Children Face New Dangers by Leftists
 

Washington State to 'Monetize Wombs,' Legalize 'Baby Selling,' Redefine 'Parent'

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.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/w...rce=newsletter

The Left sinks even deeper into the muck and mire of its own miserable existence. They're not content to murder the unborn in the womb by abortion-on-demand. Now, for those who survive existence in the womb, could now face new threats outside the womb if WA state legislators legalize monetizing wombs and women are literally allowed to sell their babies to WHOEVER!

This is really sick stuff...we get the high honor of selling our children like they are cattle.

When you don't have any objective morality guiding you, you are going to get a lot of subjective sewage being normalized.

Looks like we need to extend the new wall up the entire Left Coast that borders the East side of California, Oregon, and Washington.

Heck, throw in most of Nevada but we get to keep Vegas.

I'd guess about 50 miles inland would do it. From what I have seen, the less populated eastern parts of those states are still in America.

True. Sierra Nevadas seem like a good starting point.

I just hope when the west coast collapses the rest of America isn't forced to bail their sorry asses out. Let it collapse and maybe they'll learn something.

Some surrogates have changed their mind after giving birth, filing lawsuits after being paid. This might not be a bad law.

California is already collapsing, and getting to a point of no return.

6th largest economy in the world, yet they have the most impoverished citizenship in the country while their rulers spend money like it grows on trees.

Lets not forget about earthquakes and the worst designed city in the world in Los Angeles with regards to water availability.

Want a home? $600K for a shithole.

But hey, at least the rich like Pelosi and Hollywood are living good.

Nazis got heavily involved in breeding and reproduction. Lebensborn. Guess this is a natural evolution of the democrat party. DNC goal is to literally control us cradle to grave.

Some mothers who had their child aborted changed their minds afterwards, too. Does this mitigate the evil of all abortions-on-demand?

This Washington State legislation, if it's passed, will be very lax. The law appears to have little or no concern for the welfare of the child. Anyone...anyone at all...any monster can get his hands on a child just by indicating "intent" to parent him/her. The potential for child abuse is extremely high.

We know the law is downright evil since it has the full backing of such groups as Planned Parenthood and NOW.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...ay-surrogates/

You said it. :ThmbUp:
Don't expect normalcy to ever return either, because it won't. Pollution of this nature only gets worse till it kills everything.

Does "commercial surrogacy" mean "genetic surrogacy" or "gestational surrogacy" or both?

Why should a gestational surrogate have any claim to the child, particularly if said surrogate was compensated?

If genetic surrogacy is illegal then should not sperm donations (or sales) also be illegal?

Is it the business of the government to limit reproductive choice?

With that many questions, I suggest you do some research

The fact that you cannot see the problem with this says so much about you.........you’ve always been a goofy lefty......but come on....

Btw, this is patently racist......cant you see that?

Actor doesn't read because he doesn't want to understand. The CP article laid out the potential dangers to the child.

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......:)

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.