Genetic Parenthood, Surrogacy and Gender

There are so many different threads running through the conversations in my last few posts.   It’s hard for me to keep track of it all.    I just thought I’d try to write something short to isolate some questions about gender and legal parentage.   I want to make a few observations even though the evening grows late and I’m probably not thinking all that clearly.

First, it seems to me that if you take genetic relationship as being the criteria for assigning legal parentage, then it is easy to figure what to do about surrogacy.   Gestational surrogacy with the genetic material of the intended parents is unproblematic.  Because the intended parents are using their own genetic material they are going to be the legal parents.

Any other form of surrogacy is problematic, but not because of anything to do with surrogacy or gender, really . It’s problematic because the intended parents are using someone else’s gametes.   From this perspective, the problem is the same as any time you use a third-party gamete provider.

Second, historically there has been a strong presumption that a woman who gives birth is the legal mother of the child.  Indeed, this presumption continues to be in force virtually everywhere and surrogacy is carved out as an exception in some jurisdictions.   The thing about this presumption is that it is impossible to say whether it arises from the fact that the woman who gave birth was always genetically related to the child or whether it arises from the fact of pregnancy/birth.   It’s only within the last forty years that we can pull the two things apart and during the time the presumption took hold both criteria were always found in tandem.

It’s when we try to split them and figure out what contributions count that things get tricky.   In particular, if you use genetics to assign legal fatherhood, how can you justify using any other standard for assigning legal motherhood?

And this leads me to the third thing I’ve been thinking about today:  Should we use gender neutral language when discussing genetic parenthood?  I mean, why say “genetic mother” or “genetic father”?   Why not just “genetic parent?”  Genetic parents make identical contributions to their offspring whether they be male or female–the contribute a gamete that contains 1/2 the needed DNA.

Maybe a genetic mother is a female genetic parent and a genetic father is a male genetic parent, but the femaleness or maleness of the person isn’t important, is it?   I mean, is providing an egg in any way different from providing sperm?

I’ve been thinking about this because of the recent post I put up about gametes from skin cells.     If you are using skin cells (which can then be turned into sperm or eggs) surely it is silly to call a person a genetic father if the skin cells were turned into sperm and a genetic mother if the skin cells were turned into eggs.    But perhaps if a man provided skin cells that became eggs we’d still call him a genetic father–because he is male?  Of course where this could lead you is to a child who had two genetic fathers (or two genetic mothers) which I think most people would consider impossible.

All in all it seems to me that the genetic parentage rules, at least in their purest form, ought to read gender out of parental titles.   Maybe this means I’ve found something about genetic parenthood that I like? I

Okay, it is late, I am tired and this is getting too strange even for me. I stop now.  Hope anyone on the east coast is safe and dry.

About these ads

42 responses to “Genetic Parenthood, Surrogacy and Gender

  1. again the binary dualistic formation. Genetics being important doesn’t mean that pregnancy isn’t and vice versa.

    • Of course pregnancy is important. But more important is the origin of that pregnany. Current law allows intended parents to keep children they gestated, or had gestated even when the person who provided the genes did so against their will due to the actions by medical professionals who either made a mistake or deliberately stole genetic material to sell it to others for reproductive purposes. This is not a remote far fetched possibility. There were estimated to be hundreds of families separated by the UC Irvine fertility scandal where doctors fled to Mexico to hide because they knew they were guilty. The intended parents of those children are totally protected to the point where the real parents have no idea who they are who is raising their children. The law favors the woman who gives birth even when she did not even have permission to be pregnant with the other woman’s fetus. One huge problem with anonymity is proof. I think Andrew V’s blog touches on lots of reasons for contracting directly with the donor. As much as I do hate what he does at least what he is doing makes some common sense, what kind of agreement can you have with someone if you don’t know their name and have no proof that it really was their genes used to get you pregnant. You have to take the word of someone who is profiting off the whole process nobody but them can verify that what they are saying is true. In many instances the parents are willing to share custody, not take anything away from the individuals raising their children. Sometimes one of those people might actually be the child’s other parent – but the law totally ignores the problem of court documented consent by the bio parents before granting others authority equal to that of a parent.

