Happy New Year!
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I've never heard of anywhere attaching electrodes to people's testicles, are you sure he wasn't just messing you? :/
No, it's true. They do it in animals all the time, it's called electro-ejaculation. Except the electrodes usually go, uh... someplace else.
Be not afraid...
Happy New Year!
...
Well so there is.
hashtagsarestupid
@ Blue Ninja, Navy. She is going to be a computer engineer for them. Though to what capacity, I'm not sure yet. She has her degree so they can pretty much throw her anywhere.
@ Hidden Faced Matt. Forgive me if I find such totalitarian thinking dangerous. Rarely is life safe in terms of black and white.
Electro-ejaculation was pioneered in animals, but used for humans. For example, men with various health problems that inhibited them from being able to ejaculate or ejaculate enough. It's far safer for the man to use and electrode then to go in and take the sperm through surgery. And it's also now a fetish, so there are people wanking off to that stuff regardless of procreation.
"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc
Happy New Year!
I just got off from pulling an all pulling an all nighter helping out at north shore birthing centre when I read this headline on today's daily telegraph
.
In transferring the guardianship of the child to the two men, a Supreme Court judge was satisfied the pregnancy wasn't the result of an illegal commercial agreement and that the woman who carried the baby wasn't paid to do so.
The child, born in April, 2010, now has the two Sydney men as parents, with the birth mother agreeing to no longer be recognised on the birth certificate.
The judgment was handed down in the Supreme Court last month, with Justice Paul Brereton noting it was "the first application under the Act of which I am aware in which in the intended parents are a same sex couple".
The Surrogacy Act, brought into effect last year, imposes penalties of up to two years jail or a $110,000 fine for people found to have entered into a commercial surrogacy arrangement where a woman is paid to carry a child for a couple who cannot sustain their own pregnancy.
Altruistic surrogacy, when a woman isn't paid for the pregnancy except for medical expenses, is rare but permitted in NSW - with the new legislation intended to make it easier for parentage to be transferred.
Same-sex couples and singles are banned from using altruistic surrogacy in Western and South Australia but it's believed only one in 20 couples who want to use a surrogate do so in Australia, with most having babies born through a foreign surrogate.
"I am satisfied that, having regard to the surrogacy arrangement, and the care arrangements for the child since birth, the making of the parentage order would be in the best interests of the child," Justice Brereton said.
"It would be appropriate to make a parentage order."
The court was told that - as the trio had entered into a "pre-commencement surrogacy arrangement" - they didn't need to seek legal advice before the pregnancy began.
Sam Everingham, president of Surrogacy Australia, hailed the decision as a "landmark" and said the couple were "very lucky" to "receive the legal recognition and protection (of a family)".
"Most people who use a surrogate go their whole lives without being legal parents. It's part of the torment they go through, as most people cannot find a surrogate in Australia and have to go overseas," he said.
Ugh.
edited 1st Jun '12 4:07:01 AM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupid
Flying Dutchman
Hm. I see no reason why it's our responsibility to tell someone they can't have someone else's child. I could perhaps see regulating the practice (though I have no concept of how one would go about doing that), so as to protect poor women from being coerced into doing such things, but other than that I don't see how it's my place to tell someone they can't be someone else's baby momma if that's really what they want to do.
"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"
Happy New Year!
Perhaps. But I don't think we should endorse the lie that that kid doesn't have a mother.
hashtagsarestupid
Nemesis
How is this different from any other kind of adoption? I don't see the outrage.
A brighter future for a darker age.
Happy New Year!
They didn't just get have this kid adopted but got the birth certificate changed to declared this child has no mother and they themselves are the legal natural parents.
I have nothing against this couple, they just wanted a child to love which is only natural and they could be the worlds greatest parents for all I know. But they did not give birth to this kid and I'll be dam if i'm going to pretend otherwise.
edited 1st Jun '12 6:21:24 AM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupid
Nemesis
Changing the birth certificate is common in closed adoptions, at least in the US. Again, not seeing the outrage.
Why does it matter so much to you whether a child's physical parents are the ones listed?
edited 1st Jun '12 6:26:47 AM by Morven
A brighter future for a darker age.
Happy New Year!
Alas. It's a bit of a big no no over here.
hashtagsarestupid
Nemesis
Ah, cultural expectations then.
I don't personally agree with changing birth certificates — I think it invalidates their value as an actual record if we start recording on them what we wish the facts had been — but I'm not outraged by it.
A brighter future for a darker age.
Flying Dutchman
You are far too angry over what is ultimately a meaningless slight.
Though I would prefer they simply have the birth certificate list them as the legal parents from birth, with the biological mother listed as such.
