Thai surrogate: Baby Carmen dads must wait 5 more months

[Tom Cahill]

Bluspunk and Fairymuff, the sexual and morality police? Think very carefully why you won't be taken seriously in these matters.

No idea why you mention me, however as I agree 100% with Fairynuff I'll respond.

Judging by the tone of your post I see you are a narrow minded, right wing, homophobic bigot so I request you take your hate fuelled views and insert them somewhere where the sun fails to function.

"obviously" I'm not sticking anything up anyone's a**e, Blue spunk. You're the bigot if you don't accept other peoples' views. That's what a bigot is. Not accepting perverse abuse of children is the opposite of bigotry---they can't defend themselves. You give yourself away saying such perverse things when child abuse is the 'bigot's' alleged concerns here. Congratulations, you've provided evidence beyond the balance of probability by trying unsuccessfully to be clever.

[ravip]

Why did not they do it in their own country?

Who really is at fault?

because homosexuals cannot adopt babies! they they are not satisfied with living their perverted lives (calling each other husband and wife even though both are man) don't know why they would want a baby anyway!

This is a specific case. Homosexual love isn't on trial here. Custody of one baby is.

Gay people can adopt in many countries. It is often harder.

On surrogacy, gay and straight couples go to places like India and Nepal to save money, if it is legal in their home countries or not, just as people travel abroad for cheaper dental services. You can question the ethics of surrogacy but the ethics of surrogacy is not on trial here. ONE custody case is.

Not all gay people want children, adopted or biological. Some do.

What they call each other will depend on the individuals involved and really none of your business.

Obviously for lesbians it is much easier to have a biological connection to children, from one member of the couple of course.

Some people travel overseas to buy a baby. Same as some go to get dental work??? You are talking about a child not a rear molar. If they (Mummy and Daddy the 2 men) had the urge to be parents then go into a natural relationship and bear kids. If they choose that particular lifestyle then that is the consequences of their decision. Different if the couple were male and female and medical reasons they could not bear kids then I would see surrogacy as an alternative. But if 2 men choose that way then tough luck to them and should not be allowed children in their lives.

If it cannot be done at home DON'T do it elsewhere.

[Bluespunk]

No more anchor wombs!!! No more using and exploiting 3rd world women !!! stop this madness,

I support gay rights and I think LGBT people should be aloud to get married, adopt. I am even ok with blind fertilisation,

this is not a answer, I am totally against this

So you're saying that gay people should be allowed to adopt but not allowed to have a child where one of the parents is in fact the biological parent? IMO your logic is illogical.

When a bigot tries to deny being a bigot there's always a "but"

DearFairynuff, He can be her father, nobody is denying his right, if he wants he can has shared custody with her, Surogat is legally mother, she denied to give away her mother rights, Deal with it!!!!

Let her alone and return baby to poor woman!!!!

She's not the mother. She's the person who agreed to carry the baby for money. She has no biological link to the child and no rights to it.

[ravip]

Some people in the West try everything to hide their homosexuality, just for the heritage.

They are hiding many sh** in addition to homosexuality.

Make your family at home - why find cheap alternatives? Is that not disgusting in itself?

Money, money, money... even to make a "family"

Yuk

I assume the majority of clients for international surrogacy are infertile HETEROSEXUAL couples. Stop ragging on gay people. They're just people and some of them want to be parents. Surrogacy is one option. There are others that are less controversial, such as adoption.

The simplest and the most human way to do it is - do it at HOME.

No misunderstandings anywhere, then.

[Bluespunk]

Bluspunk and Fairymuff, the sexual and morality police? Think very carefully why you won't be taken seriously in these matters.

No idea why you mention me, however as I agree 100% with Fairynuff I'll respond.

Judging by the tone of your post I see you are a narrow minded, right wing, homophobic bigot so I request you take your hate fuelled views and insert them somewhere where the sun fails to function.