      It’s very unfair to the child who should have a protected right to being legally recorded as a member of their own bio family before any other transfers of custody or fictive kin assignments are made by people desiring to raise children.

      • You raise the issue of stolen genetic material with some frequency. I think we could agree that this is a bad thing and that it should be punished. It may be that we have different ideas about how common it is–you seem to suggest common and I think not. Maybe we need statistics to resolve that–don’t think I’ve seen any. But it seems to me that we ought to be able to agree that it is possible to run a decent system of gamete banks that do not involve fraud, theft or abuse and then the question would be how to get to such a place (if we aren’t in such a place now.)

        • Sure you go ahead and put that fraudless system into play. Now what are we going to do legally to ensure that people don’t just get to be treated as the parents of children who are not their own offspring unless there is explicit proof of consent from the child’s actual proven genetic parents. Nobody should be winding up being raised by unrelated parents against their genetic parents wishes or without their knowledge they even exist. Simple enough to pass a law that says no consent hand the kid over or share custody. Objection to that Julie? The alternative rewards theft and undermines bodily autonomy and treats children as property finders keepers

          • You are assuming (as I know you believe) that people SHOULD be treated as parents of their offspring. Thus, not treating people as parents of their offspring requires justification. But (as you know) I don’t share that assumption. To me, being genetically related doesn’t give you a leg up on legal parentage so I don’t have to start with explaining why the legal parents. Remember, I don’t think the guy from the one night stand should necessarily be a legal parent, and he didn’t execute any kind of explicit consent.

            We really are just starting from different assumptions. If I accepted your assumptions, then I’d have to offer the explanation you seek. But I do not.

    • Yes–a point I should have made more explicitly. You can construct systems where both matter. (I do think in the end you have to have some priority order, which is to say one or the other matters more–and surrogacy is where you have to work that out.) I was thinking of a system based purely on genetics. It’s easier to think through and I believe that this is what some people advocate.

  2. New Jersey allows for three ways to be declared a Mother. Genetic (provide DNA), Biological (Provide Birth), and adoptive.

    That is three ways to become a Mother. Let’s look at some other States.

    There are numerous ways that a person can be a parent under California law. A “natural” parent is a term of art under California law. It is not merely a synonym for “biological” parent – rather, it includes anyone who is a non-adoptive legal parent under California’s Uniform Parentage Act. A “natural”
    parent includes a biological parent, a person whom a court has determined is a parent, or a presumed parent under the Uniform Parentage Act where the presumption is not rebutted.

    In Washington, Parentage can be established through an affidavit and physician’s certificate requiring no court intervention.

    Intended Parents can go straight to Vital Records and have their name placed on the Birth Certificate WITHOUT a court hearing in Illinois by:

    The intended parent or parents shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of this Act if he, she, or they have met the following requirements at the time the gestational surrogacy contract is executed:

    (1) he, she, or they contribute at least one of the gametes resulting in a pre‑embryo that the gestational surrogate will attempt to carry to term;

    (2) he, she, or they have a medical need for the gestational surrogacy as evidenced by a qualified physician’s affidavit attached to the gestational surrogacy contract and as required by the Illinois Parentage Act of 1984.

    I prefer California’s description of the Natural parent.

    • al parent, a person whom a court has determined is a parent, or a presumed parent under the Uniform Parentage Act where the presumption is not rebutted.

      Basically its California’s way of saying if you lie and nobody busts you out we will think your the child’s parent. If your ever busted out down the line its just too much damned trouble for us to undo your parenthood if there is nobody waiting in line to raise the kid so good for you – lying could pay off in the long run. We might even know your lying and still let it slide.

