orosee

Ours is 7 weeks now and has been sleeping in our bed since day one. It's queen size and after 2 weeks I was sure I could sleep on a tree branch without falling off. If your lucky then mommy has the milk supply attached to her and nobody needs to get up. But while on bed I've never slept more than 2-3 hours in a row and usually 6 hours or less at night.

As others said, tending the baby is no holiday. You'll be better off at work, unless your job is kindergarten teacher. On occasion I fell asleep on the couch only to wake up there 10 hours later. You gotta catch up with sleep. A biz trip with hotel stay is a godsend!

All my preconceptions were wrong. At the start, you can never - never ever - have too many diapers or milk bottles. Get a sterilizer unless you want to boil huge amounts of water twice a day.

If you survive the first 6-8 weeks, things turn better though not back to normal. You'll change, too. Lots of patience and try to agree with mommy as much as possible.

Pretty hard to take police work seriously with news like this. If the spent a few weeks undercover at Panthip Plaza, they might also arrest Khun Somchai for selling a bootleg CD of Windows XP.

Here's the news I want to read then:

"Police arrests pirate DVD seller at Panthip for prostitution!

Fronting as a regular pirate software & movie stall, Khun Somchai aka "Lek" was arrested for offering illicit sexual acts beneath his sales booth. Using 25 undercover operatives blah blah blah... "

Check the date, it's collection week.

The problem with agnosticism is that it leads to Pascal's Wager. If you don't know whether or not (a) God exists, would it not be wiser to act as if there were one, considering the consequences (none if one doesn't exist, eternal damnation or bliss if there is one and you picked the right/wrong one)?

I imagine being agnostic as standing in front of a naked electric wire, not knowing if it is live or not. Now you can say "I don't know if touching this wire will kill me or not", but unless you're taping for "Jackass 4", you're not going to touch that wire.

Faith would mean trusting your 25 years younger Thai wife or her brother to flip the breaker.

An atheist of course uses an instrument of science to test for a live current.

But seriously, how does someone who labels himself "agnostic" manage not to be either atheist of believer?

you do not understand atheism if you need to ask this question. We cannot proof there is no god.We do not say there is no god.We make no assertion.it is therefore not up to prove anything.

And we point at relgions total lack of a single shred of credible evidence and say " i choose not to belive based upon evidence, or lack of.

If you show an athesit evidence he would, or should change.

There are no real athists because if you say there is no God, you become a "anti-atheist" and must show some evidence.

Atheist like me must conceded in the possibility and that I have no idea what happens when I die ( nor any real care)- therefore in fact we're all agnostic.

Agnostics concede the possibilty.

I don't believe in gods, magic or the supernatural. I believe that the universal laws of physics prohibit the existence of such throughout the entire cosmos. Of course neither the atheist nor the anti-theist needs to supply evidence (since this negative can't be proven). Of course they are obliged to change their stance once they've been provide with irrefutable proof of the existence of such a being or force. I'm not holding my breath.

The problem with agnosticism is that it leads to Pascal's Wager. If you don't know whether or not (a) God exists, would it not be wiser to act as if there were one, considering the consequences (none if one doesn't exist, eternal damnation or bliss if there is one and you picked the right/wrong one)?

I imagine being agnostic as standing in front of a naked electric wire, not knowing if it is live or not. Now you can say "I don't know if touching this wire will kill me or not", but unless you're taping for "Jackass 4", you're not going to touch that wire.

Faith would mean trusting your 25 years younger Thai wife or her brother to flip the breaker.

An atheist of course uses an instrument of science to test for a live current.

But seriously, how does someone who labels himself "agnostic" manage not to be either atheist of believer?

I don't see any problem with Pascal's wager.

His words were primarily directed at the church, at a time when being an atheist could cost one his life.

"acting as if" = make believe.

Your example about the wire is flawed. Let's say the wire is connected to a switch.

The Atheist will see the switch in the "off" position and touch the wire.