"obviously" I'm not sticking anything up anyone's a**e, Blue spunk. You're the bigot if you don't accept other peoples' views. That's what a bigot is. Not accepting perverse abuse of children is the opposite of bigotry---they can't defend themselves. You give yourself away saying such perverse things when child abuse is the 'bigot's' alleged concerns here. Congratulations, you've provided evidence beyond the balance of probability by trying unsuccessfully to be clever.

No.

You're the bigot.

You've also given a great example of stupidity in your failure to understand the meaning of bigotry.

Congratulations.

[Tom Cahill]

No idea why you mention me, however as I agree 100% with Fairynuff I'll respond.

Judging by the tone of your post I see you are a narrow minded, right wing, homophobic bigot so I request you take your hate fuelled views and insert them somewhere where the sun fails to function.

"obviously" I'm not sticking anything up anyone's a**e, Blue spunk. You're the bigot if you don't accept other peoples' views. That's what a bigot is. Not accepting perverse abuse of children is the opposite of bigotry---they can't defend themselves. You give yourself away saying such perverse things when child abuse is the 'bigot's' alleged concerns here. Congratulations, you've provided evidence beyond the balance of probability by trying unsuccessfully to be clever.

No.

You're the bigot.

You've also given a great example of stupidity in your failure to understand the meaning of bigotry.

Congratulations.

You've lost the argument. That's the end of it. Children won't be available for sale to paedophiles here very shortly now due to the amount of attention you're lot are giving it, pleading to be allowed to take them. Good night.

[Jingthing]

So has there been an accusation made that the same sex parents of baby Carmen are pedophiles? No? I didn't think so.

[Fairynuff]

Wow these vile homophobes must have really been hitting the bottle tonight, hopefully they've all passed out by now

[Patsycat]

And i've just started - drinking that is!!

[Seann]

I dont understand what it is that you all are upset about besides that you are homophobic.

[Seann]

My wife has donated money to them and I recommend others do as well. Their legal expenses have been adding up.

[Tom Cahill]

Wow these vile homophobes must have really been hitting the bottle tonight, hopefully they've all passed out by now

I'm not scared of houses, but I stay away from property used to rent children out to grown men for sex. Does that make me vile? Sorry.

[Tom Cahill]

It's not buying a baby.

It's paying for services of a lady to use her womb for an extended period of time.

As far as why not in another country. This has been covered so many times before.

Either it's illegal (as in most countries) or prohibitively expensive.

disgraceful

are you human?

or are you another species?

Well, interesting question.

I am another kind of member here -- the kind that puts master BAITERS (as opposed to debaters) on my ignore list. Welcome, comrade.

we all have the right to have an opinion

even you do

listen to the majority

what is a bigot?

He's not given an opinion. He's objected to a legally correct point and he's been sarcastic and abusive. Sarcasm and abuse in place of having any idea of how to use his right to respond. Abuse and demonstrating sarcasm---the lowest form of wit---are not comments.

[Tom Cahill]

Not a biological link aside them needing her body for a year. Try again tomorrow.

No more anchor wombs!!! No more using and exploiting 3rd world women !!! stop this madness,
I support gay rights and I think LGBT people should be aloud to get married, adopt. I am even ok with blind fertilisation,
this is not a answer, I am totally against this

So you're saying that gay people should be allowed to adopt but not allowed to have a child where one of the parents is in fact the biological parent? IMO your logic is illogical.

When a bigot tries to deny being a bigot there's always a "but"

DearFairynuff, He can be her father, nobody is denying his right, if he wants he can has shared custody with her, Surogat is legally mother, she denied to give away her mother rights, Deal with it!!!!
Let her alone and return baby to poor woman!!!!

She's not the mother. She's the person who agreed to carry the baby for money. She has no biological link to the child and no rights to it.

