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

[Silhouette]

... You claim that putting a child in a home with gay parents is a detriment to the child, base that on unfounded claims about the Index, then claim that proves surrogacy is child trafficking. 1. You ignore the fact that the egg or sperm donor in surrogacy may not know where their donation is going; such donations can be anonymous. 2. You ignore surrogacy for heterosexual couples. 3. You ignore single parents. 4. You ignore bad heterosexual parents. 5. You ignore 'sexual deviancy' of any sort but homosexuality. 6. You call homosexuality a verb, FFS...

1. Egg or sperm donors to surrogacy are donating genetic material, not babies. There is hardly an attachment to a flake of skin that comes off your arm. The emotional attachment comes between a mother and fetus/baby upon gestation. We can put zebra embryos in a mare and that mare will not be able to tell that zebra from a regular foal upon birth. She will defend it to the death. This is the complex phenomenon of pregnancy and birth we are still trying to understand.

2. Surrogacy for hetero couples was not ignored in the OP. I suggested that a guardian ad litem be appointed for every surrogacy, remember? Of course you do..

3. Single parents fall into the same "shouldn't have children by surrogacy" category as gays. They cannot provide both genders as role models. If they conceive by accident, that is unfortunate but in our free country, allowed as a circumstantial blunder. But to engineer a child into that situation is unthinkable. Children out of wedlock always suffer, statistically. No matter how much money a single person has.

4. I do not ignore bad heterosexual parents within this question. See #2.

5. I do not ignore sexual deviancy of any sort but homosexual. I firmly believe that people with pedophile-orientation or necrophiliacs or beastiophiles should be nowhere near children. A dead mother is not a mother. A sheep mother is not a human mother. A gay man is not a mother. See where I'm going with this?

6. Homosexuality describes a behavior. You're right. Properly it is an adverb. Note: it is not an adjective describing a noun or static thing.

1. I will ask the same question I've asked before. Are you claiming that a surrogate is a child's mother, not the woman who's egg was fertilized? Or are both of them mothers to the child? Whether or not there is an emotional attachment is not the question. The question is who you mean when you claim that a parent is selling their rights to a child in surrogacy. Is it the donor or the surrogate?

That is the whole of the question friend. Because we are talking about the wellfare of children who are ALWAYS statistically best protected by those with a strong emotional attachment to them. These examples in nature are always the natural parents. That is the gold standard. I can name any species of animal, which we are one of, and tell you that if that animal bears young in childbirth, that mother will fiercely protect her offspring in normal circumstances. You get ninnies now and then who won't, usually from too much inbreeding. But normal healthy mothers and fathers will know who their children are by mating/childbirth activities and fight to the death to defend them. Try to put a youngster near their sides who they know isn't theirs and their deep/innate instincts are to drive it away or neglect it.

We are not as far removed from the animal kingdom as most people pride themselves in believing. Comparative psychology is a field dedicated to our being animals. All homo sapiens fare better with their natural mother and father. Any other arrangement is only a consolation prize/making the best of a bad situation. You don't make a bad situation "the new gold standard for kids" by means of political convenience...

Yes, it is emotions and kids minds that are of paramount import in this discussion, adult political conveniences run a very distant second place. Every child needs a mother and father. Gays do not ever provide this for them. Moreover, making kids to order out of wedlock (wedlock can only exist for the sake of children therefore between a man and woman) is a social experiment whose consequences we can predict to have negative consequences for that forming emotional mind.. And since it is done for money, we have a situation where children's detriment is predictable where money changed hands. And THAT is the definition of child trafficking in a nutshell.

 

[Seawytch]

But the child will bond with the parents that raise the child- at least if the child and the parents are normal and not incapable for some reason of bonding.

That is correct. As stated previously, I have been a surrogate twice and have a relationship with all three children. I am not the children's mother. They don't have one. They have a donor, an oven (me) and two fathers.

 

[Montrovant]

... You claim that putting a child in a home with gay parents is a detriment to the child, base that on unfounded claims about the Index, then claim that proves surrogacy is child trafficking. 1. You ignore the fact that the egg or sperm donor in surrogacy may not know where their donation is going; such donations can be anonymous. 2. You ignore surrogacy for heterosexual couples. 3. You ignore single parents. 4. You ignore bad heterosexual parents. 5. You ignore 'sexual deviancy' of any sort but homosexuality. 6. You call homosexuality a verb, FFS...

