Posted on 01/05/2012 6:36:12 AM PST by Former Fetus
Tina's biological daughter turned 8 this week, but she has not seen the girl since Dec. 22, 2008, because of a custody fight with her former lesbian partner. The partner is unrelated to the child, but gave birth to her.
"I thought I'd have her back on her birthday," said Tina, a law enforcement officer, whose name was never on the birth certificate and who has been denied parenting rights under Florida state law.
For 11 years, the Brevard County couple forged a committed relationship, living together, sharing their finances and raising a daughter. Tina's egg was fertilized with donor sperm and implanted in her partner's womb.
But when their romance fell apart when the child was 2, the Florida courts had to decide, who is the legal parent, the biological mother or the birth mother who carried the unrelated child for nine months in her womb?
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
But imagine if all surrogate mothers could claim custody of children they were carrying for biological parents?
The only true connection is the biological connection. And yes, that holds true even if you use a sperm donor and an egg donor — the child you bear can be yours emotionally, but not physically. The child bears the genes of the biological parents, and to the degree biology makes any difference, that is where the connection lies.
There is a reason that adopted children tend to seek out their biological parents, although we deny it because it doesn’t fit our modern culture — biology matters, we are connected to our biological parents in a way that is not fully understood.
That sentence makes my head hurt.
Both! That's what makes this such a crazy story. The reporter, obviously, had a time making it clear, thus comments like " The partner is unrelated to the child, but gave birth to her"
Regarding “daddy rights,” I thought so too at first but the bio-mother’s name was not on the birth certificate, so she has no legal parental rights. She’s trying to get those rights. However, she wants the court to say that she is the mother rather than simply add her name to the birth certificate as co-parent.
As a side note, I don’t believe states should have to put gay couples names on birth certificates if they do not permit same-sex marriage. But LA was recently forced to do just that for a New York adoption by a gay couple.
Yeah, it kind of is.
Bump!
That’s interesting. I’ll have to think about that aspect.
It has happened and the 'birth mother' won...................
I wonder what happens with the birth certificate in those legally contracted surrogate cases. Who is listed as mother? I bet the biological mother and father are listed and that is stipulated in the surrogate contract.
That’s what the issue is here. There was no contract that stipulated which woman’s name was listed, so the one who gave birth to the child was listed and the other woman went along with it. Now she wants to change the rules and be the one listed as mother with full legal custody.
But in this case the donor donated the egg to her own partner, not another infertile couple. She never intended for the child not to be hers.
“Gawd how complicated these people make their lives, and we all have to suffer for it.”
Not nearly as much as that little girl. I always feel so sorry for these kids raised in homosexual households. There were a couple in my kids’ school, and every last one of them had emotional issues, and only to satisfy the selfish desires of the two adults.
I get that it’s both. But the judge has to decide that one was more of the label and less of a “mom”. (Hell, I can’t even capitalize that word in this context.)
“But in this case the donor donated the egg to her own partner, not another infertile couple. She never intended for the child not to be hers.”
Yes, I’m surprised the courts didn’t at least split custody, since they were a “couple” at one point (ugh), but as another poster pointed out- there must be some reason she wasn’t at least made to pay child support!
But I’m glad that the court didn’t set a precedent by granting biomom custody just because she donated an egg that resulted in a baby.
The only true connection is the biological connection?? Not sure what you mean here.
Yes, biology does matter. And that is why open adoptions are so popular now, children deserve to know their heritage. But that in no way negates the adoption connection. Once a parent adopts a child, that child is theirs just THE SAME as a birth child.
That is an emotional connection, not a physical connection. As such, and unfortunate as this sounds, it can be broken, just as the marriage connection can be broken, friends can fall apart, and lovers turn to enemies.
Biology is biology. You can’t “un-make” the biological connection. You have the genes of your biological mother, and biological father. Nothing you do will ever change that. IT’s not something you choose, you can’t “unchoose it”. It’s not emotional, it’s not something that will ever go away. You will ALWAYS be the biological product of your biological parents.
That is what I mean by “the only true connection”.
You could argue that the mere act of raising a child from an infant is likely to create an emotional bond that “cannot” be broken, but there is no way to know that. What we do know, anecdotally, is that adopted children tend to seek out their biological parents, and often talk about the “bond” they feel on first meeting those parents.
But that is just feeling; the biological connection itself is the reality. The question is whether there is something inherent in humanity that makes the biological connection also an emotional one. Does the wiring of the brain as controlled by your genetic structure make you predisposed to relate in a special way to your biological parents? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t rule it out.
More anecdote in place of evidence... When we hear of parents abusing their children, we are often less shocked when we learn that the children were adopted. Somehow, we just “suspect” that biological parents would be less likely to abuse their own children than foster or adoptive parents would. Moreso step parents, which we often suspect first when there is some abuse.
There is something “special” about the biological connection, especially between a mother and her daughter — that thing which would make the mother lay down her life for her daughter. I suspect, but cannot prove, that if you had 100 biological mothers, and 100 surrogates, and told the 200 of them that because of problems with pregnancy, they would die in childbirth, and to choose whether to accept that or abort, that most of the 100 biological mothers would choose to die, and most of the 100 surrogates would choose to abort.
Less likely, but still I suspect — if you had 100 10-year-olds, and asked the same question, I would expect more biological mothers to be willing to die for their children than non-biological mothers. But that is pure speculation.
Anyway, that’s what I mean. I find that when I discuss this, adoptive parents, including parents who used sperm or egg donors, often get upset at my assigning them “second class” status. I’m sorry, but I can’t argue that this is not exactly what I am saying — the biological bond I believe IS the most natural, best parentage for a child, and all other arrangements are less desirable to one degree or another, no matter how well they may work in specific instances, or how often you find exceptions where biological parents are evil.
This is why they prefer women who donate eggs to already have at least one child of their own so they know what they are doing....
I said “acquisition”, not “conception”.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
There is no "right" in this case. Every side is wrong. There is no good or just outcome. Twistedly evil. The homosexual agenda is all about trying to overturn Natural Law, which is created by God alone. They can sort of twist Natural Law, but it will always snap back like a coiled spring and deliver a sharp and hard blow. Either singly, or when many people engage in war against Natural Law, en masse.
Disagree.. There is 1 right thing to do in this situation.. get the kid far away from those 2 mentally limited people (and their ilk) as possible...
Other than that, I agree 100%..
Actually, that would be best. But an 8 year old child is already attached to the person she calls “Mom”. IVF is an attack against Natural Law, in itself. And using IVF to allow homosexuals to “have children” is an abomination.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...
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.