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

[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..

No one is being sold in regards to surrogacy.

Just all an invention of your sad homophobic mind.

Let's see...

1. Money changes hands..."as compensation"... and

2. A child's custody is transferred as a result into a situation known and predictable to cause their harm (being deprived systematically of a mother for life)

3. Without a guardian ad litem involved.

Money changes hands, child sold to detriment, no oversight involved.

How is this not child trafficking?

 

[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.

Let's see...

1. Money changes hands..."as compensation"... and

2. A child's custody is transferred as a result into a situation known and predictable to cause their harm (being deprived systematically of a mother for life)

3. Without a guardian ad litem involved.

Money changes hands, child sold to detriment, no oversight involved.

How is this not child trafficking?

Because it is only 'child trafficking' in your sick mind. Two people using a surrogate to have the child that they cannot have is not more 'child trafficking than adoption- and you calling it 'child trafficking' insults those who are the real victims of child trafficking.

Child trafficking in the United States - 10 Facts - National Christian Activism Examiner.com

1. Current U.S. Anti-Human Trafficking Law, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”) defines “Severe forms of trafficking in persons” involves (A) sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or (B) the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of ubjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery. See Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 22 U.S.C. 7102(8)
2. The U.S. State Department estimates that approximately 14,500 to 17,500 men, women, and children are tracked into the United States annually (U.S. Department of State, 2004). An additional number are tracked within the United States, although the government indicates that trends in international tracking are easier to estimate than are trends in domestic tracking.
3. The vast majority of the tracked and prostituted children in the U.S. are either runaway’s, or abandoned children. Common themes found among survivors of child prostitution that lead them into that situation are: sexual abuse as a child, parental neglect, parental drug use, emotional/physical abuse from a family member, and poverty.
4. The average age of entry for girls and boys ranges from 11-14 (Ernie Allen, President & CEO, NECMEC, July 21, 2009).
5. The travel and tourism industry plays a vital role in facilitating child sex
   tracking. Many hotels have become havens for what has become known as “child sex tourism,” in which trackers and sex oenders utilize hotel facilities to carry out their illegal activities. This has become the case, due in part to the lack of set human rights policies at these hotels. Further, many of these hotels do not have programs to train their employees in how to identify and handle these illegal activities when discovered.
6. The Internet has become the new marketplace for tracking in children. The child sex industry is growing even as fewer prostitutes work the streets. This is because of the anonymity, relative safety, ability to easily lie about age, and low cost of using the internet to set up appointments and transactions. The Internet has also allowed child sex tracking to expand not only in large cities, but across the mid-west and into rural areas of the country.
7. Local news publications are also contributing to growth in the child sex trade. Failing to implement proper background checks, they allow postings for unlicensed “massage parlors” and “escort services” in their classieds sections. These establishments have proven links to child
   prostitution, often acting as fronts for brothels. Those businesses that through faulty review systems are able to obtain licenses, are subsequently left unregulated due in part to infrequent inspections and lack of police presence.
8. Astonishingly, with in the first 48 hours of being on the street, 1 in 3 children are lured into prostitution. (National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children/NISMART-2)
9. According to ECPAT (End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Tracking of Children for Sexual Purposes), as many as 100,000 U.S. children are forcefully engaged in prostitution or pornography each year. Approximately 300,000 U.S. children are at-risk.
10. Trackers (also called “pimps”) are known to recruit at malls, fast food restaurants, schools and after-school programs. Recruitment can take multiple forms, including: 1) kidnapping; 2) solicitation by other women or girls recruiting on behalf of the sex tracker; and 3) the “loverboy” approach of appearing genuinely interested in a romantic relationship while gradually coercing the victim into prostitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil makes up all of these fantasies and then believes them.

 

[Seawytch]

Sil is a sad excuse for a concerned troll.

 

[Silhouette]

So....ad hominems...but no real substance to rebut the stinging points in my last post eh?

 

[Skylar]

So....ad hominems...but no real substance to rebut the stinging points in my last post eh?

