Is pregnant. So's her partner Jennifer Cora.
http://tinyurl.com/cfdyva

The same sperm donor is involved in both pregnancies.

You could knock me over with a feather right now, but please don't.
--

modom

modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> Is pregnant. So's her partner Jennifer Cora.
> http://tinyurl.com/cfdyva
>
> The same sperm donor is involved in both pregnancies.
>
> You could knock me over with a feather right now, but please don't.
> --
>
> modom
Thank God we get the Japanese version here
the yank version never really was a hit here

"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>
> Is pregnant. So's her partner Jennifer Cora.
> http://tinyurl.com/cfdyva
>
> The same sperm donor is involved in both pregnancies.
>
> You could knock me over with a feather right now, but please don't.
> --
>
> modom

Is the donor Alton Browne?

In article >,
"modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote:

> Is pregnant. So's her partner Jennifer Cora.
> http://tinyurl.com/cfdyva
>
> The same sperm donor is involved in both pregnancies.
>
> You could knock me over with a feather right now, but please don't.

Why is that?

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote in message
...
> Is pregnant. So's her partner Jennifer Cora.
> http://tinyurl.com/cfdyva
>
> The same sperm donor is involved in both pregnancies.
>
> You could knock me over with a feather right now, but please don't.


People sure do manage to make a tangled mess of things. Same dad ... err
.... sperm donor, and embryo swapping???? That is just too strange but I'm
sure it's just my "issues." Give me a freaking break. And IVF? She's a
chef, you know she had a turkey baster in the drawer. I kinda liked Cat
Cora and liked her cooking shows. Now I think she's a really screwed up
person and not because she's ***. She seems to me to be a pretty
narcissistic individual and I don't mean in the usual good way. And the way
she stared at her hunky construction dude on that TV show I think she's just
being fashionably *******. I really hope her and her wife's children never
find out they were swapped like kitchen chores. "OK, I'll do the dinner if
you do the dishes, deal?"

Paul

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:02:16 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

>
>"modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Is pregnant. So's her partner Jennifer Cora.
>> http://tinyurl.com/cfdyva
>>
>> The same sperm donor is involved in both pregnancies.
>>
>> You could knock me over with a feather right now, but please don't.
>
>
>People sure do manage to make a tangled mess of things. Same dad ... err
>... sperm donor, and embryo swapping???? That is just too strange but I'm
>sure it's just my "issues." Give me a freaking break. And IVF? She's a
>chef, you know she had a turkey baster in the drawer. I kinda liked Cat
>Cora and liked her cooking shows. Now I think she's a really screwed up
>person and not because she's ***. She seems to me to be a pretty
>narcissistic individual and I don't mean in the usual good way. And the way
>she stared at her hunky construction dude on that TV show I think she's just
>being fashionably *******. I really hope her and her wife's children never
>find out they were swapped like kitchen chores. "OK, I'll do the dinner if
>you do the dishes, deal?"
>
>Paul
>

IANAL, but they may have done this in an attempt to provide for each
of them to have legal rights/authority for both the children.

Boron

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:02:16 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> Is pregnant. So's her partner Jennifer Cora.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/cfdyva
>>>
>>> The same sperm donor is involved in both pregnancies.
>>>
>>> You could knock me over with a feather right now, but please don't.
>>
>>
>>People sure do manage to make a tangled mess of things. Same dad ... err
>>... sperm donor, and embryo swapping???? That is just too strange but I'm
>>sure it's just my "issues." Give me a freaking break. And IVF? She's a
>>chef, you know she had a turkey baster in the drawer. I kinda liked Cat
>>Cora and liked her cooking shows. Now I think she's a really screwed up
>>person and not because she's ***. She seems to me to be a pretty
>>narcissistic individual and I don't mean in the usual good way. And the
>>way
>>she stared at her hunky construction dude on that TV show I think she's
>>just
>>being fashionably *******. I really hope her and her wife's children
>>never
>>find out they were swapped like kitchen chores. "OK, I'll do the dinner
>>if
>>you do the dishes, deal?"
>>
>>Paul
>>
>
> IANAL, but they may have done this in an attempt to provide for each
> of them to have legal rights/authority for both the children.
>

If they ever seperate, it's gonna be one hummdinger of a custody case.

