra....and in your case the mantra has always been "fake it till you make it"..

There is no 'final death blow to the nuclear family', my little drama queen. If your marriage depends on your ability to deny marriage for someone else.....your marriage was already fucked and you're just looking for a scape goat.

And the Supreme Court affirmed that gays and lesbians have the right to marry. If you have a Supreme Court ruling that affirms that surrogacy is child trafficking, feel free to present it.

But you don't. Its just you....citing you. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

He doesn't need an answer. Its you who made the claim. You need to factually establish it. And you can't. You don't know what child trafficking is. You can't factually establish your claim that surrogacy is child trafficking.

Butt out of the conversation if you don't like it you little whiny prick.

Did you notice that the thread title is posed as a QUESTION?????? That this thread is dedicated to DEBATING THE QUESTION. It isn't stated as if it is already fact either way. Are your debating skills so poor and your devotion to religious thinking so calcified that you MUST have all controversial topics settled before you debate them?

Are you insane? Did you forget your medication?

Montrovant can post his points. I post mine. At the end of this we will DISCOVER VIA DEBATE whether or not surrogacy is the same or similar to child trafficking or not. Allow the conversation to continue without demanding that it end, asshole.

 

[Skylar]

He doesn't need an answer. Its you who made the claim. You need to factually establish it. And you can't. You don't know what child trafficking is. You can't factually establish your claim that surrogacy is child trafficking.

Butt out of the conversation if you don't like it you little whiny prick.

Laughing....make me.

You don't know what you're talking about, Sil. You have no idea what child trafficking is. You don't understand the law. And you're offering an endless litany of ignorant, pseudo-legal gibberish backed by nothing as your entire basis of argument.

I might as well be listening to a carpenter on how do do open open heart surgery.

You can't factually establish your claim. Its not our responsibility to 'disprove' any nonsense you make up.

Did you notice that the thread title is posed as a QUESTION?????? That this thread is dedicated to DEBATING THE QUESTION.

Did you notice you got your answer: no, it isn't. Did you notice that the only one arguing that surrogacy is child trafficking is you, citing you? Did you notice that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

Its been pretty obvious to everyone else.

 

[Silhouette]

I understand that the topic bothers you and you want a FINAL ANSWER IN YOUR FAVOR RIGHT NOW...so it will go away...but the debate continues. Sorry Skylar

 

[Skylar]

I understand that the topic bothers you and you want a FINAL ANSWER IN YOUR FAVOR RIGHT NOW...so it will go away...but the debate continues. Sorry Skylar

You understand nothing. Not even the terms you're trying to debate. You don't know what child trafficking is. Nor can you factually establish any of your pseudo-legal gibberish equating surrogacy to child trafficking.

As for surrogacy, its already legal. There is no legal controversy. You've imagined it.

 

[Montrovant]

In other words, you have no actual answer as to how surrogacy is trafficking. You will keep saying it as though it is true, of course.

And haven't you been shown that the article by Hall and Hall specifically states that their finding are not meant to imply that homosexuals are more often pedophiles? It's right there at the link, page 459, bottom left side of the page. But you'll ignore that and cut the quote off before it gets to that part again....You do actually make up facts. You make them up all the time. It's what you are best at.

1. More importantly, YOU have no actual answer to how surrogacy ISN'T trafficking. Remember, there is a quesiton mark in the title of this thread. The onus is equally upon you.

2. I didn't make up the quotes from the Mayo Clinic or the CDC via the Clinical Psychology periodical. They exist separate from anything I did.

3. Speaking of making things up all the time, why when your ilk keeps insisting how popular the LGBT movement is, did you have to take the power away from the majority to decide whether or not you could deal the final death blow to the nuclear family by institutionalizing and rewarding with tax breaks fatherless/motherless "marriage"? That's where the facts don't line up with what's being chanted like a mantra....and in your case the mantra has always been "fake it till you make it"..

1. I have answered how surrogacy isn't trafficking. The definitions of the words are not nearly the same thing. Surrogacy is using someone else's womb to carry a child. Is that what child trafficking is? No. Besides which, if you want to claim that surrogacy is child trafficking, it's up to you to show that it is, not me to show you are wrong. There is a question mark in the thread title? That's nice for you. The question has been answered, multiple times. If you don't like that answer, it's up to you to prove your assertion, not me or anyone else to continue telling you you are wrong.

