Surrogate mother who changed her mind must hand baby to gay couple, court rules

First topic message reminder :

A surrogate mother has lost custody of her child after a court ruled he would be better placed with the gay couple who arranged for her to have the baby.

A senior judge said that the child's "identity needs as a child of gay intended parents" would be better fulfilled if he lived with the couple.

The woman signed a surrogacy agreement with the men, who she had she met online, and travelled to Cyprus in September 2015 to have an embryo transferred.

But the two families fell out and the woman and her husband changed their minds about giving the child up.

She did not tell the men about the birth for more than a week after it took place last April.

The male same-sex partners began legal proceedings and last year a High Court judge ruled that the child, now 18 months old, should live with them.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/17/surrogate-mother-changed-mind-giving-baby-must-hand-child-gay/

awkward

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


She is entittled to abuse her body, but not that of the fetus, when she has a contract

Seems not only are you ignorant on biology, but also contract law it seems

Well if she can abuse her body, why can she not abort things from her body?

In both case she would still be sued, as she is under contract

Take your time trying to grasp even what you have said

Digest it, then if you still need help, phone a friend

"Lord Justice McFarlane said that while surrogacy arrangements had no legal standing"

Is that all what he said?

Try again

thats all that matters

it proves that this was not a case based on law but rather on social justice and political correctness.

if a surrogacy agreement has no legal standing then it would be a civil case, there is no guarantee they would be successful.

you're a pro choice advocate arent you?? so where do you come down on this?

do you think she should be allowed to do what she chooses to do with her body or do you think that the sperm donors should be able to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body??

what a conundrum!!!!

smelly-bandit wrote:thats all that matters

it proves that this was not a case based on law but rather on social justice and political correctness.

if a surrogacy agreement has no legal standing then it would be a civil case, there is no guarantee they would be successful.

you're a pro choice advocate arent you?? so where do you come down on this?

do you think she should be allowed to do what she chooses to do with her body or do you think that the sperm donors should be able to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body??

what a conundrum!!!!  

Oh dear, it shows that you do not understand the law and in this case it was ruled based on the biological parent

People can also sue on agreements made that are not covered by law

It would helped if you read the findings in this case

She should be able to do what she likes with her own body.

Most people do

If however what she has done has harmed the fetus, through misuse, then they have grounds to sue even when she is still carrying that child, as she has an informal agreement with them

So its no conumdrum, I mean if your officer asked you to walk through a minefield and had 8 machine guns transfixed on your position. Would you obey his orders?

Well it's obviously a conundrum since you don't seem to be able to offer your opinion on this

I asked YOU what you're views are

Too much of a cardboard cut out to have an original thought??

Oh well

smelly-bandit wrote:Well it's obviously a conundrum since you don't seem to be able to offer your opinion on this

I asked YOU what you're views are

Too much of a cardboard cut out to have an original thought??

Oh well

I gave you my views and have done so throughout

What did you fail to understand.??

Never mind, sigh

You didn't give me your views

You only gave general observations about what might or might not happen if she did or did not do something.

I asked YOU if YOU thought she should be allowed to abort and abuse substances

I don't ask you want you think would happen

Never mind cardboard man

smelly-bandit wrote:You didn't give me your views

You only gave general observations about what might or might not happen if she did or did not do something.

I asked YOU if YOU thought she should be allowed to abort and abuse substances

I don't ask you want you think would happen

Never mind cardboard man

I answered that now about 3 times, your question

Yes she should be allowed to abort and yes should be allowed to do to her body what she likes

I mean would you count smoking as an abusive substance?

Again what is important here, is whether as a surrogate mother she can be sued if she falls foul of an informal agreement

The answer is yes

Also when the baby is born, its the biological parents that have custody

Never mind sock puppet

Wow a straight answer

So you agree that she can smoke and abuse substances during pregnancy but can't keep the child.

Bit weird isn't it??

smelly-bandit wrote:Wow a straight answer

So you agree that she can smoke and abuse substances during pregnancy but can't keep the child.

Bit weird isn't it??

Wow is more the point, that I have said this multiple times on this thread already

Well, can a biological mother keep a child if she abuses her body when pregnant which effects the baby?

Take your time on that

Didge wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:Wow a straight answer

So you agree that she can smoke and abuse substances during pregnancy but can't keep the child.

Bit weird isn't it??

Wow is more the point, that I have said this multiple times on this thread already

Well, can a biological mother keep a child if she abuses her body when pregnant which effects the baby?

Take your time on that

why do you constantly say ''take your time'' when you post?

gelico wrote:

Didge wrote:

Wow is more the point, that I have said this multiple times on this thread already

Well, can a biological mother keep a child if she abuses her body when pregnant which effects the baby?

Take your time on that

why do you constantly say ''take your time'' when you post?

I like people to think before they answer, to constructively look at what has been said

Is that okay?

gelico wrote:

Didge wrote:

Wow is more the point, that I have said this multiple times on this thread already

Well, can a biological mother keep a child if she abuses her body when pregnant which effects the baby?

Take your time on that

why do you constantly say ''take your time'' when you post?

what i want to know is why he uses thus all the time

Didge wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:Wow a straight answer

So you agree that she can smoke and abuse substances during pregnancy but can't keep the child.

Bit weird isn't it??

Wow is more the point, that I have said this multiple times on this thread already

Well, can a biological mother keep a child if she abuses her body when pregnant which effects the baby?

Take your time on that

you mean like katie price??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:

Wow is more the point, that I have said this multiple times on this thread already

Well, can a biological mother keep a child if she abuses her body when pregnant which effects the baby?

Take your time on that

you mean like katie price??

What about Katie Price?

How does that answer my question?

Didge wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

you mean like katie price??

What about Katie Price?

How does that answer my question?

well katie prices abused drugs and all sorts of shit during her pregnancy and her son Harvey is disabled as a result

she is his mother both biologically and legally, no one has taken him away from her, so in answer to your question, yes a mother can keep her child even if she abuses her body during pregnancy

millions of mothers do exactly that and get to keep their children

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:

What about Katie Price?

How does that answer my question?

well katie prices abused drugs and all sorts of shit during her pregnancy and her son Harvey is disabled as a result

is it a known proven fact that

a) she abused drugs while pregnant?
b) Harvey's disability is a direct result of that?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:

What about Katie Price?

How does that answer my question?

well katie prices abused drugs and all sorts of shit during her pregnancy and her son Harvey is disabled as a result

she is his mother both biologically and legally, no one has taken him away from her, so in answer to your question, yes a mother can keep her child even if she abuses her body during pregnancy

millions of mothers do exactly that and get to keep their children

you sure you dont mean kerry katona

she's a known sniffer

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:

What about Katie Price?

How does that answer my question?

well katie prices abused drugs and all sorts of shit during her pregnancy and her son Harvey is disabled as a result

she is his mother both biologically and legally, no one has taken him away from her, so in answer to your question, yes a mother can keep her child even if she abuses her body during pregnancy

millions of mothers do exactly that and get to keep their children

Where is the evidence of that when she was pregnant?

Where is the evidence his disabilities is down to anything she did

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3675208/I-good-pregnant-Harvey-look-happened-Katie-Price-s-sadness-son-s-disabilities-blamed-party-lifestyle.html

gelico wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

well katie prices abused drugs and all sorts of shit during her pregnancy and her son Harvey is disabled as a result

is it a known proven fact that

a) she abused drugs while pregnant?
b) Harvey's disability is a direct result of that?

nothing can be proved categorically

some mothers abuse substances and their kids turn out ok.

the probability of her abuses drink whilst pregnant is pretty much a certainty, she is hardly a saint and probably too stupid to realize and too selfish to care.

anyway we are going off the rails down one of didges rabbit holes here

the issue is that is decision is a political correctness decision and not a legal one.

smelly-bandit wrote:

gelico wrote:

is it a known proven fact that

a) she abused drugs while pregnant?
b) Harvey's disability is a direct result of that?

nothing can be proved categorically

some mothers abuse substances and their kids turn out ok.

the probability of her abuses drink whilst pregnant is pretty much a certainty, she is hardly a saint and probably too stupid to realize and too selfish to care.

So its an unfounded accusation by you

So where is the medical records to link your claims or even proof she was constantly drinking and drunk?

She has 5 children which she cares for greatly

smelly-bandit wrote:anyway we are going off the rails down one of didges rabbit holes here

the issue is that is decision is a political correctness decision and not a legal one.

You mean you tried countless strawman arguments

The decision had nothing to do with PC, unless you think that the biological parents have no right over that of a surrogate mother who is not the biological mother

Only in your head, do you think its PC

smelly-bandit wrote:

gelico wrote:

is it a known proven fact that

a) she abused drugs while pregnant?
b) Harvey's disability is a direct result of that?

nothing can be proved categorically

some mothers abuse substances and their kids turn out ok.

the probability of her abuses drink whilst pregnant is pretty much a certainty, she is hardly a saint and probably too stupid to realize and too selfish to care.

in your opinion and probability isn't enough anyway

furthermore, although i've never been able to stand katie price i cant slate her as a mother, nor do you get to make the sort of money she has by being stupid. i'd say she's rather canny actually

Didge wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

nothing can be proved categorically

some mothers abuse substances and their kids turn out ok.

the probability of her abuses drink whilst pregnant is pretty much a certainty, she is hardly a saint and probably too stupid to realize and too selfish to care.

So its an unfounded accusation by you

So where is the medical records to link your claims or even proof she was constantly drinking and drunk?

She has 5 children which she cares for greatly

i never said she doesn't care for Harvey, she seems to be a good mother to him now.

but she WAS partying when pregnant with Harvey, we only have her word for it that she didn't drink.

yeah right

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:

So its an unfounded accusation by you

So where is the medical records to link your claims or even proof she was constantly drinking and drunk?

She has 5 children which she cares for greatly

i never said she doesn't care for Harvey, she seems to be a good mother to him now.

but she WAS partying when pregnant with Harvey, we only have her word for it that she didn't drink.

yeah right

So again its based on no more than a perception you have of her

smelly-bandit wrote:anyway we are going off the rails down one of didges rabbit holes here

the issue is that is decision is a political correctness decision and not a legal one.

lol, true!

i still dont think the decision was wrong as such, i just disagreed with his reasoning

woman A provides the necessary egg
gayman B provides the necessary sperm

woman C agrees to carry child to term and then hand it over to gayman B and his partner

it's as clear cut as a situation like that can ever be

gelico wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

nothing can be proved categorically

some mothers abuse substances and their kids turn out ok.

the probability of her abuses drink whilst pregnant is pretty much a certainty, she is hardly a saint and probably too stupid to realize and too selfish to care.

in your opinion and probability isn't enough anyway

furthermore, although i've never been able to stand katie price i cant slate her as a mother, nor do you get to make the sort of money she has by being stupid.  i'd say she's rather canny actually

she DID party when pregnant

thats a facts

gelico wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:anyway we are going off the rails down one of didges rabbit holes here

smelly-bandit wrote:
the issue is that is decision is a political correctness decision and not a legal one.

lol, true!

i still dont think the decision was wrong as such, i just disagreed with his reasoning

woman A provides the necessary egg
gayman B provides the necessary sperm

woman C agrees to carry child to term and then hand it over to gayman B and his partner

it's as clear cut as a situation like that can ever be

the judge didn't make his decisions on that basis.

he made his decision on the ground of political correctness

they probably arent the first people to get fucked over by a surrogate, but because they definitely won their case because they are gay

Didge wrote:

Court of Appeal judges ruled that the original decision to give custody to the gay couple with limited contact six times a year with the surrogate mother and father was correct. 

Lord Justice McFarlane said that while surrogacy arrangements had no legal standing, the child's genetic relationships and welfare were the most important factors for deciding where he or she should live.         
While the legal mother and father had the right "to change their minds" this did not necessarily mean that they had the right to keep the child, he said. 

The child was conceived using sperm from one of the men and an egg from a Spanish donor, meaning one of the gay couple is a genetic relative of the child, but the birth mother and father are not. 


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/17/surrogate-mother-changed-mind-giving-baby-must-hand-child-gay/

And again for some who clearly cannot read

smelly-bandit wrote:
anyway we are going off the rails down one of didges rabbit holes here

the issue is that is decision is a political correctness decision and not a legal one.

More sidetracking and deflecting SmellyBrainlessBumski nonsense...

The surrogate 'mother' would have signed a legal contract..

Therefore she could be sued under contract/commercial laws --  How does your imaginary "political correctness" fantasies come into it, out in the real world ?

The judge disagrees

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:
anyway we are going off the rails down one of didges rabbit holes here

the issue is that is decision is a political correctness decision and not a legal one.

More sidetracking and deflecting SmellyBrainlessBumski nonsense...

The surrogate 'mother' would have signed a legal contract..

Therefore she could be sued under contract/commercial laws --  How does your imaginary "political correctness" fantasies come into it, out in the real world ?

Indeed

It was smelly that side tracked with abortion

It was smelly that side tracked with a false claim of PC

It was smelly that side tracked with substance abuse

It was smelly that side tracked with rape

Most of all it was smelly that really showed he has never had a basic education in biology

Side tracking??

Not my fault your principles are so contradictory they can't face a challenge

You know didge I just read an article about mellenials in the work place and how shit they are.

You match the description perfectly

smelly-bandit wrote:Side tracking??

Not my fault your principles are so contradictory they can't face a challenge

My principles?

Wow, this coiming from the person that a rapist would be able to turn up 9 months later and claim custory of the child conceived of this rape.

Still waiting for an answer on that complete dumbfuckwittery

There is very little challenging that comes from you smelly, mainly as you have the intellect of a gerbil.

smelly-bandit wrote:You know didge I just read an article about mellenials in the work place and how shit they are.

You match the description perfectly

So not only jealousy but even more entertaining, that you have made me a lot younger than I am.

In fact over 20 years younger.

Thanks

Didge wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:Side tracking??

Not my fault your principles are so contradictory they can't face a challenge

My principles?

Wow, this coiming from the person that a rapist would be able to turn up 9 months later and claim custory of the child conceived of this rape.

Still waiting for an answer on that complete dumbfuckwittery

There is very little challenging that comes from you smelly, mainly as you have the intellect of a gerbil.

Having a little mellenials temper tantrum are we??

You're so precious

The rapist scenario was in response to your view that a mother who gives birth to the child isn't its biological mother but rather the child of the sperm donor, in this case the rapist

You're view is flawed which is why you don't understand the point I'm making.

The belief that a birth mother passes nothing onto the hold is so far beyond biological reality it's make believe.

The substance abuse and abortion questions were designed to challenge your view that the she has no right to the child,if she has no rights to the child then she has no responsibility for the child either.

It also places your pro choice views in conflict with your support for the judges decision.

Considering your responses it's clear you lack the mental agility required to follow my reasoning

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


My principles?

Wow, this coiming from the person that a rapist would be able to turn up 9 months later and claim custory of the child conceived of this rape.

Still waiting for an answer on that complete dumbfuckwittery

There is very little challenging that comes from you smelly, mainly as you have the intellect of a gerbil.

Having a little mellenials temper tantrum are we??

You're so precious

The rapist scenario was in response to your view that a mother who gives birth to the child isn't its biological mother but rather the child of the sperm donor, in this case the rapist

You're view is flawed which is why you don't understand the point I'm making.

The belief that a birth mother passes nothing onto the  hold is so far beyond biological reality it's make believe.

The substance abuse and abortion questions were designed to challenge your view that the she has no right to the child,if she has no rights to the child then she has no responsibility for the child either.

It also places your pro choice views in conflict with your support for the judges decision.

Considering your responses it's clear you lack the mental agility required to follow my reasoning

So yet more huff and puff from smelly

The only tantrum, I see is yours mate

So your view on the rapist scenario, is further proof of your ignorance on biology and a surrogate mother that has a donar embryo. So your response was based on your ignorance then.

Priceless

In this case the raped woman, would be the biological mother, showing how incredible dimwitted you are.

