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

[Silhouette]

Let's compare surrogacy without a custodial intermediary (legally called a "guardian ad litem") to"child-trafficking".
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/u...-face-a-maze-of-laws-state-by-state.html?_r=0

Surrogates and Couples Face a Maze of Laws, State by State SEPT. 17, 2014
While surrogacy is far more accepted in the United States than in most countries, and increasing rapidly (more than 2,000 babies will be born through it here this year), it remains, like abortion, a polarizing and charged issue. There is nothing resembling a national consensus on how to handle it and no federal law, leaving the states free to do as they wish...In five states, surrogacy contracts are void and unenforceable, and in Washington, D.C., where new legislation has been proposed, surrogacy carries criminal penalties. Seven states have at least one court opinion upholding some form of surrogacy....California has the most permissive law, allowing anyone to hire a woman to carry a baby and the birth certificate to carry the names of the intended parents. As a result, California has a booming surrogacy industry, attracting clients from around the world.

more..

The issue has produced some strange bedfellows: In several states, for example, Kathleen Sloan, an abortion rights advocate who is a board member of the National Organization for Women, has worked with Catholic and conservative groups to oppose surrogacy because she sees it as a form of exploitation. But most other feminists have backed off....“It’s rarer than it was in the ’80s and ’90s to see feminists flat-out opposing surrogacy,” said Sara Ainsworth, director of legal advocacy at the National Advocates for Pregnant Women. “But it’s complex and there’s a lot of discomfort surrounding the issue, so many women’s groups have not taken a formal position.”

What else is private surrogacy besides a private contract between parties for the transfer of a child from its parents to non-parents? Were there adoption proceedings? A custodial overseer? No? Then how is it intrinsically different from selling your baby on the private market?

Since this announcement by the Kansas Governor: BAD News for Gay Couples in Kansas... Liberals are Crying

Gov. Sam Brownback issued an executive order Tuesday prohibiting state government from taking action against clergy members or religious organizations that deny services to couples based on religious beliefs.
Among other things, the order is intended to protect religious organizations that provide adoption services for the state from having to place children with gay couples if that conflicts with their beliefs.

There will be a loophole exploited, that is already well underway, of private contracts of surrogacy between lesbians (who cannot reproduce without men) and gay men (who cannot reproduce without women). The problem is especially onerous because gay men have no womb. So only their sperm has "custody" of the child born. Or the sperm of a donor male.

I may be wrong on the laws and I hope someone will school me if I am. But if there is no intermediary between these "arrangements", besides just a private contract drawn up in some dusty/shady lawyer's office, how is this different than "babies for sale"? (Child-trafficking)

...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?...in hard economic times...What could go wrong?...

 

[Syriusly]

Let's compare surrogacy without a custodial intermediary (legally called a "guardian ad litem") to"child-trafficking".

I may be wrong on the laws )

I am quite confident since you mention the law- that you are.

 

[Syriusly]

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

 

[Silhouette]

Let's compare surrogacy without a custodial intermediary (legally called a "guardian ad litem") to"child-trafficking".

I may be wrong on the laws )

I am quite confident since you mention the law- that you are.

And the states declaring surrogacy contracts void? Them too? Do you want them to tremble in their boots for comparing surrogacy without gaurdians ad litem as child-trafficking?

 

[Silhouette]

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"...

 

[Syriusly]

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"...

There is a whole fertility industry in California and elsewhere- with sperm and eggs and wombs and people who want to have a baby but cannot physically do so themselves.

You want to compare that to the practice of selling children for sex.

 

[Syriusly]

Let's compare surrogacy without a custodial intermediary (legally called a "guardian ad litem") to"child-trafficking".

I may be wrong on the laws )

I am quite confident since you mention the law- that you are.

And the states declaring surrogacy contracts void? Them too? Do you want them to tremble in their boots for comparing surrogacy without gaurdians ad litem as child-trafficking?

No one but you is calling it child trafficking.

 

[Silhouette]

No one but you is calling it child trafficking.

The New York Times called it "an industry". Please describe the difference?