2. You didn't make up the quotes, you just left out the quotes which hurt your point. You misrepresented the article's findings from Hall and Hall.

3. I can't speak for those you consider 'my ilk'. I didn't take power away from anyone. Nor do the people you consider 'my ilk' decide what cases the Supreme Court will hear, or what the rulings on those cases will be. If you don't like the USSC's decisions, fine. That doesn't make their rulings the fault of whoever you've decided are the bad people. Is the nuclear family gone? Really? Another assertion without evidence by you. As is you claim about my supposed mantra.

So we've got you making claims without proving them, then insisting someone prove them to be untrue. We've got you misrepresenting research to try and bolster your anti-gay rhetoric despite the very article you use saying the opposite of what you claim. You claim that family structure has been destroyed without, once again, showing it to be true in any way. Then you have the gall to complain about facts not lining up?

 

[Silhouette]

In other words, you have no actual answer as to how surrogacy is trafficking. You will keep saying it as though it is true, of course.

And haven't you been shown that the article by Hall and Hall specifically states that their finding are not meant to imply that homosexuals are more often pedophiles? It's right there at the link, page 459, bottom left side of the page. But you'll ignore that and cut the quote off before it gets to that part again....You do actually make up facts. You make them up all the time. It's what you are best at.

1. More importantly, YOU have no actual answer to how surrogacy ISN'T trafficking. Remember, there is a quesiton mark in the title of this thread. The onus is equally upon you.

2. I didn't make up the quotes from the Mayo Clinic or the CDC via the Clinical Psychology periodical. They exist separate from anything I did.

3. Speaking of making things up all the time, why when your ilk keeps insisting how popular the LGBT movement is, did you have to take the power away from the majority to decide whether or not you could deal the final death blow to the nuclear family by institutionalizing and rewarding with tax breaks fatherless/motherless "marriage"? That's where the facts don't line up with what's being chanted like a mantra....and in your case the mantra has always been "fake it till you make it"..

1. I have answered how surrogacy isn't trafficking. The definitions of the words are not nearly the same thing. Surrogacy is using someone else's womb to carry a child. Is that what child trafficking is? No....

Well at least I'd like to thank you about being a bit more cordial than Skylar in your debating techniques. You save your ad hominems for last and at least take the subject seriously enough to debate the points earlier in your posts.

I don't think anybody has answerd "how surrocacy isn't trafficking". I still want to know why we want children born out of wedlock, to begin with. Since every single child born that goes to a gay home is born out of wedlock...unless a married couple simply surrendered their natural child together to a gay home. In that case there would be an adoption agent overseeing the process. I worry about these wedlock children and money changing hands. You still haven't convinced me how sans a guardian ad litem, this wouldn't be a form of child trafficking...or at least an "industry" (so coined by the New York Times from the OP) that could be predicted to harm children.

What you cannot deny then is that 1. This is a "wedlock child for money" industry. and 2. Children fare better with their natural parents.

So the question remains; "Is this industry what's best for children?" You know, money for wedlock-manufactured kids? A more important question for you would be, "do you even care how this industry might negatively affect children?"

Again, I really do want to thank you for keeping to the topic. It's a very important cutting-edge debate worthy of taking seriously.

 

[Skylar]

Well at least I'd like to thank you about being a bit more cordial than Skylar in your debating techniques. You save your ad hominems for last and at least take the subject seriously enough to debate the points earlier in your posts.

We're saying the same thing: you lie. You edit your sources to portray them as saying things other than what they did. You make shit up. You can't back your claims with evidence. You don't know what you're talking about. And you do all of this to forward your obsession with attacking gay people.

I think 'pseudo-legal gibberish' sums it up nicely. As your 'legal' analysis predicts nothing nor has the slighest relevance to the law or the outcome of any case. Its just you making shit up on a topic you know nothing about.

Surrogacy isn't 'trafficking'. Nor can you factually establish it as such.

 

[Montrovant]

In other words, you have no actual answer as to how surrogacy is trafficking. You will keep saying it as though it is true, of course.

