thegeneral 2,944 Posted July 20, 2023 1 minute ago, seafoam1 said: And you are gay. No surprises... Peefoam def has a low trafficked Grindr account. Sorry Bud, keep trying! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seafoam1 2,805 Posted July 20, 2023 6 minutes ago, thegeneral said: Peefoam def has a low trafficked Grindr account. Sorry Bud, keep trying! The truth hurts you. Be like gutterpedo and mdcack and get out of the closet. You'll feel better corky. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GutterBoy 2,898 Posted July 20, 2023 1 minute ago, seafoam1 said: The truth hurts you. Be like gutterpedo and mdcack and get out of the closet. You'll feel better corky. This isn't middle school. You can stop accusing everyone of being gay. Enough Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thegeneral 2,944 Posted July 20, 2023 Just now, seafoam1 said: The truth hurts you. Be like gutterpedo and mdcack and get out of the closet. You'll feel better corky. Your interest in my love life, while sweet, is unwelcomed! Keep me out of your thoughts creepo! TIA Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hawkeye21 2,382 Posted July 21, 2023 2 hours ago, League Champion said: Am I missing something here? Hasn't this been a thing for decades now? Straight and gay couples do this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squistion 1,960 Posted July 21, 2023 2 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said: I'm I missing something here? Hasn't this been a thing for decades now? Straight and gay couples do this. No, but he certainly is. This homophobic tweet is just another excuse to bash LGBTQ folks and present them as evil. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GutterBoy 2,898 Posted July 21, 2023 Wow, she's a real gem Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
League Champion 1,896 Posted July 21, 2023 3 minutes ago, GutterBoy said: Wow, she's a real gem TRIGGERED? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 14,964 Posted July 21, 2023 My ruling on this is if the baby was not provided life saving treatment as per request, then yes, this couple is responsible for it’s death, amongst others. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheNewGirl 1,357 Posted July 21, 2023 The procedure used to birth the baby may not have been specified because there are a few things they can do. If they induce, which is done via certain drugs causes contractions in the uterus, baby is burned. Now, if they only used drugs that simply dilate the cervix, these are used moreso in actual abortions. So, if they tell you what drugs she used for birthing the baby, they will make assumptions on the outcome. Stating that she got to hold him, and he died shortly after (to me, as a woman) implies that it was an induction of a baby that wasn't developed enough (probably lungs) to live. Life saving care could have included anything but the chances of a baby surviving at 25 weeks is incredibly low. They didn't wan their DNA out there (this implies that one of the men supplied the sperm) with her raising the child. They didn't want to keep the baby because he now has "cancer genes" or whatever? Well, then perhaps they shouldn't do this again, because you really don't know if you have "cancer" genes even if one of your parents dies from it. I guess it depends on the contract she signed and how legal it was for them to tell her to terminate/induce early, knowing that the baby's chances of living were VERY slim. What if he lived? Would they still not want him because of the cancer gene? Would they still not allow her to keep the baby? Would they actually choose to purposely kill the baby if he had survived and not needed life saving methods? The other issue I have is that they clearly were all about it being THEIR baby, so the mother's choices or decisions didn't matter; kind of removing her power of choice. If that's what the future of surrogacy is, then yes...surrogacy can be a much more slippery slope, down to controlling what the woman does; exercise, food, etc. Perhaps they shouldn't use surrogacy if they feel the need to terminate a pregnancy that doesn't meet their expectations (would they also terminate if they discovered it has Downs Syndrome)? And perhaps she shouldn't have been a surrogate because her choices and decisions were completely removed when it came to the baby and she wasn't happy about that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
League Champion 1,896 Posted July 21, 2023 MAYBE A DINGO ATE YOUR BABY 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thegeneral 2,944 Posted July 21, 2023 This thread should be aborted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
