Jump to content

LNP and Surrogacy


Gary_C

Recommended Posts

Curious to know people's thoughts on the LNP's recent announcement that they plan to make it illegal for singles, same-sex couples, and de-facto partners to use a surrogate to have children.

Story here:


/>http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-27/newman-backflips-on-surrogacy-laws/4096452

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking after the bible bangers.

My opinion live and let live,

If people wish to go through the process they will only go overseas or interstate so the law change will not achieve anything except send people and money out of the state.

Pity they cannot spend their time reviewing the fisheries act but then they would actually think and not be led by the nose.

Cheers'Ray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people want to have children and the law is against them then WHY don't people look at fostering or for that matter why not ADOPT a child.I'm not from any religious back ground but as long as these people meet the criteria and screening proses then why should de facto not be able to have a child through SURRROGACY, but as far as GAY couple's and yes I know a gay couples that have had 5 children I believe kids should be bought up in a WHAT people believe to be a normal home with a mother and father.

As it seems to be the norm oversees with high profile Gay couple's eg: Elton John,Ellen Degeneres and so on what sort of mind frame are these kids going to row up with 2 mummy's or 2 daddy's

I know there are extreme cases in de facto and married relationships going south as we had 1 in QLD just this week with a child being harmed but a far as Gay's having children the jury is still out in my book

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Erin read the first parts of the article out loud, I seriously thought she was reading an article from the US news about one of the bible belt states. I was floored when she said it was here!
I knew there was a reason I liked you two. It is a joke, the LNP will do anything the christian lobby groups want them to. If I had the choice of sitting around a fire with a bunch of right winged christian loonies, and a bunch of greens, I know who I would pick anyday.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but as far as GAY couple's and yes I know a gay couples that have had 5 children I believe kids should be bought up in a WHAT people believe to be a normal home with a mother and father.
so how about all the single women that have children to multiple fathers and spend all their welfare on drugs and booze, yeah that is normal isn't it? Kids would have much more chance in life with two loving parents that happen to be homosexual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit off topic but is everyone looking forward to carbon tax week, next week? I am certainly not, stuff in general is dear enough now, I reckon Saturday night (30/6/12) the fuel will jump by at least 15cents/L. Any way my sulking isn't gonna fix the Labour governments stupidity only fatten there back pocket :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what sort of mind frame are these kids going to row up with 2 mummy's or 2 daddy's

Possibly an open mind? Just because they have a certain sexual preference doesn't equate them to be bad parents, have skewed morals or influence the sexuality of their children. Social stigma at work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but as far as GAY couple's and yes I know a gay couples that have had 5 children I believe kids should be bought up in a WHAT people believe to be a normal home with a mother and father.
so how about all the single women that have children to multiple fathers and spend all their welfare on drugs and booze, yeah that is normal isn't it? Kids would have much more chance in life with two loving parents that happen to be homosexual.

That is probably the answer to why they are gonna get an extra 100 bucks a week in there dole check......to buy more weed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but as far as GAY couple's and yes I know a gay couples that have had 5 children I believe kids should be bought up in a WHAT people believe to be a normal home with a mother and father.
so how about all the single women that have children to multiple fathers and spend all their welfare on drugs and booze, yeah that is normal isn't it? Kids would have much more chance in life with two loving parents that happen to be homosexual.

100% agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but as far as GAY couple's and yes I know a gay couples that have had 5 children I believe kids should be bought up in a WHAT people believe to be a normal home with a mother and father.
so how about all the single women that have children to multiple fathers and spend all their welfare on drugs and booze, yeah that is normal isn't it? Kids would have much more chance in life with two loving parents that happen to be homosexual.

That is probably the answer to why they are gonna get an extra 100 bucks a week in there dole check......to buy more weed.

how about you debate the proposition you put forth?

Why discriminate against loving couples (same sex ones in this case) who would like to have a child and raise it in a loving environment?

Your statement above states that "we shouldn't allow it because they should be bought up in WHAT people believe to be a normal home", define normal???

