Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
OF ALL THE issues highlighted by the No side in the marriage referendum debate, the issue of surrogacy has proved to be the most controversial. Joan Burton described the No side surrogacy posters as “sad and demeaning”. Others claim surrogacy is a red herring inserted into the debate to create confusion and moral panic. In truth, it’s no surprise that these bioethical issues have arisen, and I’d be surprised if they disappear from the airwaves and opinion columns once the referendum is over, irrespective of the result.
Same-sex marriage and the right to procreate
In Murray v Ireland, the Supreme Court recognised that all married people have a constitutional right to procreate, that right ‘being essential to the human condition and personal dignity.’ If the referendum is passed, same-sex married couples will have a constitutionally protected right to procreate. This would strengthen significantly their claims for access to the assisted reproduction methods they need to realise this right, ie donor-conception and surrogacy. Any attempt to prohibit or restrict those methods would be vulnerable to constitutional challenge on the basis that it violates the right to procreate of same-sex married couples and is, therefore, discriminatory.
The Government is preparing a draft bill for the whole area of assisted reproduction including surrogacy that would make Ireland much more permissive than many of its European neighbours, several of whom expressly ban surrogacy.
Those strict surrogacy bans haven’t prevented legal battles in the wake of same-sex marriage. In Spain, there has been a protracted legal dispute between the Spanish authorities and a married same-sex male couple who had twins via surrogacy in the US, and who now want the Spanish courts to recognise their “dual paternity” in relation to those children. In France, a new family law bill was planned to accompany same-sex marriage. It would have extended the right to assisted reproduction to lesbian couples and decriminalised surrogacy contracts. Huge protests rallies across France forced the French Government to abandon those plans, for now.
Irish surrogacy legislation
The Irish Government has rejected banning surrogacy. The draft heads of the assisted reproduction and surrogacy bill reveal that the Irish Government plans to legalise, formalise and legitimise surrogacy. The legislation will allow a mechanism for a surrogate birth mother to relinquish her status and transfer parentage to a commissioning couple in a surrogacy contract. The plan is to ban commercial surrogacy but allow reimbursement of reasonable costs associated with pregnancy. No figure has been defined, which may make it difficult to ensure payments relate totally to costs incurred.
Minister Varadkar says the legislation “won’t discriminate against people on the basis of their relationship status or their gender or their sexual orientation.” He said he would also “facilitate transfer of parentage of children born to surrogates abroad.”
International surrogacy clinics and agencies are enthusiastic about the referendum and the prospect of surrogacy-friendly laws. Oregon Reproductive Medicine (ORM) has already opened an office in Dublin. It’s one of the world’s leading clinics for technology-enabled same-sex parenting, particularly same-sex fatherhood through surrogacy. The commissioning couple goes to Oregon twice – once to give sperm and then to pick up their baby. ORM holds regular information seminars and resource fairs here aimed at same-sex couples. An event in November held in association with Gay Weddings Ireland was entitled ‘The Future of Same-Sex Parenting in Ireland’. ORM was also a sponsor of and exhibitor at a symposium in Brussels earlier this month entitled ‘Men Having Babies: Parenting Options For European Gay Men’.
Dr Brandon Bankowski of ORM says: “We are proud of our involvement in this rainbow family explosion. We find ourselves in the midst of a gigantic social change, if not a global movement, and we are humbled to do our part in helping the LGBTQ community start or grow their families.”
In a GCN magazine article entitled “Baby Daddies”, Brian Finnegan wrote:
“In Ireland, Civil Partnership, and optimism over the possible introduction of same-sex marriage in 2015, has engendered a new sense of possibility for gay couples in terms of creating families of their own.” He welcomes the fact that “Oregon Reproductive Medicine has streamlined the process so that a couple can be home in Ireland with their baby, or babies, within a year and a half of first making contact.“
Women and children are most affected by these technologies
The current absence of regulation for assisted reproduction and the possibility of permissive regulation, combined with a constitutional right to procreate for same-sex married couples, could make Ireland vulnerable to becoming a destination country for surrogacy practitioners and consumers.
The potential exploitation of women and the commodification of children are huge ethical issues here. Because surrogacy arrangements typically involve a separate egg donor and gestational surrogate, the resulting child will have no clear biological mother, in addition to having no legal or social mother if the commissioning couple is two men.