And haven't you been shown that the article by Hall and Hall specifically states that their finding are not meant to imply that homosexuals are more often pedophiles? It's right there at the link, page 459, bottom left side of the page. But you'll ignore that and cut the quote off before it gets to that part again....You do actually make up facts. You make them up all the time. It's what you are best at.

1. More importantly, YOU have no actual answer to how surrogacy ISN'T trafficking. Remember, there is a quesiton mark in the title of this thread. The onus is equally upon you.

2. I didn't make up the quotes from the Mayo Clinic or the CDC via the Clinical Psychology periodical. They exist separate from anything I did.

3. Speaking of making things up all the time, why when your ilk keeps insisting how popular the LGBT movement is, did you have to take the power away from the majority to decide whether or not you could deal the final death blow to the nuclear family by institutionalizing and rewarding with tax breaks fatherless/motherless "marriage"? That's where the facts don't line up with what's being chanted like a mantra....and in your case the mantra has always been "fake it till you make it"..

1. I have answered how surrogacy isn't trafficking. The definitions of the words are not nearly the same thing. Surrogacy is using someone else's womb to carry a child. Is that what child trafficking is? No....

Well at least I'd like to thank you about being a bit more cordial than Skylar in your debating techniques. You save your ad hominems for last and at least take the subject seriously enough to debate the points earlier in your posts.

I don't think anybody has answerd "how surrocacy isn't trafficking". I still want to know why we want children born out of wedlock, to begin with. Since every single child born that goes to a gay home is born out of wedlock...unless a married couple simply surrendered their natural child together to a gay home. In that case there would be an adoption agent overseeing the process. I worry about these wedlock children and money changing hands. You still haven't convinced me how sans a guardian ad litem, this wouldn't be a form of child trafficking...or at least an "industry" (so coined by the New York Times from the OP) that could be predicted to harm children.

What you cannot deny then is that 1. This is a "wedlock child for money" industry. and 2. Children fare better with their natural parents.

So the question remains; "Is this industry what's best for children?" You know, money for wedlock-manufactured kids? A more important question for you would be, "do you even care how this industry might negatively affect children?"

Again, I really do want to thank you for keeping to the topic. It's a very important cutting-edge debate worthy of taking seriously.

You have been answered how surrogacy isn't trafficking repeatedly. The words have been defined, those definitions being clearly different. Is it possible for someone to engage in child trafficking with children born of surrogacy? Of course. That doesn't make surrogacy itself in any way trafficking.

Every child born to a gay home is not born out of wedlock. Did you miss that gays can marry in this country? You might argue that every child born to surrogacy is born out of wedlock, but that has nothing to do with gays.

I could deny surrogacy is a 'wedlock child for money industry' if I knew what that is supposed to mean. I can also deny that children fare better with their natural parents when surrogacy involves one or both natural parents. How can natural parents be better when natural parents are involved?

What is a 'wedlock-manufactured kid'?

Do I care how surrogacy might negatively effect children? No more than caring how any parents may effect their children. You continue to portray surrogacy as something it is not. It is not adoption. It is not children being sold. It is not children being given to people who are not parents. Surrogacy involves either one or both biological parents. Your call for getting the courts involved in whether or not a parent or parents should be allowed to raise their own children is blatant statism. You are saying the government should get involved in deciding if parents are fit for their children without any prior cause, only because of the method they use to have those children. While you do this because of your hatred and/or fear of gays and gay parents, any such law would effect straights as well and would also potentially set a terrible legal precedent.

 

[Skylar]

What is a 'wedlock-manufactured kid'?

The aforementioned pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Silhouette]

You have been answered how surrogacy isn't trafficking repeatedly. The words have been defined, those definitions being clearly different. Is it possible for someone to engage in child trafficking with children born of surrogacy? Of course. That doesn't make surrogacy itself in any way trafficking....Every child born to a gay home is not born out of wedlock. Did you miss that gays can marry in this country? You might argue that every child born to surrogacy is born out of wedlock, but that has nothing to do with gays....I could deny surrogacy is a 'wedlock child for money industry' if I knew what that is supposed to mean. I can also deny that children fare better with their natural parents when surrogacy involves one or both natural parents. How can natural parents be better when natural parents are involved? .

Only that their purchase of said child and the fact that their "marraige" is now a sanctioned institution means de facto that we are manufacturing children out of wedlock because marriage no longer satisfies mother & father requirements who are in fact always the natural parents of children and who are the only ones who can produce them together in marriage.