It's rather the Agnostic who will test the wire for current, because he doesn't know the switch, maybe it has been wired wrong inside, or the "on" and "off" labels are swapped.

The Agnostic will also have tested the wire tester on live current before and after the test to make sure it tests correctly.

The Agnostic knows something is not there when it has been proven that it is not there.

The Atheist will jump to conclusions.

For example, let's say the wire is not connected to anything - the atheist will trust his knowledge and touch the wire. Maybe static electricity will kill him.

Good reply. But in your example, the agnostic would become an Atheist now, after testing.

Ah...

The problem with agnosticism is that it leads to Pascal's Wager. If you don't know whether or not (a) God exists, would it not be wiser to act as if there were one, considering the consequences (none if one doesn't exist, eternal damnation or bliss if there is one and you picked the right/wrong one)?

I imagine being agnostic as standing in front of a naked electric wire, not knowing if it is live or not. Now you can say "I don't know if touching this wire will kill me or not", but unless you're taping for "Jackass 4", you're not going to touch that wire.

Faith would mean trusting your 25 years younger Thai wife or her brother to flip the breaker.

An atheist of course uses an instrument of science to test for a live current.

But seriously, how does someone who labels himself "agnostic" manage not to be either atheist of believer?

Ah Pascal's Wager.

Suppose I am god ( silly idea, but can you prove that I am not?) - Where is the sarcasm symbol?

So I am god, and somebody decides to believe in me because if I truly were god, it would be in that person's best interest to believe in me. Now what would I think of that little egoistic smartass prick? Would I after his death feed him sweet rice with golden spoons, or give him 17 virgins?

Pascal may have been good at maths, he may have invented a programming language (....) , but he was a smartass, not a serious philosopher.

If you were God and could prove it, it would certainly put an end to this discussion. :-)

Although a real God would use Twitter, not ThaiVisa.

The problem with agnosticism is that it leads to Pascal's Wager. If you don't know whether or not (a) God exists, would it not be wiser to act as if there were one, considering the consequences (none if one doesn't exist, eternal damnation or bliss if there is one and you picked the right/wrong one)?

I imagine being agnostic as standing in front of a naked electric wire, not knowing if it is live or not. Now you can say "I don't know if touching this wire will kill me or not", but unless you're taping for "Jackass 4", you're not going to touch that wire.

Faith would mean trusting your 25 years younger Thai wife or her brother to flip the breaker.

An atheist of course uses an instrument of science to test for a live current.

But seriously, how does someone who labels himself "agnostic" manage not to be either atheist of believer?

So far I see two main sides here:

People who know him and judge his character and skills to be good,

People who don't know him and judge his character and skills to be bad.

As B Trink used to say: "Manure - Human nature".

Why do I get the feeling that quite a few "foreign undercover" operatives are posting law & order messages here?

Lice and let live, wasn't that what used to make Thailand so attractive, way way back?

(Edit:That typo is much too charming to correct. You know how it should have spelled.)

So if she had it or not is neither here nor there. why are all country continuing to be put at risk with passenger coming and going on international flights from infected areas. pathetic.

You suggest that people who stay in a country where Ebola has been detected, should be prohibited from traveling home or elsewhere in the world ?

At some point - not now - there may have to be a kind of quarantine for travellers from high risk countries *before* boarding a plane. Although the transmission of ebola is through body fluids only (so it is believed), further outbreaks will eventually mandate that.

Personally I believe that ebola will come to Europe on a ship with a few hundred refugees, most of them infected by Poor hygiene on board, and will immediately spread in holding camps. So Italy to be hit first in this scenario.

Yeah it seems strange that a group of people should come together because of something they don't have (faith). It's like a club for people who don't own a 1997 red Toyota Corolla.

However, I think that groups like these can be of great help for those who are on the threshold to enlightenment. People who have the seed of doubt, growing but not yet strong enough to abandon the religion that their parents raised them to believe in.

Without atheist groups, they only Council they could turn to would be their priest, and that's about as useful as asking your financial adviser about Royal Skandia.