1. Egg or sperm donors to surrogacy are donating genetic material, not babies. There is hardly an attachment to a flake of skin that comes off your arm. The emotional attachment comes between a mother and fetus/baby upon gestation. We can put zebra embryos in a mare and that mare will not be able to tell that zebra from a regular foal upon birth. She will defend it to the death. This is the complex phenomenon of pregnancy and birth we are still trying to understand.

2. Surrogacy for hetero couples was not ignored in the OP. I suggested that a guardian ad litem be appointed for every surrogacy, remember? Of course you do..

3. Single parents fall into the same "shouldn't have children by surrogacy" category as gays. They cannot provide both genders as role models. If they conceive by accident, that is unfortunate but in our free country, allowed as a circumstantial blunder. But to engineer a child into that situation is unthinkable. Children out of wedlock always suffer, statistically. No matter how much money a single person has.

4. I do not ignore bad heterosexual parents within this question. See #2.

5. I do not ignore sexual deviancy of any sort but homosexual. I firmly believe that people with pedophile-orientation or necrophiliacs or beastiophiles should be nowhere near children. A dead mother is not a mother. A sheep mother is not a human mother. A gay man is not a mother. See where I'm going with this?

6. Homosexuality describes a behavior. You're right. Properly it is an adverb. Note: it is not an adjective describing a noun or static thing.

1. I will ask the same question I've asked before. Are you claiming that a surrogate is a child's mother, not the woman who's egg was fertilized? Or are both of them mothers to the child? Whether or not there is an emotional attachment is not the question. The question is who you mean when you claim that a parent is selling their rights to a child in surrogacy. Is it the donor or the surrogate?

That is the whole of the question friend. Because we are talking about the wellfare of children who are ALWAYS statistically best protected by those with a strong emotional attachment to them. These examples in nature are always the natural parents. That is the gold standard. I can name any species of animal, which we are one of, and tell you that if that animal bears young in childbirth, that mother will fiercely protect her offspring in normal circumstances. You get ninnies now and then who won't, usually from too much inbreeding. But normal healthy mothers and fathers will know who their children are by mating/childbirth activities and fight to the death to defend them. Try to put a youngster near their sides who they know isn't theirs and their deep/innate instincts are to drive it away or neglect it.

We are not as far removed from the animal kingdom as most people pride themselves in believing. Comparative psychology is a field dedicated to our being animals. All homo sapiens fare better with their natural mother and father. Any other arrangement is only a consolation prize/making the best of a bad situation. You don't make a bad situation "the new gold standard for kids" by means of political convenience...

Yes, it is emotions and kids minds that are of paramount import in this discussion, adult political conveniences run a very distant second place. Every child needs a mother and father. Gays do not ever provide this for them. Moreover, making kids to order out of wedlock (wedlock can only exist for the sake of children therefore between a man and woman) is a social experiment whose consequences we can predict to have negative consequences for that forming emotional mind.. And since it is done for money, we have a situation where children's detriment is predictable where money changed hands. And THAT is the definition of child trafficking in a nutshell.

We're back to marriage being only about children, are we? Yet another word you define differently than dictionaries and society in general, along with things like child trafficking and homosexuality. Marriage can, does, and has existed independent of children.

If you say a parent is selling their rights to a child you need to define what a parents is. It's hard to know what you mean when you constantly make shit up. Is the surrogate a parent? Yes or no? I don't care who has what emotional attachment. I only want to know who you are talking about when you say a parent sells their rights in surrogacy. Can't proceed without that.

I doubt you have a strong grasp of any branch of psychology. Regardless, that humans are animals does not mean that the behavior of other animals is directly relatable to human behavior. Humans do many things that other species do not, including how we deal with children. And as I said above, with your use of personal definitions, I am unsure what you mean when you say "All homo sapiens fare better with their natural mother and father." (although I'm pretty sure you are wrong ). What is a 'natural' mother and father? Would an egg donor be a natural mother, or would a surrogate, or is a child of surrogacy without a natural mother? What about children with bad parents, do they fare better with those parents? What you really seem to mean is that children in the best environment fare better than those not in the best environment. Since plenty of natural, heterosexual parents are also bad parents, this idea that any child will automatically be in a better situation with their natural parents is without merit.