What we have on its face here is child be denuded of their natural birthright to both a father and mother (something you likely enjoyed growing up) and...for money...placing them into an environment devoid of one person who is essential to their balanced adjustment in their formative years.

So then, child trafficking boiled to its essence is nothing more or less than placing a child in a situation predicted to be detrimental to them...for money.. So you can see how I'm having difficulting sifting out the "key and crucial difference" between surrogacy/wedlock kids for money for gay "marrieds" and child trafficking. You see my confusion, right?

 

[Montrovant]

You have been answered how surrogacy isn't trafficking repeatedly. The words have been defined, those definitions being clearly different. Is it possible for someone to engage in child trafficking with children born of surrogacy? Of course. That doesn't make surrogacy itself in any way trafficking....Every child born to a gay home is not born out of wedlock. Did you miss that gays can marry in this country? You might argue that every child born to surrogacy is born out of wedlock, but that has nothing to do with gays....I could deny surrogacy is a 'wedlock child for money industry' if I knew what that is supposed to mean. I can also deny that children fare better with their natural parents when surrogacy involves one or both natural parents. How can natural parents be better when natural parents are involved? .

Only that their purchase of said child and the fact that their "marraige" is now a sanctioned institution means de facto that we are manufacturing children out of wedlock because marriage no longer satisfies mother & father requirements who are in fact always the natural parents of children and who are the only ones who can produce them together in marriage.

What we have on its face here is child be denuded of their natural birthright to both a father and mother (something you likely enjoyed growing up) and...for money...placing them into an environment devoid of one person who is essential to their balanced adjustment in their formative years.

So then, child trafficking boiled to its essence is nothing more or less than placing a child in a situation predicted to be detrimental to them...for money.. So you can see how I'm having difficulting sifting out the "key and crucial difference" between surrogacy/wedlock kids for money for gay "marrieds" and child trafficking. You see my confusion, right?

I can see how you are continuing to ignore everything that doesn't fit into your anti-gay rhetoric.

No matter how impressive your mental gymnastics, surrogacy is not child trafficking. It is not the selling of children. You can say that it is over and over, but it simply is not.

The children are placed with one or both of their biological parents. If that happens to be a gay parent, it doesn't change the fact that the child is going to a parent. Do parents have to buy their own children? That is the argument you are making.

Not once have you shown the slightest shred of evidence that any surrogate children are being sold. Despite that, you continue to speak as though they are. If children are being sold, it is not surrogacy.

You are not confused. You are willfully ignoring what surrogacy is, as well as ignoring the fact that heterosexual parents also use it, to try and make gays seem bad. That's what you always do. You make things up, spout nonsense as though it's established fact, and then craft your arguments around that. It is what you are doing in this thread, what you have done in nearly every other thread I've read of yours.

 

[Silhouette]

....No matter how impressive your mental gymnastics, surrogacy is not child trafficking. It is not the selling of children. You can say that it is over and over, but it simply is not....The children are placed with one or both of their biological parents. If that happens to be a gay parent, it doesn't change the fact that the child is going to a parent. Do parents have to buy their own children?

In the case of the child being placed with its "gay" parent, it is ALWAYS just one of its biological parents. So this is a 1/2 child-trafficking arrangement at worst, or at best, encouraged children of wedlock. Gay men cannot reproduce so they do not fit the description of "not wedlock" since wedlock refers to a birth of a child....which can NEVER happen between two gay people.

So it is in fact an ecouragement of a child's parent transferring their interest and concerns for that child for money to a singular parent who just happens to have a live in boyfriend. The child's ability to have a mother is "sold away" to two gay men. To the child's detriment. For cash. And how is this not a form of child trafficking?

By the way, thank you for calling my debating skills "impressive". Almost nobody ever compliments me, so when they do, it stands out. Thanks.

 

[Montrovant]

....No matter how impressive your mental gymnastics, surrogacy is not child trafficking. It is not the selling of children. You can say that it is over and over, but it simply is not....The children are placed with one or both of their biological parents. If that happens to be a gay parent, it doesn't change the fact that the child is going to a parent. Do parents have to buy their own children?

In the case of the child being placed with its "gay" parent, it is ALWAYS just one of its biological parents. So this is a 1/2 child-trafficking arrangement at worst, or at best, encouraged children of wedlock. Gay men cannot reproduce so they do not fit the description of "not wedlock" since wedlock refers to a birth of a child....which can NEVER happen between two gay people.

So it is in fact an ecouragement of a child's parent transferring their interest and concerns for that child for money to a singular parent who just happens to have a live in boyfriend. The child's ability to have a mother is "sold away" to two gay men. To the child's detriment. For cash. And how is this not a form of child trafficking?

By the way, thank you for calling my debating skills "impressive". Almost nobody ever compliments me, so when they do, it stands out. Thanks.

I don't know why I bother, but......no one is being sold. The surrogate is not the mother. It is not 'a 1/2 child-trafficking arrangement' if the child is going to a parent. That isn't the case if a single parent uses surrogacy, it isn't the case if a gay couple uses surrogacy. Wedlock does not refer to the birth of a child. Wedlock refers to being married. Two distinct and separate things. That having homosexual parents is 'to the child's detriment' is not the set-in-stone truth you make it out to be.

So it has nothing to do with a child's parent transferring their interest and concerns for that child for money, unless perhaps the egg or sperm used to fertilize was somehow bought. Even then, clearly not child trafficking. The child goes to a parent!

You continue to have no idea what surrogacy and child trafficking are.

Saying I complimented your debating skills would be an example of mental gymnastics.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't know why I bother, but......no one is being sold. The surrogate is not the mother. It is not 'a 1/2 child-trafficking arrangement' if the child is going to a parent. 1. That isn't the case if a single parent uses surrogacy, it isn't the case if a gay couple uses surrogacy. 2. Wedlock does not refer to the birth of a child. Wedlock refers to being married. Two distinct and separate things....

It IS the case if a it is a gay couple. Because there is always one parent "selling out" their interest in the child, creating one out of wedlock. Wedlock is in fact a term used almost exclusively to refer to the illegitimate birth of a child. If money is changing hands, and the child's destiny is to a gay couple, we have a 1/2-selling of a child against its best interests (a mother and father), out of wedlock, for money.

This smells like trafficking to me since trafficking is the sale of a child to a situation that is against its best interests..

 

[Montrovant]

I don't know why I bother, but......no one is being sold. The surrogate is not the mother. It is not 'a 1/2 child-trafficking arrangement' if the child is going to a parent. 1. That isn't the case if a single parent uses surrogacy, it isn't the case if a gay couple uses surrogacy. 2. Wedlock does not refer to the birth of a child. Wedlock refers to being married. Two distinct and separate things....

It IS the case if a it is a gay couple. Because there is always one parent "selling out" their interest in the child, creating one out of wedlock. Wedlock is in fact a term used almost exclusively to refer to the illegitimate birth of a child. If money is changing hands, and the child's destiny is to a gay couple, we have a 1/2-selling of a child against its best interests (a mother and father), out of wedlock, for money.

This smells like trafficking to me since trafficking is the sale of a child to a situation that is against its best interests..

The child isn't being sold you nitwit! No one is allowed to own another person in this country, not for quite a few years now. That means no one can be legally sold, either. If surrogacy involved selling children, it would be illegal, yet it is perfectly legal in at least some of the US, yes? Besides which, as you've been told over, and over, and over, the child is going to a biological parent or parents. That isn't a child being sold, unless you think parents need to buy their own children.

You might say that sperm and egg donors sell out their interest in their children. That doesn't mean the children themselves are sold or that it is child trafficking. You are, as per usual, making up a bunch of silly bullshit to try and justify your anti-gay stance.

Also, I'm curious how marriage has anything to do with whether or not this is child trafficking. If a married couple uses surrogacy, are they trafficking in children? If a single person uses surrogacy, are they trafficking in children? Or is it only gays who do so, because....well....because you say so?

Yes, the word wedlock is probably most commonly used in the phrase out of wedlock. That doesn't mean the definition of the word involves children. The word isn't exclusive to that phrase.

I wonder, do you consider the use of a midwife by an unmarried mother to be child trafficking? After all, money changes hands and the child's destiny is an unwedded parent. 1/2-selling of a child against its best interests?