Sure these things can be learned by books or on the Internet, but hearing from live atheists is certainly preferable.

How could they look Japanese? Fail to see how in a baby , you could tell the difference between a Japanese 1 and say a Korean or Chinese 1..........

All the Japanese babies lined up to piss in the same potty.

Korean male babies would miss the potty even if they were sitting in it.

stopping same sex couples from taking babies out of the country is good.i have no problem with people having a same sex partner but do not believe they should come here looking to get children they cannot have naturally.basicly same sex partners cannot have babies with each other and therefore cannot have children.i am not religious at all but do believe in the natural order of life.

Do you also have a problem with infertile heterosexual couples having children? Or are you just a homophobic bigot?

Homophobic is a term introduced by gays in an attempt to belittle or pressure anyone that has a different opinion to theirs be it about children or marriage. Everyone is entitled to live their own lives as they see fit, if they prefer their own sex then that is their choice and no-one can take that away from them. One thing they must also accept is that it is physically impossible for them to have their own children by each other, by going into their relationship this needs to be a part of what they want. If they have children through previous hetero relationships then they are able to fulfill their child raising problems but to claim they are entitled to invitro fertilization is a fallacy. This is not the same as hetero couples as they do have the required body parts to have children and are stopped only to a technicality that can be overcome by science, being either both women or both men gay couples were never meant to be able to reproduce. My eldest daughter is gay and I have had many gay friends over the years but I do not believe they have a right to this type of endeavour, it does not make me a "homophobe", just someone with an opinion . Trying to make people out to be something they are not to push your own bias is the problem, if you honestly believe you are entitled then try giving sound reasons that 2 same sex people should be able to reproduce even though it is physically impossible due to not have the correct reproductive organs between them and stop belittling anyone with a different opinion. It does a great dis-service to those gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce due to their partner choice and have chosen their partners due entirely to the love of each other.

First try to get your facts straight. The term "homophobic" was created by George Weinberg, a straight psychotherapist.

And for people who "prefer their own sex" is not "their choice"; it's not a choice at all. It's an intrinsic characteristic.

As for "both women or both men gay couples were never meant to be able to reproduce", what do you mean by "meant"? Do you believe in some invisible sky fairy who decides what is "meant" and what isn't "meant"?

You write "try giving sound reasons that 2 same sex people should be able to reproduce even though it is physically impossible". How about changing that to "try giving sound reasons that 2 different sex people should be able to reproduce even though the invisible sky fairy has resolved that for them it is to be physically impossible".

However, thank you for patronising me by writing "It does a great dis-service to those gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce due to their partner choice and have chosen their partners due entirely to the love of each other." I happen to be half of one of those "gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce". Personally, I am happy not to have children. However, if others feel that their lives would be enriched by raising and nurturing a child or children, who am I (or anybody else) to say no? Given the sh*tty ways that many children of straight couples and single parents are brought up, I would posit it's far better for children to be brought up by a couple who love, care for, and nurture the child irrespective of their sexuality and gender than to be brought up by uncaring individuals or couples of any sexual orientation.

yes it was but it has been hijacked by those gays that want to try to shame people into accepting their personal views, just because people disgree it does not make them homophobes, people like you that label people homophobes because they disagree with you are the problem as you help create the animosity between everyone. You say you have accepted you cant have kids with your partner but still keep trying to create conflict, really well done, seems to me you are the bigot here. As for the sky fairy, if you are not aware it takes male semen and female eggs to create babies unless you are telling us that you have discovered a new method, I know of a few couples that have used gay males and gay females to concieve, so there is a way if they really want to go down that path or adoption.

I am not patronizing anyone, you are doing that all by yourself, try thinking rationally instead of with your bias, genuine couples cherish each other or are you in a miserable relationship and need to lash out to convince yourself its good, try looking at yourself before criticizing others. Produce a decent argument instead of your sky fairy crap and I will listen to you, your answer is truly pathetric to say the least.