Oh, your argument has been thoroughly rebutted. Surrogacy isn't child trafficking. The entire premise of your argument is nonsense. You're offering your imagination as the law, your own pseudo-legal gibberish as your evidence. And the actual law doesn't give a fiddler's fuck what nonsense you tell yourself. Nor does it recognize any of your claims as legally valid.

Rendering them mere baseless opinion. Which obligates no one to do anything.

 

[Silhouette]

So....ad hominems...but no real substance to rebut the stinging points in my last post eh?

Oh, your argument has been thoroughly rebutted. Surrogacy isn't child trafficking. The entire premise of your argument is nonsense. You're offering your imagination as the law, your own pseudo-legal gibberish as your evidence. And the actual law doesn't give a fiddler's fuck what nonsense you tell yourself. Nor does it recognize any of your claims as legally valid.

Rendering them mere baseless opinion. Which obligates no one to do anything.

Ad hominem in place of substance much?

Oh, it's Skylar so "yes"... You're familiar with logic right?

Given: child is placed into a situation that systematically deprives a child of a mother +

Given: a motherless child is a tragedy +

Given: money/compensation changes hands in said transaction.

= Therefore: surrogacy to gay male "marriages" is child trafficking because it is nothing less than a child being sold to his own detriment at the hands of other adults for money.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Givens do not equal the Conclusion.

The false assertion does not equate with reality.

 

[Silhouette]

The Givens do not equal the Conclusion.

The false assertion does not equate with reality.

Define which is false:

1. That children placed into gay male homes are being put in a place where a mother will not be.

2. That motherless children are in tragedy.

3. That money changes hands in compensation when #1 happens.

Which one is false?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Define who has come undone over this issue?

Silouhette

Where r my Keys

Both

The fact is this: we all have to do better for the children.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm going to repeat this because of the nonsequitur introduced at the end of last page:

Given: child is placed into a situation that systematically deprives a child of a mother +

Given: a motherless child is a tragedy +

Given: money/compensation changes hands in said transaction.

= Therefore: surrogacy to gay male "marriages" is child trafficking because it is nothing less than a child being sold to his own detriment at the hands of other adults for money.

The Givens do not equal the Conclusion.

The false assertion does not equate with reality.

Define which is false:

1. That children placed into gay male homes are being put in a place where a mother will not be.

2. That motherless children are in tragedy.

3. That money changes hands in compensation when #1 happens.

Which one is false?

 

[Montrovant]

I'm going to repeat this because of the nonsequitur introduced at the end of last page:

Given: child is placed into a situation that systematically deprives a child of a mother +

Given: a motherless child is a tragedy +

Given: money/compensation changes hands in said transaction.

= Therefore: surrogacy to gay male "marriages" is child trafficking because it is nothing less than a child being sold to his own detriment at the hands of other adults for money.

The Givens do not equal the Conclusion.

The false assertion does not equate with reality.

Define which is false:

1. That children placed into gay male homes are being put in a place where a mother will not be.

2. That motherless children are in tragedy.

3. That money changes hands in compensation when #1 happens.

Which one is false?

2 and 4 are false, or at least not necessarily true.

Whether a motherless child is a tragedy is pretty subjective.

Surrogacy does not involve the sale of children. Child trafficking is not defined as children being sold to their detriment.

What about the money that changes hands in any more regular pregnancy? How about midwives? If a midwife delivers a baby and the parents are abusive in any way, is that child trafficking?

You make up a premise (that child trafficking means children being sold into a detrimental situation), make up facts to fit that premise (that surrogacy involves the sale of children, that a child raised without a mother or a father is automatically in a situation which is bad for the child), then question why others can't see the obvious truth of your conclusions. We see the logic you've used. The problem is that your chain of logic is based on faulty premises. That, and you ignore any situation which might fit your criteria that doesn't involve gays.

Based on your reasoning in this thread, it could be argued that a majority of children are being trafficked. Money changed hands in the vast majority of births and any parenting situation could be seen as detrimental to the children depending on who's point of view you use.

 

[Silhouette]

2 and 4 are false, or at least not necessarily true.

Whether a motherless child is a tragedy is pretty subjective.

So to be clear, your rebuttal is that "the way you can refute the conclusion is to declare that a motherless child isn't a tragedy".

