Thai surrogate: Baby Carmen dads must wait 5 more months

[Fairynuff]

The minute you talk about homos and paedos in the same context you lose any chance of being taken seriously, except of course by your fellow likeminded bigots.

Here's a simple thought for you, would you be ranting the same way if it were a hetero couple involved in this situation? Of course you wouldn't.

[Seann]

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.

Can you please provide a citation for this? I must have missed the parade.

[Fairynuff]

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.

Can you please provide a citation for this? I must have missed the parade.

Please wait a few minutes while he makes one up

[Bluespunk]

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

D.N.A.

She did not provide the egg for this child.

She is not the biological mother.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Bluespunk

[Fairynuff]

My concern is not for the child who I have every confidence will be brought up by two parents who adore her. My concern is that her life will be made more difficult by people with their irrational rabid obsession with the "homosexual act" .

[Fairynuff]

Mr Cahill, I rest my case....rabid obsession

[ravip]

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.

Just a simple business deal?

So she should be able to try all the tricks in business to earn the maximum?

What an attitude?

Such thinking!

It is no surprise that this world is so weird today.

[Bluespunk]

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.

Just a simple business deal?

So she should be able to try all the tricks in business to earn the maximum?

What an attitude?

Such thinking!

It is no surprise that this world is so weird today.

Never said I agreed with this form of surrogacy.

[Jingthing]

It was a legal contract at the time.

Now it wouldn't be.

So yes it was a business deal, but not a simple one.

In any case, the court case now as far as I understand, does not touch upon challenging the legality of the contract, but rather the eventual custody rights of the baby.

So who has the parental rights to the baby?

Under the contract and based on biological connection, the case leans towards the same sex married couple.

Who did birth the child? That part leans towards the surrogate.

Where was the child born? Thailand. That part leans towards the surrogate.

Who will be the better parents? That part is subjective but people who claim a same sex couple by definition aren't capable of being good parents, are indeed expressing an ignorant and bigoted POV.

Who has bonded with the child better and longer? The foreigners, not the surrogate. Favors the same sex couple.

The gay angle may well impact on the eventual decision because although the same sex couple IS legally married as far as Thai law is concerned, such marriages are not legally recognized in Thailand. So technically, it might be seen as giving custody to a single foreign parent ... definitely they would probably be long gone if they were a hetero married couple.

Earlier in this case, I thought the same sex couple was definitely going to lose, but as it has dragged on so long, I see that as a positive sign that there is a better chance they will eventually be able leave Thailand with their child.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Jingthing

[Fairynuff]

I hope justice and common sense prevail and the child is allowed to stay with her parents, one of whom is a biological parent

[Patsycat]

They probably use the MAPS word because they can't spell peaodophile properly!!

It still boggles my mind that there are still so many blinkered, blind homphobic bigots around in this day and age.

What are they afraid of, that a gay man may find them attractive? A gay man may brush their delectible thigh with his hand?

Or, worse!! They may actually be attracted to a man!!

[ravip]

I wonder how many of these "non-bigots" would offer their own child for adoption by a gay couple if the need arise...

[AGareth2]

They probably use the MAPS word because they can't spell peaodophile properly!!

It still boggles my mind that there are still so many blinkered, blind homphobic bigots around in this day and age.

What are they afraid of, that a gay man may find them attractive? A gay man may brush their delectible thigh with his hand?

Or, worse!! They may actually be attracted to a man!!

sorry

I thought this was about buying and trafficking babies

not

gay sexual behaviour

[Fairynuff]

It's not about buying and trafficking babies, nor is it about gay sexual behaviour, it's about surrogacy. It's only you and your cronies with your insane obsession that makes it into something else.

[Jingthing]

It's not about buying and trafficking babies, nor is it about gay sexual behaviour, it's about surrogacy. It's only you and your cronies with your insane obsession that makes it into something else.

It's not exactly just about surrogacy either.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of surrogacy. I think it's a grey area ... it can be a win win for both sides, but often it is not.

Nations have every right to make laws about that and restrict foreigners.

They also have the right to allow foreigners but restrict same sex couples or any other reason; discriminatory yes but that's up to the sovereign nations.

There definitely are ethical issues with surrogacy that don't exist with adoption.

But this case, the surrogacy that resulting in BABY CARMEN was a legal surrogacy contract at that time in Thailand.

Going forward, that's different as the laws have changed here, but that contract should be honored.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Jingthing

[smutcakes]

They probably use the MAPS word because they can't spell peaodophile properly!!

It still boggles my mind that there are still so many blinkered, blind homphobic bigots around in this day and age.

What are they afraid of, that a gay man may find them attractive? A gay man may brush their delectible thigh with his hand?

Or, worse!! They may actually be attracted to a man!!

People are expressing concern for the well being of the child, its not always about the gay men however much they want to make everything about them.

[cookee68]

There are more gay couples in Thailand than any other place in the world, who are they trying to kid, she did not turn up in court so the court should have awarded the child to the dad or dads what ever, this is just the Thai way of milking the situation to their advantage, more tv for the <deleted>, and more fame for her lawyer, and she is not even the egg surplier,

Edited November 1, 2015 by metisdead
Inappropriate language.

[AGareth2]

also hiring out female organs for profit

[metisdead]

Off topic inflammatory posts and replies have been removed.

[Tom Cahill]

My concern is not for the child who I have every confidence will be brought up by two parents who adore her. My concern is that her life will be made more difficult by people with their irrational rabid obsession with the "homosexual act" .

It's a rain free morning in Nonceland.

You lot are well and truly putting the N into it.

There's no such thing as a homosexual act that I know of. And, what is it, a UN directive?

No one's obsessed with homosexuals. This is not about them. It's about paedophiles buying children and your objection to them doing this, with all the ludicrous name calling and self-satisfaction.

[Fairynuff]

Your attempt at humour is about as relevant as your hateful previous comments, thankfully removed by the moderators. The video of yourself on YouTube tells us all we need to know

[Oxx]

According to the paper that dare not speak its name, Carmen is going to be living with her daddies. Court situation resolved.

[greenchair]

She has every right to appeal.

I hope she does and at least permitted follow up that the defenseless little girl is safe with 2 males and no maternal care.

Keeping in mind, that only one is the father and only 1 is gay in the truest sense.

Edited April 26, 2016 by greenchair

[Jingthing]

She has every right to appeal.

I hope she does and at least permitted follow up that the defenseless little girl is safe with 2 males and no maternal care.

Keeping in mind, that only one is the father and only 1 is gay in the truest sense.

OK, I just read that they can't legally leave yet with their child because they are waiting to hear whether the surrogate woman will appeal, or not. So you're right, it's not quite OVER yet.

But you know the decision was made so I doubt there will be an appeal, or that it would be successful.

Of course doing so could definitely inflict more PAIN and time bother on the family.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Jingthing

[Oxx]

and only 1 is gay in the truest sense.

W T F does that mean?

Edited April 26, 2016 by Oxx

[Tywais]

According to the paper that dare not speak its name, Carmen is going to be living with her daddies. Court situation resolved.

News update here - Gay couple wins custody battle against Thai surrogate mother

Will close this topic and the discussion can continue at the above link.