[Tom Cahill]

I've no idea about this case, however all of the pedos have been coming here, pretending to get babies to have families for some time. Some of the agencies actually make sure that they are homosexuals and paedophiles, or they won't get babies as they don't want them working out what the whole service is about. Whilst most homosexuals have now been proven to have no genetic differences and created by their environment, aside in the US, it's taboo to mention that they're conservatively thirty times more likely to abuse children. This is because there's not so many gays and yet 'they' do a lot more abusing. I say 'they' as the issue is made slightly different as whereas some man may abuse a girl or ten, the homosexual paedophile often abuses hundreds of children. So there's good and bad in it.

The reason surrogacy has gotten such a disgusting name amongst the educated is that whilst this is totally lied about in the Western countries, it's accepted as a fact, based on Western studies which is more infuriating, that these surrogacies are much more likely to be used by people who wouldn't get a baby in their own country as they'd beed to be vetted, they couldn't be on drugs, they coudn't have AIDS or other homosexual diseases, they couldn't be on the sex offenders refgister, and they couldn't be suicide risks, psychiatrically unwell, etc.. Obviously this isn't most homosexuals.

Another big issue is this. Most gays don't want to have children as they're not one hundred percent about what's up with them, and mainly just want to be left alone to get on with it in private. The last thing they want is to have some children to corrupt and to ruin their lives. Obviously that's exactly what makes people hate them, people supporting a pedo baby buying racket, with 'their' tag on it, as they're pretending that they're the same as them and they're definitely not.

So has there been an accusation made that the same sex parents of baby Carmen are pedophiles? No? I didn't think so.

[Seann]

there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilea

[Jingthing]

I've no idea about this case, however all of the pedos have been coming here, pretending to get babies to have families for some time.

...

That couldn't be more obvious.

Instead, you just want to endlessly rant to spread your basically insane obsession with linking gay people with pedo crimes and pretty much every other negative thing that comes to your mind.

Welcome to ignore list. Who needs to spend one minute digesting such garbage?

Edited October 31, 2015 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilea

But there is a link between toxic homophobia and chronic onanism ...

[kannot]

"Neither the surrogate mother who has said she wants to keep the baby, Patidta Kusolsang, nor her legal advisor, Verutai Maneenuchanert, were present today."

Nothing to do with her. She was paid to carry someone else's child. She has no claim on the child.

Now as to whether this type of surrogacy for money is right or wrong is another issue. Certainly seems to attract some greedy, averous individuals on both sides of the deal.

Unfortunately in this case it has a lot to do with her as the baby came out of her and she is the legal birth-mother on the birth certificate.

What I am sure of is that after the birth she changed her mind upon realising that this beautiful (and possibly intelligent) luk kreung will be a big earner in 18 years time or earlier as a model or soap star.

"My daughter khao suai maak."

What an overtly racist comment.

Since she is a Thai mother she must only be interested in the future ability to exploit the child.

Your post is a great example of the racism that permeates this forum.

Which of course Thais just do not do eh!!

[Ks45672]

No more anchor wombs!!! No more using and exploiting 3rd world women !!! stop this madness,

I support gay rights and I think LGBT people should be aloud to get married, adopt. I am even ok with blind fertilisation,

this is not a answer, I am totally against this

So you're saying that gay people should be allowed to adopt but not allowed to have a child where one of the parents is in fact the biological parent? IMO your logic is illogical.

When a bigot tries to deny being a bigot there's always a "but"

DearFairynuff, He can be her father, nobody is denying his right, if he wants he can has shared custody with her, Surogat is legally mother, she denied to give away her mother rights, Deal with it!!!!

Let her alone and return baby to poor woman!!!!

She's not the mother. She's the person who agreed to carry the baby for money. She has no biological link to the child and no rights to it.

But 2 Gay men have more rights than the woman who gave birth to it...

This is a joke, I hope the judge throws all of 3 them out of court

[Tom Cahill]

My wife has donated money to them and I recommend others do as well. Their legal expenses have been adding up.

Why don't you give other deserving charties money (like PIE and NAMBLA) before they "sadly" closed when they all went to prison.

