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

[Silhouette]

It doesn't matter how many links you post when the definition of children born out of wedlock is when the two parents are not in the same home. Only a mother (a person with a womb) and father (whose semen impregnates that womb) can be a child's parents. Two gay men can never produce a child, ever. And in the case of gay "marriages", the condition of putting a child in that home means that there was a premeditated pre-order of a wedlock birth for money, knowing full well ahead of time that that child would be permanently deprived of a mother (or father in the case of lesbians) for life. This is institutionalized child neglect for money.

Again...still failing to see how that isn't child trafficking?

You have used contradictory definitions of the word wedlock in just that post. You start by saying out of wedlock means the two parents are not in the same home (not quite, but at least close) and then go on to describe a surrogacy birth of a child going to a married gay couple as a wedlock birth. Wedlock is not your personal word to define...

You're right, it isn't just my word to define. The entire world understands that if a child is born to a woman and a man outside their being married it is a wedlock child. So, ALWAYS children in gay "marriages" are wedlock children.

Where surrogacy is involved there, they wedlock children are made-to-order, for money...to be placed in a situation predictable to their detriment (motherless or fatherless home).

Wedlock child + vital role model/parent missing + preordered+ money = child trafficking.

 

[Montrovant]

It doesn't matter how many links you post when the definition of children born out of wedlock is when the two parents are not in the same home. Only a mother (a person with a womb) and father (whose semen impregnates that womb) can be a child's parents. Two gay men can never produce a child, ever. And in the case of gay "marriages", the condition of putting a child in that home means that there was a premeditated pre-order of a wedlock birth for money, knowing full well ahead of time that that child would be permanently deprived of a mother (or father in the case of lesbians) for life. This is institutionalized child neglect for money.

Again...still failing to see how that isn't child trafficking?

You have used contradictory definitions of the word wedlock in just that post. You start by saying out of wedlock means the two parents are not in the same home (not quite, but at least close) and then go on to describe a surrogacy birth of a child going to a married gay couple as a wedlock birth. Wedlock is not your personal word to define...

You're right, it isn't just my word to define. The entire world understands that if a child is born to a woman and a man outside their being married it is a wedlock child. So, ALWAYS children in gay "marriages" are wedlock children.

Where surrogacy is involved there, they wedlock children are made-to-order, for money...to be placed in a situation predictable to their detriment (motherless or fatherless home).

Wedlock child + vital role model/parent missing + preordered+ money = child trafficking.

Actually, you are the only person I have ever come across who thought that wedlock meant not married. The only person, ever. I've shown you multiple dictionary sites giving the definition. I've read the phrase 'out of wedlock' many times, and each time it meant not married. Wedlock is married. Out of wedlock is not married. That's the way it is for everyone but you. I'd like to see if you can show a single instance, anywhere, of anyone other than you using the word to mean people who are not married.

When you cannot even admit to a mistake about the definition of a word, despite being shown clear evidence that you are wrong, it only reinforces the image of you as someone who makes up facts to fit your argument and ignores all evidence to the contrary.

To use your words, 'a child born of two people's genes who are not together' is a child born out of wedlock. I could provide dozens, hundreds more examples of this being the definition of the phrase, that the definition of the word wedlock is the state of being married, but clearly you will just continue to ignore it. Just as you will ignore that surrogacy is not child trafficking.

 

[Syriusly]

It doesn't matter how many links you post when the definition of children born out of wedlock is when the two parents are not in the same home.

It matters because once again you just pull crap out of your ass- you keep copying and pasting your own definition of wedlock rather than the real definition.

Just like you refer to things not in the Prince's Study as if they were there, and you refer to a non-existent Mayo Clinic Study.

You just make crap up.

Is a child born of two people's genes who are not together a child born of wedlock? Yes.
.

That is a nonsensical statement.

A child born to any married parents is born 'in wedlock'
A child born to any unmarried parents is born 'out of wedlock'

You are just making crap up again.

 

[Syriusly]

It doesn't matter how many links you post when the definition of children born out of wedlock is when the two parents are not in the same home.

