She wouldn’t stop having babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legally speaking, they have no biological connection to the children, documents were forged and there is zero arguing those people are good for them. Other than money exchanged I don't know how legally or morally one could argue the Lewis' should be the parents.

Do you want a world in which children can be taken from their parents and biological siblings and given to whatever strangers a judge feels are "more fit"?

The twins belong with their parents and bio siblings. Any trauma they suffer from leaving the foster family is the result of a judge making a bad decision years ago.

Can you explain why you are identifying those people as “the parents” of the twins? What, specifically, makes them the parents?

They exist only because of this woman. She meticulously selected the egg and sperm donors, as well as the surrogate, at great financial cost. She had every intention of mothering these children until they were stolen from her because of bigotry. They were created to be her children.

All she did was special order human beings. That doesn’t make her the mother any more than me ordering a Ferrari makes me a race car driver.

How is this different than any same-sex couple that has a child via IVF? For gay male couples, at least one partner has no biological connection to the child. And for lesbian couples, unless they do reciprocal IVF, the same still applies. One of the parents is neither the carrier nor the bio parent.

You’re buying a baby. The law makes you a parent. In this case, the transaction was fraudulent. Easy.

IMO growing up in a mentally healthy and stable household is more important than growing up with blood siblings.

[Anonymous]

I couldn't stop reading this story. This is definitely a case where morals, ethics and the law collide to wreak total havoc.

There is no doubt that Mary Beth has an addiction of sorts to mothering infants. One could say it is inherently selfish because this unilateral decision-making adversely impacts all of the people in her life--her adult children, other young children, her husband, her grandchildren and now the lawyers, the foster family and youngest babies.

Ethically, one could question having babies you likely won't be able to parent to adulthood. Her decision to get pregnant despite the high risk of uterine rupture that would have potentially left her first 10 children without a mother. And then the lengths she went to (emotionally, financially, criminally) in order to have the last set of twins really demonstrates that this is a compulsion and not healthy for anyone involved.

And now she has created a situation that is downright tragic for everyone. No matter who "wins", everyone has been hurt. I do not envy the judge in this case and wish the best for those babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legally speaking, they have no biological connection to the children, documents were forged and there is zero arguing those people are good for them. Other than money exchanged I don't know how legally or morally one could argue the Lewis' should be the parents.

Do you want a world in which children can be taken from their parents and biological siblings and given to whatever strangers a judge feels are "more fit"?

The twins belong with their parents and bio siblings. Any trauma they suffer from leaving the foster family is the result of a judge making a bad decision years ago.

Can you explain why you are identifying those people as “the parents” of the twins? What, specifically, makes them the parents?

They exist only because of this woman. She meticulously selected the egg and sperm donors, as well as the surrogate, at great financial cost. She had every intention of mothering these children until they were stolen from her because of bigotry. They were created to be her children.

All she did was special order human beings. That doesn’t make her the mother any more than me ordering a Ferrari makes me a race car driver.

How is this different than any same-sex couple that has a child via IVF? For gay male couples, at least one partner has no biological connection to the child. And for lesbian couples, unless they do reciprocal IVF, the same still applies. One of the parents is neither the carrier nor the bio parent.

Yes, and that's unethical too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legally speaking, they have no biological connection to the children, documents were forged and there is zero arguing those people are good for them. Other than money exchanged I don't know how legally or morally one could argue the Lewis' should be the parents.

Do you want a world in which children can be taken from their parents and biological siblings and given to whatever strangers a judge feels are "more fit"?

The twins belong with their parents and bio siblings. Any trauma they suffer from leaving the foster family is the result of a judge making a bad decision years ago.

Can you explain why you are identifying those people as “the parents” of the twins? What, specifically, makes them the parents?

They exist only because of this woman. She meticulously selected the egg and sperm donors, as well as the surrogate, at great financial cost. She had every intention of mothering these children until they were stolen from her because of bigotry. They were created to be her children.

All she did was special order human beings. That doesn’t make her the mother any more than me ordering a Ferrari makes me a race car driver.