The combination of globalised assisted reproduction and same-sex marriage places legal institutions at a difficult intersection of conflicting rights. Donor-conception, surrogacy and same-sex marriage increase pressure for parenthood to be seen as an intentional, contractual and transactional relationship rather than a biological one. Both surrogacy and donor-conception require more, not less, ethical discussion before the Government’s plans in this area become formalised in law.
Louise Doris is a final year PhD researcher on the laws of assisted reproduction and surrogacy across EU countries.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Wasn’t a moratorium supposed to start at 2pm today, or does this article get through on the grounds of being unrelated to the referendum?
Ah. Strange that they can block comments on ongoing court cases in online media but not enforce a moratorium, though I suppose that might be more of a case of covering their ass in case of legal action.
Ah ok. So just strange that the online loophole remains for election moratoriums (Moratoria?).
Not a loophole in many cases laws were written before there was an internet in it’s current form. If you wanna escape the debate don’t click on the articles.
It’s hard to avoid it, sick of it as I am, with my own future in the balance, you have to keep track of all the latest lies so you can counter them to anyone that you know who may be inclined to wobbling based on one of them
I think there’s two reasons for that- 1, you can avoid it online much easier, 2, it can’t be imposed internationally. Its for Irish broadcasting only
What University is Louise Doris doing her PhD thesis in? She has claimed the European University Institute of Florence but there is record of her as a post grad.
Has Louise Doris published anything?
How are you able to access records of what student is at what Uni doing what? I would think that’s not public information? Unless you’ve done a thesis you’ve published?
I inquired by email.
So they’ll confirm if someone was there or not as opposed to giving out their transcript?
Ms. Doris, would it be possible for you to clarify the position? Who are you studying under and are you currently registered with the European University Institute in Florence?
Thanks.
Ryan, they decline to give out any personal data or information. I have only a negative that they have no information. I was asked to revert with the name of who she is studying to and they will only confirm if she is registered. Nothing more than that. It may be that she is registered under a variation of the name. I have no reason to doubt MsDoris, I’m sure that she is genuine but I would just like to confirm the credentials.
@ anthony, she’s been published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and by Cambridge University Press. – easy enough to find. Surprised someone who spends as much time online as you couldn’t.
Thanks Matt.
Can you confirm if Ms Doris is with the European University Institute in Florence?
Matt Connolly, I’m online at the moment but I’m unable to trace any citations. Please assist me with the links. Cambridge University Press is producing nothing except references to book on mathematics back in 1954!
The New England Journal of Medicine is producing no result. is Ms. Doris a secondary author?
hmmmm, scratch that – can’t find anything on academic sites. (Disclaimer: I’m not saying there’s nothing there, just that I can’t find anything.)
You think DOB will be upset when RTE’s programme is leaked online ?
Really? or wishful thinking?
Matt,
Just checked again in Trinity and in NUIM. Nothing comes up.
I also went into the New England Journal of Medicine directly. Nil results
http://www.nejm.org/search?q=Louise+Doris
Please check with your law lecturers and see if they will confirm your clear statement to me.
Matt Connolly, please send me the references and citations. Nothing is coming up and you said
“easy enough to find. Surprised someone who spends as much time online as you couldn’t.”
I’d really hate to think that you were chancing your arm or telling pork pies!
erm – read 5 posts up.
Matt, the date, edition, title of article or title of book, ISBN, or academic citation or JStor reference.
You are a law student in Maynooth. You can do better or else you are a total spoofer. Come, you made the references. Back up the references.
@Matt Connolly – Do you stand over or do you withdraw this comment addressed to me?
“@ anthony, she’s been published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and by Cambridge University Press. – easy enough to find. Surprised someone who spends as much time online as you couldn’t.”
Be honest and don’t be evasive.
Louise who is asking for a “NO” vote, and is doing a Ph.D in Assisted Reproduction Laws in different European countries. Well done Louise for being strong and telling the truth and expressing a rock solid argument of why we should vote “No”.
Lasair Aireainneach, I suggest that you check the credentials of Louise Doran of Mothers and Fathers Matter before you conveniently rely on what she is saying.
Also see the video of her being completely debunked by actual qualified lawyers
@Matt Connolly , have you found anything yet?
It is obvious that you were trying to mislead me. Fortunately, I checked.
Never trust a No supporter to be entirely honest. Check out their sources. Check the credentials.
Dave
I saw that edited and cropped video and she was not debunked because the supposed arguments used to debunk her were themselves debunked by Dr Tom Finnegan,
The effects of the proposed amendment on future laws: a response
On the “Constitution Project” blog recently, Dr Conor O’Mahony of UCC Law Department, took issue with points made by Dr Tom Finegan of
Mothers and Fathers Matter on the likely effects of the proposed referendum on future laws on adoption, surrogacy and donor-assisted human reproduction.