It matters because once again you just pull crap out of your ass- you keep copying and pasting your own definition of wedlock rather than the real definition.

Just like you refer to things not in the Prince's Study as if they were there, and you refer to a non-existent Mayo Clinic Study.

You just make crap up.

So, a child placed in a gay home is always a child of wedlock. Surrogacy to gay homes is always using children born of wedlock. In these cases a child born of wedlock is pre-ordered with money to be placed in a home without a mother or father...a vital role model is missing and this will result in the child's demise in a predictable way. Child's demise + parental absence + money = child trafficking.

You are just making crap up again. Wedlock has nothing to do with anything regarding surrogacy.

A child born through surrogacy is a child born through surrogacy.

And no- a child being raised without a mother or father will not predictably end with the death of the child.

You are insulting millions and millions of single parents.

And you are insulting the actual victims of child trafficking by attempting to co-opt their very real plight for your anti-homosexual agenda.

 

[Syriusly]

It doesn't matter how many links you post when the definition of children born out of wedlock is when the two parents are not in the same home. Only a mother (a person with a womb) and father (whose semen impregnates that womb) can be a child's parents. Two gay men can never produce a child, ever. And in the case of gay "marriages", the condition of putting a child in that home means that there was a premeditated pre-order of a wedlock birth for money, knowing full well ahead of time that that child would be permanently deprived of a mother (or father in the case of lesbians) for life. This is institutionalized child neglect for money.

Again...still failing to see how that isn't child trafficking?

You have used contradictory definitions of the word wedlock in just that post. You start by saying out of wedlock means the two parents are not in the same home (not quite, but at least close) and then go on to describe a surrogacy birth of a child going to a married gay couple as a wedlock birth. Wedlock is not your personal word to define...

You're right, it isn't just my word to define. The entire world understands that if a child is born to a woman and a man outside their being married it is a wedlock child. .

No.

You can't even get something as simple as 'wedlock' correct.

 

[Silhouette]

Actually, you are the only person I have ever come across who thought that wedlock meant not married. The only person, ever. I've shown you multiple dictionary sites giving the definition. I've read the phrase 'out of wedlock' many times, and each time it meant not married. Wedlock is married. Out of wedlock is not married..

Oh, I get it. You knew what I was talking about "out of wedlock" but pretended not to as if that leant credence to your position.

OK, let me restate this: IF A CHILD IS MISSING A PARENT IN HIS HOME AND IT WASN'T FROM DEATH OR DIVORCE, HE WAS BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK.

So, all children in gay "marriages" are by definition born OUT of wedlock. So these children are actually being pre-ordered, for money, where one of their parents agrees ahead of time to sell their interest in the child to place it in a home where a vital role model will always be missing. Mother or father.

And this isn't a conversation about accidental births or unfortunate orphans of all walks. This is a conversation about before a women ever becomes pregnant, a decision is made where she pre-agrees to sell her parenthood of a child for money (or the natural father does in the case of lesbians) knowing that child will enter a fatherless or motherless home.

So, if the Prince's Trust survey is accurate and children without a regular and consistent role model of their gender in their lives (the study factually meant mother or father, but probably didn't want kids without one or the other to feel stigmatized and have their plight become worse), then a parent of a child is selling off custody of that child for money to a situation that can be predicted to be detrimental to them. The Prince's Trust survey found these adult children suffered significantly elevated bouts of drug abuse, depression, indigency...as well as thoughts of not belonging or committing suicide. That spells "predictable detriment" to me....to a child....where money changed hands...and a child was shipped off to a situation that would harm them...

...and how is that not child trafficking?

 

[Syriusly]

Actually, you are the only person I have ever come across who thought that wedlock meant not married. The only person, ever. I've shown you multiple dictionary sites giving the definition. I've read the phrase 'out of wedlock' many times, and each time it meant not married. Wedlock is married. Out of wedlock is not married..

Oh, I get it. You knew what I was talking about "out of wedlock" but pretended not to as if that leant credence to your position.

OK, let me restate this: IF A CHILD IS MISSING A PARENT IN HIS HOME AND IT WASN'T FROM DEATH OR DIVORCE, HE WAS BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK.