Paul

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:23:44 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> "modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote:
>
>> Is pregnant. So's her partner Jennifer Cora.
>> http://tinyurl.com/cfdyva
>>
>> The same sperm donor is involved in both pregnancies.
>>
>> You could knock me over with a feather right now, but please don't.
>
>Why is that?

I didn't know she was *** for one thing. And then there's this bit
about their first two kids:
Swapping embryos! Is this an amazing world or what?
--

modom

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:02:16 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

>
>"modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Is pregnant. So's her partner Jennifer Cora.
>> http://tinyurl.com/cfdyva
>>
>> The same sperm donor is involved in both pregnancies.
>>
>> You could knock me over with a feather right now, but please don't.
>
>
>People sure do manage to make a tangled mess of things. Same dad ... err
>... sperm donor, and embryo swapping???? That is just too strange but I'm
>sure it's just my "issues." Give me a freaking break. And IVF? She's a
>chef, you know she had a turkey baster in the drawer. I kinda liked Cat
>Cora and liked her cooking shows. Now I think she's a really screwed up
>person and not because she's ***. She seems to me to be a pretty
>narcissistic individual and I don't mean in the usual good way. And the way
>she stared at her hunky construction dude on that TV show I think she's just
>being fashionably *******. I really hope her and her wife's children never
>find out they were swapped like kitchen chores. "OK, I'll do the dinner if
>you do the dishes, deal?"
>
>Paul
>
I'm not inclined to such harsh judgments. The two women have one
child who's five years old. That would seem a long time to be
"fashionably *******." And swapping embryos -- while it amazes me --
would seem an interesting way to get each other pregnant, in a certain
sense.
--

modom

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:59:19 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\""
> wrote:

>"modom (palindrome guy)" >
: in rec.food.cooking
>
>> Is pregnant. So's her partner Jennifer Cora.
>> http://tinyurl.com/cfdyva
>>
>> The same sperm donor is involved in both pregnancies.
>>
>> You could knock me over with a feather right now, but please don't.
>> --
>>
>> modom
>>
>
>Great for them! I suppose if one wants children that is. Right now it's
>all I can do to keep the new puppy from driving me bats ;-)
>
>Michael

lol. Glad to know I'm not in the puppy club alone.
Here's mine. A little blurb on my blog.
http://tinyurl.com/d5w8j5

koko
--

There is no love more sincere than the love of food
George Bernard Shaw
www.kokoscorner.typepad.com
updated 03/07

"modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:02:16 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> Is pregnant. So's her partner Jennifer Cora.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/cfdyva
>>>
>>> The same sperm donor is involved in both pregnancies.
>>>
>>> You could knock me over with a feather right now, but please don't.
>>
>>
>>People sure do manage to make a tangled mess of things. Same dad ... err
>>... sperm donor, and embryo swapping???? That is just too strange but I'm
>>sure it's just my "issues." Give me a freaking break. And IVF? She's a
>>chef, you know she had a turkey baster in the drawer. I kinda liked Cat
>>Cora and liked her cooking shows. Now I think she's a really screwed up
>>person and not because she's ***. She seems to me to be a pretty
>>narcissistic individual and I don't mean in the usual good way. And the
>>way
>>she stared at her hunky construction dude on that TV show I think she's
>>just
>>being fashionably *******. I really hope her and her wife's children
>>never
>>find out they were swapped like kitchen chores. "OK, I'll do the dinner
>>if
>>you do the dishes, deal?"
>>
>>Paul
>>
> I'm not inclined to such harsh judgments. The two women have one
> child who's five years old. That would seem a long time to be
> "fashionably *******." And swapping embryos -- while it amazes me --
> would seem an interesting way to get each other pregnant, in a certain
> sense.