Children need a mother and father for what? Not to live, obviously. Not to grow into responsible, happy adults. What need is only met with a mother and father? Mother and father may be the optimal situation, but it is far from a requirement.

Are kids 'made to order' in wedlock, or does that only happy with unmarried couples? Or are you confused and thinking that out of wedlock means surrogacy? Hint : it doesn't.

Any particular reason you ignored most of my post and only responded to the first point?

 

[boedicca]

Surrogate mothers aren't selling babies, they are renting out their wombs.

 

[Montrovant]

Surrogate mothers aren't selling babies, they are renting out their wombs.

That doesn't sound as harsh as child trafficking, which means it is a less effective message against gays as far as Sil is concerned, so won't be accepted.

 

[boedicca]

Surrogate mothers aren't selling babies, they are renting out their wombs.

That doesn't sound as harsh as child trafficking, which means it is a less effective message against gays as far as Sil is concerned, so won't be accepted.

The only two couple I know who used surrogate mothers are heterosexual.

 

[Montrovant]

Surrogate mothers aren't selling babies, they are renting out their wombs.

That doesn't sound as harsh as child trafficking, which means it is a less effective message against gays as far as Sil is concerned, so won't be accepted.

The only two couple I know who used surrogate mothers are heterosexual.

I would guess that the majority of surrogate pregnancies to this point were for heterosexuals, although that's nothing more than a guess. Sil bases most threads on the idea that gays are inherently bad parents. True or not, the evidence used to support that claim is almost invariably ridiculous or manufactured.

 

[boedicca]

Surrogate mothers aren't selling babies, they are renting out their wombs.

That doesn't sound as harsh as child trafficking, which means it is a less effective message against gays as far as Sil is concerned, so won't be accepted.

The only two couple I know who used surrogate mothers are heterosexual.

I would guess that the majority of surrogate pregnancies to this point were for heterosexuals, although that's nothing more than a guess. Sil bases most threads on the idea that gays are inherently bad parents. True or not, the evidence used to support that claim is almost invariably ridiculous or manufactured.

The bigger driver is women deferring marriage and kids so long that they have difficulty getting pregnant....

 

[Silhouette]

But the child will bond with the parents that raise the child- at least if the child and the parents are normal and not incapable for some reason of bonding.

That is correct. As stated previously, I have been a surrogate twice and have a relationship with all three children. I am not the children's mother. They don't have one. They have a donor, an oven (me) and two fathers.

This ^^ is exactly what I'm talking about. She is comfortable having money changing hands to shunt out little ones from her womb into a home where there is no mother at all. I'm sure that's doing wonders for the self-esteem of the girls in that home who see by the very physical structure of how they came to be that "women are only womb-machines for a world where they otherwise don't matter to men". Yes, (sarcasm) no pending or looming psychological issues for her there as she grows up under that elephant-sized psychologically-damaging message. Ditto in reverse for a boy in a lesbian home.

Did money change hands? Yes, check.

Was a child knowingly shunted for that money into a predictably-detrimental situation? Yes, check.

Ergo, the two qualifiers for the definition of child trafficking have been met.

 

[Montrovant]

But the child will bond with the parents that raise the child- at least if the child and the parents are normal and not incapable for some reason of bonding.

That is correct. As stated previously, I have been a surrogate twice and have a relationship with all three children. I am not the children's mother. They don't have one. They have a donor, an oven (me) and two fathers.

This ^^ is exactly what I'm talking about. She is comfortable having money changing hands to shunt out little ones from her womb into a home where there is no mother at all. I'm sure that's doing wonders for the self-esteem of the girls in that home who see by the very physical structure of how they came to be that "women are only womb-machines for a world where they otherwise don't matter to men". Yes, (sarcasm) no pending or looming psychological issues for her there as she grows up under that elephant-sized psychologically-damaging message. Ditto in reverse for a boy in a lesbian home.

Did money change hands? Yes, check.

Was a child knowingly shunted for that money into a predictably-detrimental situation? Yes, check.