So- you are starting to get closer to the definition of wedlock.

If a child is born and his parents are not married- he was born out of wedlock- regardless of where his father lived.
If a child is born and his parents are married- he was born in wedlock- regardless of where his father lived.

Wedlock essentially means marriage.

So basically you are arguing that children of gay couples should be born out of wedlock because you don't want their parents to be married.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually, you are the only person I have ever come across who thought that wedlock meant not married. The only person, ever. I've shown you multiple dictionary sites giving the definition. I've read the phrase 'out of wedlock' many times, and each time it meant not married. Wedlock is married. Out of wedlock is not married..

So, if the Prince's Trust survey is accurate and children without a regular and consistent role model of their gender in their lives (the study factually meant mother or father, but probably didn't want kids without one or the other to feel stigmatized and have their plight become worse),

The Prince's Trust survey doesn't say 'regular and consistent role model of their gender'- that is your definition.
The Prince's Trust study doesn't mention mother or father-you are just making crap up again.

Here is a quote from the most recent Prince's Trust study- note the issue identified is 'positive role model'- and missing a parent as a role model. Nothing to support your claims.

ROLE MODELS AND GANGS
According to the respondents of the
survey, a lack of positive role models is
one key issue that is driving young people
to join gangs.
Keyfindings:
>
Fifty-nine per cent of young people agree
that a lack of positive role models drives
young people to join gangs
>
More than half of young people do not
have a parent that they consider a role
model (58 per cent), while around one in
five (18 per cent) admit that they have no
role model at all
>
30 per cent of young people with no role
model admit to feeling worthless. This
compares to 17 per cent of all young
people

 

[Silhouette]

So basically you are arguing that children of gay couples should be born out of wedlock because you don't want their parents to be married.

Gay couples can never have children. Any child in a gay "marriage" was always manufactured for them (unless somehow they adopted from an accident/unfortuate birth). And usually for money....to a situation without either a vital mother or father...

 

[Syriusly]

So basically you are arguing that children of gay couples should be born out of wedlock because you don't want their parents to be married.

Gay couples can never have children. Any child in a gay "marriage" was always manufactured for them (unless somehow they adopted from an accident/unfortuate birth). And usually for money....to a situation without either a vital mother or father...

Gay couples do have children- just as straight couples do who use surrogacy or artificial insemination or adoption.

You just want to ensure that children of gay couples can't have married parents.

 

[Montrovant]

Actually, you are the only person I have ever come across who thought that wedlock meant not married. The only person, ever. I've shown you multiple dictionary sites giving the definition. I've read the phrase 'out of wedlock' many times, and each time it meant not married. Wedlock is married. Out of wedlock is not married..

Oh, I get it. You knew what I was talking about "out of wedlock" but pretended not to as if that leant credence to your position.

OK, let me restate this: IF A CHILD IS MISSING A PARENT IN HIS HOME AND IT WASN'T FROM DEATH OR DIVORCE, HE WAS BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK.

So, all children in gay "marriages" are by definition born OUT of wedlock. So these children are actually being pre-ordered, for money, where one of their parents agrees ahead of time to sell their interest in the child to place it in a home where a vital role model will always be missing. Mother or father.

And this isn't a conversation about accidental births or unfortunate orphans of all walks. This is a conversation about before a women ever becomes pregnant, a decision is made where she pre-agrees to sell her parenthood of a child for money (or the natural father does in the case of lesbians) knowing that child will enter a fatherless or motherless home.

So, if the Prince's Trust survey is accurate and children without a regular and consistent role model of their gender in their lives (the study factually meant mother or father, but probably didn't want kids without one or the other to feel stigmatized and have their plight become worse), then a parent of a child is selling off custody of that child for money to a situation that can be predicted to be detrimental to them. The Prince's Trust survey found these adult children suffered significantly elevated bouts of drug abuse, depression, indigency...as well as thoughts of not belonging or committing suicide. That spells "predictable detriment" to me....to a child....where money changed hands...and a child was shipped off to a situation that would harm them...

...and how is that not child trafficking?