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

Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> "modom (palindrome guy)" >
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
>> Is pregnant. So's her partner Jennifer Cora.
>> http://tinyurl.com/cfdyva
>>
>> The same sperm donor is involved in both pregnancies.
>>
>> You could knock me over with a feather right now, but please don't.
>> --
>>
>> modom
>>
>
> Great for them! I suppose if one wants children that is. Right now it's
> all I can do to keep the new puppy from driving me bats ;-)
>
> Michael

Our puppy is in the perpetual motion stage, too. We call him "the beige
flash" he forgot how to walk and only runs. He's 5.2 pounds!

http://i44.tinypic.com/110llxz.jpg

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south-Texas

"Janet Wilder" > wrote in message
...
> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Great for them! I suppose if one wants children that is. Right now it's
>> all I can do to keep the new puppy from driving me bats ;-)
>>
>> Michael
>
> Our puppy is in the perpetual motion stage, too. We call him "the beige
> flash" he forgot how to walk and only runs. He's 5.2 pounds!
>
> http://i44.tinypic.com/110llxz.jpg

What a cutie!

modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:23:44 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>
>> In article >,
>> "modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Is pregnant. So's her partner Jennifer Cora.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/cfdyva
>>>
>>> The same sperm donor is involved in both pregnancies.
>>>
>>> You could knock me over with a feather right now, but please don't.
>>>
>> Why is that?
>>
>
> I didn't know she was *** for one thing. And then there's this bit
> about their first two kids:
>

Quote:

> ...Cat says," [Jennifer] carried my embryo amd I carried hers..." >

>
> Swapping embryos! Is this an amazing world or what?
> --
>
> modom
>

And I thought asking someone to drive me to the airport was too much.


Becca

Janet Wilder wrote:
> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>> "modom (palindrome guy)" >
>> : in rec.food.cooking
>>
>>> Is pregnant. So's her partner Jennifer Cora.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/cfdyva
>>>
>>> The same sperm donor is involved in both pregnancies.
>>>
>>> You could knock me over with a feather right now, but please don't.
>>> --
>>>
>>> modom
>>>
>>
>> Great for them! I suppose if one wants children that is. Right now
>> it's all I can do to keep the new puppy from driving me bats ;-)
>>
>> Michael
>
> Our puppy is in the perpetual motion stage, too. We call him "the
> beige flash" he forgot how to walk and only runs. He's 5.2 pounds!
>
> http://i44.tinypic.com/110llxz.jpg


His Chanukah photo is on my desktop. He is so adorable.
http://i42.tinypic.com/snkpjt.jpg


Becca

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:53:29 -0500, Janet Wilder
> wrote:

>Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>> "modom (palindrome guy)" >
>> : in rec.food.cooking
>>
>>> Is pregnant. So's her partner Jennifer Cora.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/cfdyva
>>>
>>> The same sperm donor is involved in both pregnancies.
>>>
>>> You could knock me over with a feather right now, but please don't.
>>> --
>>>
>>> modom
>>>
>>
>> Great for them! I suppose if one wants children that is. Right now it's
>> all I can do to keep the new puppy from driving me bats ;-)
>>
>> Michael
>
>Our puppy is in the perpetual motion stage, too. We call him "the beige
>flash" he forgot how to walk and only runs. He's 5.2 pounds!
>
>http://i44.tinypic.com/110llxz.jpg

He's too stinkin' cute.

koko
--

There is no love more sincere than the love of food
George Bernard Shaw
www.kokoscorner.typepad.com
updated 03/07

On Mar 10, 6:41*pm, Becca > wrote:
> Janet Wilder wrote:
> > Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> >> "modom (palindrome guy)" > *
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
> >>> Is pregnant. *So's her partner Jennifer Cora.
> >>>http://tinyurl.com/cfdyva
>
> >>> The same sperm donor is involved in both pregnancies.
>
> >>> You could knock me over with a feather right now, but please don't.
> >>> --
>
> >>> modom
>
> >> Great for them! *I suppose if one wants children that is. Right now
> >> it's all I can do to keep the new puppy from driving me bats ;-)
>
> >> Michael
>
> > Our puppy is in the perpetual motion stage, too. We call him "the
> > beige flash" he forgot how to walk and only runs. He's 5.2 pounds!
>
> >http://i44.tinypic.com/110llxz.jpg
>
> His Chanukah photo is on my desktop. He is so adorable.
> *http://i42.tinypic.com/snkpjt.jpg
>
> Becca

Bar Mitzvah Photo! "Today I am a Fountain Pen"