Ergo, the two qualifiers for the definition of child trafficking have been met.

Except, of course, for a few things you fail to mention.

First, the definition of child trafficking is not children being placed in detrimental situations where money changes hands. As far as I can tell that's a definition you made up, as with so many others.

Second, whether or not a child being raised by homosexual parents is inherently detrimental is not the inescapable conclusion you make it out to be. Considering how often you misrepresent or lie about the 'evidence' you use to try and prove that it is inherently detrimental, I doubt anyone is surprised.

Third, Seawytch didn't mention money that I'm aware of. Even if she did, surrogacy does not require an exchange of money. A woman can be a surrogate for free, as a friend, rather than for a fee as a client. You still seem to be struggling with what surrogacy actually is.

Last, your implication that children only get a message about the worth of a person's gender by the gender(s) of their parents is asinine. You are, yet again, making shit up to try and prove your argument. There is no reason that having only one gender as a parent (whether because a child is raised by a homosexual couple or a single parent) must lead a child to conclude that women don't matter to men or men don't matter to women. You are basically saying that children only learn about the relationships between genders through the gender(s) of their parents. What the parents tell them is apparently unimportant. How the parents interact with other adults is apparently unimportant. How other family members interact or what they try to teach the child is unimportant. What the child sees in non-familial adults is apparently unimportant. No, according to you, it seems that children only learn about the relative worth of their gender by what gender their parents are. Of course, you back this up with no evidence whatsoever and ignore evidence to the contrary.

As usual, you present us with made up evidence and wrongly defined words and phrases to try and show that gays are bad parents. Also as usual, you fail miserably.

 

[Syriusly]

But the child will bond with the parents that raise the child- at least if the child and the parents are normal and not incapable for some reason of bonding.

That is correct. As stated previously, I have been a surrogate twice and have a relationship with all three children. I am not the children's mother. They don't have one. They have a donor, an oven (me) and two fathers.

This ^^ is exactly what I'm talking about. She is comfortable having money changing hands to shunt out little ones from her womb into a home where there is no mother at all. .

Where did she say anything about money?
She didn't of course- that is entirely your fiction- entirely your lie.

Once again.

 

[Syriusly]

But the child will bond with the parents that raise the child- at least if the child and the parents are normal and not incapable for some reason of bonding.

Did money change hands? Yes, check.

Was a child knowingly shunted for that money into a predictably-detrimental situation? Yes, check.

Ergo, the two qualifiers for the definition of child trafficking have been met.

Lie
Lie
Lie

Lie
Lie
Lie

 

[JakeStarkey]

Probably not, if done within the law.

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

 

[Seawytch]

But the child will bond with the parents that raise the child- at least if the child and the parents are normal and not incapable for some reason of bonding.

That is correct. As stated previously, I have been a surrogate twice and have a relationship with all three children. I am not the children's mother. They don't have one. They have a donor, an oven (me) and two fathers.

This ^^ is exactly what I'm talking about. She is comfortable having money changing hands to shunt out little ones from her womb into a home where there is no mother at all. I'm sure that's doing wonders for the self-esteem of the girls in that home who see by the very physical structure of how they came to be that "women are only womb-machines for a world where they otherwise don't matter to men". Yes, (sarcasm) no pending or looming psychological issues for her there as she grows up under that elephant-sized psychologically-damaging message. Ditto in reverse for a boy in a lesbian home.

Did money change hands? Yes, check.

Was a child knowingly shunted for that money into a predictably-detrimental situation? Yes, check.

Ergo, the two qualifiers for the definition of child trafficking have been met.

Except, of course, for a few things you fail to mention.

First, the definition of child trafficking is not children being placed in detrimental situations where money changes hands. As far as I can tell that's a definition you made up, as with so many others.

Second, whether or not a child being raised by homosexual parents is inherently detrimental is not the inescapable conclusion you make it out to be. Considering how often you misrepresent or lie about the 'evidence' you use to try and prove that it is inherently detrimental, I doubt anyone is surprised.

Third, Seawytch didn't mention money that I'm aware of. Even if she did, surrogacy does not require an exchange of money. A woman can be a surrogate for free, as a friend, rather than for a fee as a client. You still seem to be struggling with what surrogacy actually is.