A surrogate is not the biological parent of the child she carries. It is not her egg. She only provides the womb. Are you arguing that carrying the child is what makes a woman a mother, and that the woman who has her egg fertilized is not the mother? Or that both women are mothers?

Every sperm or egg donor could be said to 'sell their parenthood of a child for money'. Do you think sperm donation and egg donation should be illegal? Are sperm and egg donations child trafficking?

The Prince's Trust Youth Index does not say what you claim it does. It never has, and repeating your lies over and over does not make them any more true. You have been shown, in detail, that you are wrong about what it says, yet you continue to spout your lies. I have even shown you recently a quote from an Index in which they say they provide positive role models, clearly showing that the people behind the Index do not consider parents, or even relatives, to be the only positive role models a child can have.

Children being put in what you consider a detrimental environment is not the definition of child trafficking. The most common definition I've seen for all human trafficking is that the victims are being exploited or forced to labor for someone. Plenty of living situations for children might be considered detrimental but do not constitute child trafficking. You are using the phrase and flailing about, trying to make it fit, simply in an attempt to demonize gay parents. Your dishonesty only makes you even less believable, not that many of your arguments are particularly compelling.

And yes, I knew what you were talking about. However, it took being told over and over, shown links to definitions, multiple people telling you multiple times and showing you nearly irrefutable evidence that you were using an incorrect definition of the word wedlock before you finally admitted your error. I never pretended I didn't know what you meant. I explained, repeatedly, that what you meant was not what you said. It's not my issue if you are too dense to understand that.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

It's too bad people are not as disgusted with this story as they are about the poached lion, or bakers who don't want to bake gay cakes.

 

[Seawytch]

It's too bad people are not as disgusted with this story as they are about the poached lion, or bakers who don't want to bake gay cakes.

You should tell former governor Romney how disgusting the birth of his grandchildren are to you.

 

[Silhouette]

Actually, you are the only person I have ever come across who thought that wedlock meant not married. The only person, ever. I've shown you multiple dictionary sites giving the definition. I've read the phrase 'out of wedlock' many times, and each time it meant not married. Wedlock is married. Out of wedlock is not married..

Oh, I get it. You knew what I was talking about "out of wedlock" but pretended not to as if that leant credence to your position.

OK, let me restate this: IF A CHILD IS MISSING A PARENT IN HIS HOME AND IT WASN'T FROM DEATH OR DIVORCE, HE WAS BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK.

So, all children in gay "marriages" are by definition born OUT of wedlock. So these children are actually being pre-ordered, for money, where one of their parents agrees ahead of time to sell their interest in the child to place it in a home where a vital role model will always be missing. Mother or father.

And this isn't a conversation about accidental births or unfortunate orphans of all walks. This is a conversation about before a women ever becomes pregnant, a decision is made where she pre-agrees to sell her parenthood of a child for money (or the natural father does in the case of lesbians) knowing that child will enter a fatherless or motherless home.

So, if the Prince's Trust survey is accurate and children without a regular and consistent role model of their gender in their lives (the study factually meant mother or father, but probably didn't want kids without one or the other to feel stigmatized and have their plight become worse), then a parent of a child is selling off custody of that child for money to a situation that can be predicted to be detrimental to them. The Prince's Trust survey found these adult children suffered significantly elevated bouts of drug abuse, depression, indigency...as well as thoughts of not belonging or committing suicide. That spells "predictable detriment" to me....to a child....where money changed hands...and a child was shipped off to a situation that would harm them...

...and how is that not child trafficking?

A surrogate is not the biological parent of the child she carries. It is not her egg. She only provides the womb. Are you arguing that carrying the child is what makes a woman a mother, and that the woman who has her egg fertilized is not the mother? Or that both women are mothers?...

No, as you are already perfectly aware before you asked, no gay man is ever a mother.

Get it yet? So every child in a "gay marriage" is half-sold to a situation predictable to their detriment. If both parents were man and woman and incapable of reproducing, any surrogate child entering their home would have the full compliment of non-out-of-wedlock parenting. A gay marriage for the sake of children is always out of wedlock because there is no complimentary gender present...ever..