Now, Dr Finegan responds to Dr O’Mahony’s critique explaining why it ignores several key factors and fails to rebut the No side’s legal analysis.
http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=3937
not only that but Mr. Justice Kevin Cross from the Ref Com contradicts his own opinion on the video when he remarks here:
In regulating surrogacy, if the referendum proposal is passed, whether it would be open to the legislature to privilege an opposite-sex couple over a same-sex couple, would be, according to the Referendum Commission “Not impossible, but difficult to imagine”. (Mr. Justice Kevin Cross, The Irish Times, May 15th, 2015)
“YES” side shot themselves in the foot touting that video as a “debunking”.
Anthony
I suggest you check the impeccable arguments with reference to quotes and sources she is making which raise serious concerns for children rather than trying to attack the person. If one is truly concerned with child welfare one would be addressing the concerns she raises.
Here is one item she raises, very disturbing:
HUMANS-TO-ORDER INDUSTRY LICKING IT’S LIPS AT NEW CLIENT CUSTOMER STATE (IRELAND)
In a GCN magazine article entitled “Baby Daddies”, Brian Finnegan wrote:
“In Ireland, Civil Partnership, and optimism over the possible introduction of same-sex marriage in 2015, has engendered a new sense of possibility for gay couples in terms of creating families of their own.” He welcomes the fact that “Oregon Reproductive Medicine has streamlined the process so that a couple can be home in Ireland with their baby, or babies, within a year and a half of first making contact.“
Lasair, do you realise that you are a stark raving looper?
So do you wanna tell us what the dire emergency would be if more couples did use surrogacy? Do explain that I’m not sure why you find the prospect so terrifying.
You seem to have this notion of a conventional family but no real life family is actually EXACTLY like that every family is diff and some are very very diff from each other.
Anthony
I realise you attack people when you can’t counter arguments.
Also any link to Iona is not a credible source
Dave
Sure there are sources in every debate that are not credible, Iona is not one of them. Iona btw publish many articles that are not just their own opinion. The arguments put forward by many different lawyers and academics etc, do need addressing. Not doing so, is irresponsible to possible legal loopholes that endanger children. But it’s a handy copout isn’t it, any “NO” arguments raised, need not be countered with the “that’s-not-a-credible-source” tactic.
“On the “Constitution Project” blog recently, Dr Conor O’Mahony of UCC Law Department, took issue with points made by Dr Tom Finegan of Mothers and Fathers Matter on the likely effects of the proposed referendum on future laws on adoption, surrogacy and donor-assisted human reproduction. Now, Dr Finegan responds to Dr O’Mahony’s critique explaining why it ignores several key factors and fails to rebut the No side’s legal analysis.
“Public advocates of a Yes vote appear unwilling to recognise the logical implications of these legal effects for any future laws in the areas of adoption, donor – assisted human reproduction (DAHR) and surrogacy.”
http://ionainstitute.ie/assets/files/Published-Dr-O%27Mahony-Reply.pdf
Ryan
L. Doris has spelled out rather alarming detrimental effects to children “redefining family means children born from surrogates and donors, children commodified, children robbed of their full identity”
But hey, fk it, as long as some “YES” people get their new puppy…I mean baby, who gives a crap about children…right??
@Matt Connolly, why did you fabricate the false references to the Cambridge University Press and to the New England Journal of Medicine?
I see that you are an LL.B student in Maynooth University and President of the Student Union.
How do your feel that your conduct reflects on Maynooth University and the No side.
It is dishonest to pretend and to make up fake sources.
“unrelated to the referendum.”
I see what you did there.
To play the devil’s advocate, as she supposedly studies in Italy it could be that her university is like mine in that you conduct your research first and then in your final year you submit articles for publication. Im currently in my final year of a PhD at the University of Rome, so I spent my first year defining my project, second year carrying out the research and the third year writing up and publishing….3 years is standard in Italy so it doesnt really explain why she has supposedly been doing a Phd for 10 years….TEN!
Please back that statement up . Why is he a looper?
There’s a reason Iona are not considered credible.
This is a group that submitted a paper that supposedly stated children did better in opposite sex households at the Constitutional convention, the thing was – they flat out ignored the disclaimer on the first page that said no same sex households had been studied.
They have constantly misrepresented research throughout their engagement in public debate – not limited to this referendum. THAT is why they will never be considered credible.
Here, let David Robert Grimes explain it for you with references, he does a better job than I ever could.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/22/why-the-bad-science-of-the-no-campaign-shouldnt-sway-irelands-voters
There are bioethical implications for all marriage types, not just SSM. Heterosexual couples engage in surrogacy in far greater numbers than homosexuals. More scaremongering!
George, infertile heterosexual couples are the primary and predominant source of demand for donor assistance and surrogacy.
Same sex couples are less likely to assume parenthood.
Isn’t it amazing these people so worried about kids are nowhere to be found when all the knackers in the white tracksuit brigade are popping out kids they can’t afford left and right, dragging them up instead of bringing them up, letting them quit school at 14/15, letting them get involved in crime..they let the unregulated surrogacy thing go on without a peep for years…it’s only when LGBT are suddenly involved they are worried…and they balk at being called homophobes?
Face it folks, that’s what you are, it’s clear as day
Or when he Vatican tries to bribe sexual abuse victims…..allegedly
The total number children born using surrogacy in Ireland in tha last year is Two. That’s 2. Both babies are doing well. Also both were born for heterosexual married couples. Who due to fertility issues were not able to conceive.
Also if this imagine sudden rise in surrogacy was to happen. We would have already seen it. With the introduction of civil partnership.
A no vote will not charge this as surrogacy is a legislative matter for the dail.
The thing is…even if all these side issues they were claiming were actually true…so? They’d not actually be much of a reason to vote no…so they can adopt or do surrogacy…soooo? Whats the problem?
I can’t understand why gay couples are supposedly using adoption and surrogacy when the accusation is that they have been kidnapping babies.
Who is Louise Doris? Where exactly is she studying/researching for her Phd doctoral thesis and who is her Doctoral tutor?
Mothers and Fathers Matter put Louise at the forefront of campaigning at points.
She neglected to disclose that little fact which makes her intellectually dishonest at least.
She is also using the well debunked myth that surrogacy has anything to do with this referendum.
You can watch her get shredded by the legal experts here.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PIIvHgd-iko
The woman is a just a bigot with an education.
A bigot with an education is just a bigot without an excuse.
That is a lie lie lie. You are plucking that out if the air. I do not personally know one heterosexual couple who have gone down the surrogacy route and I bet nobody reading this does either if they are honest with themselves.
I personally know 1 gay guy who has fathered 2 children for 2 different friends in same sex relationships.
You are plucking numbers that don’t exist because it’s so hard to get evidence on it.
The vast majority of heterosexual couples with fertility problems go the IVF route. That is getting help I. Having your own baby, the couples baby. There is no third party involved.
Completely different scenario.
Total bull Thomas and you know it.
Total born to surrogacy is 2. Total nonsense and you know it. The truth is you have no idea. Do you know if a same sex couple from Kildare went to a Thai surrogacy clinic? Or a heterosexual couple from Dublin went to Mexico or a single make from Waterford?
Would they be on statistics anywhere?
You’re talking through your sphincter.
You understand you don’t KNOW PERSONALLY Barack Obama …but he still exists right?
Surrogacy will increase with a yes vote like all the surrogacy clinics report.
And I can prove he exists.
Tom, I know one of those 2 couples. Would u please take a breath, step back, and stop making comments that are wrong!!
Of course it’s not scare mongering to discuss such things…..but it is if you implicate it as a barrier to same sex marriage. Full stop.
We’ve gone over this time and time again over the last few weeks. Surrogacy is going to happen despite whatever happens in the referendum.
Just vote yes.
Some people are too stubborn and perhaps inept to read what exactly the referendum is really about.Vote yes for equality.
A complete ban on surrogacy is the law in Germany – why not here too?
It’s also banned in France.
Do you know what isn’t banned in France? Same-sex marriage, proves this surrogacy nonsense is a complete red herring.
It’s likely to be banned here to irrespective of ref outcome
100% can vote no and adoption will stay, surrogacy will stay, you CANNOT HAVE AN EFFECT ON SURROGACY BY VOTING NO. END OF STORY. It’s as black and white as gravity and evolution.
You can have your own opinions, you don’t get to have your own facts
I can’t explain my disgust at the posters that has been put up.The majority of them has nothing to do with the referendum.I saw one on facebook where it says “Only a biological mother could love a ginger.Vote No” Absolutely revolting.I do hope people get out a vote yes to this referendum.