How is this different than any same-sex couple that has a child via IVF? For gay male couples, at least one partner has no biological connection to the child. And for lesbian couples, unless they do reciprocal IVF, the same still applies. One of the parents is neither the carrier nor the bio parent.

Yes, and that's unethical too.

sure, Jan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13 kids used to be common enough.

Because there was no birth control

No one wants 13 kids unless they are mentally ill

I grew up in a town where the average was 10 kids those mothers were forced to have those kids. 1960s Long Islabd Catholic dysfunctional homes physical abuse DV was common

+1
My great-grandmother had 17 kids of which 12 survived to adulthood. She was pregnant from age 16 when she got married until she finally had an emergency hysterectomy after her last child. Her doctors kept telling her to stop but her husband was relentless. It really scarred her daughters.

PP with the great-grandmother who had 16 births. I think it scarred her children too. Of the nine who lived to adulthood, only three had children; one son had one child, one daughter had one and my grandmother had two. It's strange and I've wondered if it was because of the experience of growing up with all these pregnancies as well as sibling deaths of several.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legally speaking, they have no biological connection to the children, documents were forged and there is zero arguing those people are good for them. Other than money exchanged I don't know how legally or morally one could argue the Lewis' should be the parents.

Do you want a world in which children can be taken from their parents and biological siblings and given to whatever strangers a judge feels are "more fit"?

The twins belong with their parents and bio siblings. Any trauma they suffer from leaving the foster family is the result of a judge making a bad decision years ago.

Can you explain why you are identifying those people as “the parents” of the twins? What, specifically, makes them the parents?

They exist only because of this woman. She meticulously selected the egg and sperm donors, as well as the surrogate, at great financial cost. She had every intention of mothering these children until they were stolen from her because of bigotry. They were created to be her children.

All she did was special order human beings. That doesn’t make her the mother any more than me ordering a Ferrari makes me a race car driver.

But legally, it does. The law on IVF and surrogacy is clear. She commit fraud, yes. And she’s facing criminal charges for that.

However, there has been no investigation into whether or not her other minor children should also be taken, so the courts really have no leg to stand on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legally speaking, they have no biological connection to the children, documents were forged and there is zero arguing those people are good for them. Other than money exchanged I don't know how legally or morally one could argue the Lewis' should be the parents.

Do you want a world in which children can be taken from their parents and biological siblings and given to whatever strangers a judge feels are "more fit"?

The twins belong with their parents and bio siblings. Any trauma they suffer from leaving the foster family is the result of a judge making a bad decision years ago.

Can you explain why you are identifying those people as “the parents” of the twins? What, specifically, makes them the parents?

They exist only because of this woman. She meticulously selected the egg and sperm donors, as well as the surrogate, at great financial cost. She had every intention of mothering these children until they were stolen from her because of bigotry. They were created to be her children.

All she did was special order human beings. That doesn’t make her the mother any more than me ordering a Ferrari makes me a race car driver.

But legally, it does. The law on IVF and surrogacy is clear. She commit fraud, yes. And she’s facing criminal charges for that.

However, there has been no investigation into whether or not her other minor children should also be taken, so the courts really have no leg to stand on.

She committed fraud with the original transaction that created these two babies which colors everything after that. If you fraudulently acquired a building permit, that doesn’t mean the structure you built gets to stay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legally speaking, they have no biological connection to the children, documents were forged and there is zero arguing those people are good for them. Other than money exchanged I don't know how legally or morally one could argue the Lewis' should be the parents.

Do you want a world in which children can be taken from their parents and biological siblings and given to whatever strangers a judge feels are "more fit"?

The twins belong with their parents and bio siblings. Any trauma they suffer from leaving the foster family is the result of a judge making a bad decision years ago.

Can you explain why you are identifying those people as “the parents” of the twins? What, specifically, makes them the parents?

They exist only because of this woman. She meticulously selected the egg and sperm donors, as well as the surrogate, at great financial cost. She had every intention of mothering these children until they were stolen from her because of bigotry. They were created to be her children.

