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

by Guest Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:49 am

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/

by Original Quill Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:55 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:Who was the 'owner' of the egg? Becaeue if the egg used was hers then she is the mother.
If she was just the host body, carrying an embryo which is biologically not hers, then she's not the mother.

I thought the woman who actually gave birth is considered to be the mother, regardless of the biology. I also didn't think that such a contract was considered enforceable when it comes to surrogacy, and the article confirms that.

The most important consideration is the welfare of the child. Secondary to that, the issue breaks down to genetic connection vs. birthing.

In this case, according to Judge McFarlane, genetics trumps birthing. There may well be considerations not raised in the article, having to do with why the genetics in this case trumps the birth mother. Or, he may be making a rule.

by Guest Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:13 pm

eddie wrote:I don't think you should take a baby away from a parent it has been living with since birth.

I think joint custody would be fairer.

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/

It helps if you read the article

by eddie Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:19 pm

Someone who is just carrying a child is NOT a mother, not in my opinion. She's a host, that's all.
She has no rights over that child.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:49 pm

eddie wrote:Someone who is just carrying a child is NOT a mother, not in my opinion. She's a host, that's all.
She has no rights over that child.

In law, she is the mother - I think.

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:13 pm

If she's not the mother... where did the egg come from?

And doesn't the egg doner have a say?

by Fred Moletrousers Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:17 pm

SEXY MAMA wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I was so impressed by SM's very attractive avatar (am I allowed to say that?)...that I thought I would give you all a horrible shock!

Thank you.

Fred you look exactly like what I imagined you to look like x

Oh dear...I was on stage playing the role of a priest turned Satanist!

by Fred Moletrousers Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:23 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

I always imagine Fred looking like that old Landrover in his previous avvie...

Rugged, tough, powerful, much admired by connoisseurs and emulated but never quite matched by inferior marques.....yep, I'll go along with that, Wolfie.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:53 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:If she's not the mother... where did the egg come from?

The article says the ovum came from a lady of Spain (who presumably was adored).

Tommy Monk wrote:And doesn't the egg doner have a say?

I would imagine she would have a better say had she stepped forward at the beginning. I would think the court would view her as having abandoned the ovum.

by Guest Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:05 pm

eddie wrote:Someone who is just carrying a child is NOT a mother, not in my opinion. She's a host, that's all.
She has no rights over that child.

you don't consider yourself to be the mother of your children???? scratch

by Guest Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:07 pm

Well someone clearly failed at biology at school

by Guest Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:08 pm

heres a lovely little monkey wrench for all you "pro choice" lefties to chew on

what happens if she decided to have an abortion??

remember

her body her choice!

im off

have fun Surrogate mother who changed her mind must hand baby to gay couple, court rules - Page 2 3852033631

Surrogate mother who changed her mind must hand baby to gay couple, court rules - Page 2 3852033631

Surrogate mother who changed her mind must hand baby to gay couple, court rules - Page 2 Carlto10

by Guest Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:12 pm

It would be her choice to terminate as the surrogate and would have to reimburse the gay couple.

Still does not make her the biological mother.

Like I said, someone clearly skipped biology class

Some educational help for them

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask420

by magica Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:34 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:If she's not the mother... where did the egg come from?

And doesn't the egg doner have a say?

If the egg was hers, and she gave birth, then surely she's the mother.

by Guest Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:23 pm

So she can murder the child but she can't keep it??

So the liberals think murdering a child is better than allowing it to live

Definitely not pro life these liberals

by Guest Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:25 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:So she can murder the child but she can't keep it??

So the liberals think murdering a child is better than allowing it to live

Definitely not pro life these liberals

Since when did abortion become murder?

I thought abortion was legal

So you are against the sanction taking of life then, yes?

by Guest Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:26 pm

The point is that you liberals are saying "she can't keep the child but she can abort it"

by Guest Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:27 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:The point is that you liberals are saying "she can't keep the child but she can abort it"

The point is, she has a right to decide whether to carry a child or not.