Becca wrote:
> Janet Wilder wrote:
>> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>>> "modom (palindrome guy)" >
>>> : in rec.food.cooking
>>>
>>>> Is pregnant. So's her partner Jennifer Cora.
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cfdyva
>>>>
>>>> The same sperm donor is involved in both pregnancies.
>>>>
>>>> You could knock me over with a feather right now, but please don't.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> modom
>>>>
>>>
>>> Great for them! I suppose if one wants children that is. Right now
>>> it's all I can do to keep the new puppy from driving me bats ;-)
>>>
>>> Michael
>>
>> Our puppy is in the perpetual motion stage, too. We call him "the
>> beige flash" he forgot how to walk and only runs. He's 5.2 pounds!
>>
>> http://i44.tinypic.com/110llxz.jpg
>
>
> His Chanukah photo is on my desktop. He is so adorable.
> http://i42.tinypic.com/snkpjt.jpg
>
>
> Becca

Thanks, Becca. That photo made the Temple newsletter in December.

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south-Texas

koko wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:53:29 -0500, Janet Wilder
> > wrote:
>
>> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>>> "modom (palindrome guy)" >
>>> : in rec.food.cooking
>>>
>>>> Is pregnant. So's her partner Jennifer Cora.
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cfdyva
>>>>
>>>> The same sperm donor is involved in both pregnancies.
>>>>
>>>> You could knock me over with a feather right now, but please don't.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> modom
>>>>
>>> Great for them! I suppose if one wants children that is. Right now it's
>>> all I can do to keep the new puppy from driving me bats ;-)
>>>
>>> Michael
>> Our puppy is in the perpetual motion stage, too. We call him "the beige
>> flash" he forgot how to walk and only runs. He's 5.2 pounds!
>>
>> http://i44.tinypic.com/110llxz.jpg
>
> He's too stinkin' cute.
>
> koko
> --
>
> There is no love more sincere than the love of food
> George Bernard Shaw
> www.kokoscorner.typepad.com
> updated 03/07

We call him TFC for "too freekin' cute".

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south-Texas

"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.

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.

"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. 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.

Paul

"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.

> 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.

"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.

>> 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. The question would
be who is the mother? 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.

Paul

"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.

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

"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

>> 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.

In the case of a surrogacy contract only. Of which you would not have in
the case of a marriage where one of the spouses is also the surrogate. So
you have a real conflict between spousal rights and surrogacy claims in
absence of a contract that would get really messy. Seems to be either
individual would be in a bind. One one hand they would have all rights as a
spouse regards the children and on the other no rights absent a surrogacy
contract because the child they carried to term was not genetically their
own as they doubled as a surrogate for thir on spouse. Now remove the ***
factor here and imagine trying to apply the same laws equally here between a
straight couple and a *** couple. IANL but I see some real equal protection
isues here.

King Solomon would go apeshit over that one.

Paul

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> In the case of a surrogacy contract only. Of which you would not have in
> the case of a marriage where one of the spouses is also the surrogate. So
> you have a real conflict between spousal rights and surrogacy claims in
> absence of a contract that would get really messy. Seems to be either
> individual would be in a bind. One one hand they would have all rights as a
> spouse regards the children and on the other no rights absent a surrogacy
> contract because the child they carried to term was not genetically their
> own as they doubled as a surrogate for thir on spouse. Now remove the ***
> factor here and imagine trying to apply the same laws equally here between a
> straight couple and a *** couple. IANL but I see some real equal protection
> isues here.
>
> King Solomon would go apeshit over that one.
>
> Paul

Yep, nothing but homophobic bias there, clearly shown by your
implication that a married couple should forgo having children because
your homophobic society thinks they will invariably get divorced and is
uncomfortable considering normal spousal custody issues in the context
of a marriage they don't approve of.

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:34:05 -0600, Pete C. wrote:

> "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.
>
> 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.

i'm not sure what the problem is here, either. also, it's not unknown for
hetero woman to have a kid as some kind of accessory item without resorting
to technology.

your pal,
blake

"Pete C." > wrote in message
er.com...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> In the case of a surrogacy contract only. Of which you would not have in
>> the case of a marriage where one of the spouses is also the surrogate.
>> So
>> you have a real conflict between spousal rights and surrogacy claims in
>> absence of a contract that would get really messy. Seems to be either
>> individual would be in a bind. One one hand they would have all rights
>> as a
>> spouse regards the children and on the other no rights absent a surrogacy
>> contract because the child they carried to term was not genetically their
>> own as they doubled as a surrogate for thir on spouse. Now remove the
>> ***
>> factor here and imagine trying to apply the same laws equally here
>> between a
>> straight couple and a *** couple. IANL but I see some real equal
>> protection
>> isues here.
>>
>> King Solomon would go apeshit over that one.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Yep, nothing but homophobic bias there, clearly shown by your
> implication that a married couple should forgo having children because
> your homophobic society thinks they will invariably get divorced and is
> uncomfortable considering normal spousal custody issues in the context
> of a marriage they don't approve of.