By an amazing coincidence, I think I'm right in thinking that their costs "added up", but then stopped when they got caught, the world found out what they were wanting to parade about with children and Gay Pride and they all got sent to prison or killed themselves---hoorah!!! or boo hoo?

They've come here as they can't get a baby anywhere else. They will have used an agent. They didn't know this woman. Use you brain.

Look up @gaydads on Twitter, a convicted criminal, and look into him, and the $100k fees he charges to take 'gay babies' to the UAE, etc., and you'll maybe catch on then.

It's going to annoy me equally anyway, but what part of the knuckle dragging Anglosphere are you from?

[Bluespunk]

@Tom Cahill

The stupidity of the ignorant and prejudiced never fails to amaze me.

You however are a shining example.

Rare indeed are those as hate fuelled and ignorant as you.

I would pity you but you're not worth the effort.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Bluespunk

[Bluespunk]

@Ks45672

No idea why sexuality plays a role.

It's DNA that counts.

Duh!

Edited October 31, 2015 by Bluespunk

[jacko45k]

Sad that this wannabe hi so lawyer has hijacked the case for own publicity and sick satisfaction. Everything she has said since becoming involved has been nasty and in complete denial of the facts.

Sounds like common law(yer) to me.

[Bluespunk]

Not a biological link aside them needing her body for a year. Try again tomorrow.

No more anchor wombs!!! No more using and exploiting 3rd world women !!! stop this madness,

I support gay rights and I think LGBT people should be aloud to get married, adopt. I am even ok with blind fertilisation,

this is not a answer, I am totally against this

So you're saying that gay people should be allowed to adopt but not allowed to have a child where one of the parents is in fact the biological parent? IMO your logic is illogical.

When a bigot tries to deny being a bigot there's always a "but"

DearFairynuff, He can be her father, nobody is denying his right, if he wants he can has shared custody with her, Surogat is legally mother, she denied to give away her mother rights, Deal with it!!!!

Let her alone and return baby to poor woman!!!!

She's not the mother. She's the person who agreed to carry the baby for money. She has no biological link to the child and no rights to it.

Try learning science.

My oh my...those who will not study are to be pitied for their ignorance.

[steven23]

No more anchor wombs!!! No more using and exploiting 3rd world w

So you're saying that gay people should be allowed to adopt but not allowed to have a child where one of the parents is in fact the biological parent? IMO your logic is illogical.

When a bigot tries to deny being a bigot there's always a "but"

DearFairynuff, He can be her father, nobody is denying his right, if he wants he can has shared custody with her, Surogat is legally mother, she denied to give away her mother rights, Deal with it!!!!

Let her alone and return baby to poor woman!!!!

She's not the mother. She's the person who agreed to carry the baby for money. She has no biological link to the child and no rights to it.

Can you please provide us with references and laws that explicitly talk that she doesnt have right as a mother?

or you are telling this from your mind?? which is emotional fallacy but it is ok, I know that some people have problem with understanding that surrogate is mother! regarding genetic material

A blanket statement is a vague and noncommittal statement asserting a premise without providing evidence (such as specific numbers).

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread820508/pg1

[SiamSuzi]

Contrary to some folks opinion that someone can rent out a womb like storage space, the fact is thst carrying a child in a womb and giving birth to that child is most likely a very personal experience with much bonding between unborn and mother. It certsinly seems that the idea and practice of renting the 3rd world womb because it is illegal in your own country comes with some inherent risk.

I do feel sorry for the two dads and this has to be very difficult for them but this does not seem like an ethicsl practice to me.

OK first of all clutch, you are wrong. Surrogacy is very legal in the United States and it is very legal for the woman to be very well compensated for providing such a tremendous service to people who are unable to have children of their own and dream to have a family.

Second, to you people referring to surrogacy as womb rental and human incubators, it's not quite like that. There are many couples who dream to have a family but cannot have their own. It's normal, and it's human to want to have a family. And for many people this is their ultimate life goal. Imagine if you could not have children and that's the greatest thing you wanted in life. It's a wonderful thing when somebody else can help you to have the family and life that you always dreamed of. And they should definitely be very well compensated for that. The Surrogate is going to spend the better part of a year of her life being sick and emotionally drained, to help someone to have the family and life that you always dreamed of. And they should definitely be very well compensated for that. The Surrogate is going to spend the bigger part of a year of her life being sick, put through an emotional roller coaster due to hormonal changes, will definitely miss work for doctors appointments and sometimes morning sickness and just being too ill, the delivery of the child and the recovery, this will put her body through incredible changes that she may never recover from. She may have stretch marks, sagging breasts, stretched/torn vagina, and a whole host of other things that her body will be put through. For those of you who don't realize what a woman goes through to produce and birth a child, just remember that a long time ago many women died producing a child. Medical technology now makes it a lot safer, but this can actually kill a woman. They go through more than you can imagine to make a life, and they are doing this for somebody else's benefit, so they should definitely be extremely well compensated. Childless couples are not monsters renting wombs. They just want to have a family and the person helping them is doing such an incredible an extraordinary thing, that they should definitely be compensated. What's wrong with you people? So quick to shake a finger. I have never had children and I never will, nor will I ever be a surrogate. But I understand people who want a family and people who can't, and I'm a female who has seen what a woman goes through to nurture a life full term and deliver it. Some of the comments here are frankly quite stupid.

Edited November 1, 2015 by SiamSuzi

[Fairynuff]

I dont understand what it is that you all are upset about besides that you are homophobic.

Their homophobia causes blindness. They're unable to see the real issue here.

I like homophobes. They're like clockwork toys, just wind them up and watch them spin

[jaidam]

At risk of being called a bigot or homophobe, I would like to objectively comment on this. Had they adopted the child back home there would be supervision and the child's rights would be looked out for. As it stands they are doing this by the back door, a semi legal situation which leaves the poor child vulnerable to all sorts of abuse.It worries me that those voicing their concerns are being branded hateful terms, the whole trend surrounding this mindset of forcing others to accept the abnormal is very worrying.

Since homosexuals have been allowed to adopt children, and the general normalization of their lifestyle it has encouraged paedophiles to follow suit. Nowadays paedos are carrying out an intensive PR campaign to force mainstream culture to embrace their perversions. The term paedophile has now been branded hateful and that we should call them MAPs (minor attracted persons), accept their desires are "normal" for them, and that they should also have the same rights for adoption that heterosexual couples have. Now, call me whatever you want but this is several shades of wrong. It all started to go wrong when the lawmakers decided that biological norms were outdated and offensive. The more the pro-perversion faction forces society to accept their selfish wants, the worse the child abuse will get.

[Fairynuff]

At risk of being called a bigot or homophobe, I would like to objectively comment on this. Had they adopted the child back home there would be supervision and the child's rights would be looked out for. As it stands they are doing this by the back door, a semi legal situation which leaves the poor child vulnerable to all sorts of abuse.It worries me that those voicing their concerns are being branded hateful terms, the whole trend surrounding this mindset of forcing others to accept the abnormal is very worrying.

Since homosexuals have been allowed to adopt children, and the general normalization of their lifestyle it has encouraged paedophiles to follow suit. Nowadays paedos are carrying out an intensive PR campaign to force mainstream culture to embrace their perversions. The term paedophile has now been branded hateful and that we should call them MAPs (minor attracted persons), accept their desires are "normal" for them, and that they should also have the same rights for adoption that heterosexual couples have. Now, call me whatever you want but this is several shades of wrong. It all started to go wrong when the lawmakers decided that biological norms were outdated and offensive. The more the pro-perversion faction forces society to accept their selfish wants, the worse the child abuse will get.

You are absolutely right, you took a risk of being branded homophobic, which is exactly what you are. You lost any chance of objectivity when you equated homosexuality and paedophila as homophobes always do. Where you got that that utter nonsense about MAP from god only knows, certainly not in a normal world