Its her body

She has no right once that child is born to keep

As she is not the biological mother

Quite simple

by Guest Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:32 pm

Who is the biological mother???

by Guest Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:33 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:Who is the biological mother???

The lady that donated the embryo

by Guest Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:37 pm

What about rape victims??

Some woman is walking home and Muhammad jumps out and rapes her.

9 months later Muhammad turns up and take the baby away because according to the lefties, the mother has no right to the child once it's born, because she is not its "biological mother"

But she can abort it even though she is not its biological mother

by Guest Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:41 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:What about rape victims??

Some woman is walking home and Muhammad jumps out and rapes her.

9 months later Muhammad turns up and take the baby away because according to the lefties, the mother has no right to the child once it's born, because she is not its "biological mother"

But she can abort it even though she is not its biological mother

Why would he be able to take the baby away?

The mother raped here would be the biological mother.

She would be able to abort whether she is the biological mother or not if carrying, as already stated

Sorry, but did you actually do any biology at school

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:11 am

smelly-bandit wrote:What about rape victims??

Some woman is walking home and Muhammad jumps out and rapes her.

9 months later Muhammad turns up and take the baby away because according to the lefties, the mother has no right to the child once it's born, because she is not its "biological mother"

But she can abort it even though she is not its biological mother

of course she is

say what?

the other woman in question in the OP wasn;t because it wasn't her egg in the first place.

all very technical maybe but can hardly be compared to what you were saying

by 'Wolfie Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:14 am

smelly-bandit wrote:What about rape victims??

Some woman is walking home and Muhammad jumps out and rapes her.

9 months later Muhammad turns up and take the baby away because according to the lefties, the mother has no right to the child once it's born, because she is not its "biological mother"

But she can abort it even though she is not its biological mother

Surrogate mother who changed her mind must hand baby to gay couple, court rules - Page 2 3489511464

You truly are one monumental fuckup, SmellyNoBrainsBumski !!!

Not content with trying to rewrite scientific laws, political history and economic principles with your constant fantasising and buffoonery, ever since you infested this forum..

Now you are attempting to claim that a natural mother isn't the biological mother, if she was raped.

You are not only by far the most stupid person on NewsFix, you have now proven yourself to be one of the most stupid people on the planet !!!

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:05 am

gelico wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:What about rape victims??

Some woman is walking home and Muhammad jumps out and rapes her.

9 months later Muhammad turns up and take the baby away because according to the lefties, the mother has no right to the child once it's born, because she is not its "biological mother"

But she can abort it even though she is not its biological mother

of course she is

say what?

the other woman in question in the OP wasn;t because it wasn't her egg in the first place.

all very technical maybe but can hardly be compared to what you were saying

So why is she allowed to abort it?

If it's not hers why would she be allowed to abort it??

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:09 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
gelico wrote:

of course she is

say what?

the other woman in question in the OP wasn;t because it wasn't her egg in the first place.

all very technical maybe but can hardly be compared to what you were saying

So why is she allowed to abort it?

If it's not hers why would she be allowed to abort it??

Has this not already been explained to you?

Read back and whilst at this, I would love for you to explain how a rapist could just turn up 9 months later and win custody.

You really never thought that one through did you?

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:29 am

It's not really a realistic scenario Walter.

Its a scenario that challenges your stupidity about how the birth mother isn't the biological mother.

You do realise that some of the birth mothers DNA will cross over into the children.

Secondly you avoid my other question.

If she isn't the biological mother as you insist, then why are you happy for her to abort the child??

What about substance abuse during the pregnancy??

There isn't a need for the surrogate to worry about keeping health or changing her lifestyle since according to you the child isn't hers, she is just the oven.

Happy with that??

Good

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:36 am

smelly-bandit wrote:It's not really a realistic scenario Walter.

Its a scenario that challenges your stupidity about how the birth mother isn't the biological mother.

You do realise that some of the birth mothers DNA will cross over into the children.

Secondly you avoid my other question.