"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"
Happy New Year!
i'm not angry, i'm just a little pissed off :/
edited 1st Jun '12 2:53:04 PM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupid
Flying Dutchman
And the functional difference between these two things is...?
"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"
Happy New Year!
anger is powerful but passing, being pissed slowly sucks the enjoyment out of life but doesn't actually do anything in the long run.
Why are you okay with it? If you don't mind me asking.
hashtagsarestupid
Flying Dutchman
With surrogate parentage? Well, assuming it's being done in a way that isn't taking advantage in a negative and coercive manner either the surrogate or the people who will eventually adopt the baby, I see it merely as a way for people who for whatever reason cannot or will not have their own children obtain a child anyhow, in a similar way to pre-arranged adoption. I, as always, would prefer they adopt a child already out there who needs a parent, but I don't think it's my place to stop them from doing this.
If you are referring to listing the adopting parents as the biological parents on a birth certificate, I don't really think that's a great idea, purely from a clerical standpoint.
"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"
Well, I doubt they're going to not have access to the relevant medical data from the woman that might effect the child's health. But adoptions and surrogacies are already structured so that the person giving up parental rights is often anonymous. The person usually doesn't want to be known by the child, because it would complicate their lives. The decision was made well in advance of the birth that the birth parent wouldn't be involved in raising the child.
As was done in this case. There's nothing legally hinky about it, and the mother wasn't intending to keep the child at any point at all. I don't see what this would piss you off, or why it would suck the enjoyment out of your life, given it doesn't actually effect you. This was legal, above board, and the child gets a good and loving home. What in this pisses you off?
Happy New Year!
I had to think a bit before I tried answering this question. I'm going to do the best I can:
Two men can not have children. I'm not making a moral statement here or speaking about my personal beliefs, it's just a biological fact. When we officially pretend otherwise in the name equal rights and social progression I feel we have lost sight of having to accept reality when it doesn't suit us.
We have the misfortune to live in the era of identity politics. Where an individual's right to personal recognition trumps all other rights and concerns.
These two men of course have every right to want to be seen and this kid's true and rightful parents by birth, and I can related to that. But that doesn't make it so.
hashtagsarestupid
But biology has nothing to do with adoption, Joey. That's like saying that a heterosexual couple doesn't have the right to be recognized as a child's legal parents, and that the woman who gave birth to the hypothetical child doesn't have a right to privacy.
And you didn't answer how this takes away from the enjoyment of your life. Because again, this situation doesn't personally affect you. Why do the decision of people you'll never meet take away from the enjoyment of your life, in pissing you off?
And hey, the personal rights in this situation doesn't actually trump anything else, because it looks like everyone in this situation actually agreed to it. Meaning no one's rights were trampled.
Flying Dutchman
I would say that it's important to list legal and birth parents separately merely because one may need to contact the actual mother for medical history purposes if the child gets sick.
Whining about "identity politics" screams ulterior motives to me, though, and I don't like it.
"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"
Happy New Year!
Okay I tried to be direct
I don't mind that them being have legal guardianship, but they are not the birth parents and should change the birth certificate to say so.
I whine about a lot of things that most people don't care for to be honest. It's too bad if you don't like what I am saying but I'm not forcing you to agree with me.
Sigh, but perhaps maybe you are right, perhaps I just find two men as a family unit offensive on some purely emotional gut level and I'm too proud to acknowledge it. I'm not as open minded As I like to think of myself as.
It a little like watching white boy rappers, no matter how good they are you still get a vague feeling what they are doing is wrong for some unexplained reason.
edited 7th Jun '12 1:19:40 PM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupid
Flying Dutchman
The child never gets a say, because the child is not a legal person.
I have no idea at all what this means, but I see an accusation of doing things "under the veil of" protecting gay rights, so I shall assume it's bad.
It a little like watching white boy rappers, no matter how good they are you still get a vague feeling what they are doing is wrong for some unexplained reason.
So I assumed correctly. The argument that homosexual parents are any worse than heterosexual parents has no basis in social science. You are in fact arguing straight from society-fostered bigotry. Though at least you are cognizant of that. Now fix it, and stop pretending like you have any other argument besides "ew gay people parenting."
And, no, I don't think that, because that's racist. You should probably reconsider that as well.
"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"
Happy New Year!
Touché.
I still hope that women plays a part in her child life however, regardless of what any birth certificate says.
hashtagsarestupid
The "driving it underground" point in the video is questionable, at best. Saying we are going to keep it legal because they will do it anyway is nothing short of appeasement. Either they are in the wrong, or they are not, and if they are in the wrong we should not give an inch; crack down on them.
edited 29th Nov '11 5:39:51 PM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart