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

[Skylar]

ow you are continuing to ignore everything that doesn't fit into your anti-gay rhetoric.

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.

And that's exactly it. Sil's isn't an argument of misunderstanding or misintepreting. But naked misrepresentation.

Surrogacy is no more 'buying a child' than paying your OBGYN for services rendered at the hospital while giving birth is 'buying a child'. The money involved in surrogacy is paying for a service in helping the child be born.

I'm telling you Mont......'pseudo-legal gibberish' covers it. Sil's claims have no relation to our law, no reflection in reality, predict nothing, describe nothing.

 

[Syriusly]

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...

What is really sad is that you don't seem to know.

What is really sad is that you seem oblivious to the very real tragedy of child sex trafficking.

What is really sick and sad is that you are willing to equate a couple trying to have a child- with international syndicates shipping 10 year olds from Asia to the West so men can rape them.

Just to attack homosexuals.

How sick.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

2. I didn't make up the quotes from the Mayo Clinic.

You lied about the quotes from Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall.

You lie by calling it quotes from the Mayo Clinic, even though the Mayo Clinic had nothing to do with the study.

And you lie by claiming the study supports your homophobic claims while in fact- Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall specifically state that their study does not indicate that homosexual men are more likely to molest.

You just lie- and here you go again.

 

[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..

The child isn't being sold you nitwit!

1. Is money changing hands in the transaction? Yes. Check.

2. Is a parent selling out their rights to a child? Yes. Check.

3. Is the child being placed in that transaction in an environment predicted to be detrimental to them? Yes. Check. Lack of either a mother or father according to the Prince's Trust survey means a direct correlation to later suicide attempts by the young adults raised in those homes. And yes, the study cites directly " boys without a father and girls without a mother". They aren't JUST talking about single parent homes. Read the actual study and quotes from it: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So since money changed hands, a parent sold out their rights to a child and that transaction placed the child at predictable increased risk for suicide/other psychological peril, how is it intrinsically different from child trafficking; which is the sale of a child for money to a situation that puts them at risk or harm?

 

[Syriusly]

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!

1. Is money changing hands in the transaction? Yes. Check.

2. Is a parent selling out their rights to a child? Yes. Check.

No child is being sold.

What is sad- and truly sick is that you equate a childless couple using science to have a child- with the international trade in children for sex.

Just shows you will truly say anything to attack homosexuals.

 

[Skylar]

1. Is money changing hands in the transaction? Yes. Check.

For services related to the child's birth. Your argument makes no more sense than insisting that paying an OBGYN for delivering a baby is 'child trafficking'. Its not the child that's being sold. Its the services that are.

The child belongs to its parents. Who is exactly where the child is sent.

2. Is a parent selling out their rights to a child? Yes. Check.

The parents are the one's getting the baby. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know what child trafficking is. You're making up your own definition based on whatever pseudo-legal gibbiersh you wish. And it has no relevance to our law, reality, or the the outside world.

3. Is the child being placed in that transaction in an environment predicted to be detrimental to them? Yes.

Predicted by who? You citing yourself. Which is meaningless. Nor is 'predicted to be detrimental' even a legal standard of child trafficking,. You're making this shit up as you go along, pulled sideways out of your ass.

Check. Lack of either a mother or father according to the Prince's Trust survey means a direct correlation to later suicide attempts by the young adults raised in those homes. And yes, the study cites directly " boys without a father and girls without a mother". They aren't JUST talking about single parent homes. Read the actual study and quotes from it: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

More Horseshit. The Prince Trust study never even mentions gays, same sex marriage, surrogacy, same sex parenting, anything you're alleging. Let alone predicting any outcome of same sex parenting. You hallucinated all of it. In fact, every single specific example in the Prince Trust study of a child without a good same sex role model....

....was part of a single parent household.

If you were using your study as your basis, then you'd be railing against single parenthood, or single women having a child through a surrogate. As single parents are actually mentioned in the Prince Trust study. Yet they barely rate a mention, despite meeting EVERY of your alleged critiera of 'child trafficking'. But they don't let you attack gay people. So they're barely worth a mention.

Please don't bother insulting us or yourself by pretending you give a fiddler's fuck about the welfare of children. The only kids you care about are those that let you attack gay people. All the others are beneath your consideration.

So since money changed hands, a parent sold out their rights to a child and that transaction placed the child at predictable increased risk for suicide/other psychological peril, how is it intrinsically different from child trafficking; which is the sale of a child for money to a situation that puts them at risk or harm?

The recepients of the child....are its parents. Which isn't the case in child trafficking. The money is being exchanged for the services of delivering the parent's child. Not for the child itself as is the case in child trafficking. And none of your gibberish about 'predictably increase in risk' has any factual basis. Nor is it even mentioned in the study you're citing.

And its good to see that you've abandoned all pretense that this entire thread wasn't about attacking gays and stripping them of rights. Which every one already knew.

 

[Skylar]

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!

1. Is money changing hands in the transaction? Yes. Check.

2. Is a parent selling out their rights to a child? Yes. Check.

No child is being sold.

What is sad- and truly sick is that you equate a childless couple using science to have a child- with the international trade in children for sex.

Just shows you will truly say anything to attack homosexuals.

And notice how this argument has predicatbly gone where everyone predicted it would: a wholesale attack on gays.

Where if the standards that Sil *says* he's using were his actual focus, single parent surrogacy would be his focus. As every specific example of children without a good same sex rolemodel in the Prince Trust Study were single parents.

Not one was the child of a same sex couple.

 

[Silhouette]

And notice how this argument has predicatbly gone where everyone predicted it would: a wholesale attack on gays.

Where if the standards that Sil *says* he's using were his actual focus, single parent surrogacy would be his focus. As every specific example of children without a good same sex rolemodel in the Prince Trust Study were single parents.

Not one was the child of a same sex couple.

I could just as easily say your defense of a parent selling their child for money to a situation predicted to end in the child's demise is a wholesale attack on children.

It all depends on who you're rooting for.

The Prince's trust study said that boys without a father or girls without a mother suffer in real and predictable ways....sometimes suicide in elevated numbers over their peers that have both a mother and father. It didn't need to refer to gays. The fact that gay couples cannot provide either a mother or father is a physical fact that lines up directly with the study. It said that these children as young adults lack a sense of belonging. That is key. Because if you don't see yourself represented in either parent, it's hard to know how to act, how to be your gender...and the sense of not belonging becomes acute. No gay man can ever replace the role of a mother. And so, a child suffers in that situation....where she was sold to by a mother....for money...

 

[Syriusly]

And notice how this argument has predicatbly gone where everyone predicted it would: a wholesale attack on gays.

Where if the standards that Sil *says* he's using were his actual focus, single parent surrogacy would be his focus. As every specific example of children without a good same sex rolemodel in the Prince Trust Study were single parents.

Not one was the child of a same sex couple.

The Prince's trust study said that boys without a father or girls without a mother suffer in real and predictable ways......

The Prince's trust study never even mentions 'father' or 'mother'- not once.

You are just lying again.

 

[Silhouette]

Syriusly, you know I can quote the article.

 

[Silhouette]

The Prince's trust study never even mentions 'father' or 'mother'- not once.
You are just lying again.

Directly taken from the Prince's Trust study, Page 9, left half of the page on the green background:

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

I would say that a "positive" role model of your gender as a child would start with ONE THAT IS ACTUALLY AROUND EVERY DAY. 50% of children in gay "marriages" would be structurally-stripped of that role model. Gone. Absent. Nada.

 

[Syriusly]

The Prince's trust study never even mentions 'father' or 'mother'- not once.
You are just lying again.

Directly taken from the Prince's Trust study, Page 9, left half of the page on the green background:

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

I would say that a "positive" role model of your gender as a child would start with ONE THAT IS ACTUALLY AROUND EVERY DAY. 50% of children in gay "marriages" would be structurally-stripped of that role model. Gone. Absent. Nada.

Just pointing out that your quote does not mention Mother or Father once- just as I said.

You lied again about the Prince's study.

The study does not identify who the 'positive male role model' is- you just lie and tell everyone that the Princes study says kids needs a mother and a father.

The point being once again- you lie even when you cite sources.

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly, you know I can quote the article.

Then provide the quote that mentions either Mother or Father...

(switch to the theme music from Final Jeopardy)

 

[Silhouette]

Syriusly, you know I can quote the article.

Then provide the quote that mentions either Mother or Father...

(switch to the theme music from Final Jeopardy)

Mother/female Father/male.
Which one of the two gay men in a gay "marriage" is the female?

 

[Montrovant]

Syriusly, you know I can quote the article.

Then provide the quote that mentions either Mother or Father...

(switch to the theme music from Final Jeopardy)

Mother/female Father/male.
Which one of the two gay men in a gay "marriage" is the female?

The Youth Index does not say that only a mother or father can be a role model. In fact, I seem to remember at least one example from the survey in which one of the youths mentions that an older brother would have been fine as a same gender role model. Making your argument, once again, entirely bunk.

 

[Silhouette]

Syriusly, you know I can quote the article.

Then provide the quote that mentions either Mother or Father...

(switch to the theme music from Final Jeopardy)

Mother/female Father/male.
Which one of the two gay men in a gay "marriage" is the female?

The Youth Index does not say that only a mother or father can be a role model. In fact, I seem to remember at least one example from the survey in which one of the youths mentions that an older brother would have been fine as a same gender role model. Making your argument, once again, entirely bunk.

If you "seem to remember" then remember and quote and post a link, just as you would insist I should.

Obviously the children who grew up maladjusted missing the parent of their own specific gender would have regular contact with adults of the same gender in casual contact. Are you suggesting that if two gay men or two lesbians have children, they must have an alternate opposite-gender parent-figure with regular contact with the child? A role model is someone with regular contact with the child...who remains consistent throughout.

 

[Montrovant]

Syriusly, you know I can quote the article.

Then provide the quote that mentions either Mother or Father...

(switch to the theme music from Final Jeopardy)

Mother/female Father/male.
Which one of the two gay men in a gay "marriage" is the female?

The Youth Index does not say that only a mother or father can be a role model. In fact, I seem to remember at least one example from the survey in which one of the youths mentions that an older brother would have been fine as a same gender role model. Making your argument, once again, entirely bunk.

If you "seem to remember" then remember and quote and post a link, just as you would insist I should.

Obviously the children who grew up maladjusted missing the parent of their own specific gender would have regular contact with adults of the same gender in casual contact. Are you suggesting that if two gay men or two lesbians have children, they must have an alternate opposite-gender parent-figure with regular contact with the child? A role model is someone with regular contact with the child...who remains consistent throughout.

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. And the reason I specifically used the phrase seem to remember is that I was unsure and did not want to present it as a fact.

I'll happily admit I cannot quote the example I have in my memory, either because I cannot find where I saw it or because it is a false memory. That does not change that the Index doesn't specify parents as the only same gender role models. If someone other than a parent can fill that role, then your argument about gays falls flat.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. And the reason I specifically used the phrase seem to remember is that I was unsure and did not want to present it as a fact.

I'll happily admit I cannot quote the example I have in my memory, either because I cannot find where I saw it or because it is a false memory. That does not change that the Index doesn't specify parents as the only same gender role models. If someone other than a parent can fill that role, then your argument about gays falls flat.

So to fill detrimental gaps left by gay couples, you are advocating that gay couples take on a regular and consistent third member of the opposite gender to be sure the kids have the role model they need? A role model is a regular presence who for the child's sake must remain consistent and available for the full impact of the missing gender in the home.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. And the reason I specifically used the phrase seem to remember is that I was unsure and did not want to present it as a fact.

I'll happily admit I cannot quote the example I have in my memory, either because I cannot find where I saw it or because it is a false memory. That does not change that the Index doesn't specify parents as the only same gender role models. If someone other than a parent can fill that role, then your argument about gays falls flat.

So to fill detrimental gaps left by gay couples, you are advocating that gay couples take on a regular and consistent third member of the opposite gender to be sure the kids have the role model they need? A role model is a regular presence who for the child's sake must remain consistent and available for the full impact of the missing gender in the home.

Again, I am not suggesting anyone do anything. I am suggesting that your argument that a same gender role model is necessary can still include gay couples.

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly, you know I can quote the article.

Then provide the quote that mentions either Mother or Father...

(switch to the theme music from Final Jeopardy)

Mother/female Father/male.
Which one of the two gay men in a gay "marriage" is the female?

The Princes study doesn't mention marriage- or mother of father.

Just you lying again.

It mentions role models- which it does not define.

A great example of an organization that provides role models is Big Brother and Big Sister of America.