If she isn't the biological mother as you insist, then why are you happy for her to abort the child??

What about substance abuse during the pregnancy??

There isn't a need for the surrogate to worry about keeping health or changing her lifestyle since according to you the child isn't hers, she is just the oven.

Happy with that??

Good

My stupidity?

When you just proved how emphatically ignorant you are on biology?

Yes I am happy that she has the right to decide over what she carries and to decide to terminate whilst carrying

That is the law

As soon as the child is born, she has no right to custody, over that of the biological parents.

She would have to reimburse the gay couple though, if she did terminate

As to substance abuse, then if the child then formed deffects, I am sure the gay couple could then sue the neglegent mother.

Anything else more stupid you would like to add?

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:42 am

Sue the mother for negligence??

So now she is the mother is she??

Make up your mind

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:44 am

smelly-bandit wrote:Sue the mother for negligence??

So now she is the mother is she??

Make up your mind

Yes the surrogate mother

Wow your desperation, after your embarrassing posts, really is a delight to see mate

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:46 am

So no comment on how you think a rapist can just turn up 9 months later and gain custody?

That was stupidity on epic proportions.

by 'Wolfie Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:39 am

.

smelly-bandit wrote:
It's not really a realistic scenario Walter.

Its a scenario that challenges your stupidity about how the birth mother isn't the biological mother.

No, SmellyFuckWitski... You're the stupid one here..

You do realise that some of the birth mothers DNA will cross over into the children.

Wrong again, SmellyKnowsNothingBumski... You really are a fuckwit,,

Secondly you avoid my other question.

If she isn't the biological mother as you insist, then why are you happy for her to abort the child??

You're an idiot.. A surrogate/would-be-birth mother who isn't the 'biological' mother who then aborts the foetus without any medical reason, would be in breach of contract, and could be sued, forced to return all monies paid plus costs, or be bankrupted if she failed to pay up..

What about substance abuse during the pregnancy??

There isn't a need for the surrogate to worry about keeping health or changing her lifestyle since according to you the child isn't hers, she is just the oven.

More total idiocy on your part, SmellyDumbFuckski -- as the need for a surrogate to maintain a reasonable level of health & wellbeing is normally part of a surrogacy agreement..

Happy with that??

How could any sane person be happy with your level of stoopodity, SmellyFoolsBumski ???

Good

.

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:37 am

Didge wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:Sue the mother for negligence??

So now she is the mother is she??

Make up your mind

Yes the surrogate mother

Wow your desperation, after your embarrassing posts, really is a delight to see mate

Her body her choice

Abortion or substance abuse

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:25 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
gelico wrote:

of course she is

say what?

the other woman in question in the OP wasn;t because it wasn't her egg in the first place.

all very technical maybe but can hardly be compared to what you were saying

So why is she allowed to abort it?

If it's not hers why would she be allowed to abort it??

she didnt abort it she had to give it to the gay couple

you have raised an interesting point though

i dont think that that particular case has happened (yet) but you're saying ''what if?''

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:29 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Didge wrote:

Yes the surrogate mother

Wow your desperation, after your embarrassing posts, really is a delight to see mate

Her body her choice

Abortion or substance abuse

Both

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:19 pm

gelico wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

So why is she allowed to abort it?

If it's not hers why would she be allowed to abort it??

she didnt abort it she had to give it to the gay couple

you have raised an interesting point though

i dont think that that particular case has happened (yet) but you're saying ''what if?''

Precisely

Everyone on here is supporting the judges decision and claiming that she has no claim to the child.

So If that is true then how do the "pro choice" hate mob reconcile that??

It's places the idea that this baby belongs to other people directly in the path of pro choice beliefs.

If she doesn't have a claim to the child then she shouldn't be allowed to abort it.

That however violates the pro choice stance.

Same thing with substance abuse. Is she allowed to smoke and drink during the pregnancy??

Her body her choice

I'm interested to hear an opinion on this from someone who supports the judges stance.

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:24 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
gelico wrote:

she didnt abort it she had to give it to the gay couple

you have raised an interesting point though

i dont think that that particular case has happened (yet) but you're saying ''what if?''

Precisely

Everyone on here is supporting the judges decision and claiming that she has no claim to the child.

So If that is true then how do the "pro choice" hate mob reconcile that??

It's places the idea that this baby belongs to other people directly in the path of pro choice beliefs.

If she doesn't have a claim to the child then she shouldn't be allowed to abort it.

That however violates the pro choice stance.

Same thing with substance abuse. Is she allowed to smoke and drink during the pregnancy??

Her body her choice

I'm interested to hear an opinion on this from someone who supports the judges stance.

And we are back to smelly's ignorance on biology

Because a woman has a right to decide over what she carries.

You seemed to be suggesting that someone is forced to carry something against their wish

The typical mindset of the pro-lifer argument.

Typically from people who have no problem on the sanction taking of life elsewhere

So why do you think someone should be forced to carry something against their will?

The baby belongs to the biological parents, once born

The surrogate mother is not the biological mother and if she decided to cease her contract, she would be rightly sued.

Its not rocket science and in fact there has been cases where the surrogate mothers have been asked to abort and in each case have refused

Or did you not know this?

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:49 pm

Didge wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Precisely

Everyone on here is supporting the judges decision and claiming that she has no claim to the child.

So If that is true then how do the "pro choice" hate mob reconcile that??

It's places the idea that this baby belongs to other people directly in the path of pro choice beliefs.

If she doesn't have a claim to the child then she shouldn't be allowed to abort it.

That however violates the pro choice stance.

Same thing with substance abuse. Is she allowed to smoke and drink during the pregnancy??

Her body her choice

I'm interested to hear an opinion on this from someone who supports the judges stance.

And we are back to smelly's ignorance on biology

Because a woman has a right to decide over what she carries.

You seemed to be suggesting that someone is forced to carry something against their wish

The typical mindset of the pro-lifer argument.

Typically from people who have no problem on the sanction taking of life elsewhere

So why do you think someone should be forced to carry something against their will?

The baby belongs to the biological parents, once born

The surrogate mother is not the biological mother and if she decided to cease her contract, she would be rightly sued.

Its not rocket science and in fact there has been cases where the surrogate mothers have been asked to abort and in each case have refused

Or did you not know this?

so is the surrogate ok to take drugs and drink copious amounts of alcohol while carrying a child (which is not hers?)

what if she kills the baby while in the womb with her actions?

her body her choice?

what if she develops a phobia about giving birth and has a termination due to that?

her body her choice?

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:53 pm

gelico wrote:
Didge wrote:

And we are back to smelly's ignorance on biology

Because a woman has a right to decide over what she carries.

You seemed to be suggesting that someone is forced to carry something against their wish

The typical mindset of the pro-lifer argument.

Typically from people who have no problem on the sanction taking of life elsewhere

So why do you think someone should be forced to carry something against their will?

The baby belongs to the biological parents, once born

The surrogate mother is not the biological mother and if she decided to cease her contract, she would be rightly sued.

Its not rocket science and in fact there has been cases where the surrogate mothers have been asked to abort and in each case have refused

Or did you not know this?

so is the surrogate ok to take drugs and drink copious amounts of alcohol while carrying a child (which is not hers?)

what if she kills the baby while in the womb with her actions?

her body her choice?

what if she develops a phobia about giving birth and has a termination due to that?

her body her choice?

Well what happens when a biological mother does substance abuse?

Well, what did I say earlier on this?

So what happens if a biological mother has a misscarrige due to missue?

Take your time on that

That the biological parents would be able to sue the surrogate mother.

Yes her body and yes her choice, which comes with consquences

Not rocket science, is it?