League Champion 1,896 Posted July 21, 2023 1 minute ago, thegeneral said: This thread should be aborted. Without question Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thegeneral 2,944 Posted July 21, 2023 5 minutes ago, League Champion said: Without question I was glad to see the OP backed away from the idea that this is some reason why gays should be banned from using surrogates. Other than that this thread was a train wreck. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimHauck 2,629 Posted July 21, 2023 2 minutes ago, thegeneral said: I was glad to see the OP backed away from the idea that this is some reason why gays should be banned from using surrogates. Other than that this thread was a train wreck. Too bad he didn’t back away from the unsubstantiated claim that the couple “ordered lifesaving care be withheld” Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thegeneral 2,944 Posted July 21, 2023 2 minutes ago, TimHauck said: Too bad he didn’t back away from the unsubstantiated claim that the couple “ordered lifesaving care be withheld” He pretty much tapped out and left Roger there Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimHauck 2,629 Posted July 21, 2023 1 minute ago, thegeneral said: He pretty much tapped out and left Roger there Had to get to Atlanta Braves practice Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimHauck 2,629 Posted July 21, 2023 3 hours ago, TheNewGirl said: The procedure used to birth the baby may not have been specified because there are a few things they can do. If they induce, which is done via certain drugs causes contractions in the uterus, baby is burned. Now, if they only used drugs that simply dilate the cervix, these are used moreso in actual abortions. So, if they tell you what drugs she used for birthing the baby, they will make assumptions on the outcome. Stating that she got to hold him, and he died shortly after (to me, as a woman) implies that it was an induction of a baby that wasn't developed enough (probably lungs) to live. Life saving care could have included anything but the chances of a baby surviving at 25 weeks is incredibly low. They didn't wan their DNA out there (this implies that one of the men supplied the sperm) with her raising the child. They didn't want to keep the baby because he now has "cancer genes" or whatever? Well, then perhaps they shouldn't do this again, because you really don't know if you have "cancer" genes even if one of your parents dies from it. I guess it depends on the contract she signed and how legal it was for them to tell her to terminate/induce early, knowing that the baby's chances of living were VERY slim. What if he lived? Would they still not want him because of the cancer gene? Would they still not allow her to keep the baby? Would they actually choose to purposely kill the baby if he had survived and not needed life saving methods? The other issue I have is that they clearly were all about it being THEIR baby, so the mother's choices or decisions didn't matter; kind of removing her power of choice. If that's what the future of surrogacy is, then yes...surrogacy can be a much more slippery slope, down to controlling what the woman does; exercise, food, etc. Perhaps they shouldn't use surrogacy if they feel the need to terminate a pregnancy that doesn't meet their expectations (would they also terminate if they discovered it has Downs Syndrome)? And perhaps she shouldn't have been a surrogate because her choices and decisions were completely removed when it came to the baby and she wasn't happy about that. I’ve seen some people online claim that the survival rate at 25 weeks is 80% but I would assume if that’s actually accurate that it’s lower for mothers getting treated for cancer. Of course we don’t know the answers to the questions in your third paragraph. The second paragraph to me just becomes a pretty typical abortion debate. Unfortunately many couples will terminate a pregnancy (as long as legal within the state) if they find out it has health issues. Heck my brother-in-law and his wife are probably the most right-wing people I know and said they would do that (they just had a baby last year). What we also don’t really know here is if the couple’s concern was only that they didn’t want a baby with potential health issues. Maybe they were concerned with the health of the surrogate mother and didn’t want it on their conscience if something happened to her while trying to have their baby, even if she wanted to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seafoam1 2,805 Posted July 21, 2023 But liberals fight day and night for the right to kill babies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
League Champion 1,896 Posted July 21, 2023 1 hour ago, seafoam1 said: But liberals fight day and night for the right to kill babies. Agree, why should they give a crap about a dead baby? It's par for the course when you're a Democrat Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimHauck 2,629 Posted July 28, 2023 On 7/20/2023 at 7:23 PM, thegeneral said: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