I see you still cannot explain how a rapist would be able to turn up 9 months later and claim custory of the child conceived of this rape.

Your other questions were not even a challenge, they were poor straw man arguments to the fact the gay biological father had justified rights to custody.

It shows you still stupidly think a surrogate mother where the embryo is donated, to you is the biological mother. Its hilarious you continue to make yourself look a complete tit

So what genetics does a surrogate mother pass on to a child when the embryo is donated?

This should be fun, please give the forum your biological knowledge on this?

The only thing you prove is what a thicky you are mate

you can lead a horse to water..............................

sorry didge i cant MAKE you understand the points im making, i simply present them and you either get it or you dont

in your case as is the norm, you dont understand the subtlety of my reasoning.

do you even understand a straw man argument??

smelly-bandit wrote:
you can lead a horse to water..............................

sorry didge i cant MAKE you understand the points im making, i simply present them and you either get it or you dont

in your case as is the norm, you dont understand the subtlety of my reasoning.

do you even understand a straw man argument??  

I doubt you could lead a horse anywhere,  SmellySillyGitBumski...
Indeed,  I doubt you would even know which end of a horse the hay goes in..

No sane person cares about the points that you are attempting to make, Smelly, as they're pure garbage.

Not only is there no "sublety" in your reasoning --  there is zero reasoning in your reasoning..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:
you can lead a horse to water..............................

sorry didge i cant MAKE you understand the points im making, i simply present them and you either get it or you dont

in your case as is the norm, you dont understand the subtlety of my reasoning.

do you even understand a straw man argument??  

I doubt you could lead a horse anywhere,  SmellySillyGitBumski...
Indeed,  I doubt you would even know which end of a horse the hay goes in..

No sane person cares about the points that you are attempting to make, Smelly, as they're pure garbage.

Not only is there no "sublety" in your reasoning --  there is zero reasoning in your reasoning..

I am still waiting for him to prove how he thinks a surrogate mother with a donor embryo is the biological mother



And on top of that to explain how he thinks a rapist would be able to turn up 9 months later and claim custory of the child conceived of this rape.



Its certainly be a master class in stupidity by him.

soy boy wolfie comes in with his pearls of wisdom for our entertainment

Didge wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


I doubt you could lead a horse anywhere,  SmellySillyGitBumski...
Indeed,  I doubt you would even know which end of a horse the hay goes in..

No sane person cares about the points that you are attempting to make, Smelly, as they're pure garbage.

Not only is there no "sublety" in your reasoning --  there is zero reasoning in your reasoning..

I am still waiting for him to prove how he thinks a surrogate mother with a donor embryo is the biological mother



And on top of that to explain how he thinks a rapist would be able to turn up 9 months later and claim custory of the child conceived of this rape.



Its certainly be a master class in stupidity by him.

more straw man arguments from soy boy didge??

Guess I am going to have to wait a long time for him to admit to his stupidity here.

Didge wrote:Guess I am going to have to wait a long time for him to admit to his stupidity here.

well didge like i said, i present my points its up to you to address them, i cant force you to address my points

Im not here to convince you of anything, you are beyond rational thought, im simply here to present my point of view

if you don't like it?? that's YOUR problem, i don't care if you disagree, and your point of view doesn't interest me, i think you're wrong and Ive given my reasons for why i think that.

you seem to think this is a race or a competition with winners and losers, its not. You dont "win" anything here.

Didge wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


I doubt you could lead a horse anywhere,  SmellySillyGitBumski...
Indeed,  I doubt you would even know which end of a horse the hay goes in..

No sane person cares about the points that you are attempting to make, Smelly, as they're pure garbage.

Not only is there no "sublety" in your reasoning --  there is zero reasoning in your reasoning..

I am still waiting for him to prove how he thinks a surrogate mother with a donor embryo is the biological mother



And on top of that to explain how he thinks a rapist would be able to turn up 9 months later and claim custory of the child conceived of this rape.



Its certainly be a master class in stupidity by him.

Seems an impossiblity for smelly to answer simple claims he made

Priceless

I've already given you my reasons soy boy.

I'm still waiting for YOU to prove me wrong

*shrugs*