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:56 pm

Also this might help some understand the ridiculous arguments they are making

https://surrogate.com/intended-parents/how-to-find-a-surrogate-mother/how-are-surrogate-mothers-screened/

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:26 pm

Didge wrote:
gelico wrote:

so is the surrogate ok to take drugs and drink copious amounts of alcohol while carrying a child (which is not hers?)

what if she kills the baby while in the womb with her actions?

her body her choice?

what if she develops a phobia about giving birth and has a termination due to that?

her body her choice?

That the biological parents would be able to sue the surrogate mother.

would they though?

what if surrogate claimed depression and mental health issues was the cause of drug/alcohol abuse?

surely as a victim of depression she would not be sued?

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:37 pm

gelico wrote:
Didge wrote:

That the biological parents would be able to sue the surrogate mother.

would they though?

what if surrogate claimed depression and mental health issues was the cause of drug/alcohol abuse?

surely as a victim of depression she would not be sued?

Well that would be up to a judge to decide

The biological parents would still be able to sue the surrogate mother

Then tell me how she was able to apply as a surrogate mother with depression?

Anymore ridiculous strawman arguments you want to make here?

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:44 pm

Didge wrote:
gelico wrote:

would they though?

what if surrogate claimed depression and mental health issues was the cause of drug/alcohol abuse?

surely as a victim of depression she would not be sued?

Well that would be up to a judge to decide

The biological parents would still be able to sue the surrogate mother

Then tell me how she was able to apply as a surrogate mother with depression?

Anymore ridiculous strawman arguments you want to make here?

not depression when applied to be surrogate but after the pregnancy

depression can hit anyone at anytime

so therefore if the surrogate claimed depression and the child died because of that then the biological parents could do nothing. they couldn't sue unless it could actually be proved that she had deliberately done that which would be nigh on impossible

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:49 pm

gelico wrote:
Didge wrote:

Well that would be up to a judge to decide

The biological parents would still be able to sue the surrogate mother

Then tell me how she was able to apply as a surrogate mother with depression?

Anymore ridiculous strawman arguments you want to make here?

not depression when applied to be surrogate but after the pregnancy

depression can hit anyone at anytime

so therefore if the surrogate claimed depression and the child died because of that then the biological parents could do nothing. they couldn't sue unless it could actually be proved that she had deliberately done that which would be nigh on impossible

So your argument is that she only had depression after she took the contract

Wow, yeah the judge is really going to believe that.

She would need to prove this by doctors, not only ones for herself, but the plantifs would be able to have their own doctors examine here. They would also re-check medical history to see if she had lied on her medical health.

Also even if by the remote chance she did start to suffer with depression, is irrelevant

She made a contract, and she failed to deliver on that contract

She can easily be sued. She would have to pay back the money she obtained from the contract. Then it would be down to the judge whether he would decide also that she pays more on top

So you show me the law based on mental health stating that nobody can sue someone with depression?

Anymore ridiculous arguments

Maybe you can tell me whether smelly would have batted an eyelid on this, if this had been hetrosexual parents winning custody, where the father was the biological parent?

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:04 pm

Didge wrote:
gelico wrote:

not depression when applied to be surrogate but after the pregnancy

depression can hit anyone at anytime

so therefore if the surrogate claimed depression and the child died because of that then the biological parents could do nothing. they couldn't sue unless it could actually be proved that she had deliberately done that which would be nigh on impossible

So your argument is that she only had depression after she took the contract

Wow, yeah the judge is really going to believe that.

She would need to prove this by doctors, not only ones for herself, but the plantifs would be able to have their own doctors examine here. They would also re-check medical history to see if she had lied on her medical health.

Also even if by the remote chance she did start to suffer with depression, is irrelevant

She made a contract, and she failed to deliver on that contract

She can easily be sued. She would have to pay back the money she obtained from the contract. Then it would be down to the judge whether he would decide also that she pays more on top

So you show me the law based on mental health stating that nobody can sue someone with depression?

