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 ...
I can already envision seeing many young female Washington state residents walking around carrying implanted Chinese babies — for Big Bucks. Wealthy Chinese love having their biological children to be born with American citizenship.
This will be a boon to homosexual couples.
Where comes your presumption that these are all like having a pet bred? What do we do if the mother and father have fertile gametes but not a working womb?
Let’s not bring such a child into existence because it would deprive it of some right? And because ipso facto the parents are now loveless?
That’s talking about vain wind.
On the morality scale, does renting out your womb rate above or below renting out your vagina?
Reference Naprotechnology (LINK)
One reason why medical research has lagged in this area, is that the medical "industry" has been willing to grossly exploit infertile couples with hugely costly technologies which do not heal, but rather replace, sexual union as the natural source of life.
"Healing" meaning "restoring, as far as possible, normal healthy form and function."
Oh never mind, I already know. They shouldn’t do anything but try with what they got. And if Catholics want to preach this to their entire church, wonderful. When this crosses over into specifics of religious doctrine, it becomes something like non disputandem est.
What is it right to offer by way of assistance or surrogacy? The bible itself is rich with surrogacy illustrations. Would I personally want to participate in such an arrangement? Maybe not. Because I couldn’t see anything that didn’t give the surrogate first refusal; if God bonded her to whom she was carrying I must needs bow to that. But with the willing follow-through of all parties in an endeavor to a common purpose, to complain that love isn’t there is simply to beg the question.
And this may have little or nothing to do with what Washington state is embarking upon.
Ultimately this is something that is outside of the ambit of the bible and inside the ambit of human philosophy. And as such, it is a non disputandem est.
We should try to heal the lame, of course, but don’t deprive them of wheelchairs in the meantime.
Old-fashioned concubinage, BTW, worked out rather unhappily is most Biblical instances,as did polygamy (another reproductive strategy.)
Prohibiting such is not just a denominational distinctive of Catholic Canon law or some man-made prejudice. It is a matter of natural justice to the rented woman, and above all, to the child. Nations which have banned such procedures, have framed it so.
We should try to heal the lame, but in the meantime, don’t break their legs.
It’s a messy situation alright. I’d personally counsel such unlucky couples to consider adopting. I sure wouldn’t want to play fast and loose with surrogacies as jealousy issues could appear through the experience of gestating the child.
But as a matter of secular law, a willing surrogate who even gets first refusal at birth is about as good as we can do. Secular law is never going to be as good as Christian fellowship sensibilities, which are rightly going to care.
Jealousy seems to be the key here. One might intend one thing but then find, by experience, to be drawn into a different thing. And doing what is possible to avert the jealousy is the best thing. Like the mother in the Solomonic decision who was willing to let the other mother have the baby rather than to cut it into pieces, her love can extend.
And don’t ridicule them because they are getting around in a wheelchair.
California already sees a number of cases like this.
And they don’t just do it for the citizenship. Some do it because surrogacy is illegal in their home countries.
Wasn’t there a thread a few days ago where the Fl. high school shooter was “adopted” by his current family for a $50,000 payment to his birth mother?
If that isn’t buying and selling children what is?
There is a true person here: a woman who can ovulate, conceive, gestate, give birth, nurse, nurture, think, feel, speak, look and love, who should not be split up and exploited for parts: eggs for sale, a womb to let, vagina by the hour, etc.
There is another person, the child, who needs amd relates to that whole person all at once: the whole complex bound up in one undivided person called Mother.
So a better analogy would be, not that contracting for a rented womb-woman is like getting a wheelchair, but that it is like deconstructing a person for parts.
Chicago Mercantile Board
New Entry
Babies
Bid
25000
Ask
26000
Final
25600
You are correct. And the late Mr. & Mrs. Cruz paid the same woman $15,000 when she became pregnant a 2nd time to adopt that baby. What hasn’t been said about those two adoptions is whether or not the Cruz’s were working with/through an adoption agency.
Two words I never expected to hear together: Monetize. Womb.
It seems like it could be the advent of breeding farms. Young women captured and forced to carry babies.
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.