      • I’m not sure where you were starting this but if you assert you are a legal parent and you actually are a legal parent, that’s not a lie. I think you might be assuming that lots of people are claiming genetic and/or biological relationships when what they are claiming is a legal relationship. But this is sort of a fragment so I cannot be sure.

    • As I have come to understand it, there are two general ways to become legal parents in every state: via adoption or as a natural parent. Adoptive parents go through formal legal proceedings. Natural parents do not. Anyone who is a legal parent and not an adoptive parent is considered to be a natural parent. The term “natural parent” includes any way of becoming a legal parent that isn’t adoption–it’s an umbrella term. I think that is contrary to what most people think–they think biology or genetics–but I think it is actually how the law is structured.

      • In reality there is only one way to become a parent and that is to reproduce and have offspring. If it were not for parents failing to raise their kids there would be no social parents or legal parents or adoptive or foster parents. But even the most perfect and dedicated parents sometimes die before their children are grown, which is why we have these other categories of people with parent like authority over children that are not their own offspring. Parents are important to record because they are the first in the chain of custody the child originated from them and is their responsibility – if someone else is raising their child for them society needs to ask the circumstances to ensure the child’s right not to be traded like property is protected. Off record private contracts for custody of minors is a very bad thing.

        • I meant my statement (about their being two ways to become a legal parent) as a descriptive one. It is an accurate description and I stand by it. Your statement is, I think, a normative one–by which I mean it is a statement of how you think things should be. It is not a description of the law as it currently stands.

          I think that’s important because that means what the last two posts really translate to is one by me saying “this is how things are” and a response by you saying “but they shouldn’t be that way.” This is perfectly fine but I want people to understand that.

          But perhaps I should ask–can we agree that your statement (“only one way to become a parent”) is not meant as a description of how the system of legal parentage presently works? Please note that for my point of view the word “legal” is a really important one.

          • Yes we do a lot of that skipping back and forth between the way the law is and the way we think it should be. What gets a little tough to follow sometimes is that we, you I everyone sometimes needs to point to the way the law sometimes operates in order to demonstrate that it should probably operate that way all the time, for consistency sake. Where we do see eye to eye and I bet you would agree, is we think it makes no sense to have the law be one way for some people and a different way for others.

  3. Knowing my position as you do already I’ll try examining your question from some different angle. I am fairly interested in learning who could pass the paternity test if a woman’s cells were used to make sperm or if a man’s were used to make an egg are we talking about the male being the mitochondrial dna provider then and like the woman being the Y guy? Because, although I do happen to think separating pregnancy drives men and women’s parental equal-ness home in terms, not of who has earned it through blood sweat and tears but in terms of who are our default individuals that we need to identify in order to give that born individual a proper identity as the offspring of who ever created him/her, identify who is responsible for creating them and therefore whose responsibility they are while minors because we need to keep tabs on those parents to make sure they are not up to anything shady like selling or giving away their kids as some kind of product for infertile/sterile consumption. We need to hold genetic parents acountable for the children they produce because they are in such an amazing position of power that is ripe for abuse. They simply cannot be trusted to not sell their roll to others because they will and oh how others are ready to buy it from them.

    So I’m thinking there are creatures that reproduce Asexually meaning only one creature is responsible for the fact that they have living offspring. Human’s reproduce individually but at the rate of 50% so it takes 2 of them to make a whole new person. I wonder if a sexual reproduction is cloning because if it takes 2 people to make a person and each person contributes half the genes then asexual creatures must provide 100% of the genes ant I think that means they must clone themselves. At any rate you ultimately need to differentiate the male and female biological contributions because they are not the same you need to give those people different kinship titles when it’s time to get specific about stuff.