 

[Silhouette]

*crickets*

 

[Katzndogz]

Child trafficking is a situation in which there is no parent. With surrogacy, there is one or more biological parents and no need of an independent advocate. Just like there is no independent advocate for children born of two parents into an intact family. If there is no biological connection of either parent to the child, its an adoption.

 

[Syriusly]

No one but you is calling it child trafficking.

The New York Times called it "an industry". Please describe the difference?

Do you think the auto industry is the same thing as child trafficking?

 

[Silhouette]

No one but you is calling it child trafficking.

The New York Times called it "an industry". Please describe the difference?

Do you think the auto industry is the same thing as child trafficking?

Yes, I think purple elephants eat corn on the cob on Tuesdays.

WTF does your comparison have to do with any comments on this thread or child trafficking? The New York Times called the surrogacy for money in California a "booming industry"??

I asked you on the previous page to sift out the differences between birthing children for money to hand off in private deals with other adults, called "surrogacy" and child trafficking.

You didn't answer.

Answer.

Do you think the New York Times was in error calling it an "industry"?

 

[Syriusly]

No one but you is calling it child trafficking.

The New York Times called it "an industry". Please describe the difference?

Do you think the auto industry is the same thing as child trafficking?

Yes, I think purple elephants eat corn on the cob on Tuesdays.
r.

I believe you.

 

[Silhouette]

I believe you.

That's nice.

Do you think the New York Times was in error calling it an "industry"?

 

[Silhouette]

Well, is it an "industry" or isn't it? Was the New York Times wrong calling it that?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Women in India get a few grand for carrying other people's babies as surrogates. Big industry evidently.

As with marriage, who wants to make a baby is none of my business.

My interest and concern with these kinds of things begins and ends with one question, "Is it legal?" If it is therein ends my concern. If it isn't, then I may depeneding on issue ask followups, should it beillegal? How important is it it become illegal? etc.

 

[Silhouette]

Women in India get a few grand for carrying other people's babies as surrogates. Big industry evidently.

As with marriage, who wants to make a baby is none of my business.

My interest and concern with these kinds of things begins and ends with one question, "Is it legal?" If it is therein ends my concern. If it isn't, then I may depeneding on issue ask followups, should it beillegal? How important is it it become illegal? etc.

Should the essential sale of human beings be legal? That's a tough moral quesiton for you is it? Especially when you consider we are talking about infants... In tough economic times you can't see a problem with women (like poor women in India: thanks for you inadvertent example) who are struggling trying to feed the kids they already have, signing up to sell the next baby or two to that person, couple or group who ponies up an enticing wad of cash?

Somehow I knew Delta that you would show up on this thread and be concerned about how the debate here went. Just intuition I guess.

 

[Skylar]

Child trafficking is a situation in which there is no parent. With surrogacy, there is one or more biological parents and no need of an independent advocate. Just like there is no independent advocate for children born of two parents into an intact family. If there is no biological connection of either parent to the child, its an adoption.

No tispy, you're not getting it. This is about lesbians and gay people. How? I'm not quite sure. But you're points are irrelevant to the thread, despite being germane to the OP. As Sil doesn't give a shit about child traffcking. He cares about attacking gays.

Your post doesn't do any of that. And is thus irrelevant to this thread.

 

[Skylar]

Women in India get a few grand for carrying other people's babies as surrogates. Big industry evidently.

As with marriage, who wants to make a baby is none of my business.

My interest and concern with these kinds of things begins and ends with one question, "Is it legal?" If it is therein ends my concern. If it isn't, then I may depeneding on issue ask followups, should it beillegal? How important is it it become illegal? etc.

Should the essential sale of human beings be legal? That's a tough moral quesiton for you is it? Especially when you consider we are talking about infants... In tough economic times you can't see a problem with women (like poor women in India: thanks for you inadvertent example) who are struggling trying to feed the kids they already have, signing up to sell the next baby or two to that person, couple or group who ponies up an enticing wad of cash?

Somehow I knew Delta that you would show up on this thread and be concerned about how the debate here went. Just intuition I guess.

The kid isn't being 'sold'. The womb is being rented. Its someone else's bun in her oven. The child is being sent to its parents once born.

 

[Silhouette]

That's not quite what I've heard Skylar.