So, it's cool to do that with the gays now? Trying to understand the rules. Seem to keep changing.

outofstateaggie said:

---

So, it's cool to do that with the gays now? Trying to understand the rules. Seem to keep changing.

---

Cool to do what with "the gays"? Make a joke? Yes, gay people do have this thing that most people refer to as humor. Many non gay people such as myself can understand a joke.

I've referred to my kids as wild monkeys, wild indians, animals, turkeys, gremlins, critters, fish, etc you'll have to forgive me if I don't think I've dehumanized them. I don't think I've ever used the term precious cargo but if someone does I understand it to mean what they are inferring. These guys are gay so they just put a little flair on the commonly used phrase.

Gays shouldn't be allowed to be guardians or "parents" to a baby or a child and certainly not through surrogacy.

PA24 said:

---

Nothing can replace the loving arms of mother that is a woman. The softness of her voice and body, her spirit. Two young dudes raising that baby just is not the same. A biological woman is needed in this equation.

---

There are billboards in Houston advertising how you can make $60,000 by being a surrogate.

Sorry you guys hate the free market of capitalism.

RWWilson said:

---

These sickos refer to a baby as their "hand luggage" because that's exactly what it is to them. Unlike most children, it was not conceived out of the love between a man and a woman - a mother and a father - but as a financial transaction between two parties - a contract. This was more akin to buying hand luggage than starting a family.

---

Guess you don't understand that having the right accessories are important to some folks

Irish 2.0 said:

---

In this instance I agree it is very poor. But I know many infertile couples that have used a surrogate and her belief that the practice is sick and selfish is not accurate.

---

That the practice of surrogacy "is sick and selfish" is an OPINION
People also believe that dog breeders ( puppy mills ) are considered morally wrong
I am almost certain one of the gay men contributed the SPERM to make this child happen
Generally with infertile heterosexual couples they contribute they contribute eggs or sperm or both to make the child.

The problem is human nature
people do NOT want to raise OTHER people's kids, and surrogacy is a way for people who lack one of the necessary components ( womb, egg, sperm) to have a child that is at least in part their genetic material.

Yes it would be better for the world if this couple that obviously has a great deal of resources took in 2-3 orphans from distressed regions of the world but that is not how they want to spend their money and sadly their demand has created a supply and hence a market

Is hand luggage in this context not a synonym for carry on? Because the baby will be held for the flight? People will find anything to be upset about

TxTarpon said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

I don't know much about it... But she agreed to the terms and I presume took the cash.

---

The baby didn't agree to any of it.

Purposely making a baby (that will never have a mother) for the purpose of giving it away is wrong. I don't care what sexual orientation the adoptive parents are.

---

Babies do not agree to be born in places like this:

---

If those gays adopted a baby from the slums that would be one thing. Instead they handpicked materials to manufacture their own baby accessory.

Stupid to try to pretend this baby was rescued.

Quote:

---

If those gays adopted a baby from the slums that would be one thing. Instead they handpicked materials to manufacture their own baby accessory.

---

Nice hijack.
The post I answered was about a baby choosing.

Quote:

---

Stupid to try to pretend this baby was rescued.

---

Who posted that it was? Name, date, time and quote.

(door slams, crickets)
Yep, thought so.

Good point why didn't they give a minority baby a home whom needed it instead they picked to make a white baby ?

Racists

Bigots! Surrogacy is how same sex couples have babies...just like nature intended!

It's weird. The same people applauding this would climb all over you for getting a pure bred German Shepherd from a breeder instead of opting for a rescue pup. You'd be the worst person in the world.

girlfriend_experience said:

---

Good point why didn't they give a minority baby a home whom needed it instead they picked to make a white baby ?

Racists

---

Probably to avoid people thinking that the child wasn't theirs

agent-maroon said:

---

girlfriend_experience said:

---

Good point why didn't they give a minority baby a home whom needed it instead they picked to make a white baby ?

Racists

---

Probably to avoid people thinking that the child wasn't theirs

---

Well played. Well played.

agent-maroon said:

---

girlfriend_experience said:

---

Good point why didn't they give a minority baby a home whom needed it instead they picked to make a white baby ?

Racists

---

Probably to avoid people thinking that the child wasn't theirs

---

Weird wouldn't they get extra woke points for adopting a brown baby ?