All she did was special order human beings. That doesn’t make her the mother any more than me ordering a Ferrari makes me a race car driver.

But legally, it does. The law on IVF and surrogacy is clear. She commit fraud, yes. And she’s facing criminal charges for that.

However, there has been no investigation into whether or not her other minor children should also be taken, so the courts really have no leg to stand on.

She committed fraud with the original transaction that created these two babies which colors everything after that. If you fraudulently acquired a building permit, that doesn’t mean the structure you built gets to stay.

These are HUMAN BEINGS, not a structure.

We don't take children away if their mom lied about being on the pill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legally speaking, they have no biological connection to the children, documents were forged and there is zero arguing those people are good for them. Other than money exchanged I don't know how legally or morally one could argue the Lewis' should be the parents.

Do you want a world in which children can be taken from their parents and biological siblings and given to whatever strangers a judge feels are "more fit"?

The twins belong with their parents and bio siblings. Any trauma they suffer from leaving the foster family is the result of a judge making a bad decision years ago.

Can you explain why you are identifying those people as “the parents” of the twins? What, specifically, makes them the parents?

They exist only because of this woman. She meticulously selected the egg and sperm donors, as well as the surrogate, at great financial cost. She had every intention of mothering these children until they were stolen from her because of bigotry. They were created to be her children.

All she did was special order human beings. That doesn’t make her the mother any more than me ordering a Ferrari makes me a race car driver.

But legally, it does. The law on IVF and surrogacy is clear. She commit fraud, yes. And she’s facing criminal charges for that.

However, there has been no investigation into whether or not her other minor children should also be taken, so the courts really have no leg to stand on.

She committed fraud with the original transaction that created these two babies which colors everything after that. If you fraudulently acquired a building permit, that doesn’t mean the structure you built gets to stay.

These are HUMAN BEINGS, not a structure.

We don't take children away if their mom lied about being on the pill.

Except the babies have not been with her for two years. I have a 18 month old and it would be tragic for her to be taken from me at this point esp to a more unstable household (per her own children!). The dad doesn’t even want them. If the foster parents can give them a better life that’s all that matters at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legally speaking, they have no biological connection to the children, documents were forged and there is zero arguing those people are good for them. Other than money exchanged I don't know how legally or morally one could argue the Lewis' should be the parents.

Do you want a world in which children can be taken from their parents and biological siblings and given to whatever strangers a judge feels are "more fit"?

The twins belong with their parents and bio siblings. Any trauma they suffer from leaving the foster family is the result of a judge making a bad decision years ago.

Can you explain why you are identifying those people as “the parents” of the twins? What, specifically, makes them the parents?

They exist only because of this woman. She meticulously selected the egg and sperm donors, as well as the surrogate, at great financial cost. She had every intention of mothering these children until they were stolen from her because of bigotry. They were created to be her children.

All she did was special order human beings. That doesn’t make her the mother any more than me ordering a Ferrari makes me a race car driver.

But legally, it does. The law on IVF and surrogacy is clear. She commit fraud, yes. And she’s facing criminal charges for that.

However, there has been no investigation into whether or not her other minor children should also be taken, so the courts really have no leg to stand on.

She committed fraud with the original transaction that created these two babies which colors everything after that. If you fraudulently acquired a building permit, that doesn’t mean the structure you built gets to stay.

These are HUMAN BEINGS, not a structure.

We don't take children away if their mom lied about being on the pill.

Except the babies have not been with her for two years. I have a 18 month old and it would be tragic for her to be taken from me at this point esp to a more unstable household (per her own children!). The dad doesn’t even want them. If the foster parents can give them a better life that’s all that matters at this point.

That isn't all that matters. These are her children. She is the mother to their siblings. The state doesn't get to steal children from their parents and then because of the inevitable passage of time, claim that its horrific mistake does not matter because the children would be happier with the foster parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legally speaking, they have no biological connection to the children, documents were forged and there is zero arguing those people are good for them. Other than money exchanged I don't know how legally or morally one could argue the Lewis' should be the parents.

Do you want a world in which children can be taken from their parents and biological siblings and given to whatever strangers a judge feels are "more fit"?