You're a ****ing brain dead idiot and I suspect quite a bigot if you see
homophobia at every turn. You see the world through the same lense that you
use to project onto others. I'll explain to my *** neighbors and ***
relations that I am a closet homphobe. They'll need to know.

Paul

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:34:05 -0600, Pete C. wrote:
>
>> "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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> i'm not sure what the problem is here, either. also, it's not unknown for
> hetero woman to have a kid as some kind of accessory item without
> resorting
> to technology.
>


As far as *** couples raising kids, I am by no means against it. The ones I
have seen often have the nicest kids. The *** couples I have known just
seem to try a whole lot harder. But things are already hard enough on them
as it is so why introduce more confusion? Embryo swapping was just a cool
thing to do because they could do it but fraught with potential consequences
that could make things very hard down the road if all does not go to plan.
The baby rabies claims many victims.

Paul

Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:34:05 -0600, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"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.
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>i'm not sure what the problem is here, either. also, it's not unknown for
>>hetero woman to have a kid as some kind of accessory item without
>>resorting
>>to technology.
>>
>
>
>
> As far as *** couples raising kids, I am by no means against it. The ones I
> have seen often have the nicest kids. The *** couples I have known just
> seem to try a whole lot harder. But things are already hard enough on them
> as it is so why introduce more confusion? Embryo swapping was just a cool
> thing to do because they could do it but fraught with potential consequences
> that could make things very hard down the road if all does not go to plan.
> The baby rabies claims many victims.
>
> Paul
>
>

Oh shut up.

Infertility is the CAUSE of stress on relationships, ***, straight or
otherwise, not the result. The kids are incredibly resilient and accepting.

The rest of us need to get the **** over it.

"Kathleen" > wrote in message
...
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:34:05 -0600, Pete C. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"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.
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>i'm not sure what the problem is here, either. also, it's not unknown
>>>for
>>>hetero woman to have a kid as some kind of accessory item without
>>>resorting
>>>to technology.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As far as *** couples raising kids, I am by no means against it. The
>> ones I have seen often have the nicest kids. The *** couples I have
>> known just seem to try a whole lot harder. But things are already hard
>> enough on them as it is so why introduce more confusion? Embryo swapping
>> was just a cool thing to do because they could do it but fraught with
>> potential consequences that could make things very hard down the road if
>> all does not go to plan. The baby rabies claims many victims.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Oh shut up.

I try, oh how I try.

> Infertility is the CAUSE of stress on relationships, ***, straight or
> otherwise, not the result. The kids are incredibly resilient and
> accepting.

Adoption? If you want to be a parent so bad, why not be one to a child
already born? That would be a gift to humanity.

> The rest of us need to get the **** over it.

Paul

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> er.com...
> >
> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >>
> >> In the case of a surrogacy contract only. Of which you would not have in
> >> the case of a marriage where one of the spouses is also the surrogate.
> >> So
> >> you have a real conflict between spousal rights and surrogacy claims in
> >> absence of a contract that would get really messy. Seems to be either
> >> individual would be in a bind. One one hand they would have all rights
> >> as a
> >> spouse regards the children and on the other no rights absent a surrogacy
> >> contract because the child they carried to term was not genetically their
> >> own as they doubled as a surrogate for thir on spouse. Now remove the
> >> ***
> >> factor here and imagine trying to apply the same laws equally here
> >> between a
> >> straight couple and a *** couple. IANL but I see some real equal
> >> protection
> >> isues here.
> >>
> >> King Solomon would go apeshit over that one.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >
> > Yep, nothing but homophobic bias there, clearly shown by your
> > implication that a married couple should forgo having children because
> > your homophobic society thinks they will invariably get divorced and is
> > uncomfortable considering normal spousal custody issues in the context
> > of a marriage they don't approve of.
>
> You're a ****ing brain dead idiot and I suspect quite a bigot if you see
> homophobia at every turn. You see the world through the same lense that you
> use to project onto others. I'll explain to my *** neighbors and ***
> relations that I am a closet homphobe. They'll need to know.
>
> Paul

Nope, you're the one with the issues. I see a couple having children,
nothing more, while you see "issues".

