Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To sum up: the interests of the birth parents trumped those of the baby or the biological parents. It's very sad.

I don't blame the birth parents for not *wanting* to give up the baby -- it's a heartbreaking situation they didn't ask for. But the only selfless people in this situation are the biological parents for putting the child first.

Why do you get to unilaterally decide the bond with the birth mother is less important than the bond with the biological parents the child never met? Would your answer be different if the child was white?

DP - Because nature. This is how the world works.

No. There are no donated embryos in "nature." Birth moms are moms, and the bond is physical and instinctual.

There are no donated embryos here either.

So you would also agree their are no nonconsensually implanted, not genetically related embryos in nature either, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

One more time:

The decision should be made based upon what’s best for the child, not what’s best for the moms.

Aren’t the two connected? There is an existing emotional bond between birth mother and baby that doesn’t exist with the biological mom.

Exactly! And we know this because the gestational mother said in a court filing that she’d really like to swap this baby for her own genetic child (who didn’t exist, it turns out).

Her supposed bond can’t be measured or proven but biological bonds can be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To sum up: the interests of the birth parents trumped those of the baby or the biological parents. It's very sad.

I don't blame the birth parents for not *wanting* to give up the baby -- it's a heartbreaking situation they didn't ask for. But the only selfless people in this situation are the biological parents for putting the child first.

Why do you get to unilaterally decide the bond with the birth mother is less important than the bond with the biological parents the child never met? Would your answer be different if the child was white?

DP - Because nature. This is how the world works.

No. There are no donated embryos in "nature." Birth moms are moms, and the bond is physical and instinctual.

There are no donated embryos here either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

One more time:

The decision should be made based upon what’s best for the child, not what’s best for the moms.

Aren’t the two connected? There is an existing emotional bond between birth mother and baby that doesn’t exist with the biological mom.

Exactly! And we know this because the gestational mother said in a court filing that she’d really like to swap this baby for her own genetic child (who didn’t exist, it turns out).

Her supposed bond can’t be measured or proven but biological bonds can be.

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

One more time:

The decision should be made based upon what’s best for the child, not what’s best for the moms.

Aren’t the two connected? There is an existing emotional bond between birth mother and baby that doesn’t exist with the biological mom.

Exactly! And we know this because the gestational mother said in a court filing that she’d really like to swap this baby for her own genetic child (who didn’t exist, it turns out).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To sum up: the interests of the birth parents trumped those of the baby or the biological parents. It's very sad.

I don't blame the birth parents for not *wanting* to give up the baby -- it's a heartbreaking situation they didn't ask for. But the only selfless people in this situation are the biological parents for putting the child first.

Why do you get to unilaterally decide the bond with the birth mother is less important than the bond with the biological parents the child never met? Would your answer be different if the child was white?

DP - Because nature. This is how the world works.

No. There are no donated embryos in "nature." Birth moms are moms, and the bond is physical and instinctual.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

One more time:

The decision should be made based upon what’s best for the child, not what’s best for the moms.

Aren’t the two connected? There is an existing emotional bond between birth mother and baby that doesn’t exist with the biological mom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

One more time:

The decision should be made based upon what’s best for the child, not what’s best for the moms.

Anonymous wrote:It's an awful situation. But if I had to go with which mom gets custody, I'd choose the birth mom. I'd have a much easier time donating an embryo than being a surrogate (not that I'd choose to do either).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To sum up: the interests of the birth parents trumped those of the baby or the biological parents. It's very sad.

I don't blame the birth parents for not *wanting* to give up the baby -- it's a heartbreaking situation they didn't ask for. But the only selfless people in this situation are the biological parents for putting the child first.

Why do you get to unilaterally decide the bond with the birth mother is less important than the bond with the biological parents the child never met? Would your answer be different if the child was white?

DP - Because nature. This is how the world works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To sum up: the interests of the birth parents trumped those of the baby or the biological parents. It's very sad.

I don't blame the birth parents for not *wanting* to give up the baby -- it's a heartbreaking situation they didn't ask for. But the only selfless people in this situation are the biological parents for putting the child first.

Why do you get to unilaterally decide the bond with the birth mother is less important than the bond with the biological parents the child never met? Would your answer be different if the child was white?

Anonymous wrote:To sum up: the interests of the birth parents trumped those of the baby or the biological parents. It's very sad.

I don't blame the birth parents for not *wanting* to give up the baby -- it's a heartbreaking situation they didn't ask for. But the only selfless people in this situation are the biological parents for putting the child first.