Posted on 12/08/2017 3:18:08 PM PST by Reno89519
Okay, I have combined to items posted on Drudge Report:
Juliet Linderman, "The Latest: Ex-aide: Franks offered $5m to carry his child", AP News, and
Looks like Representative Trent Franks' "discussion" was more than a little unusual.
(Excerpt) Read more at drudgereport.com ...
How is this "love" for the child when your very first choice --- your very first choice --- is to intentionally, preemptively, by plan, deprive him of his natural rights to natural kinship and bonding?
Commodification of both the woman and the child.
Whatever is going on with the Franks, I suspect surrogacy is the least of it.
Shall I go full tinfoil chapeau? How do we know those kids are the result of a surrogacy agreement and not the result of a hook up/affair?
“Seems he was being very Frank.”
It seems like he was thinking with his frank....
Surrogacy is not "orgasmic" but it is sexual by definition, since we procreate sexually. It's called sexual reproduction. Having offspring is a major part, maybe the major part, of human sexuality, of being a male or a female.
Having children with anybody other than your spouse violates the exclusivity of the vows and the meaning of faithful monogamy. Moreover, surrogacy divides women up into separate zones for exploitation: the vagina, the ovaries, the uterus, the heart and mind where the baby-mother bonding is formed. Divided up.
Surrogacy requires a psychologically "surgical" detachment between the baby and the mother who carries him in her womb. It amputates baby-mother bonding, or --- to use another analogy --- it starves it to death. It separates childbearing from maternal bonding, and thus separates the maternal womb from the maternal heart.
No way good intentions can justify bad actions. Surrogacy is de-personalization from the git-go: it intentionally, by plan, denies the baby's right to his primordial maternal bond, and leaves a wound on the soul of the deliberately-bereft gestational mother.
It doesn't matter if the person solicited to the scheme of mothering-without-mothering is paid or unpaid, an employee, a family member, a fertility clinic specialist or your former girlfriend. It's de-personalizing per se.
Ah, that gets my vote.
See my post #40. Unless the claimed events happened decades ago, we’re talking about a man and wife in really late middle age, well past normal reproductive years, and he’s talking to young female employees about having his children.
Blech.
She was unable to bear children. His two children were carried by a surrogate mother. She was implanted with fertilized eggs by a doctor
I'm not quite as trusting as I'd like to be. Did the aides have reason for that interpretation, or were they leftists looking for a FedGov position who saw a way to take down a conservative?
However, since he has publicly claimed that the children were the result of a bought egg and a hired uterus, that creates an opportunity for blackmail if the real story is something different.
Someone gave birth to those children, and she knows the truth about how they were conceived.
Ditto blech.
I don’t know. Ask Abraham’s wife.
Ask her what: how much she hated his concubine and her son? I think the Bible is pretty clear on that, actually.
I must say I admire both your clarity and your restrained passion. If you are not still writing for publication, you should be.
Well, that’s what I really don’t get. If they’ve gone the surrogacy route before, with every legal T crossed and I dotted, why skeeve out your staff by dragging them into it? This makes no sense.
OK, I’m glad I didn’t have a mouthful of soup while reading that! BWAHAHAHA!
On second thought, I guess that might be possible today in our Brave New World. < /s>
Alice had a billion dollar baby. Says he got in a dime store. And that was back in the mid-1970's.
It must have been quite the "baby"..?
If that seems like a lot of dough, what to think of billion and zillion dollar babies? What's it all for?
I agree, it makes no sense.
There’s sort of a sense, though, that surrogacy is “okay” when it’s to address “infertility.” There’s less of a sense that it’s okay for a 60-year-old man to buy children from a young woman because his wife is too old. As you mentioned, it’s much cheaper and more “normal” just to have sex with the young woman.
What does not add up to me is that who in their right mind would want to begin parenting a newborn baby at age 60? It makes me suspicious as to whether he was really looking for a surrogate. Plus, whey wouldn't he just go back to his old surrogate or her service if he found her through one?
Yeah, that’s a step beyond surrogate, which I also disapprove of anyway.
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.