Paul M. Cook wrote:

> "Kathleen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>
>>>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
t...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:34:05 -0600, Pete C. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>i'm not sure what the problem is here, either. also, it's not unknown
>>>>for
>>>>hetero woman to have a kid as some kind of accessory item without
>>>>resorting
>>>>to technology.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>As far as *** couples raising kids, I am by no means against it. The
>>>ones I have seen often have the nicest kids. The *** couples I have
>>>known just seem to try a whole lot harder. But things are already hard
>>>enough on them as it is so why introduce more confusion? Embryo swapping
>>>was just a cool thing to do because they could do it but fraught with
>>>potential consequences that could make things very hard down the road if
>>>all does not go to plan. The baby rabies claims many victims.
>>>
>>>Paul
>>
>>Oh shut up.
>
>
> I try, oh how I try.
>
>
>>Infertility is the CAUSE of stress on relationships, ***, straight or
>>otherwise, not the result. The kids are incredibly resilient and
>>accepting.
>
>
> Adoption? If you want to be a parent so bad, why not be one to a child
> already born? That would be a gift to humanity.

Do you realize how much harder it is to adopt a kid than it is to make
one, even if you have to use assisted reproduction technology? Climbing
into the stirrups and spreading your knees is nothing compared to what
they expect if you just want to take on a child alread born and in need
of a family.

I've got friends who've been through both. Anybody who would opt for
adoption over assisted reproduction is a freakin' saint.

"Kathleen" > wrote in message
...
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>> "Kathleen" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>
>>>>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
et...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:34:05 -0600, Pete C. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>i'm not sure what the problem is here, either. also, it's not unknown
>>>>>for
>>>>>hetero woman to have a kid as some kind of accessory item without
>>>>>resorting
>>>>>to technology.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As far as *** couples raising kids, I am by no means against it. The
>>>>ones I have seen often have the nicest kids. The *** couples I have
>>>>known just seem to try a whole lot harder. But things are already hard
>>>>enough on them as it is so why introduce more confusion? Embryo
>>>>swapping was just a cool thing to do because they could do it but
>>>>fraught with potential consequences that could make things very hard
>>>>down the road if all does not go to plan. The baby rabies claims many
>>>>victims.
>>>>
>>>>Paul
>>>
>>>Oh shut up.
>>
>>
>> I try, oh how I try.
>>
>>
>>>Infertility is the CAUSE of stress on relationships, ***, straight or
>>>otherwise, not the result. The kids are incredibly resilient and
>>>accepting.
>>
>>
>> Adoption? If you want to be a parent so bad, why not be one to a child
>> already born? That would be a gift to humanity.
>
> Do you realize how much harder it is to adopt a kid than it is to make
> one, even if you have to use assisted reproduction technology? Climbing
> into the stirrups and spreading your knees is nothing compared to what
> they expect if you just want to take on a child alread born and in need of
> a family.
>

Adopting an infant you mean. Adopting even a 1 year old is actually a very
quick process. Even easier for older kids. I know a family that has 3
adopted kids, easy peasy, no problems with the courts, just a matter of
going through the program which took about 6 months.

> I've got friends who've been through both. Anybody who would opt for
> adoption over assisted reproduction is a freakin' saint.

Saints are good people. If nobody adopts those kids, think of their misery
for a moment. And most do not get adopted.

Paul

blake murphy wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:34:05 -0600, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > "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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> i'm not sure what the problem is here, either. also, it's not unknown for
> hetero woman to have a kid as some kind of accessory item without
resorting
> to technology.


Well, it's certainly a Big Fad in the lez - been "community"...