I saw a kid down at Goodna last night at 8:30 sniffing paint stumbling all over the main road, bet he was bought up in a NORMAL household (presuming your definition of this is a household with a man and a woman). Do yourself a favour dassa and look up ETHNOCENTRISM, may help you out a bit. Are you a Christian?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit off topic but is everyone looking forward to carbon tax week, next week? I am certainly not, stuff in general is dear enough now, I reckon Saturday night (30/6/12) the fuel will jump by at least 15cents/L. Any way my sulking isn't gonna fix the Labour governments stupidity only fatten there back pocket :unsure:

I have to laugh when the government talks about how it is not going to effect households because they will be getting something back. It doesn't apply to my household because we are not permanent residents so we get to eat the whole thing. :) I just figure it is the cost of living in a great country; I get to pay for a lot of things that I am not allowed to use. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"so how about all the single women that have children to multiple fathers and spend all their welfare on drugs and booze, yeah that is normal isn't it"

And why blame the woman.

If she sleeps around she is a slut.

A bloke who cant keep his zip done up is congratulated for being a real man.Just look at the great examples given by some of the footballers around who think they can do anything.

I dont give a rats who or how people have kids the main thing to me is that the kids are being brought up in a loving environment.

I really fear what will happen if Tony Abbot becomes prime minister as he would be one of the biggest bigot in the political scene.

Cheers

Ray

Ray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if both parents are Greens ? :ohmy: It shouldn't be allowed in that case.

Or even worse than that, what if both parents AND the surrogate are Greens. :ohmy: :ohmy: :sick:

The more I think about it, the more I realise that

is the likely case. :dry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but as far as GAY couple's and yes I know a gay couples that have had 5 children I believe kids should be bought up in a WHAT people believe to be a normal home with a mother and father.
so how about all the single women that have children to multiple fathers and spend all their welfare on drugs and booze, yeah that is normal isn't it? Kids would have much more chance in life with two loving parents that happen to be homosexual.

I agree with you on the single mole having 6 kids with six different dad's is just all screwed up and what sort of life are these kids going to have but until we screen the simple half wit's and then take them out of the gen pool there is nothing we can do about that.But I do again know women that get's married just for the sake of having kids and then leave the fella with a child support bill and no way of ever seeing his kids so it's a double edged sword.(my wife's ex boss 6 kids to 5 different father's)

my 2 bob's worth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man and woman meet, fall in love, marry, have children. If they can't then surrogacy or adoption is a legal option.

If you don't marry then you should also be included on the surrogacy and adoption list only after all the married couples needs are met.

If you are same sex couple, then nope not eligible for adoption and illegal for surrogacy.

Life is all about choices and pros and cons. You can't have everything all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously a gay couple cannot produce children naturally within their relationship and there's no reason that a gay couple cannot be excellent parents. They are left with a choice to adopt a baby or a lesbian couple could use ivf with donor semen and a pair of guys are pretty much screwed without a surrogate mother.......if I was in the situation I would want at least one of either my partner's or my own genes to make our child if possible so that would make adoption the least attractive option.

If this law goes through it will be reversed in just a few years I reckon and will be an embarrassment to Queensland's history, live and let live.

This topic is really close to home for me and I can tell you all 100% that I have no problem with a child being brought up in a same sex home.....even my own child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't marry then you should also be included on the surrogacy and adoption list only after all the married couples needs are met.

In this case, why is it that the married couple gets preferential treatment over the defacto couple? What if the defacto couple dont believe in marriage, as after all its not for everyone and is a Traditionally for Christians. Are you saying that non christians have less rights to have children?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had the choice of sitting around a fire with a bunch of right winged christian loonies, and a bunch of greens, I know who I would pick anyday.

I prefer intelligent people to converse with, so if I had to pick it would definitely have to be the right winged Christian loonies. The Greens would just make things up and lie to me about them.

Also I could tell the CL tribe the difference between 'bought' and 'brought', but you can't tell the Greens anything

The ultimate preference would be to sit alone laughing at and throwing stones at both groups.

The survey out the other day was a cracker. It showed the least environmentally informed group was the Greens voters. hahahahahahaha No kidding !.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points Max Pwr. I think you also bring to light another of society's biases: women are automatically assumed to be good parents because they can gestate a baby. A lesbian couple can easily get past any ban on surrogacy through IVF, artificial insemination, or just closing her eyes and finding her happy place while doing something unnatural to her.