    I was thinking A sexual reproduction only takes 1 creature of one kind. If it could really be two women contributing genes to make 1 baby then who would automatially be the one to carry the baby? I mean if it could really happen that way then how would you split the gestational effort up between those two women without of oourse reverting to our tried and true Asexual model where each individual gestates their own young. There is nothing fair about the distribution of the work involved in gestation I would not be so quick to pull the pain card if it were optional. As a society its just not fair to minors to say your only parent is the one who gave birth to you when clearly she did not beome pregnant entirely on her own like our asexual reproducing friends. Two people are resopinsible for creating that life which means two people have a tremendous amount of power over that life. If they were callous enough they could sit around making life for the purpose of giving their offspring away like trinkets to strangers or sell them under cover and off record like they are hot goods at a flea market. More aptly a flee market.

    • I think you’ve asked an interesting question. And it leads me to many more–and these are questions that I do not know how to answer. Neither do I know how to find answers.

      First, I really have to wonder if it is indeed possible to grow sperm cells from the skin of a woman or egg cells from the skin of a man. I’ve read that it is, but this is not like using a skin cell to build any body part because men don’t start with eggs nor women with sperm. I’ll raise this but it’s really beyond my competence.

      Second, if it is possible than it seems to me that to the extent they use mitochondrial DNA to assess genetic motherhood a man who provided a skin cell to form an egg cell would pass that test. The question then is does this make him a genetic mother. To the extent the definition of “genetic mother” is the person who provides the mitochondrial DNA, it seems to me it does. But from my point if view it hardly makes him a mother in any other sense.

      Third, I am not sure (not clear on the science) about whether a woman who provided a skin cell to make sperm (if it is even possible) would pass a standard paternity test. In any event, I think I’d say I just said above–there might be some technical sense in which she’d be a genetic father, but there aren’t any other senses in which I’d call her a father.

      I don’t know the answer to these questions and I’m not sure where to look to find out. I suspect I’ve wandered out into the realm of science fiction and so this is only interesting as a thought experiment.

      • Julie you think that women should be held accountable for raising the minors they deliver to adulthood; you think that pregnancy and delivery give rise to the title of mother and the legal obligations that go with it. You don’t believe that minors are entitled to be cared for or supported by anyone other than the woman who carried and delivered them.

        That’s all fine for the moment as I feel essentially the same way only I think the minor is entitled to be supported by the couple who reproduced to create them rather than the one person who delivered them. We can imagine being in the same position; born individual entitled to be cared for by specific person or people having met particular criteria either creation or development. There is an auto parent in your scenario as there is n mine; you scenario presumably requires no permission to have custody of and raise the minor in question, and neither does mine. In both, the law is recording parentage rather than assigning it.

        Now I have read your thoughts many times on surrogates being required to give the resulting child up for adoption, you like the idea. You think the auto parent should have to go through that legal step that process intended to protect the right of the child she delivered to have her do that job of raising them. You think minors just might be loosing something of value, or think they might be being objectified by the pre-birth contracts for parental title and custody. She is the first in the change of authority in your scenario – I disagree, but I also acknowledge that for you, in your eyes, the minor in question originated from her and so she is the one whose relationship can’t be questioned as having been obtained in a shady way, everyone after her warrants investigation if they take custody of her minor and her motivations for not raising the child she delivered need to be checked out. She is in a position where she could abuse her power by giving the minor as a gift or selling the minor like personal property.

        In my scenario the original parents have that same potential to abuse their position and treat their offspring like property. That is why I also think people who want to raise children that are not their offspring should have to adopt. It is important to record that original parent.

        So in instances where someone who does not carry the child wants to automatically be named parent of a person, lets say nobody in the recipient’s court did any carrying – you think its ok for them to just be named as mother no adoption?

  4. Considering that a genetic test for Men has never been required, and woman have been able to become the Mother through adoption without a genetic connection for around 70 years, and no State currently has a genetics only requirement to become a parent.

    Will it be the Republicans or Democratics fighting for this change?

    I don’t see the Democrats wanting to reduce people’s reproductive rights and I don’t see Republicans approving anything, but the current status.

