Who was attacking Mostie? I was simply saying I'd go to church with him. That is just like having a beer in the rose garden, right?

Let's say a married couple finds that the wife cannot conceive and doctors cannot fix the problem. What are their options? Adoption is one possibility but if they want to pass on their own DNA then surrogacy is the only option. That's not cheap. Legal fees average $15,000 nation wide. The surrogate's fee averages $20,000. Medical costs are $5,000 per attempt and four out of five attempts fail. That's a total of $60,000 just to get the surrogate pregnant. Plus the wannabe parents pay all medical expenses. In case of a miscarriage they are back to square one. People who are willing and able to pay that kind of money really want a child.

On the other hand children born by the "regular" method are quite likely to be "accidents" and not wanted at all.

You seem to be operating under the delusion that there is some black market in babies. There's no evidence of that at all.

Didn't you tell us you stayed put during the last hurricane? Just how did you "prepare for the worst"? Pray a lot?

So how does that logically equate to doing nothing? The vast majority of my neighbors "stayed put"; yet, virtually all of us prepped for the oncoming storm -- some of us weeks before the storm hit.

Prayer is indeed an important part to preparing for the worst, hoping for the best. (The operative term is "an"; try not to miss it.) :coffee:

If naivete were a fatal disease, you would have ceased breathing long before now. Child trafficking and commercial baby selling on the black market occurs all over the world. (See below.)

Secondly, you keep trying to make an analogy (at which you are really bad at doing) by making a moral equivalency between the commercial surrogacy industry and normal biological births through conjugal relations. First of all, when an "accidental pregnancy" occurs and that accident is too inconvenient for the life of the mother (usually), she'll either abort the "accident" (it's politically incorrect to call it a child in spite of its DNA) or she'll bring the child to term at which time she can put the child up for adoption. But all states have rigid legal procedures and protocols in place designed to protect and safeguard the well-being of the child. Agencies just don't allow anyone to come along and adopt for any reason. But this isn't the case in the commercial surrogacy industry where there are no such safeguards. Again, go back and read the article in the CP link I proved in my opening post.

Business Is As Business Does

The surrogacy industry exists to decouple child-creation from conjugal relations, to separate gestation from enduring motherhood, and to make biological ties irrelevant to legal child custody. Fragmenting persons, parts, and relations—submitting each to commercial negotiation—is its entrepreneurial essence.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/06/...rket-near-you/

So, yes...people buying babies will pay big bucks. But are you so utterly and hopelessly naive to believe that big bucks guarantee pure motives? :bang::bang::bang:

Make sure you watch the vid, too. :coffee:

I'm sure it does but I seriously doubt that they are paying $100,000 each to obtain their "inventory" via surrogate mothers. I also seriously doubt that the practice is, or ever will be, common in the state of Washington.

Do you have any figures on how much of such child trafficking and commercial baby selling is taking place in countries where the practice is legal and culturally accepted?

Why do you doubt? Sexual perverts will pay virtually anything to feed their sexual appetites -- either by actual sex acts or through child porn. And those lusts, by the way, are always hungry. Never totally satisfied.

https://arkofhopeforchildren.org/chi...ing-statistics

No matter how overblown the fears presented in this article are, the default value should be "not a single child" should ever be at risk. I found it noteworthy that some amendments were offered that would have protected children better and they were all rejected.

Is it me are people becoming devoid of the ability to recognize right from wrong, good from evil, and moral from immoral?

The fact is that we do actually live in a dark, fallen world filled with violence and all other manner of evils, with the love of money being very often at the root of these evils. How anyone can be so blind to this truth is beyond me. So, of course, you are correct. The "default value" should be to offer and provide to the most vulnerable, weakest and defenseless in our society (which certainly would include our children in and out of the womb) all the protection we can to shield them from the unspeakable horrors of vile, despicable perverts who can ruin a child's life forever.

And for the record, I don't consider the fears overblown. Given the nature of this world, generally, and even more specifically human nature, the fears are realistic.

I'm slowly starting to conclude that the democrats in power now are bought and paid for by some truly evil and perverted people (Hollywood types and worse). To be clear, I have plenty of friends that are democrats that are good decent people. But there's a huge difference between the democrats that had power when I was a younger man and those that have power now. Back then we were debating about the optimal tax rate, defense spending, and the best approach to reducing poverty.

Now I view much of the opposition as intrinsically immoral and/or mentally ill. I do not want to be part of the world they want. They are sick people. Even in our universities, I don't just disagree with the professors and students. I think they are legitimately mentally ill.

What's worse than a Hollywood type?

The guy has lost it.

A Soros type?

uh....which one?
In this thread, multiple choice? :rolleyes:

:lol:

Some of the donors and power brokers in the democratic party outside of Hollywood that I strongly suspect to be pedophiles or sympathetic enough to that behavior that they are willing to look the other way as long as the check clears. And I may be understating the reality when I say "look the other way" because circumstantial evidence is not proof.