Men, on the other hand, are not capable of gestation and therefore will be disproportionately impacted by this law (should it pass).

If this decision really is a sop to Christian fundamentalists it seems to be counterproductive, as the Bible sets man above woman, in that it takes choice and power away from men and has no true impact on women.

Those of us who are in a relationship already realize that our partner holds all of the power anyway! :silly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And any person that pays tribute to one of the most corrupt, criminal governments Qld, and Australia ever saw (Joh and the Nationals) needs his head read big time.

The last ALP government had more issues with the law than the national government - strange where you get these emotive statements from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And any person that pays tribute to one of the most corrupt, criminal governments Qld, and Australia ever saw (Joh and the Nationals) needs his head read big time.

The last ALP government had more issues with the law than the national government - strange where you get these emotive statements from.

and they locked that corrupt bloke Nuttal up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't marry then you should also be included on the surrogacy and adoption list only after all the married couples needs are met.

In this case, why is it that the married couple gets preferential treatment over the defacto couple? What if the defacto couple dont believe in marriage, as after all its not for everyone and is a Traditionally for Christians. Are you saying that non christians have less rights to have children?

I haven't mentioned any particular denomination at all andthe notion of marriage is spread across many different denominations and beliefs.

To answer your question though, yes I believe there should be an order of 'service'. Life is never going to be seen as fair for all.

I don't believe in work, but I can't expect the Government to support me and my assets, nor condone my behaviour when I do stickups to amass more money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey it is growing, Gary, too cold for the blade one. And Brian, you reckon these right winged christian loonies are intelligent?? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/

You don't want me to answer that challenge with some comparisons do you Eddie ? :P

Couldn't resist -
/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY47ux60S5g&feature=g-like

:lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And any person that pays tribute to one of the most corrupt, criminal governments Qld, and Australia ever saw (Joh and the Nationals) needs his head read big time.

The last ALP government had more issues with the law than the national government - strange where you get these emotive statements from.

and they locked that corrupt bloke Nuttal up.

was not just nuttal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey it is growing, Gary, too cold for the blade one. And brian, you reckon these right winged christian loonies are intelligent?? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/

Ooooh! A new can of worms! I have no problem with people who believe in intelligent design, except when they try to claim that it is science. Scientists actively seek to disprove their theories (which is why it is called a theory) whereas supporters of intelligent design refuse to try to disprove it and actually make it impossible to do so because God waved his magic finger over us and therefore we are here; you can't disprove it because He also made it impossible to prove or disprove because He wants to weed out the gullible - oops I meant faithful - from the heathens....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't marry then you should also be included on the surrogacy and adoption list only after all the married couples needs are met.

In this case, why is it that the married couple gets preferential treatment over the defacto couple? What if the defacto couple dont believe in marriage, as after all its not for everyone and is a Traditionally for Christians. Are you saying that non christians have less rights to have children?

I haven't mentioned any particular denomination at all andthe notion of marriage is spread across many different denominations and beliefs.

To answer your question though, yes I believe there should be an order of 'service'. Life is never going to be seen as fair for all.

I don't believe in work, but I can't expect the Government to support me and my assets, nor condone my behaviour when I do stickups to amass more money.

I think some of the problem here Greg is that some people cannot do stickups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't care less as long as it is not pushing lies and rubbish that effects me, like The Greens.
so if a foreign country like syria kills innocent people, you couldn't care less, how about the holocaust? Brian, ever heard this poem??

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't care less as long as it is not pushing lies and rubbish that effects me, like The Greens.
so if a foreign country like syria kills innocent people, you couldn't care less, how about the holocaust? Brian, ever heard this poem??

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Come on Eddie that is a long bow to draw comparing our system with Nazi Germany and quoting Martin Niemöller. Let us have some perspective in the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't care less as long as it is not pushing lies and rubbish that effects me, like The Greens.
so if a foreign country like syria kills innocent people, you couldn't care less, how about the holocaust? Brian, ever heard this poem??

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Come on Eddie that is a long bow to draw comparing our system with Nazi Germany and quoting Martin Niemöller. Let us have some perspective in the argument.

That's actually one of my favorite quotes. It reminds me of the redneck version under which I was raised: "You've got to stand for something or you stand for nothing."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...