Good luck getting people to agree with you on that one..

 

[Skylar]

I'm going to repeat this because of the nonsequitur introduced at the end of last page:

Given: child is placed into a situation that systematically deprives a child of a mother +

Given: a motherless child is a tragedy +

Given: money/compensation changes hands in said transaction.

= Therefore: surrogacy to gay male "marriages" is child trafficking because it is nothing less than a child being sold to his own detriment at the hands of other adults for money.

Um, a 'motherless child' isn't the definition of child trafficking. You're literally just making this shit up as you go along. And none of your pseudo-legal gibberish has the slightest relevance to the actual law.

 

[Skylar]

I'm going to repeat this because of the nonsequitur introduced at the end of last page:

Given: child is placed into a situation that systematically deprives a child of a mother +

Given: a motherless child is a tragedy +

Given: money/compensation changes hands in said transaction.

= Therefore: surrogacy to gay male "marriages" is child trafficking because it is nothing less than a child being sold to his own detriment at the hands of other adults for money.

The Givens do not equal the Conclusion.

The false assertion does not equate with reality.

Define which is false:

1. That children placed into gay male homes are being put in a place where a mother will not be.

2. That motherless children are in tragedy.

3. That money changes hands in compensation when #1 happens.

Which one is false?

2 and 4 are false, or at least not necessarily true.

Whether a motherless child is a tragedy is pretty subjective.

Surrogacy does not involve the sale of children. Child trafficking is not defined as children being sold to their detriment.

Exactly. The payment is for the service of carrying the child. The child already belongs to its biological parents. Nixing Silo's silly pseudo-legal nonsense yet again.

You'll find that Silo has no idea what he's talking about regarding the law. And cares even less.

But at least he's abandoned his silly lies that this had nothing to do with gays. As his made up definition applies only to gays and lesbians.

 

[Syriusly]

So....ad hominems...but no real substance to rebut the stinging points in my last post eh?

Oh, your argument has been thoroughly rebutted. Surrogacy isn't child trafficking. The entire premise of your argument is nonsense. You're offering your imagination as the law, your own pseudo-legal gibberish as your evidence. And the actual law doesn't give a fiddler's fuck what nonsense you tell yourself. Nor does it recognize any of your claims as legally valid.

Rendering them mere baseless opinion. Which obligates no one to do anything.

Ad hominem in place of substance much?

Oh, it's Skylar so "yes"... You're familiar with logic right?

Given: child is placed into a situation that systematically deprives a child of a mother +

Given: a motherless child is a tragedy +

Given: money/compensation changes hands in said transaction.

= Therefore: surrogacy to gay male "marriages" is child trafficking because it is nothing less than a child being sold to his own detriment at the hands of other adults for money.

It is only 'child trafficking' in your sick mind. Two people using a surrogate to have the child that they cannot have is not more 'child trafficking than adoption- and you calling it 'child trafficking' insults those who are the real victims of child trafficking.

Child trafficking in the United States - 10 Facts - National Christian Activism Examiner.com