    If a State ever passed this law, would the Supreme court overrule it because we have the right to reproduce and the right to privacy?

    Logistically, how do you think that this genetics only requirement will ever be the law of the land?

    • Surrogacy guy-can you point out where I might have given you the impression that I think we should restrict people’s right to reproduce? I don’t at all want the state to tell anyone they can or can’t reproduce or restrict the number of children they reproduce to create. Never. I am actually against the idea of mandated offspring limits for donors because donors are people like everyone else and they are exercising their right to reproduce just like any other citizen.

      I don’t wish to limit people in their methods of finding someone to reproduce with either – if the reproducing couple meets on match.com or through California Cryobank it should not matter to the rights assigned to the reproducing couple’s offspring. So I don’t know where you got the impression that I seek to restrict people from being able to reproduce freely that is absolutely not the case at all.

      I don’t believe we should have the right to reproduce other people’s bodies. People should always remain in control of and responsible for their own reproductive actions just like any other action or right its not something effectively transferable lest you enslave yourself. That is why courts rarely require specific performance in breach of contract cases they’ll award monetary damages but won’t force someone to make good on whatever service they contracted to perform because that would be allowing people to enslave themselves and give up their free will.

      I think all references to parenthood of the donor’s offspring should be removed from their agreements and it should expressly state that giving up a gamete does not mean the recipient has the right to claim to be the parents of the donors offspring if any are born. Donating a gamete should not change the fact that all bio parents should be held to the same standard of care when it comes to being recorded as the parents of their own offspring. It’s not a baby they give up its a gamete and its not their parental obligations they give up its just the gamete. If it’s just the gamete they have been giving up all this time it should not be any skin off anyone’s nose to simply tighten that up so the agreements say the same thing they go around spouting when they advocate for donor conception saying all they gave was some genetic material.

  5. Let me try it this way.

    You want the government to take away the right to reproduce privately by making everyone submit to a DNA test proving that they are the genetic parents.

    This DNA test would be taken by the hospital and sent to an FDA lab for testing.

    The ACLU will be the first one to file a lawsuit against the government developing a National Database that would be used by the FBI, CIA, and local police.

    We can’t even approve a National ID card or the requirement for people to show ID to vote, but everyone is going to be required to give up their DNA to have a baby?

    The Republicans believe that adoption and becoming a Foster parent is a good thing and support creating a family in his manner.

    Democrats believe that you should have reproductive freedom and privacy.

    The Supreme Court says that we have a right to Reproductive privacy.

    What is the penalty for breaking your law? Jail time? A fine?

    A lot of countries have declared Surrogacy a crime punishable by jail time, yet no judge has actually put the parents in Jail when a case has come before them. They have all suspended the sentence, charged no fine, sealed the case, and determined that IN THIS CASE it is in the best interest of the child to give the parental rights to the Intended Parents. What would the public backlash be of placing a parent in Jail?

    Who is going to support your idea and make it become law. What are the penalties going to be for breaking the law?

    • No I don’t want to take away people’s right to reproduce privately. I want to make equal all bio parents obligations to their offspring. They can reproduce privately all they want. I’m not interested in their lives before they became biological parents back when they were conceiving. That can all be as private as they want it to be because how they came to have offspring is really not germane to the topic of them needing to be responsible for their offspring once they are here. So again how people come to have offspring is their own private business but nobody else has the right to hide out once their offspring are born. Why should some biological parents have no responsibility for their offspring, be able to privately contract away their kinship title and all their obligations while others have to go through the adoptive process if they don’t want to raise their offspring? So again your focusing on the wrong thing here. They should be able to reproduce freely. Reproductive rights are like any other right they come with responsibilities and right now we have some people exercising their rights without taking the appropriate responsibility and its causing their offspring not to have equal rights. Other abandoned minors at least have the dignity of having it be recognized that they have been short changed and what their abandoning parent did was wrong. Their rights are intact and acknowledged as having been violated when their parent hides and fails to care for them.

