FUAC touts bill to legalize womb rental, make parenthood gender-neutral

[subsonic]

Cuomo just put out a mass email sending constituents/taxpayers to a state-run petition:

Add Your Name: Legalize Surrogacy and Ban Gay/Trans Panic Defense

Just in time for father's day. What this bill would do is allow payments to surrogate mother's to bear their frankenbabies for them for profit, and then recognize these contracts in court so that the womb renters, whoever they might be, have a legal claim on the babies.

The bill also strips out all references to mothers and fathers, replacing the term "birth mother" with "genetic surrogate" and using "they" in favor of "she" for both mothers and "he" for fathers.

Bill text:

NY State Assembly Bill A1071C

Under this definition, "GENETIC SURROGATE" shall mean a PERSON who gives birth to a child WHO IS THE PERSON'S GENETIC CHILD.

It's already passed the Senate and Cuomo is lobbying the assembly to make this law so he can sign it.

 

[S&W Fan]

WTF ? May his helicopter Crash into the side of a bldg. sooner rather than later, sparing us from anymore of this social engineering bullshit.

 

[subsonic]

Another sample from this bill:

Immediately preceding or following the in-hospital birth of a child to an unmarried woman PERSON OR TO A PERSON WHO GAVE BIRTH TO A CHILD CONCEIVED THROUGH ASSISTED REPRODUCTION, the person in charge of such hospital or his or her designated representative shall provide to the child's mother and UNMARRIED PERSON WHO GAVE BIRTH TO THE CHILD AND THE putative father, if such father IS READILY IDENTIFIABLE AND AVAILABLE, OR TO THE PERSON WHO GAVE BIRTH AND THE OTHER INTENDED PARENT OF A CHILD CONCEIVED THROUGH ASSISTED REPRODUCTION IF SUCH PERSON is readily identifiable and available, the documents and written instructions necessary for such mother and putative father PERSONS to complete an acknowledgment of paternity PARENTAGE witnessed by two persons not related to the signatory. Such acknowledgment, if signed by both parties, at any time following the birth of a child, shall be filed with the registrar at the same time at which the certificate of live birth is filed, if possible, or anytime thereafter. Nothing herein shall be deemed to require the person in charge of such hospital or his or her designee to seek out or otherwise locate a putative father OR INTENDED PARENT OF A CHILD CONCEIVED THROUGH ASSISTED REPRODUCTION who is not readily identifiable or available.

 

[Darth]

Again, not sure of the outrage and/or why the government is involved?

 

[BDinPutnam]

Well why not. They're going to make it legal to rent the front end of it, why not the internals?

 

[subsonic]

Again, not sure of the outrage and/or why the government is involved?

Again, no one cares about your degenerate, child-porn-defending opinion.

Go move to Chelsea with your femdom buddies.

 

[Darth]

Again, no one cares about your degenerate, child-porn-defending opinion.

Go move to Chelsea with your femdom buddies.

WTF does "move to Chelsea" mean?

You didn't answer the question either way.

 

[libertysnake]

While I'd personally prefer people who can't have kids adopt one of the many children that need good homes, I don't see why allowing someone to have a surrogate violates anyone's rights. If anything, it allows people who want kids to have their own genetic children.

 

[subsonic]

While I'd personally prefer people who can't have kids adopt one of the many children that need good homes, I don't see why allowing someone to have a surrogate violates anyone's rights. If anything, it allows people who want kids to have their own genetic children.

How about the right of a child to have a natural bond with the woman who gave birth to them, the right to have what we used to call a “mother.”

How about the right for a mother to nurse and raise the baby they conceived and gave birth to, a natural right under natural law that cannot rightfully be bargained away, anymore than someone can bargain away their own freedom?

Those are just a start.

 

[Darth]

Wait until this dim bulb realizes that not every woman can or wants to have a baby.

But he thinks he knows better than you.

 

[Deplorable Me]

Meanwhile if the factory produced product is not up to spec, the contract can be canceled and the product disgarded. Maybe Planned Parenthood can buy it for parts.

 

[Acer-m14]

WTF does "move to Chelsea" mean?

still didn't read or under stand that thread i see LOL ..

 

[Grimscale]

How about the right of a child to have a natural bond with the woman who gave birth to them, the right to have what we used to call a “mother.”

How about the right for a mother to nurse and raise the baby they conceived and gave birth to, a natural right under natural law that cannot rightfully be bargained away, anymore than someone can bargain away their own freedom?

Those are just a start.

So you don't support adoption?

 

[subsonic]

So you don't support adoption?

Adoption is voluntary after the point of birth that results from a natural pregnancy. Adoption doesn't change the fact that the adoptee still has a biological and genetic mother. Adopting a child doesn't create the situation led to the mother giving up her child. By the way, buying a baby to adopt is extremely illegal. You can't approach a pregnant woman and say "I'll give you $150,000 for your baby." Do you support legalizing that? Do you think baby-trafficking is a victimless transaction that should be legalized?

