Case of disabled surrogate parent

[freejingerbeth]

I NEVER implied that I thought breaking the law was a potential sign she'd be a good parent. Never. What I said was that potentially it showed that she may have been committed to raising the child if she went through all that to bring the child about. Does thinking that mean that I agree with her? Is it not possible to play devil's advocate for a minute? Because that's all it was.

Okay, in the interest of fairness, I am going to put in my 2¢. I realize that many FJ posters dislike SL, for various reasons, but in this instance, I think an attack is unwarranted. She answered the question. She stated that she thought that the woman's willingness to break the law, to become a parent, could indicate a commitment to being a parent, and that if the woman was willing to go through all of that, to have a child, she also may have thought through the problems of taking care of said child. I would agree that strong commitment is one factor in being a good parent. And, while I also agree that in this instance, breaking the law to have a child, was selfish, I disagree that it is always wrong to circumvent the laws, for your children. One example that I can think of is taking your children out of the country, illegally, because you believe they are being abused. Additionally, comparing SL's statement to that of a bank robber, is a bit extreme, in that it also involves the use of violence and theft. FJ is getting really weird, lately. Sometimes, the posts read as if there are a pack of wild dogs, circling their prey and taking great delight in attacking. It's very uncomfortable; I feel like I am in middle school, all over again.

[Snarkylark]

Thank you for saying that. I appreciate it. I don't need to be right but I'd like to be understood for what I'm actually saying.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Having an intense desire to be a parent is a good thing....unless that desire is so strong that it eclipses common sense. I've seen situations where some lovely women had such bad baby lust that they wanted to disregard all the practical reasons that having a baby was not a good idea.

[OkToBeTakei]

Okay, in the interest of fairness, I am going to put in my 2¢. I realize that many FJ posters dislike SL, for various reasons, but in this instance, I think an attack is unwarranted. She answered the question. She stated that she thought that the woman's willingness to break the law, to become a parent, could indicate a commitment to being a parent, and that if the woman was willing to go through all of that, to have a child, she also may have thought through the problems of taking care of said child. I would agree that strong commitment is one factor in being a good parent. And, while I also agree that in this instance, breaking the law to have a child, was selfish, I disagree that it is always wrong to circumvent the laws, for your children. One example that I can think of is taking your children out of the country, illegally, because you believe they are being abused. Additionally, comparing SL's statement to that of a bank robber, is a bit extreme, in that it also involves the use of violence and theft. FJ is getting really weird, lately. Sometimes, the posts read as if there are a pack of wild dogs, circling their prey and taking great delight in attacking. It's very uncomfortable; I feel like I am in middle school, all over again.

I can see why you may think that. If you mean snarkylark that would be because this has been the fourth/fifth thread in which this has happened and whilst I can see your point the responses seem extreme to the original comment it might be useful to see it through the lens of the other threads where posters have shown incredible patience and taken time to explain and offer advice on posting style and content.( Myself included on a few occasions believe it or not.) I think patience is running low when the same asinine answers resurface each time. Maybe not specifically this thread but in general. Due to that it may be a case of give a dog a bad name and hang it or crying wolf too many times for snarkylark. Rest assured though many posters have tried to aid her in her postings on FJ, she either chooses to ignore or continues anyway regardless. It is what it is. My patience ran out way back when she sat her hat at anti-vaxxing and bigotry. *shrug*

[Terrie]

Okay, in the interest of fairness, I am going to put in my 2¢. I realize that many FJ posters dislike SL, for various reasons, but in this instance, I think an attack is unwarranted. She answered the question. She stated that she thought that the woman's willingness to break the law, to become a parent, could indicate a commitment to being a parent, and that if the woman was willing to go through all of that, to have a child, she also may have thought through the problems of taking care of said child. I would agree that strong commitment is one factor in being a good parent. And, while I also agree that in this instance, breaking the law to have a child, was selfish, I disagree that it is always wrong to circumvent the laws, for your children. One example that I can think of is taking your children out of the country, illegally, because you believe they are being abused. Additionally, comparing SL's statement to that of a bank robber, is a bit extreme, in that it also involves the use of violence and theft. FJ is getting really weird, lately. Sometimes, the posts read as if there are a pack of wild dogs, circling their prey and taking great delight in attacking. It's very uncomfortable; I feel like I am in middle school, all over again.