The twins belong with their parents and bio siblings. Any trauma they suffer from leaving the foster family is the result of a judge making a bad decision years ago.

Can you explain why you are identifying those people as “the parents” of the twins? What, specifically, makes them the parents?

They exist only because of this woman. She meticulously selected the egg and sperm donors, as well as the surrogate, at great financial cost. She had every intention of mothering these children until they were stolen from her because of bigotry. They were created to be her children.

All she did was special order human beings. That doesn’t make her the mother any more than me ordering a Ferrari makes me a race car driver.

But legally, it does. The law on IVF and surrogacy is clear. She commit fraud, yes. And she’s facing criminal charges for that.

However, there has been no investigation into whether or not her other minor children should also be taken, so the courts really have no leg to stand on.

She committed fraud with the original transaction that created these two babies which colors everything after that. If you fraudulently acquired a building permit, that doesn’t mean the structure you built gets to stay.

These are HUMAN BEINGS, not a structure.

We don't take children away if their mom lied about being on the pill.

Except the babies have not been with her for two years. I have a 18 month old and it would be tragic for her to be taken from me at this point esp to a more unstable household (per her own children!). The dad doesn’t even want them. If the foster parents can give them a better life that’s all that matters at this point.

That isn't all that matters. These are her children. She is the mother to their siblings. The state doesn't get to steal children from their parents and then because of the inevitable passage of time, claim that its horrific mistake does not matter because the children would be happier with the foster parents.

This woman has serious mental health issues and is an unfit parent. Better for the kids to remain in a loving stable foster home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legally speaking, they have no biological connection to the children, documents were forged and there is zero arguing those people are good for them. Other than money exchanged I don't know how legally or morally one could argue the Lewis' should be the parents.

Do you want a world in which children can be taken from their parents and biological siblings and given to whatever strangers a judge feels are "more fit"?

The twins belong with their parents and bio siblings. Any trauma they suffer from leaving the foster family is the result of a judge making a bad decision years ago.

Can you explain why you are identifying those people as “the parents” of the twins? What, specifically, makes them the parents?

They exist only because of this woman. She meticulously selected the egg and sperm donors, as well as the surrogate, at great financial cost. She had every intention of mothering these children until they were stolen from her because of bigotry. They were created to be her children.

All she did was special order human beings. That doesn’t make her the mother any more than me ordering a Ferrari makes me a race car driver.

But legally, it does. The law on IVF and surrogacy is clear. She commit fraud, yes. And she’s facing criminal charges for that.

However, there has been no investigation into whether or not her other minor children should also be taken, so the courts really have no leg to stand on.

The law in NY state is the woman who gives birth is the legal parent until she relinquishes her rights and the court gives the baby to the couple. The court did, but rescinded it because it was obtained by fraud. The surrogate didn't want the kid, so it became a ward of the state.

And this is why it sho be illegal to create a kid for hire. Same result occurs if the presumptive parents die in an accident, or change their minds.

[Anonymous]

Everyone in this story sucks except the kids.

Mary Beth, the husband, the doctors, the fertility clinic, the attorney, the surrogate who agreed to it, the relative who notarized the forged signature, none of them would say NO. I get why the original judge wanted to see consequences of the actions but he sucked too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone in this story sucks except the kids.

Mary Beth, the husband, the doctors, the fertility clinic, the attorney, the surrogate who agreed to it, the relative who notarized the forged signature, none of them would say NO. I get why the original judge wanted to see consequences of the actions but he sucked too.

The foster family belongs on this list

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The hate for this woman is pure misogyny. If freedom of choice means anything, it mean that the court system (particularly the criminal justice system) shouldn't be used to punish a woman because we don't like her reproductive choices. There's zero evidence she's an unfit parent.

There is ample evidence she is an unfit parent. The entire article is evidence of it. She parentified her oldest children and treated her youngest ones as hobbies. She is continuing to prove herself unfit by fighting the foster parents for custody and making plans to change the names of TWO YEAR OLDS. She is utterly depraved.