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

I know 4 gay families in Texas with 1-4 children. The children are not abused, happy, and love their dads. They do well in school, have friends, and are well adjusted.

---

I'll take your word for your friends and their adoptive children. I really hope that it is true. Children need stable homes and parents who love them.

After the arrests of William and Zachary Zolock in Atlanta, I do look at this kind of adoptive situation with suspicion.

Not because the two Zolock pedos hurt their children. Because all types of groups have evil animals like this.

Not because the Zolocks' pedo friends didn't report it. Because you can't expect evil animals to turn themselves in.

But because the rest of the LGBT community decided that the Zolocks' crimes were not worthy of condemnation but a dude not wearing a rainbow flag was a hideous crime against humanity.

I just don't see members of the LGBT community pointing at members who commit sex crimes and saying, "What you did was wrong and should be punished." At best I hear choruses of "but priests do it!" but usually I hear total silence.

The LGBT community needs to stop hiding evil behavior under the rainbow flag. Condemn evil behavior and call for the punishment of the evil doers. Until then, expect people to take calling a newborn child "hand luggage" seriously.

Better keep that "hand luggage" away from the Nuclear energy freak. I hear that he has a fetish for stealing nice luggage.

This thread has gone all over the place, and I stay out of the gay relationship aspects of such threads (I don't care). One question I have pondered though, is if the straight community is to accept that the gay relationships are a natural thing, shouldn't the gay community accept that the natural result of their unions is to be childless?

Frederick Palowaski said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

It's a very light hearted joke.

I know 4 gay families in Texas with 1-4 children. The children are not abused, happy, and love their dads. They do well in school, have friends, and are well adjusted.

And you, have a picture of a gay family and think you know anything about them.

It's sad, and dangerous.

---

There's a lot of truth in their 'joke'. And I agree, it is sad and dangerous.

And did you flag my 'sad face' in the original post.

---

Maybe they don't live in a world where every right wing conservative person is overanalyzing every word they say? And that people around them actually believe that they are good intentioned people?

You're literally posting a tweet of a brand new family excited about their new lives in order to make fun of them simply because they are gay. It is unbelievably hateful, and not worthy of any real discussion. You should be ashamed of yourself.

---

You should be ashamed thinking it's okay to call a child hand luggage. But yeah, keep pretending you're the moral authority.

---

You people are the reason we can't have jokes anymore or risk being "cancelled."

Monkeypoxfighter said:

---

This thread has gone all over the place, and I stay out of the gay relationship aspects of such threads (I don't care). One question I have pondered though, is if the straight community is to accept that the gay relationships are a natural thing, shouldn't the gay community accept that the natural result of their unions is to be childless?

---

Should hetero couples who can't naturally conceive accept that the natural result of their union is to be childless? Or do we as a society accept that IVF, adoption, and surrogacy (all of which require money therefore the child is being "bought") are valid alternatives for them to have a family that isn't childless?

Again, I think there is merit to debate whether rearing a child in a same sex marriage would have detrimental impact. But then again is it better that the child be reared in an orphanage instead?

I have a friend who is a single lady and has adopted two children, should that not be allowed since there is no male figure in the household thus the kids would be better off in an orphanage?

You can never tell what's satire these days...

'Medical Journal Floats Concept of Using Braindead Women As Surrogates Through "Whole Body Gestational Donation'
https://reduxx.info/medical-journal-floats-concept-of-using-braindead-women-as-surrogates-through-whole-body-gestational-donation/

Quote:

---

Written by Anna Smajdor, a Professor of Practical Philosophy at the University of Oslo, Norway, the article proposes that it may be viable to utilize the donated bodies of women for gestational purposes in the same manner as donated organs are used.

"I suggest if we are happy to accept organ donation in general, the issues raised by whole-body gestational donation are differences of degree rather than substantive new concerns," Smajdor writes in her abstract.

"As with many surrogacy arrangements, commissioning parents may prefer to create an embryo for implantation using their own gametes or those of donors. Thus, impregnation could be a surgical affair, preceded and followed by appropriate hormonal therapy to ensure maximal chance of success."

---

Professor of Philosophy with absolutely no concept of medical ethics. SMH

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

You can never tell what's satire these days...

'Medical Journal Floats Concept of Using Braindead Women As Surrogates Through "Whole Body Gestational Donation'
https://reduxx.info/medical-journal-floats-concept-of-using-braindead-women-as-surrogates-through-whole-body-gestational-donation/

Quote:

---

Written by Anna Smajdor, a Professor of Practical Philosophy at the University of Oslo, Norway, the article proposes that it may be viable to utilize the donated bodies of women for gestational purposes in the same manner as donated organs are used.

"I suggest if we are happy to accept organ donation in general, the issues raised by whole-body gestational donation are differences of degree rather than substantive new concerns," Smajdor writes in her abstract.

"As with many surrogacy arrangements, commissioning parents may prefer to create an embryo for implantation using their own gametes or those of donors. Thus, impregnation could be a surgical affair, preceded and followed by appropriate hormonal therapy to ensure maximal chance of success."

---

---

That is disgusting.

ME92 said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

You can never tell what's satire these days...

'Medical Journal Floats Concept of Using Braindead Women As Surrogates Through "Whole Body Gestational Donation'
https://reduxx.info/medical-journal-floats-concept-of-using-braindead-women-as-surrogates-through-whole-body-gestational-donation/

Quote:

---

Written by Anna Smajdor, a Professor of Practical Philosophy at the University of Oslo, Norway, the article proposes that it may be viable to utilize the donated bodies of women for gestational purposes in the same manner as donated organs are used.

"I suggest if we are happy to accept organ donation in general, the issues raised by whole-body gestational donation are differences of degree rather than substantive new concerns," Smajdor writes in her abstract.

"As with many surrogacy arrangements, commissioning parents may prefer to create an embryo for implantation using their own gametes or those of donors. Thus, impregnation could be a surgical affair, preceded and followed by appropriate hormonal therapy to ensure maximal chance of success."

---

---

That is disgusting.

---

But if it brings child to a loving couple and the person has agreed to it (like you do for organ donation), is it really?/sarcasm/slippery slope

Quote:

---

"I suggest that brain stem dead men would also have the potential to gestate, meaning that the pool of potential donors is further increased and that certain feminist concerns might thus be assuaged … The prospect of male pregnancy is not, as many would imagine, fanciful, or a piece of science fiction," Smajdor says, adding that "the liver is a promising implantation site, because of its excellent blood supply."

---

The liver in replacement of a uterus? This person is crazy and dangerously uninformed. Seriously, WTF?




https://www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/english/studies/master/supervisors-philosophy/anna-smajdor.html

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

You can never tell what's satire these days...

'Medical Journal Floats Concept of Using Braindead Women As Surrogates Through "Whole Body Gestational Donation'
https://reduxx.info/medical-journal-floats-concept-of-using-braindead-women-as-surrogates-through-whole-body-gestational-donation/

Quote:

---

Written by Anna Smajdor, a Professor of Practical Philosophy at the University of Oslo, Norway, the article proposes that it may be viable to utilize the donated bodies of women for gestational purposes in the same manner as donated organs are used.

"I suggest if we are happy to accept organ donation in general, the issues raised by whole-body gestational donation are differences of degree rather than substantive new concerns," Smajdor writes in her abstract.

"As with many surrogacy arrangements, commissioning parents may prefer to create an embryo for implantation using their own gametes or those of donors. Thus, impregnation could be a surgical affair, preceded and followed by appropriate hormonal therapy to ensure maximal chance of success."

---

---

We are summoning things that are not easily unsummoned.

ToHntortoFsh said:

---

Monkeypoxfighter said:

---

This thread has gone all over the place, and I stay out of the gay relationship aspects of such threads (I don't care). One question I have pondered though, is if the straight community is to accept that the gay relationships are a natural thing, shouldn't the gay community accept that the natural result of their unions is to be childless?

---

Should hetero couples who can't naturally conceive accept that the natural result of their union is to be childless? Or do we as a society accept that IVF, adoption, and surrogacy (all of which require money therefore the child is being "bought") are valid alternatives for them to have a family that isn't childless?

Again, I think there is merit to debate whether rearing a child in a same sex marriage would have detrimental impact. But then again is it better that the child be reared in an orphanage instead?

I have a friend who is a single lady and has adopted two children, should that not be allowed since there is no male figure in the household thus the kids would be better off in an orphanage?

---

No gay adoption, no single parent adoption, and no IVF for heterosexual couples either. There is a waiting list a mile long of people looking to adopt, so it's a completely baseless argument to get into the weeds about "is it better to let a kid grow up in an orphanage" or the like. The problem is that people want to adopt babies, not 12 year olds. Allowing IVF or surrogacy doesn't do anything to change that problem.

I'd advocate that our resources be spent on reforming and improving the fostering and adoption process instead of intentionally creating and selling new babies for the gratification of adults. Also, we should accept that there is an ideal environment to rear children, and that is a two-parent, heterosexual household. It is extremely well documented that each parent plays an integral but unique role in the development of a child. No amount of progressive beliefs will ever change that biological fact.

I sympathize with those that can't have children if their own for one reason or another, but I don't think making children and wombs into a commodity is a just solution for that sad reality.

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

"I suggest that brain stem dead men would also have the potential to gestate, meaning that the pool of potential donors is further increased and that certain feminist concerns might thus be assuaged … The prospect of male pregnancy is not, as many would imagine, fanciful, or a piece of science fiction," Smajdor says, adding that "the liver is a promising implantation site, because of its excellent blood supply."

---

The liver in replacement of a uterus? This person is crazy and dangerously uninformed. Seriously, WTF?




https://www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/english/studies/master/supervisors-philosophy/anna-smajdor.html

---

These are the same "follow the science" crowd with their fancy liberal arts degrees that told us to bend the knee to Lord Fauci.

They should just be ignored or ridiculed as the morons they are.

WaltonAg18 said:

---

There are billboards in Houston advertising how you can make $60,000 by being a surrogate.

Sorry you guys hate the free market of capitalism.

---

I was gonna ask what an expected going rate is.

Kvetch said:

---

No gay adoption, no single parent adoption, and no IVF for heterosexual couples either. There is a waiting list a mile long of people looking to adopt, so it's a completely baseless argument to get into the weeds about "is it better to let a kid grow up in an orphanage" or the like.

---

If there is a waiting list a mile long of people looking to adopt then why is there an overabundance of children in need of adoption? And since there are a lot of kids who have not been adopted then your insistence on them being adopted only by willing hetero couples by default indicates that you think they'd be better off left in the system than with a single mother or a same sex couple.

Further, it is an odd stance to insert yourself into a heterosexuals reproductive choices (IVF) and tell them they are only allowed to adopt.

Due to your zealousness I must assume you've adopted multiple children who were 12 and older?? If so then I applaud you and your willingness to offer a loving home to your non-biological children.

Kvetch said:

---

ToHntortoFsh said:

---

Monkeypoxfighter said:

---

This thread has gone all over the place, and I stay out of the gay relationship aspects of such threads (I don't care). One question I have pondered though, is if the straight community is to accept that the gay relationships are a natural thing, shouldn't the gay community accept that the natural result of their unions is to be childless?

---

Should hetero couples who can't naturally conceive accept that the natural result of their union is to be childless? Or do we as a society accept that IVF, adoption, and surrogacy (all of which require money therefore the child is being "bought") are valid alternatives for them to have a family that isn't childless?

Again, I think there is merit to debate whether rearing a child in a same sex marriage would have detrimental impact. But then again is it better that the child be reared in an orphanage instead?

I have a friend who is a single lady and has adopted two children, should that not be allowed since there is no male figure in the household thus the kids would be better off in an orphanage?

---

No gay adoption, no single parent adoption, and no IVF for heterosexual couples either. There is a waiting list a mile long of people looking to adopt, so it's a completely baseless argument to get into the weeds about "is it better to let a kid grow up in an orphanage" or the like. The problem is that people want to adopt babies, not 12 year olds. Allowing IVF or surrogacy doesn't do anything to change that problem.

I'd advocate that our resources be spent on reforming and improving the fostering and adoption process instead of intentionally creating and selling new babies for the gratification of adults. Also, we should accept that there is an ideal environment to rear children, and that is a two-parent, heterosexual household. It is extremely well documented that each parent plays an integral but unique role in the development of a child. No amount of progressive beliefs will ever change that biological fact.

I sympathize with those that can't have children if their own for one reason or another, but I don't think making children and wombs into a commodity is a just solution for that sad reality.

---

The waiting list is for babies.

Not for 10 year old kids with FAS or cerebral palsy or a record.

These kids need forever families too.

And often they are same sex couples or single parents that want to expand the love of their families.