Last, your implication that children only get a message about the worth of a person's gender by the gender(s) of their parents is asinine. You are, yet again, making shit up to try and prove your argument. There is no reason that having only one gender as a parent (whether because a child is raised by a homosexual couple or a single parent) must lead a child to conclude that women don't matter to men or men don't matter to women. You are basically saying that children only learn about the relationships between genders through the gender(s) of their parents. What the parents tell them is apparently unimportant. How the parents interact with other adults is apparently unimportant. How other family members interact or what they try to teach the child is unimportant. What the child sees in non-familial adults is apparently unimportant. No, according to you, it seems that children only learn about the relative worth of their gender by what gender their parents are. Of course, you back this up with no evidence whatsoever and ignore evidence to the contrary.

As usual, you present us with made up evidence and wrongly defined words and phrases to try and show that gays are bad parents. Also as usual, you fail miserably.

I did receive compensation for my role as a surrogate. I received a monthly stipend and my medical expenses were covered. I was also compensated for any work I lost as a result of the pregnancies.

It's not a money making scheme. Pregnancy is normally one of the most dangerous things a woman will do in her lifetime.

It ain't about the money.

 

[Silhouette]

I did receive compensation for my role as a surrogate. I received a monthly stipend and my medical expenses were covered. I was also compensated for any work I lost as a result of the pregnancies.

It's not a money making scheme. Pregnancy is normally one of the most dangerous things a woman will do in her lifetime.

It ain't about the money.

You know...it's funny how if you cook the books just right, "compensation for any work you lost & a monthly stipend" could be padded quite nicely. Which brings me back to how you knowingly placing a child in a home where he/she would be deprived of a mother fundamentally forever (even single homes have the promise of a mother in them eventually), to their detriment, for cash, is waltzing on the edge of child trafficking.

"Compensation". You know, I saw a guy standing by a liquor store hand another guy a baggie of something and the other guy "compensated" him with some cash in return.

"Compensation"...is that what the kids are calling it these days?..

 

[Syriusly]

I did receive compensation for my role as a surrogate. I received a monthly stipend and my medical expenses were covered. I was also compensated for any work I lost as a result of the pregnancies.

It's not a money making scheme. Pregnancy is normally one of the most dangerous things a woman will do in her lifetime.

It ain't about the money.

You know...it's funny how if you cook the books just right, "compensation for any work you lost & a monthly stipend" could be padded quite nicely. Which brings me back to how you knowingly placing a child in a home where he/she would be deprived of a mother fundamentally forever (even single homes have the promise of a mother in them eventually), to their detriment, for cash, is waltzing on the edge of child trafficking.

"Compensation". You know, I saw a guy standing by a liquor store hand another guy a baggie of something and the other guy "compensated" him with some cash in return.

"Compensation"...is that what the kids are calling it these days?..

You get bored with not attacking homosexuals for a week or two?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, that makes no sense.

 

[The sheeple sea]

You wouldn't care if someone was a surrogate to an infertile straight couple, its only child trafficking if they are going to gays right?

 

[Silhouette]

You wouldn't care if someone was a surrogate to an infertile straight couple, its only child trafficking if they are going to gays right?

That depends on the situation and if there's a guardian ad litem in the process. The child would have both a mother and a father. So right off the start the situation is more healthy than if they were going to a gay home. There needs to be someone interceding for children in surrogacy. This cannot be a "cash for child" situation without oversight. Surely you can see a problem with that and what do you know? They're already being sold into homes where they will have no mother forever. What a sentence to hang around a child's developmental mind!...you know...for money..

 

[Syriusly]

You wouldn't care if someone was a surrogate to an infertile straight couple, its only child trafficking if they are going to gays right?

That depends on the situation and if there's a guardian ad litem in the process. The child would have both a mother and a father. So right off the start the situation is more healthy than if they were going to a gay home. There needs to be someone interceding for children in surrogacy. This cannot be a "cash for child" situation without oversight. Surely you can see a problem with that and what do you know? They're already being sold into homes where they will have no mother forever. What a sentence to hang around a child's developmental mind!...you know...for money..

No one is being sold in regards to surrogacy.

Just all an invention of your sad homophobic mind.