I think you misread something. The thread was hijacked by a series of people who categorically denied gays the right to parenthood based on fuzzy principles such as "natural order" (but probably meaning "God's will") and "being normal".

Such comments must have a response, if only to show that not everyone subscribes to this path of thinking. One poster basically said that he'd prefer a child raised by a convicted pedophile rather than a normal gay couple. If that's not homophobic, then what is?

As for myself, nature has tried to kill me many times and without the unnatural help of doctors and medicine I would have been dead before the age of 10. So screw nature's "intent", man is a social & technological animal that is not constrained exclusively by natural order anymore. People who see children only as the result of reproduction rather then vessels to be filled with love, might disagree.

stopping same sex couples from taking babies out of the country is good.i have no problem with people having a same sex partner but do not believe they should come here looking to get children they cannot have naturally.basicly same sex partners cannot have babies with each other and therefore cannot have children.i am not religious at all but do believe in the natural order of life.

Do you also have a problem with infertile heterosexual couples having children? Or are you just a homophobic bigot?

I would hope that he is like most normal people, including myself, who you refer to as homophobic bigots.

Don't you think that the argument whether a gay man/woman can be a loving parent should be made by a gay person? In fact, I'd value the experienced opinion of a gay parent (and their closest relatives or friends) much higher than those of people who start most of of their own arguments with "I have nothing against gays, but...".

People here seem to think that being gay means having analysis sex 24/7, including during feedings and diaper changes. And yet 99% of all gay people are children of heterosexual relationships ("normal" families). Why not put an end to that?

If people are afraid of homosexual parents, they should fear single straight male parents as well. The problem here is lack of regulation, not the parents' sexual orientation.

Comes in Thailand alone, leaves with a child...

 

Would be interesting to see what documents he produced for the child at immigration.....

Japanese embassy??

I don't think that's too difficult.

 

There's a steady stream of Filipino babies being flown from their workplace countries back to their families on the Philippines. The kids are usually 3-6 months old and there's a pickup service where the mother/father does not even have to fly - someone is paid to accompany the kids from airport to airport. Such a person would often appear at immigration with different children, I think with proper documents/authorizations this would not cause trouble at the checkpoints.

 

Some of these kids' parents are no longer legally in the country, so they can't appear in front of exit immigration. The Phillipines embassy/consulate issues a passport based on a few documents clarifying parenthood for the baby.

 

I don't see why this should not also be possible in Thailand and for exit to Japan. Best case, this was a baby factory for childless Japanese couples, and the guy was the transporter. Probably a bit shady at least, but perhaps not hardcore mafia organ trade. That idea was just for some forgotten politician to push herself into the spotlight.

 

Worst case, well...

 

But since the Japanese consulate must have issued passports all along (a process that can be finished in 2-3 hours), I'm now tending more towards a best-case scenario. Still needs to be carefully investigated at all ends since the appearance of human trafficking is there.

I'm not sure what the problem is here. I myself used 5 different German passports to travel in and out of Thailand well over 50 times.

The report does not state whether:

- each of his 2 passports had different details (name etc.)
- he held both valid passports at the same time

Unless charges are brought forward, this guy can pretty much walk around freely and no government needs to "explain" (this is how & when you use quotes properly) anything.

As shady as this is, nobody should be arrested because "someone on Thaivisa demanded it" :-)

Interesting that now the surrogate mother has become a very rich woman ( by thai standards ) because of donations by those who feel sorry for her, she wants the other child back???

Anyone who has spent a small time in Thailand will see that disabled kids in poor families are good little for other than public begging and are treated with, at best, indifference by other thais.

The whole matter is a very very sad state of affairs, least of all for the children.

Yet another sweeping statement involving the usual Thai bashing - in my BF's village have seen several disabled kids who are looked after by the community with more love and attention than they would get in the West ( with all the social workers etc) no they don't have much- but those children are very much welcome in everyones home and loved more .

Well Peter I don't know you or your boyfriend but there is no way on earth I would let my children enter the home of a male couple.

