Exploitation of children is scary enough. Child trafficking is worse.

Baboons:pout: have better rights

The fact that you think there is a problem says so much about you. None of it good.

I'm a guy who goes to church every Sunday. I sing in the choir. But I am embarrassed by the ignorance of you so called Christians. Surrogacy is a way for couples who cannot have children because the mother can not carry the fetus to term to have children that are genetically theirs. The child is not the child of the woman who gives birth because it does not carry any of her genetic material.

In cases where a man provides sperm to a woman and she carries the child to term, the child does have her genetic material. But her giving up that child is no more illegal than a mother giving up her child for adoption. This can occur in a case where a single man wishes to be the father of a child with his genetic make up, but does not wish to be married. Or in the case of two gay men who wish to have children. And By the way, the Supreme Court has said that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional and limiting any facets of marriage for gay couples is also unconstitutional.

There is not a single paragraph. sentence, clause, phrase or word in this new law that says selling babies is legal. The law clarifies the rights of the surrogates and the intended parents. It reinforces the rights of gay couples and single gay persons to be parents.

It does not redefine the term parent; it merely clarifies it in the context of current reality.

Finally, the term Monetizing wombs is nothing more than a cynical attempt to invoke an emotional response. It has no basis in reality.

This is not a new law. It is just a reworking of a law passed in 2002 for the purpose of bringing that law up to date to address changes that have occurred in the intervening fifteen years. Changes like the legalization of gay marriage and advances in medicine.

What Catholic church do you go to Mostie? I would love to join you at church.

You get it. Surrogates rights versus Parents rights is one of the issues addressed; along with the rights of gay parents and the rights of the child.

Did it also "lay out the potential dangers" to children conceived and born through conventional means? The world is not a friendly place. Do the children of surrogates face more potential dangers than other children?

I think children born via surrogates are more likely to be wanted than those born of married women with religious objections to birth control.

Yep.....I’m the problem........

And this is considered "progress" by the progressives, I suppose? And the children are not at risk at all by this "tweak" to an old law?

Yeah...what possibly could go wrong? I'm sure those "children born via surrogates" would be "wanted" by all kinds of people.

You know...down here in Swampland during the hurricane season, many of us subscribe to a common sense adage which goes like this: Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. When leftist moonbats write laws they should adopt this kind of common sense philosophy by anticipating the consequences of worst case scenarios. What you're totally ideologically blind to is that the leftists are totally oblivious to all the worst situations to which the kids could be potentially exposed, since the law would accord them virtually no protection against sexual deviants or predators.

But in sicko liberal La La Land, it's always all good, isn't it?

Probably one loaded with pedophile priests who are committed to the ministry of helping young altar boys to advance to sexual maturity before their time. :coffee:

Bazinga!:lol:

Hey guys, attacking mostie's Church is pretty low.

Attacking HIM and his VIEWs is fair game......:)