jameorahiely wrote: » That's a very disturbing story. Surrogacy is banned in most of Europe. I don't know why we'd entertain it. Cases like this would only become more prevalent.
jameorahiely wrote: » The price of it would increase dramatically. What Irish woman would do it for 8,000 payment? You'd get more than that on the dole.
Dr Crayfish wrote: » Why are so many couples desperate to adopt? I can never really understand this. Are some women just empty voids with no purpose in life if they can't conceive? Are people looking for baby band aids for their dull and miserable marriages? Suck it up and get on with your life, the world is overpopulated anyway, the more sterile people the better!
gctest50 wrote: » For sure - there is a more disturbing side to it If the doctor implants multiple fertilised eggs the surrogate would ( more than likely ) be contractually required to do "selectively reduction" - same in the case of an anomalyMaybe the reason she refused was she saw Gammy as her golden ticket to make money
ceadaoin. wrote: » It says in the article that apparently it wasn't detected until too far along in the pregnancy, otherwise the parents would have insisted on an abortion
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/husband-in-thai-surrogacy-row-served-jail-time-for-indecently-dealing-with-a-child-9648200.html She alleged that the couple sent a message via her doctors asking her to abort Gammy after he was diagnosed with Down’s syndrome. Ms Pattaramon, a food vendor who says the Australian couple agreed to pay her £5,550 to deliver their baby, claimed she refused an abortion because it contravened her beliefs.
gctest50 wrote: » You couldn't believe their radio :
gctest50 wrote: » Do you think it's better way to "get an upgrade" than claiming HAP and getting a e20,000 car ? nice floor tiles : ]
jameorahiely wrote: » The judge was not convinced they asked for an abortion ...............
David Farnell, 56, a convicted child sex offender and the biological father of the boy, Gammy, told Channel Nine he and his wife Wendy had "wanted to bring him with us". "We never said you (Pattaramon) can have this baby, no matter what," said an emotional David Farnell. The couple claimed Pattaramon wanted to keep the girl and said they left Thailand without Gammy because "we were getting scared that we would lose her too and we had to try and get her out"http://news.asiaone.com/news/asia/australian-couple-thai-baby-scandal-want-boy-back
gctest50 wrote: » It's a complete mess, Jimmy Saville there wouldn't be the most reliable :
Deleted User wrote: » On the other hand, if it was all legalised and above board...is there anything more fantastic than the idea that couples who desperately want to have a child but are unlucky get to have what they dream of, and presumably give a child a chance at life if they are rich enough to afford surrogacy, and someone who is willing to give up their body for the best part of a year is richly rewarded? My only issue with it, once it was all legal, is that it would be denied to those who can't afford it.
Dr Crayfish wrote: » He was immaculately conceived, doesn't belong in this thread
mosi wrote: » If they want to give a child a chance at life, they would be better off adopting a child instead of creating a new one.
Pawwed Rig wrote: » That was Mary. It always amazes me that people raised as catholics don't know this.
neonsofa wrote: » Many people raised as catholics had no interest in the religion that was selected for them. It doesn't surprise me at all.
jameorahiely wrote: » Would you like to see Baby farms set up here in Ireland, or is it only for poor women in other countries? Would you bring your kids for a visit in a Sunday afternoon for a gander? Why stop at babies, would you like to see the market expanded to include toddlers? Would you agree with kidney farms aswell? Consent given and no killing? There is a more sinister side to this aswell. Interpol investigated a man who had 19 children ordered. The were wondering what he was going to do with them, traffic them or exploit them. Should we have a limit on the number of children allowed to be reared by people?
Pawwed Rig wrote: » Regardless of interest after 13 years of classes you would think something would stick.
neonsofa wrote: » Perhaps plenty stuck, just not the immaculate conception. Also, i know we didnt learn about mary, it was all about jesus so we never actually learned about the immaculate conception, im sure there are plenty more like myself. I hated Irish, can barely speak a word of it now despite doing it every day. It's really not something people need to know.
Widdershins wrote: » A man had 19 children ''ordered''. That does sound sinister. What kind of screening is in place for prospective parents of the children of surrogates?
jameorahiely wrote: » So you'd have no issue with a man going in and ordering 10 kids?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » you did RE in school and they never mentioned the immaculate conception? I find that very hard to believe given that is an important tenet in catholic teaching.