Hmmmm. I've been called a bitch before, but never a wild dog. :animals-dogrun: One of the things I loved about FJ, which keeps me coming back every time I drift away, is that there is tolerance for a large number of views -- provided you can present a solid argument for them. But it also requires a thick skin and has no tolerance for nonsense thinking.

Let's break down what happened.

Here's the post that started things:

Maybe, but maybe it also shows her commitment. I could see it both ways.

SL's statement is vague. She fails to say commitment to WHAT, nor does she explain what is meant by "both ways." As I have just stated that I feel the woman's actions point to her being to selfish to put a child first, the obvious conclusion is that the "other way" is the opposite of what I just stated -- that she would put the child's need first.

This was followed by this statement:

Yes. I agree that she went around the rules to get what she wanted. But I also think that it could possibly show that she's committed to the child and what it would take to raise it. Not that I agree at all. Just another way to look at it.

She confirms that she thinks the willingness to break the law could be a sign of this person being a worthwhile parent. Suddenly, SL doesn't "see it both ways." Now she is simply presenting "another way to look at it." Notice that she is now backing away from her previous stance, moving from neutral to "Oh, I agree with you, but...." (Also note, she has a history of pulling the "Just asking questions" tactic, claiming to agree with people here while making statements that are 180 from the stance she claims she actually has).

I then engaged in what I thought was an obvious bit of hyperbole, because the only commitment I see in breaking the law to get a kid is the involuntary hospitalization kind.

How in the world does bending and breaking laws designed to protect children show a commitment to a child? Would you suggest a bank robber shows commitment to his or her kids, because they are providing for them?

And don't hide behind "Well, I don't agree." YOU'RE the one who brought it up. Why do that if you think it's nonsense?

SL answered with:

I guess in a way, yes, you could say that. Doing whatever it takes to try to provide could show commitment. It doesn't mean it's the right thing to do or the right way or that I agree with it. I brought it up because I can see it both ways, regardless of whether I think she should have, which I don't. Someone who went through all the thought to bring about the child may have thought about how to provide for her after is what I was trying to say. Idk. I still want to know where all the money is coming from?

I get that SL was trying to answer the question, which is why I don't think she's a troll. but what she fails to realize (continually) is that this a very poorly constructed explanation. She suddenly brings in "Well, if she went this far to break the law and have a kid, she may have thought about providing for her." Which doesn't actually answer my question, because she fails to draw any connection between the two comments.The fact that someone spends large amounts of money to obtain something does not prove, on its own, that they will take good care of it.

Our conversation followed:

I NEVER implied that I thought breaking the law was a potential sign she'd be a good parent. Never. What I said was that potentially it showed that she may have been committed to raising the child if she went through all that to bring the child about. Does thinking that mean that I agree with her? Is it not possible to play devil's advocate for a minute? Because that's all it was.

Now, I don't know in what universe saying someone is a committed part is not saying they would be a good parent. She want to have it both ways. She wants to be able to "play devil's advocate" but not actually have to do the "Advocate" part and explain herself. She wants us to believe that she agrees with everyone here, while making statements that 100% contradict that.

AND EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION WITH HER IS LIKE THAT.

Sorry, but expecting people to have a basic level of skill in explaining themselves when they set themselves up as "devil's advocate" (in their own words) is not acting like wild dogs.

[Snarkylark]

So, Terrie, what exactly IS your question? Because I'm still not seeing it. Maybe it's a miscommunication, idk.

No, I don't think breaking the law makes you a good parent. I don't think I said that it did. My point was that if she went through so much to bring the child about, she may have thought about the results of her actions and how she was going to care for the child. That, of course, doesn't mean that she actually DID, but it's possible, right?

Sometimes you guys act like thinking about something or being able to see something another way means that the poster agrees with it. I don't think that's the case at all or that it has to be that way.

I re-read the whole convo you posted and I fail to see the issue. I truly do.

[Terrie]

So, Terrie, what exactly IS your question? Because I'm still not seeing it. Maybe it's a miscommunication, idk.

No, I don't think breaking the law makes you a good parent. I don't think I said that it did. My point was that if she went through so much to bring the child about, she may have thought about the results of her actions and how she was going to care for the child. That, of course, doesn't mean that she actually DID, but it's possible, right?

Sometimes you guys act like thinking about something or being able to see something another way means that the poster agrees with it. I don't think that's the case at all or that it has to be that way.

I re-read the whole convo you posted and I fail to see the issue. I truly do.

Serious question. Is English not your first language? i ask because English is notorious for being a precise and low-context language, which means poor word choice can results in saying something you don't mean.

[Snarkylark]

100% English speaking. Although I remember my kindergarten teacher also asked me if I understood English. I didn't know what that meant at the time. So again, what exactly IS your question? Or if anyone else can help me with what the question is....

[Terrie]

:angry-banghead:

[Eighth-of-eleven]

:angry-banghead:

Breath Terrie, I am getting a picture of SL crouched under a bridge somewhere in a mythical country typing on a computer chisled out of stone...

Edit, cause I can't spell terrie. ;-)

[formergothardite]

100% English speaking. Although I remember my kindergarten teacher also asked me if I understood English. I didn't know what that meant at the time. So again, what exactly IS your question? Or if anyone else can help me with what the question is....

Just an FYI, constantly playing the devil's advocate is annoying as hell. Instead of doing all the "well I don't agree with it BUT..." stuff like you do in threads all the time, why don't you just stick to what you actually believe?

Terrie said that someone is is willing to skirt laws to get something they want isn't an indication that the person is willing to make the needed sacrifices that are necessary to put a child first. You responded that breaking the law could show commitment to raising the child. I think what Terrie wants to know is how breaking the law could be a sign that she is committed to the child's best interest and not to her own best interest. Can you answer that?

[Snarkylark]

It's most definitely to her OWN best interest, not that of the child's. I didn't mean to imply that by breaking the law I thought she'd be a good parent. What I was trying to say was that since she did go through all that to bring about the child, that I could potentially see that she may have thought about what would happen when she actually had the child to take care of. I don't know whether she did or not or what her plans were after but I definitely don't think it's fair to the child or in the child's best interests. At all.

[freejingerbeth]

I need to take care of my dog, who was just diagnosed with pancreatitis, so I do not have the patience or time, right now, to snip all of the quotes above, and respond. I will do the best I can, in a more expedient way.

Regarding your statement that "just another way to look at it," indicates that she was backing away from seeing both sides: I disagree. I believe she was just trying to answer her side of the devil's advocate arguement. I don't think it meant that she no longer saw it, both ways.

Regarding the statement, "How in the world does bending the laws designed to protect children, show a committment to a child?", and her subsequent response that she thought that providing for a child, could show a committment: I admit that I misread that, last night. You are right. Spending wild amounts of money, to have a child is not necessarily an indicator of the ability to parent. As an aside, I disagree with your statement that the only committment breaking the law to get a child, is the involuntary hospitalization kind. There are laws around the world that purport to protect children, but in fact, don't. If I thought my child was in danger, or, was going to be removed from my life because I was divorcing my husband, in a country where women have no rights, I can see myself breaking the law.

My comment about the wild dogs was made out of frustration about the tone of FJ, in general, lately. I don't post as often as others on this board, so I know that my irritation with SL, is not as great. However, even though SL is not very clear, I can still usually infer what she is trying to say. I don't feel the need to nitpick at every unclear statement. I would rather just move on, with the conversation. Maybe that is what Happy Atheist was getting at, when she said we should just ignore her. I also noticed that her most current post backtracks from everything she said, last night. So, I am now confused, as well. Currently, FJ seems to be vacillating between two extremes. The first extreme engages in constantly attacking others who do not possess the same debating or writing skills, as other more experienced posters. The second extreme seems to have no concept of the purpose of FJ, especially in the Duggar Forum. Nowhere in that purpose statement, does it say that the purpose of FJ is to discuss the damage to society caused by creatively spelling your child's name, selecting a pistachio green bridesmaid's dress, as opposed to a coral bridesmaid's dress, or not snapping back to your original body shape, after having your first child. At least staying in the same zip code, as the purpose statement, would be appreciated. World of Snark was one of the few places left that provided intelligent conversation, without all of the bickering, or statements about people usually seen only in tabloids. Is there a way that the two extreme sides could find a way to meet in the middle, so that we can get back to having fun?

[Snarkylark]

"Just an FYI, constantly playing the devil's advocate is annoying as hell. Instead of doing all the "well I don't agree with it BUT..." stuff like you do in threads all the time, why don't you just stick to what you actually believe?"

Idk. I guess it's just a way of making conversation and a way of thinking things through for me. I will keep that in mind. I really am trying to get along with you all, not stir up trouble. I understand why some of you feel the way you do about me. I did go back and read the rules and SOTDRT and that helped. I hadn't read them before because like I said I had lurked and stayed over in the Duggar threads and didn't pick up on any of this other stuff so never really thought I needed to. If I could start over....

[Terrie]

I need to take care of my dog, who was just diagnosed with pancreatitis, so I do not have the patience or time, right now, to snip all of the quotes above, and respond. I will do the best I can, in a more expedient way.

Regarding your statement that "just another way to look at it," indicates that she was backing away from seeing both sides: I disagree. I believe she was just trying to answer her side of the devil's advocate arguement. I don't think it meant that she no longer saw it, both ways.

Regarding the statement, "How in the world does bending the laws designed to protect children, show a committment to a child?", and her subsequent response that she thought that providing for a child, could show a committment: I admit that I misread that, last night. You are right. Spending wild amounts of money, to have a child is not necessarily an indicator of the ability to parent. As an aside, I disagree with your statement that the only committment breaking the law to get a child, is the involuntary hospitalization kind. There are laws around the world that purport to protect children, but in fact, don't. If I thought my child was in danger, or, was going to be removed from my life because I was divorcing my husband, in a country where women have no rights, I can see myself breaking the law.

My comment about the wild dogs was made out of frustration about the tone of FJ, in general, lately. I don't post as often as others on this board, so I know that my irritation with SL, is not as great. However, even though SL is not very clear, I can still usually infer what she is trying to say. I don't feel the need to nitpick at every unclear statement. I would rather just move on, with the conversation. Maybe that is what Happy Atheist was getting at, when she said we should just ignore her. I also noticed that her most current post backtracks from everything she said, last night. So, I am now confused, as well.

Eh, we all get frustrated sometimes. :) No worries! And, yeah, Happy atheist is right. Time to just ignore her.

[VelociRapture]

My comment about the wild dogs was made out of frustration about the tone of FJ, in general, lately. I don't post as often as others on this board, so I know that my irritation with SL, is not as great. However, even though SL is not very clear, I can still usually infer what she is trying to say. I don't feel the need to nitpick at every unclear statement. I would rather just move on, with the conversation. Maybe that is what Happy Atheist was getting at, when she said we should just ignore her. I also noticed that her most current post backtracks from everything she said, last night. So, I am now confused, as well. Currently, FJ seems to be vacillating between two extremes. The first extreme engages in constantly attacking others who do not possess the same debating or writing skills, as other more experienced posters. The second extreme seems to have no concept of the purpose of FJ, especially in the Duggar Forum. Nowhere in that purpose statement, does it say that the purpose of FJ is to discuss the damage to society caused by creatively spelling your child's name, selecting a pistachio green bridesmaid's dress, as opposed to a coral bridesmaid's dress, or not snapping back to your original body shape, after having your first child. At least staying in the same zip code, as the purpose statement, would be appreciated. World of Snark was one of the few places left that provided intelligent conversation, without all of the bickering, or statements about people usually seen only in tabloids. Is there a way that the two extreme sides could find a way to meet in the middle, so that we can get back to having fun?

I think a big issue lately was the fact that there was a big influx of new posters - myself included - over the past year. A lot of these new people had trouble trying to adjust to the normal tone used around here. I admit to having initial problems myself, but I like to think I adapted quickly enough - part of that was the fact that I took the time to read through the site rules and I lurked a bit before starting to post.

Posters who have been here a while tried to be accommodating for a while. But when you have the same shit being said twenty different ways in a dozen threads by hundreds of new posters. . . I'm guessing it gets pretty obnoxious and that it leads to a lot of sniping at new posters.

Things have already started dying down a lot. The Duggar Forums are still a mess at times, but even those aren't as bad as they were a week or so ago. Its really just a few posters at this point who continually make the same mistakes over and over again. Hopefully those posters start to understand that people here are usually mean to one another without reason and if they want to participate then they need to do so in a way that works with the board culture.

Also, I hope your dog feels better soon! A sick dog is no fun! :hug:

[CaptainFunderpants]

:angry-banghead:

Just click the foe button and be done. You're gonna be just fine. This discussion was really good minus SL, but... this has to be done:

How's y'all's nail polish looking lately?

[Vick999]

Generally surrogacy is a good thing. Despite it has lots of legal and ethical aspects, sometimes it is the only hope for those who can not have their own children. My sister was considering ivf-sunrise.net. Everything is legal and totally transparent. Hope they help her to have a complete family.

[CaptainFunderpants]

Generally surrogacy is a good thing. Despite it has lots of legal and ethical aspects, sometimes it is the only hope for those who can not have their own children. My sister was considering ivf-sunrise.net. Everything is legal and totally transparent. Hope they help her to have a complete family.

Did you read this thread at all? This was not legal and totally transparent. She went to a third world country because she got rejected by her own country for trying to falsify critical information in her own. She has no biological or marital tie to the child and she would be relying on care workers assigned to her condition to take care of it, were it currently in her care. Her family also clearly didn't support the situation or else they would have stepped in to support the child immediately, rather than having it go into state care.

[Mama Mia]

Did you read this thread at all? This was not legal and totally transparent. She went to a third world country because she got rejected by her own country for trying to falsify critical information in her own. She has no biological or marital tie to the child and she would be relying on care workers assigned to her condition to take care of it, were it currently in her care. Her family also clearly didn't support the situation or else they would have stepped in to support the child immediately, rather than having it go into state care.

No where in that, very brief , article did it say she would be relying solely on her current medical care givers for childcare. No where in that article did it say anyone in her family was given the option of caring for the child. The child was taken at birth. No one in her family was considered a relative of the child, including the surrogate mother who gave birth. The intent of the wording of the Israeli surrogacy law bars single parents and same sex couples from using surrogacry to create a family and the law relies heavily on having either a biological or marital relationship. If you google, there is a lot of controversy around the wording for that reason and the law is currently in the process of being amended. Apparently the issue had gained a lot of exposure not because of this case, but because there were many surrogate pregnancies in process for male Isreali couples in Nepal when the earthquake struck.

Here is a link to the proposed amendments:

health.gov.il/English/Topics/fertility/Surrogacy/Pages/default.aspx

[Three and Done]

No where in that, very brief , article did it say she would be relying solely on her current medical care givers for childcare. No where in that article did it say anyone in her family was given the option of caring for the child. The child was taken at birth. No one in her family was considered a relative of the child, including the surrogate mother who gave birth. The intent of the wording of the Israeli surrogacy law bars single parents and same sex couples from using surrogacry to create a family and the law relies heavily on having either a biological or marital relationship. If you google, there is a lot of controversy around the wording for that reason and the law is currently in the process of being amended. Apparently the issue had gained a lot of exposure not because of this case, but because there were many surrogate pregnancies in process for male Isreali couples in Nepal when the earthquake struck.

Here is a link to the proposed amendments:

health.gov.il/English/Topics/fertility/Surrogacy/Pages/default.aspx

And nowhere in that article did it say that she WOULDN'T be relying on her current caregivers for child care, or that anyone in her family WASN"T given the option of caring for the child.