  6. What is the penalty? No penalty, no fines, just not legally recognizing people as parents of other people’s offspring, but recognizing them as something else adoptive parents if they go through the proper process or step parents or foster parents or guardians or whatever other title is appropriate to fit the situation and the level of background investigation. For surrogacy agreements where the father is going to raise his genetic child with his wife they could completely avoid court and she could be the step mother that she actually is with no need to ever go to court and she’d have tons of authority and nobody would challenge her on it especailly if the child’s mother had abandoned the kid. Or the father could have joint custody of the child with the mother and raise the child with his wife the step mother. That solution the child looses nothing and is actually the very best the child could hope for where they are full fledged legally recognized members of maternal and paternal family as well as their step family – that would be the grown up thing to do. Next would be dealing with the sad tragedy of abandonment by just raising the kid with the step mother separated from his/her maternal family, third would be having the step mother do a step parent adoption but I think the mother’s consent should be required for that and that she should be recorded on the birth record as proof of who the child really is and that their membership in their family should never be severed legally as it negatively impacts an entire family. Everyone benefits when the mother and father cooperate. The step mother looses nothing at all in her bid to gain a relationship with her husband’s child. She does not need to be the child’s legal mother for any other reason than her own ego and the benefit to the child of being able to live a life with their true identity knowing all the members of their family far outweighs any temporary sting she might feel. Not all will feel sad about not being referred to as mother, it really depends on the attitudes of others around them. If they are led to believe its a big deal it will be a big deal. Many step mothers are happy being step mothers we just don’t hear from them because its not big deal, its just part of their unique non conception story

    Those lines cut both ways.

  7. I’m going to try to ask my question again and keep it simple.

    You want to change the current reproductive laws to a new law that you think is better. Here are 4 ways to change laws.

    1) Through an initiative process where the people place something on the election ballot and the public votes.

    2) The congress and senate approve a law and the president signs it for a National law. A Bill is started by the Republican or Democratic party.

    3) The same scenario at the State level with the governor signing it into State law. A Bill is started by the Republican or Democratic party.

    4) The court system where decisions are made by case law setting precedence and the State Supreme Court or US Supreme Court declaring that this is a right.

    How is your way that it should be done turning into a law?

    • the first step is public advocacy and education. That is what both Marilyn and Julie are doing.

    • “I’m going to try to ask my question again and keep it simple.
      You want to change the current reproductive laws to a new law that you think is better. Here are 4 ways to change law”

      2 things
      1)That is a statement not a question

      and

      2)I don’t want to change current reproductive law. I want to change the Uniform Parentage Act.

      • and the nchs model state vital statistics act I’m figuring out what document the CDC is dictating the collection of vital stats in because it has to be done a certain way. So I figure tighten that up make sure its all geneticly accurate before birth records are certified and that ought to do it.http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/mvsact92b.pdf

      • Article 8 of the Uniform Parentage Act specifically addresses surrogacy agreements. Article 8, which is optional to enacting states, treats a surrogacy agreement, which it calls a “gestational agreement,” as a significant legal act that should be approved by a court.

        • Agreeing to produce your own offspring for other people to raise objectifies your offspring; turning people into gifts for others to take responsibility for, turning people into objects for trade and for sale.

          A person who cannot or does not wish to raise their own offspring should have to demonstrate to a court that they have not received any goods money or services in exchange for parental title to their offspring and they should prove that they did not intentionlly set out to manufacture a human being with the intention of having others be responsible for raising their offspring. Whoever they had the contract with should not be allowed to take on that responsibility. If the woman who had acted as a surrogate wishes to give the child up for adoption still it should be to people who did not have any dealings with her previously so that their hands are clean of having had anything at all to do with the separation of mother and child. It is not a sale or a gift then. If the father of the child had a contract with the woman they should both be treated as parents and the contract should be thrown out. I also think step parent adoptions should not be allowed under those circumstances because it would reinforce the idea that the mother could produce offspring under contract for others to become legal parents of. There really is no need for step parents to become legal parents at all, even when the parent of the child has died there is no need for it perse. There is no reason to take a person out of their own family just to serve the desires of their step parent to become a legal parent.

