Posted on 03/02/2018 12:15:15 PM PST by huldah1776
Washington state is set to legalize commercial surrogacy, a move children's rights advocates say amounts to the selling of babies, bases the definition of a parent on "intent," and opens avenues for child abuse and other horrors.
Just before 1 a.m. Wednesday morning, the Washington state House of Representatives passed the "Uniform Parentage Act," along party lines with every Democrat in favor and every Republican opposed. The bill had previously passed the state Senate with total Democratic support and three Republicans. The state's Democratic governor, Jay Inslee, is expected to sign the legislation.
"For House Republicans, this bill was a matter of conscience,'' said Liz Pike, who represents the state's 18th house district, according to Clark County Today.
"We all voted 'no' to protect the womb from being monetized and commercialized. This bill sets virtually no limits on the amount people will be able to sell or purchase a human baby for. I'm disgusted that such a bill would ever be considered let alone pass. What have we become as a state, selling human babies to the highest bidder? Is this who we are?"
snip
As the bill stands, Faust explained, no limits are placed on how many children can be procured through surrogacy arrangements, no requirements exist saying that people intending to pay for surrogacy services must be residents of Washington state or American citizens, or even that the women must be inseminated in Washington. All it takes is one consultation that occurs on Washington soil and a contract can be legally enforced even if the individuals using the surrogate mother hail from nations where surrogacy is prohibited.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
Does this mean in Washington state that babies are now like puppies??? Sold by a “breeder”????
It’s no biggie. I’m gonna get it on it.
“Got a womb here, never been used!! Brand new folks!! The mom is healthy and white! Do I hear 20,000 dollars!!?? 25,000 dollars?!?! Come on folks!! This one’s a keeper!! 30,000? Going once!! Twice!! SOLD to the potential child molesters and abusers, the Petersons!!”
Selling humans is SLAVERY.
I wonder if this “selling of babies” amounts to slavery and is a violation of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the constitution?
It will be white baby invasion.
You do know how it works right?
It costs a ####ING fortune and white couple are DYING for babies, those who can’t have one.
I’m scared of the abusive ones who will buy one. The reulgations and protections in place will drop off one by one once it becomes commoditized.
A birthing invasion? You do know they are turning human infants into a commodity, right. But for you the issue seems to be that these children are even allowed to be born.
It’s been accepted practice to foot the medical and personal costs associated with surrogate childbearing. I don’t think anybody could complain about this if they allow for surrogacy at all. It is only fair.
But more... is uncomfortably like slavery. It helps out an economic pinch, but at a cost uncomfortably like that of selling a soul.
But why should they "allow for surrogacy at all"? It violates the child's rights and dignity in the very process of bringing him into being, by --- with intention and planning and a kind of 'negligence aforethought' --- depriving him of his first natural right after 'life', which is for a father and mother related to him and married to each other.
This happens by chance.
It should never happen by choice.
The “medical” and legal lobby in favor of the legislation, and likely who lobbied for it favorably with the Dims, are the big winners.
Just as foreigners (mostly Chinese) flock to Casinos in American Guam, while the woman is pregnant and about to deliver, the lawyers and the surrogate professionals in Washington state will gain business from across the U.S. and from foreigners as well. Washington state will become the mecca for surrogacy. Whose the beneficiaries, some individual U.S. citizens? No, the “medical” and legal lobbies are the big winners.
Just when I thought there was some hope, they do this. See my tagline.
Since we already have “frozen embryos” then standard pro-life tenets of faith would demand they get some sort of chance where possible (some of these embryos are messed up and never would grow, but others are not).
The wrong here, if any (given surrogacies targeted to adoption by suitable parents) is far less than that of abortion. Be careful not to raise inadvertent objections to adoption. “Consider the troubled mother” is a natural message to go alongside of surrogacies (which are currently legal anyhow).
Parents are at best custodians. I could have wished that I personally was adopted out to better circumstances sometimes. Dealing with a life full of being gunshy of hate has its consequences.
At least this gives the “parents” an enforceable contract. As it stands now I believe the surrogate can take the medical payments and “stipend” and change her mind and walk away with the kid.
That’s going to be an ethical sticky wicket all around though. Without first refusal to the offspring we’ve gotten inhuman.
Human responsibility is at an all time low, attribute this to the loss of faith and the belief in God
They have to be at least 21yr olds.
In adoption, a child is--- everyone agrees --- in a tragic situation and urgent need because his parents are dead, had rights terminated from abuse or neglect or crime, or simply were not willing / able to parent him. Adoptive family steps in to supply, as best they can, what he needs. It's admittedly imperfect, but it's for his sake because he was needy.
It is child-need-centered. Every kind of vetting is done, every criterion is enforced, every regulation in place to make sure, as far as a "law" can make things sure, that the child will receive the permanent, stable, forever family he deserves, and the care he needs.
This surrogacy crap is a violation from the word Go. The child is deliberately brought into being to be deprived. Are you getting that? His deprivation is intentional. He is intentionally begotten bereft of his natural ties.
It is centered from the git-go, not on the child's needs but on the adults' wants. Adult-centered, I daresay consumer-centered. Predicated on the market. Predicated on the child being a kind of expensive hobby, brought into being by veterinary methods and valued as a prize pet is valued.
No more.
Don't say it's "love." If they loved him they would not have created him in a way that purposefully violates his dignity, deprived from the day he was begotten.
When it became possible to implant an embryo, the picture became different. It wasn’t like having sex with the mother then taking a child that was biologically hers.
Be careful how far your defamation of the adults goes.
I live in a truly degenerate and wicked place.
If you will re-read what I wrote, you will notice I never said that. I never said that the man was having sex with a woman and then taking a child that was biologically hers.
In fact, although I didn't specify this, what I had in mind was the use of any artificial reproductive technology, which is to say, technology for the breeding of children which does not include sexual intercourse by the natural parents.
I have defamed no one. I am describing what surrogacy actually entails: the deprivation of a child, by intention, of something to which he has a right: to be begotten in the marital embrace, birthed and raised by his natural parents.
The vagaries of human misbehavior being what they are, this deprivation often happens. But it should never happen by design, by choice. This is a serious defect in "love" --- if we're speaking of specifically human love ---since it treats the genesis of the child in a veterinary manner, outside of the marital embrace.
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.