Posted on 06/16/2018 6:09:34 PM PDT by Tax-chick
And so the new thinking is just libertine gnosticism warmed over and blended with Milton’s Satan who says, “ I will not serve.”
Exactly. My heart breaks for this child and others in her situation.
You left out, “Who can, may.”
Compensated” and “paid” are the same thing.
I agree the child’s rights are paramount. But it’s hard to give over the children’s rights protection to any agency or attorney. I don’t like what has happened “for the children” in family court or even in “charities” like the one Hillary Clinton worked for once. Look what she did for the child who was brutally raped early in her career.
One thing that turned me away from adoption was the stories where a judge would rip a small child from the only family it had ever known, BASICALLY DESTROYING THE CHILD’S ONLY SECURITY, and handing the little one to a total stranger, a man who had once screwed the child’s birth mother and shows up 4 years later to claim “his” kid. How could that ever be in a child’s interest?
Nor would I wrench a child away from two men who had raised him for years. I would only take a child away from whom he knows as parents in kidnapping or abuse cases.
I thought of skipping commenting since I am just “asking for it”.
I watch the show. While I am not supportive of the “gay” lifestyle, I do find the show entertaining. It is vulgar yet honest.
The laws being what they are, Jeff and Gage had every right to do this. Jeff is the biological father and Gage is an adoptive parent.
As much as I disagree with the concept, they are “legally” married.
As far as the child goes, she will exist, she will be loved. She will be very well cared for. She will go to the best schools and colleges.
Scarred for life? Give me a break!
As far as the “surrogate” goes, all I can say is did she ever watch the show?????????? Right, she was ON the show.
I self deleted my last comment.
And she will have “aunt Jenni”.
Another way to say “paid for donating” is “sold.”
There is a legal difference between selling the components of a future human being - egg, sperm, gestation environment - and selling a complete human, including an embryonic one. Whether one morally approves the one but not the other is a matter of philosophy.
Okay.
The laws being what they are, Jeff and Gage had every right to do this.
They had a legal right. "Legal" and "right" are not the same thing. When slavery was legal in the United States, did one person "have every right" to own another?
As far as the child goes, she will exist, she will be loved.
Of course she exists. However, you have no idea whether she will be loved. You don't know these people just because you watch their tv show. She could be left with household help with she's not appearing on camera. She could be abused. You wouldn't know.
She will go to the best schools and colleges.
That's one possibility. There are many others. Her father could lose all his assets in the divorce from his present companion. One or the other could lose it all to a gambling or drug or rent-boy habit. She could commit suicide in her teens. She could be addicted to drugs and end up homeless.
I'm always surprised when I come across the contention that wealth and celebrity always result in happiness. What do you think, Kate Spade? Anthony Bourdain?
Again you are right which is why its such a knotty problem. The courts are a very imperfect solution administered by very imperfect judges & child advocates.
I think that once a child is adopted unless there is malfeasance or mistaken identity (hospital mix-up), or abuse of the child any decisions about changing custody should err towards leaving the existing family intact.
The issue with IVF IMO relates to availability. Should IVF be available for anyone with the $ or health insurance coverage or are there criterion. IVF/Donor eggs/surrogacy are, at this point, not regulated consistently and I think there is abuse. As you noted, the courts have failed children repeatedly and it will be very hard to tailor laws that would both protect children and withstand the attacks from activists.
Yes. A ton of gray area. Completely agree.
My experience in the third party reproduction field, I actually saw very little abuse. We all have seen the big cases with doctor fraud or irresponsible people being allowed to use these methods. But there aren’t a ton of them.
Regulating is a problem. Everyone wants some regulation that benefits them, but no one wants really really tough regulation where some Authority plays Gd and decides who can and can’t have a child. I knew the risks going in to the legal contracts one signs and I knew what verbiage to insert or leave out, in hopes of keeping things in my daughter’s benefit until she is adult. Some things are enforceable and some things are not.
And this is a great day to add that PARENTING is done by the people who raise the child, not necessarily by their genetic forebears!
(My daughter was an “extra embryo” once, unwanted, could have been destroyed. This beautiful girl coloring next to me could easily have been tossed into the trash without a second thought.)
I am so happy for you & for your daughter, that in this vast universe you found each other. Like my grandson, who needed IVF to be conceived and retained, she is a much loved miracle child. I feel very lucky to live in a world that has those opportunities.
Never heard of this sicko monstrosity.
This would be depraved enough if it were merely actors with a script.
Who could count the multiple levels of profiting enablers who caused this degeneracy to come to fruition? There’s way more involved than just the perverts on the surface.
The love of money is the root of all evil. Just another day on the job.
It’s the “monetized” generation.
According to a link at the source, the program is one of those house-flipping shows, with the distinction being that the investors are a homosexual couple.
Money, money, money. Homosexuals have money, homosexuals get what they want.
House flipping, must be a pretty loose definition. Not surprising.
I can recall that years ago, part of the reason cable became unbearable was that the programming on the channels didn’t match the channels. Why then should the shows match their description. Bate and switch.
Long ago, when the home arts and improvement channels and shows were repurposed for homosexual indoctrination and normalization, I turned off the TV completely. I didn’t need gardening and decorating tips *that* badly.
We haven’t had cable since we moved to this house in 2003. When I happen to catch HGTV in a waiting room, one out of three participants is a homosexual couple.
They have money. Advertisers want them as audience.
Same with businesses that fly the rainbow flag. "Bring in your money."
Homosexuals, as an aggregate group, are rich. That’s why they have the influence they do, as +/- 2.5% of the population.
Certain industries, such as housing, are disproportionally affected by the wealth of homosexuals.
Me too. Thanks. And thanks to the Almighty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.