--
Best
Greg

Pete C. wrote about mutual surrogacy:

>> One one hand they would have all rights as a spouse regards the children
>> and on the other no rights absent a surrogacy contract because the child
>> they carried to term was not genetically their own as they doubled as a
>> surrogate for thir on spouse. Now remove the *** factor here and imagine
>> trying to apply the same laws equally here between a straight couple and
>> a *** couple. IANL but I see some real equal protection isues here.
>>
>> King Solomon would go apeshit over that one.
>>
>
> Yep, nothing but homophobic bias there, clearly shown by your
> implication that a married couple should forgo having children because
> your homophobic society thinks they will invariably get divorced and is
> uncomfortable considering normal spousal custody issues in the context
> of a marriage they don't approve of.

It's not homophobic to say that something is weird, and it's not homophobic
to say that something is complicated. I ran across the following, and
thought it applicable he

http://i44.tinypic.com/dy7z0y.jpg

Bob

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote about mutual surrogacy:
>
> >> One one hand they would have all rights as a spouse regards the children
> >> and on the other no rights absent a surrogacy contract because the child
> >> they carried to term was not genetically their own as they doubled as a
> >> surrogate for thir on spouse. Now remove the *** factor here and imagine
> >> trying to apply the same laws equally here between a straight couple and
> >> a *** couple. IANL but I see some real equal protection isues here.
> >>
> >> King Solomon would go apeshit over that one.
> >>
> >
> > Yep, nothing but homophobic bias there, clearly shown by your
> > implication that a married couple should forgo having children because
> > your homophobic society thinks they will invariably get divorced and is
> > uncomfortable considering normal spousal custody issues in the context
> > of a marriage they don't approve of.
>
> It's not homophobic to say that something is weird,

Care to tell me what is "weird" about a couple wanting to have children
and using medical technology to overcome fertility issues? It's only
"weird" if you are biased against the couple for some reason i.e. you're
homophobic.

> and it's not homophobic
> to say that something is complicated.

Parental custody is complicated in the event of a divorce - period. If
you think that it would be notably more complicated if the couple is not
heterosexual, it is indeed homophobic.

> I ran across the following, and
> thought it applicable he
>
> http://i44.tinypic.com/dy7z0y.jpg

Not interested.

Pete C. wrote:

>> It's not homophobic to say that something is weird,
>
> Care to tell me what is "weird" about a couple wanting to have children
> and using medical technology to overcome fertility issues? It's only
> "weird" if you are biased against the couple for some reason i.e. you're
> homophobic.

It's not weird to want children. It *is* weird to use medical technology to
overcome fertility issues, regardless of whether the people involved are
straight or ***. Your hyperreactivity shows a bias on your part -- or maybe
you just don't know what the word "weird" means. Here, let Merriam-Webster
help you: "of strange or extraordinary character"

Is it your stance that the practices of female couples using the same sperm
donor and swapping embryos occur in a large portion of the population?
Female couples don't even comprise a large portion of the population!
Therefore, Cat Cora's situation is BY DEFINITION weird. It is in no way an
adverse reflection on her sexual preferences; it's a simple and obvious
commentary on her outlying status in the demographics.


>> and it's not homophobic to say that something is complicated.
>
> Parental custody is complicated in the event of a divorce - period. If
> you think that it would be notably more complicated if the couple is not
> heterosexual, it is indeed homophobic.

Read what I wrote, and point out where I said anything about custody being
less complicated for heterosexual couples. Can't do it, can you? You posted
a knee-jerk reaction to what you THOUGHT I posted, without reading what was
ACTUALLY posted. But harking back to the post which prompted me to write,
the potential custody situation *would be* more complicated because of the
method of conception and carriage to term. Your inability to admit that
indicates that you are either unable or unwilling to recognize that some
complex situations are less complex than others. Since you probably *are*
able to recognize that, then by default you must be unwilling, which means
that your mind is closed, and YOU are the biased one.


>> I ran across the following, and thought it applicable he
>>
>> http://i44.tinypic.com/dy7z0y.jpg
>
> Not interested.

Of course you're not: Why would you be interested, when your mind is
completely closed?

Bob

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:03:27 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>i'm not sure what the problem is here, either. also, it's not unknown for
>hetero woman to have a kid as some kind of accessory item without resorting
>to technology.

Sad to say - but IMO, my dear and very much beloved GS is a product of
a woman who thought exactly like that. I could give you examples of
her thought pattern, but I won't do it here.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West