Anymore ridiculous arguments

Maybe you can tell me whether smelly would have batted an eyelid on this, if this had been hetrosexual parents winning custody, where the father was the biological parent?

judges believe all sorts

and if it was a sudden onset of depression there would be no medical history regarding that obviously.

she could of course visit the doctor and state how she feels

depression makes people do all sorts of crazy things that they wouldn't normally do and she could simply claim that she wasn't in her right mind and found she couldn;t cope with it (even if the reality was that she had simply changed her mind and wanted a route out of the situation)

why would i be answering questions about smelly?

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:09 pm

gelico wrote:
Didge wrote:

So your argument is that she only had depression after she took the contract

Wow, yeah the judge is really going to believe that.

She would need to prove this by doctors, not only ones for herself, but the plantifs would be able to have their own doctors examine here. They would also re-check medical history to see if she had lied on her medical health.

Also even if by the remote chance she did start to suffer with depression, is irrelevant

She made a contract, and she failed to deliver on that contract

She can easily be sued. She would have to pay back the money she obtained from the contract. Then it would be down to the judge whether he would decide also that she pays more on top

So you show me the law based on mental health stating that nobody can sue someone with depression?

Anymore ridiculous arguments

Maybe you can tell me whether smelly would have batted an eyelid on this, if this had been hetrosexual parents winning custody, where the father was the biological parent?

judges believe all sorts

and if it was a sudden onset of depression there would be no medical history regarding that obviously.

she could of course visit the doctor and state how she feels

depression makes people do all sorts of crazy things that they wouldn't normally do and she could simply claim that she wasn't in her right mind and found she couldn;t cope with it (even if the reality was that she had simply changed her mind and wanted a route out of the situation)

why would i be answering questions about smelly?

All I read was blah, blah strawman, blah blah.

Again show me the law that states someone cannot be sued due to depression?

You said this could not happen

That was abolsolute drivel

Again if the fetus was lost due to substance abuse, it would then be down to the judge whether the depression was a mitigating factor.

For example, if she has not reported these problems to the doctor, then she has hidden information and placed the fetus at risk

If she has reported this and then does nothing to help her problem, what do you think the judge is going to rule in favour of?

Again surrogate mothers go through a screening process, which its seems you were unaware of

The fact is here, is whether the Gay biological father has custody of the child

He does

End off discussion

You want to debate strawmans off this, find someone else to pander to such silliness

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:11 pm

no valid comeback so just call it a strawman

thank you didge

at least you proved that you dont know as much as you like to think you do

yaaay

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:12 pm

gelico wrote:

no valid comeback so just call it a strawman

thank you didge

at least you proved that you dont know as much as you like to think you do

yaaay

I suggest you go to specsavers, if you think I did not answer your points (even though you evaded mine) as well as evening college

Good luck with that

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:35 pm

the sperm donors would not be able to sue the mother

her body her choice, she is perfectly entitled to abuse any and all substances during the pregnancy, to suggest that she could be sued is to suggest that she is not allowed to do as she pleases with HER BODY.

i mean didge you're just an utter buffoon to suggest that she can abort the child but she cant abuse substances , its like you're trying to stretch yourself to cover all arguments

either she has complete choice over her body or she doesn't??

which is it??

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:39 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:the sperm donors would not be able to sue the mother

her body her choice, she is perfectly entitled to abuse any and all substances during the pregnancy, to suggest that she could be sued is to suggest that she is not allowed to do as she pleases with HER BODY.

i mean didge you're just an utter buffoon to suggest that she can abort the child but she cant abuse substances , its like you're trying to stretch yourself to cover all arguments

either she has complete choice over her body or she doesn't??

which is it??

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

by Guest Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:43 pm

Didge wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:the sperm donors would not be able to sue the mother

her body her choice, she is perfectly entitled to abuse any and all substances during the pregnancy, to suggest that she could be sued is to suggest that she is not allowed to do as she pleases with HER BODY.

i mean didge you're just an utter buffoon to suggest that she can abort the child but she cant abuse substances , its like you're trying to stretch yourself to cover all arguments

either she has complete choice over her body or she doesn't??

which is it??

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"

by Sponsored content