"Pete C." > wrote in message
ster.com...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> ster.com...
>> >
>> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> >> ster.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Let's hope when those embryos become real people that they'll feel
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> same
>> >> >> enthusiasm about how they were brought to be as their parents
>> >> >> surely
>> >> >> did.
>> >> >> To me it seems like they are an incredibly self absorbed couple.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Paul
>> >> >
>> >> > I see your view as nothing but judgmental and homophobic.
>> >>
>> >> Most likely because you are both.
>> >
>> > Nope.
>>
>> I voted against prop 8 in CA and I gave money to defeat it. I believe
>> people should live the life they choose. I do however think the bay
>> rabies
>> brings out the very worst in some people and the feelings of the child
>> are
>> ever considered. Like 65 year old women having IVF. I have more
>> compassion
>> for those kids than I care to tell you.
>
> Parenthood or the desire for it does seem to lower IQs far too often.
>
>>
>> >> That's the usual scenario. And I have
>> >> *** friends. No problem there. I also think some of te things
>> >> straight
>> >> people do to make a baay are pretty crazy too. Does that make me
>> >> misanthropic?
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > My view is that they are a couple who decided to have children and
>> >> > had
>> >> > to use medical technology to overcome fertility issues, no different
>> >> > than a heterosexual couple doing the same.
>> >>
>> >> Embryo swapping? Sure whatever dude. I'd hate to be the divorce
>> >> judge
>> >> in
>> >> their suit.
>> >
>> > I guess your understanding of IVF is pretty minimal, as the "embryo
>> > swapping" involves no extra effort. And exactly how is the divorce
>> > scenario any different than a that with a heterosexual couple with
>> > children? You bias is showing.
>>
>> Because you are ignorant of the laws around such things.
>
> Nope.
>
>> The question would
>> be who is the mother?
>
> The source of the egg.
>
>> And don't confuse biology with law in this case. The
>> egg donor or the woman who caried the baby to term? It's a really sticky
>> point of law and when these cases land in court it is a nightmare to
>> resolve. And usually the children are left severly damaged in the
>> process.
>
> Surrogacy is reasonably well established in the legal system. The mother
> is the source of the egg, the father the sperm (donor), the surrogate is
> the one who carried the baby.
>

So you have a baby with another woman's egg and that other woman is your
gat spouse and you get divorced with custody issues. Now the other woman
wants custody of that child you carried to term, as her wife, on the basis
it is her genetic offsping not ours. Now as the judge, who gets the child?
If you want that job, be my guest

I am fairly sure the surrogacy precdents don't include a lot of *******
married couples swapping embryos.

> Again, your bias continues to show, now you're trying to mask it with
> bogus legal claims.

I am? Why do surriogate mother's consistetly win custody cases? And there
is no "now" because I have said it all along. Read my other posts.

Paul