1. Current U.S. Anti-Human Trafficking Law, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”) defines “Severe forms of trafficking in persons” involves (A) sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or (B) the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of ubjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery. See Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 22 U.S.C. 7102(8)
2. The U.S. State Department estimates that approximately 14,500 to 17,500 men, women, and children are tracked into the United States annually (U.S. Department of State, 2004). An additional number are tracked within the United States, although the government indicates that trends in international tracking are easier to estimate than are trends in domestic tracking.
3. The vast majority of the tracked and prostituted children in the U.S. are either runaway’s, or abandoned children. Common themes found among survivors of child prostitution that lead them into that situation are: sexual abuse as a child, parental neglect, parental drug use, emotional/physical abuse from a family member, and poverty.
4. The average age of entry for girls and boys ranges from 11-14 (Ernie Allen, President & CEO, NECMEC, July 21, 2009).
5. The travel and tourism industry plays a vital role in facilitating child sex
   tracking. Many hotels have become havens for what has become known as “child sex tourism,” in which trackers and sex oenders utilize hotel facilities to carry out their illegal activities. This has become the case, due in part to the lack of set human rights policies at these hotels. Further, many of these hotels do not have programs to train their employees in how to identify and handle these illegal activities when discovered.
6. The Internet has become the new marketplace for tracking in children. The child sex industry is growing even as fewer prostitutes work the streets. This is because of the anonymity, relative safety, ability to easily lie about age, and low cost of using the internet to set up appointments and transactions. The Internet has also allowed child sex tracking to expand not only in large cities, but across the mid-west and into rural areas of the country.
7. Local news publications are also contributing to growth in the child sex trade. Failing to implement proper background checks, they allow postings for unlicensed “massage parlors” and “escort services” in their classieds sections. These establishments have proven links to child
   prostitution, often acting as fronts for brothels. Those businesses that through faulty review systems are able to obtain licenses, are subsequently left unregulated due in part to infrequent inspections and lack of police presence.
8. Astonishingly, with in the first 48 hours of being on the street, 1 in 3 children are lured into prostitution. (National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children/NISMART-2)
9. According to ECPAT (End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Tracking of Children for Sexual Purposes), as many as 100,000 U.S. children are forcefully engaged in prostitution or pornography each year. Approximately 300,000 U.S. children are at-risk.
10. Trackers (also called “pimps”) are known to recruit at malls, fast food restaurants, schools and after-school programs. Recruitment can take multiple forms, including: 1) kidnapping; 2) solicitation by other women or girls recruiting on behalf of the sex tracker; and 3) the “loverboy” approach of appearing genuinely interested in a romantic relationship while gradually coercing the victim into prostitution.

 

[Montrovant]

2 and 4 are false, or at least not necessarily true.

Whether a motherless child is a tragedy is pretty subjective.

So to be clear, your rebuttal is that "the way you can refute the conclusion is to declare that a motherless child isn't a tragedy".

Good luck getting people to agree with you on that one..

I see you ignored the whole issue of your definition of child trafficking being one that only you use.

Even if we assume that every child without a mother is a tragedy, that has no bearing on the fact that the definition of child trafficking does not fit with gays using a surrogate no matter how you try to twist words around.

You also ignore any question about whether children of non-gay parents are being trafficked based on your reasoning.

Or, to put it another way, your thread really is about how you hate and/or fear gays, particularly as parents. Just like so many of your other threads. It has nothing to do with child trafficking, that is simply another attempt on your part to demonize gays by slapping on a negative label which clearly does not fit.

 

[Seawytch]

2 and 4 are false, or at least not necessarily true.

Whether a motherless child is a tragedy is pretty subjective.

So to be clear, your rebuttal is that "the way you can refute the conclusion is to declare that a motherless child isn't a tragedy".

Good luck getting people to agree with you on that one..

I see you ignored the whole issue of your definition of child trafficking being one that only you use.

Even if we assume that every child without a mother is a tragedy, that has no bearing on the fact that the definition of child trafficking does not fit with gays using a surrogate no matter how you try to twist words around.

You also ignore any question about whether children of non-gay parents are being trafficked based on your reasoning.

Or, to put it another way, your thread really is about how you hate and/or fear gays, particularly as parents. Just like so many of your other threads. It has nothing to do with child trafficking, that is simply another attempt on your part to demonize gays by slapping on a negative label which clearly does not fit.

I know three amazing children (born through surrogacy)with two fathers. They are not a tragedy and would be very insulted at being characterized as such.

 

[Jackson]

Tell all those creepy women that they can make $10,000 for their baby, just maybe they won't abort. It will pay off their Walmart credit card.

 

[Jackson]

Do you think sperm donation is the same as child trafficking?

Perhaps, perhaps not. It's complicated law. I do know that if a child is to be transferred in custody it should have a guardian ad litem for every step of that process. Or perhaps you believe that any old adult who birthed a child is legally qualified to oversee its interest every step of the way...like no woman strapped for cash would ever consider selling her infant to creepy customers when she already has six of her own..? Just let the "booming industry" self-regulate will you?

The New York Times...not me.. labelled what's going on in California "an industry"...

The customers aren't creepy. The woman having the baby is. Lots of couples can't have children. Many go overseas to adopt. That's how desperate they are.