And money changes hands for kids entering that motherless/fatherless environment....to the detriment of kids...

Just because you folks forced society with your pocket Justices amending the Constitution to "make gay marriage legal across all 50 states" doesn't mean for the sake of child welfare, we completely redact what is vital and necessary and physically impossible to change about children being born of men and women together....in re: to the phrase "out-of-wedlock". As far as kids are concerned, gays are never married....not in the sense that is vital to them..

 

[Montrovant]

Actually, you are the only person I have ever come across who thought that wedlock meant not married. The only person, ever. I've shown you multiple dictionary sites giving the definition. I've read the phrase 'out of wedlock' many times, and each time it meant not married. Wedlock is married. Out of wedlock is not married..

Oh, I get it. You knew what I was talking about "out of wedlock" but pretended not to as if that leant credence to your position.

OK, let me restate this: IF A CHILD IS MISSING A PARENT IN HIS HOME AND IT WASN'T FROM DEATH OR DIVORCE, HE WAS BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK.

So, all children in gay "marriages" are by definition born OUT of wedlock. So these children are actually being pre-ordered, for money, where one of their parents agrees ahead of time to sell their interest in the child to place it in a home where a vital role model will always be missing. Mother or father.

And this isn't a conversation about accidental births or unfortunate orphans of all walks. This is a conversation about before a women ever becomes pregnant, a decision is made where she pre-agrees to sell her parenthood of a child for money (or the natural father does in the case of lesbians) knowing that child will enter a fatherless or motherless home.

So, if the Prince's Trust survey is accurate and children without a regular and consistent role model of their gender in their lives (the study factually meant mother or father, but probably didn't want kids without one or the other to feel stigmatized and have their plight become worse), then a parent of a child is selling off custody of that child for money to a situation that can be predicted to be detrimental to them. The Prince's Trust survey found these adult children suffered significantly elevated bouts of drug abuse, depression, indigency...as well as thoughts of not belonging or committing suicide. That spells "predictable detriment" to me....to a child....where money changed hands...and a child was shipped off to a situation that would harm them...

...and how is that not child trafficking?

A surrogate is not the biological parent of the child she carries. It is not her egg. She only provides the womb. Are you arguing that carrying the child is what makes a woman a mother, and that the woman who has her egg fertilized is not the mother? Or that both women are mothers?...

No, as you are already perfectly aware before you asked, no gay man is ever a mother.

Get it yet? So every child in a "gay marriage" is half-sold to a situation predictable to their detriment. If both parents were man and woman and incapable of reproducing, any surrogate child entering their home would have the full compliment of non-out-of-wedlock parenting. A gay marriage for the sake of children is always out of wedlock because there is no complimentary gender present...ever..

And money changes hands for kids entering that motherless/fatherless environment....to the detriment of kids...

Just because you folks forced society with your pocket Justices amending the Constitution to "make gay marriage legal across all 50 states" doesn't mean for the sake of child welfare, we completely redact what is vital and necessary and physically impossible to change about children being born of men and women together....in re: to the phrase "out-of-wedlock". As far as kids are concerned, gays are never married....not in the sense that is vital to them..

Good job not answering questions.

You hate gays. That is what your every argument boils down to. Try to dress it up in different rhetoric, in the end, it is what you actually mean.

 

[Silhouette]

Good job not answering questions.

You hate gays. That is what your every argument boils down to. Try to dress it up in different rhetoric, in the end, it is what you actually mean.

Are you talking to yourself here? My posts are almost always much longer than yours and with more details. We covered the "Out of wedlock" thing. It was a constructed-"misunderstanding" on your behalf. You knew what I meant but felt the conversation was getting too close to proving up that one parent selling their interest in a child forever to a gay home where the detriment of that child could be predicted by being either motherless or fatherless a la the Prince's Trust study's findings, was akin to child trafficking.

So now your only comment about that is, apparently, "neener neener neener"...or words to that effect. And berating...always the berating... People who start to berate others in debate are those with the weakest position and are afraid they are losing ground. Thanks for showing your cards...again...