Please nothing against you guys but the amount of paedophiles in Thailand one has to protect their children. I am not saying you are paedophiles but I wouldn't trust a male couple and I as a parent would have to present at all times my child is in your home to watch over them.

I may have misread but at what point did he offer to look after your kids? Without that offer your statement has no context and may be (mis) read as opportunistic gay bashing.

 The arguments of healing the sick or feeding the hungry are so generically "good" as to strangle any counter-argument, so I'd say they're invalid. A better argument from your side would've been "why fund this space mission when we could've funded 5 other space missions that could yield more important results?"

No sense in mixing apples and oranges, these issues you list are unrelated.

A cynical person would even say that not spending millions on ebola clinics will save billions of dollars on the famine front, given some patience.

  
Not apples and oranges.  Guns and butter.  Totally unrelated, yet very intertwined.
 
We've got a "house" where the roof leaks, the kids need shoes and jabs, the lawn is dying and the driveway washed away in the last storm.  Yet we're spending $$$ billions on more (metaphoric) cable channels.
 
And anyone believing that letting Ebola get away from us will be of benefit on the famine front, doesn't belong to the same human race I do.  Any more than the guys that hoped AIDS would solve "the gay problem".

That analogy is not very good.

First of all, it's not our house that's in disrepair. We do regularly donate to the neighbour's family, but their father decides it's better to use the money for booze and man toys.

Now our own house is not perfect. We spend too much on the alarm system, say 40% of our income. Occasionally we buy a book for learning and knowledge. Now tell me, why should I save on the few dollars spent on the books? There's no difference in the budget.

But what I really want to know is: how would a world without hunger and disease look like? How stable will it be? How do you keep populations at sustainable levels?

Me, 24 and with a rich dad? I'd live like Monaco royalty and maybe... Just maybe... Got for a couple of kids 20 years later.

That guy is a Yakuza facility manager, not a young man yearning to be loved by his kin.

 

Great technological achievement but.....  I think there are far better ways humanity could be served with the money spent on this mission.

Such as... bigger and better bombs for another war? Bigger and better CO2-spewing factories? Build a highway through the Amazon? Give more money to the homeless so they can buy more drugs?

This project is fantastic. Our destiny is space and the more money spent on it the better. The current budget is pathetic and minuscule.

 
How about Ebola hospitals in Africa?  To head off the epidemic that could wipe us out in our lifetime.  How about feeding the billions of hungry?  How about water desalination plants in places where they don't have clean water?
 
My destiny isn't in space.  Your destiny isn't in space.  Nobody either of us knows has their destiny in space.  In our lifetimes, a few dozen highly qualified and selected people may establish a colony on Mars.  You won't be related to any of them, and neither will I.  I'd prefer they spend my tax dollars on us, on today's problems,  in the here and now.
 
As long as we believe we have another place to go when we have thrashed the earth, we'll continue to thrash the earth, forgetting geometric math where if we overpopulate the earth, going to Mars only gets us another couple of decades, because that's how fast the population doubles to overpopulate 2 planets.
 
This mission may bring us closer to the technology we need to mine the body.  Then some mining companies (probably Chinese ones) will send a craft up to privatize the benefits, while we, the public, sponsor the heavy $$$ lifting.

I wonder if taking 0.1% of the military budget wouldn't be more effective than taking 90% of the science budget. I never heard a doctor complain that governments spend too much on science and education.

The arguments of healing the sick or feeding the hungry are so generically "good" as to strangle any counter-argument, so I'd say they're invalid. A better argument from your side would've been "why fund this space mission when we could've funded 5 other space missions that could yield more important results?"

No sense in mixing apples and oranges, these issues you list are unrelated.

A cynical person would even say that not spending millions on ebola clinics will save billions of dollars on the famine front, given some patience.

I thought stem cells require embryos, not full grown babies. Mind you, that was the "worst case" scenario, so there's no proof of indicator that that's what happened here.

Too disgusting even for "Hostel" style torture porn :-(