IVF surrogacy treats women as cattle, breaking the link between the biological and genetic mother, and commercial/paid surrogacy from strangers is particularly despicable. It creates a pregnancy with the intent of severing the bond between mother and child, in exchange for cash. And this law erases both sex of a mother (crossing out "woman" and "mother" for "person who gives birth" to "their child"), while enabling a customer to claim the baby they paid for once it emerges from the women.

To directly answer your question, I support adoption when both the father and the mother decide to voluntarily abandon their responsibilities as parents to their children, or do so by their actions. I don't support the situation that leads to adoption, whether it is the biological parent's irresponsible choices (although better than abortion), a rapist's evil act, or social services wrecking vulnerable families and stealing their children.

 

[Grimscale]

Adoption doesn't change the fact that the adoptee still has a biological and genetic mother.

So does the child created from surrogacy. That the "biological mother" isn't the one that carried to term is immaterial.

By the way, buying a baby to adopt is extremely illegal. You can't approach a pregnant woman and say "I'll give you $150,000 for your baby." Do you support legalizing that? Do you think baby-trafficking is a victimless transaction that should be legalized?

What, in this entire discussion, suggested this in any way? Twisting circumstances to make yourself look holier-than-thou only undermines any legitimate argument you might come up with.
Surrogacy is a valid method for a couple to have a child if the woman is not capable of bearing children. It has been used for centuries. That modern science now has a way for the mother-to-be to use her own genetic material, instead of that from the surrogate, would actually allow for a closer bond between mother and child.

IVF surrogacy treats women as cattle

IVF surrogacy is a medical procedure. It can no more "treat someone as cattle" than your T.V. can "treat you as a lazy slob". If the surrogate has no issue, I don't understand why anyone else would, or even have a right to. It's not YOUR womb.

breaking the link between the biological and genetic mother, and commercial/paid surrogacy from strangers is particularly despicable. It creates a pregnancy with the intent of severing the bond between mother and child, in exchange for cash.

I think you are reading a lot more into biology than is there.
Not every woman has an automatic "link between mother and child" just because they popped it out of their womb. There are plenty of cases of children put up for adoption immediately after birth. This is no different.

this law erases ... sex of a mother

Now this I agree with. I don't understand the need to neutralize everything.

This is a situation where a woman is WILLING to carry another person's child to term. This is a conscious choice on her part. It is a perfectly legal and medically valid method for an infertile couple to have a child. They are not "buying a baby" as you put it. They are, literally, renting a woman's womb.
It sounds like you are treating women as a possession, by wanting to enforce your will on their choices.

 

[Darth]

So does the child created from surrogacy. That the "biological mother" isn't the one that carried to term is immaterial.


What, in this entire discussion, suggested this in any way? Twisting circumstances to make yourself look holier-than-thou only undermines any legitimate argument you might come up with.
Surrogacy is a valid method for a couple to have a child if the woman is not capable of bearing children. It has been used for centuries. That modern science now has a way for the mother-to-be to use her own genetic material, instead of that from the surrogate, would actually allow for a closer bond between mother and child.


IVF surrogacy is a medical procedure. It can no more "treat someone as cattle" than your T.V. can "treat you as a lazy slob". If the surrogate has no issue, I don't understand why anyone else would, or even have a right to. It's not YOUR womb.


I think you are reading a lot more into biology than is there.
Not every woman has an automatic "link between mother and child" just because they popped it out of their womb. There are plenty of cases of children put up for adoption immediately after birth. This is no different.


Now this I agree with. I don't understand the need to neutralize everything.

This is a situation where a woman is WILLING to carry another person's child to term. This is a conscious choice on her part. It is a perfectly legal and medically valid method for an infertile couple to have a child. They are not "buying a baby" as you put it. They are, literally, renting a woman's womb.
It sounds like you are treating women as a possession, by wanting to enforce your will on their choices.

Twisting circumstances to make yourself look holier-than-thou only undermines any legitimate argument you might come up with.

It's his M.O., you'll have to excuse him.

 

[Saltwater60]

How about the right of a child to have a natural bond with the woman who gave birth to them, the right to have what we used to call a “mother.”

How about the right for a mother to nurse and raise the baby they conceived and gave birth to, a natural right under natural law that cannot rightfully be bargained away, anymore than someone can bargain away their own freedom?

Those are just a start.

Please point to something that proves adopted kids or surrogate kids don’t have the same love and bond with their adopted mothers and fathers. I know a few kids who were adopted and they are great productive members of society. One even loved his adopted mother so much he cared for her and took care of her house even though she was a horrible person.
I have no problem with surrogacy at all. I agree that society is better off with adoption, but many good mothers and fathers want their own kids. I wouldn’t spend the money and I’d adopt out of foster care, but that’s just me.

I worked with a girl who wanted a baby so bad, but couldn’t have one. Tried invetro a few times and that failed. She refused to adopt and did t want someone else’s baby. She finally had a daughter just to come back to work and stick her in daycare. Father is a long haul truck driver. Makes zero sense to me, but hey isn’t my kid.