          The object of an agreement should never be title to a human being. The bio parents are not suppose to be in a position where they can cut those deals to begin with as their offspring are not their property but their obligation to raise. Offloading that obligation is serious business that needs to always be handled in an ethical way so contracts should never be enforced it boggles my mind that they are enforced these are laws worth changing. Nobody should earn a living off of coordinating the separation of people from their biological families.

        • Surrogacy
          Whose reproductive freedom did you think I wanted
          to take away?

          • I can’t take away someone’s ability to reproduce themselves, not by law it would be pointless, would not change reality that they can and will whether anyone likes it or not. I want them to take full responsibility for their offspring like everyone else. Is that so odd?

  8. Another country rules in favor of the Intended Parents:

    The state must recognize an Israeli as the father of a child born to a surrogate mother living abroad even though genetic testing was not done to verify that he was the father, an Israeli court ruled Friday.

    • You make a living from people selling their offspring of course your happy. You think buying and selling people is just fine. You think its perfectly OK for human beings to be the object of private contracts. Just don’t forget that for every family built with donor offspring another has been torn apart.

      • If this were about business wouldn’t I want every other State and Country to have oppressive laws so that everyone would have to come to California?

        More favorable laws in more locations would mean less customers for me.

        This tide of history is constantly allowing more access for adults to become parents throughout the world.

        What you should be supporting is the technology that allows people to use their skin cells because 99.9% of the people would use their own DNA if it were possible.

        • No. Because you do business overseas as well. Why would you not want to be able to do business everywhere? Silly Rabbit tricks are for kids. Does not mean less business for you. Means more business global business surrogates in every freaking country. Diversify Expand.

          Center of the the baby buying universe, hub of human trade, the Nordstrom of natality. Buy two get the third 1/2 off

        • They can make a baby from their toenail clippings and I could care less. My concern is not the way that couples conceive – its that they be accountable to and for their own offspring when born starting with being named as parents on their children’s birth certificates whether or not they intend to raise them themselves. That means hiding out is abandonment and a crime

        • 99.9% of people would use their own DNA if they could???? Can you please explain that to Julie who insists that the law must consider DNA completely irrelevant? Oh never mind, Julie believes that the law should be activist and legislate regardless of what 99.9% of people think.
          I object to your business no matter who is the genetic parent because I view it as no different as pimping.
          I’m actually sympathetic to prostitutes but If I could I would round up every single pimp I could find.

          • Pimps don’t really sell hoes they sort of rent them out. Surrogacy guy here, he helps people sell their kids to people who want to buy them. Everyone knows that is how to become a parent when you have no offspring of your own….buy one! Don’t bother adopting, that is expensive and you don’t get your name on the original birth record and you can’t lie to everyone and pretend the child is your own. People are buying the whole illusion from you huh? If they wanted people to think they were a pretend family they’d adopt but they want everyone to think they are a real family and for the right amount of money EVERYONE will pretend right along with them. Even the State.

          • I do understand that most people choose to use their own genetic material when they can. I don’t actually see why this undermines my position, though. I have never asserted that using your own genetic materials disqualifies you from parenthood, after all. So it will all work out for the 99% (or whatever it is) as well.

            • correct, you are not undermining your position you have suggested that courts should be activist in legislating decisions no matter what society’s feelings on the matter.
              and in general you view rulings that do genetics Prima facie as your most preferable outcome. (ie a recent near-quote “this is good because it isn’t based on genetics.)
              so in many cases yes you do disqualify genetics.

    • Thanks.

      Can you post a cite or link? I’d like to read the original story.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s