 

[Montrovant]

Good job not answering questions.

You hate gays. That is what your every argument boils down to. Try to dress it up in different rhetoric, in the end, it is what you actually mean.

Are you talking to yourself here? My posts are almost always much longer than yours and with more details. We covered the "Out of wedlock" thing. It was a constructed-"misunderstanding" on your behalf. You knew what I meant but felt the conversation was getting too close to proving up that one parent selling their interest in a child forever to a gay home where the detriment of that child could be predicted by being either motherless or fatherless a la the Prince's Trust study's findings, was akin to child trafficking.

So now your only comment about that is, apparently, "neener neener neener"...or words to that effect. And berating...always the berating... People who start to berate others in debate are those with the weakest position and are afraid they are losing ground. Thanks for showing your cards...again...

Your definition of debate, like so many other things, seems very much off kilter. You rarely debate. What you do is make things up, present them as though they are facts, and then ignore the various people that point out the falsities and lies that you spew. That you are wordy about it in no way speaks to the veracity of your claims.

The "out of wedlock" thing was you being obstinate. You assumed you knew what the word wedlock meant and ignored multiple posts, with links, showing that you were wrong. It was a microcosm of all of your posting here; you make a claim, are shown that claim is wrong, but proceed with the claim anyway. Take your constant harping about the Prince's Trust Youth Index. You continue to claim that it concludes something about mothers and fathers, despite being shown in various ways that it does not. This includes being shown a quote in which one of the writers claims the group can provide the very positive roll models you keep saying MUST be a mother or father. Yet, despite this clear contradictory evidence, you keep spouting off the same nonsense that the Index says something about children without mothers or fathers.

Now you are trying to use your already well-debunked claims about the Index to support another silly claim that surrogacy is child trafficking. Again, you have been shown that they are not the same thing, using dictionary definitions as well as definitions from other places (for example, UNICEF says, "According to the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (2000), child trafficking is the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of children for the purpose of exploitation"). 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. 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. You ignore surrogacy for heterosexual couples. You ignore single parents. You ignore bad heterosexual parents. You ignore 'sexual deviancy' of any sort but homosexuality. You call homosexuality a verb, FFS.

I simply summed up your arguments. You hate gays. Three words that, for the most part, encompass everything you've said on the subject.

 

[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.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yet you continue to lie in your signature- and say Homosexuality is a verb.

Now you change your lie and call 'homosexuality' an adverb- when homosexuality per the dictionary is a noun.
Homosexuality Definition of homosexuality by Merriam-Webster

I have no idea why you feel compelled to lie about such little things like what 'homosexuality' is- and what 'wedlock' is.

... 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.
.

And humans are not zebras or horses.

A woman who has volunteered to be a surrogate has done so knowing that the child she bears will not be her own. I agree this is an arrangement with lots of potential for emotional risk- for the birth mother- and for the legal parents.

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.

 

[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?

2. You have done nothing but pay the slightest lip service to heterosexual couples using surrogacy. As usual, your focus is on homosexual couples. I don't recall you using heterosexuals as an example to show why surrogacy is child trafficking, only homosexuals.

3. Are single parents who use surrogacy trafficking in children then? Single parents aren't allowed as a 'circumstantial blunder'. They are simply allowed, whatever the reason a person decides to have a child by themselves might be. You often provide supposed reasons for certain laws existing but never actually provide even a little evidence that your claims have a basis in reality.

4. See #2.

5. You equate illegal sexual acts to homosexuality. What about people who are swingers? Into BDSM? Someone with a foot fetish, someone who likes to dress their partner up as a baby, someone into scat? You don't mention those because they are not exclusive to homosexuality and they are completely legal. You don't care about sexual deviancy unless you can use it as a way to demonize homosexuals. Oh, and no one has claimed a gay man is a mother. That's one of the many things you have made up in your crusade against gays.

6. You have consistently ignored provided definitions of words and phrases. Links to definitions have been provided and, apparently, discarded. Homosexuality is not a verb. It is not an adverb. It is a noun. You've been shown this, but feel free to provide a link to the dictionary which says it is an adverb.