@Negativebird that’s the difference between badges and posters – a lamp post isn’t going to refuse to wear a poster.
To be frank, I’m not a fan of surrogacy for hetero or homo sexuals. There are so many children in need of adoption in the world. BUT it has nothing to do with this referendum, so I’ll be voting yes.
Lot of people have reasons for wanting their child to be their own flesh and blood, that is the ”natural” way after all even though it has little tangible effect on the kids life if you share their genes or not.
I know someone who has had a family dynasty going back 100s of years and since he aint heterosexual he has to go that route or some sense of continuity will be broken, he wants to pass on what he contributed to that dynasty and family to the next in the blood line in a literal sense. The mother does not have to be a stranger she can be a mother to the kid as well. The Hague Convention has placed huge limits on adopting from abroad and adoptions in Ireland are v rare with thousands of parents applying so adopting is not as simple as it seems.
That’s fair enough Ryan, I’m not an expert on surrogacy and I’ve never met anyone who has done it or learned their reasons. I’ll leave that debate to the people it affects and the experts. I just hope we won’t have to bloody vote on it!
Graham Kavanagh
Not very nice to our politicians but, I agree, they are just lampposts waiting for the next hand out to sell their country.
Surrogacy is a mine field I can see why it concerns people. I was told there was a doc on tv3 recently where a couple had a down syndrome baby as one of the two and refused to take it, that’s what you get when there is no regulation.
I don’t want kids myself but my friend there really does so I just explained his reasoning, he never questioned it for a second that he’d ‘continue the line’, I said “but you’re gay how you gonna do that?”
“surrogacy”
“stranger?”
“no no, someone I know and am close to, maybe even keep them involved”
“that means you have to go into a cup”
“a cup? what an undignified way to continue ones family line, no I’ll just do it the old fashioned way”
“but you’re gay..”
“ah..it’s all hard wired into us in the end, I can do it once”
I would prefer to vote on the Referendum on same sex marriage and not on the “surrogacy referendum”.
Amy, with respect, while you’re right there are millions of orphans in the world, very few now can be adopted from ireland
IVF also requires the cup; a pressure w@nk if ever there was one.
But I digress. I think all people who are bound by constitution should be treated equally by the constitution. Without exception.
I’m not allowed to vote because despite my double digit tenure, children born of Irish mother and who are are Irish that the result of this referendum and all others may materially affect, as I am a foreigner. But I hope for a resounding yes vote.
Good luck.
He was referring to shagging here I believe, the No camp should applaud that, mum and dad did afterall copulate, without a condom no less, and it will result in a pregnancy…and a kid what will know their mammy…what can be more catholic than that?
So let’s vote yes and have more if it.
It will happen but more of it will happen by voting Yes.
That’s the point you guys don’t seem to get.
It shows that those 2 countries put the structures in place before same sex marriage. Although Germany doesn’t have same sex marriage.
Come to think of it only 19 countries in the world have it and I
If Ireland votes Yes will be the first country on earth to have introduces same sex marriage by referendum.
We did it without any safeguards.
A sop to the Labour Party to stop them getting fried at the next election.
Inda confirmed it won’t be dealt with before the next election.
Can banning it stop people going overseas? These two clowns boast on Irish TV about their Irish surrogacy clients.
Ryan
I explain again.
We are not voting on surrogacy. Correct.
However a secondary effect of same sex marriage is a surge in demand for surrogacy. It’s obvious.
If you make alcohol cheaper people drink more. That’s how the world works. Secondary effect.
Introduce same sex marriage and you lay the foundations and give stability to those thinking of surrogacy.
You’ve got to talk a broader view and understand cause and effect.
You mention the word natural in your comment, I think homosexuality is natural but I also believe it’s unnatural for gay and lesbians to have kids. That doesn’t make me homophobic. I believe it’s natures way of controlling the population. I don’t believe in surrogacy or fertility clinics for heterosexual couples either before anyone accuses me of discrimination. In relation to your friend I believe he has put his only selfish needs first before the needs of the child.
This individual has been highly discredited on Twitter, having appeared on Claire Byrne Live claiming academic qualifications that she’s since been unwilling and unable to corroborate.
She is a very active voice in the No campaign and has been linked to religious anti-marriage campaigns groups in France.
Proof here, should Journal care to investigate :
https://twitter.com/tipppssss/status/600976649237192704
And here:
https://twitter.com/bocktherobber/status/599351870981861376
She’s welcome to her opinion. But I’m entitled to call her out on her lack of PhD.
Winding have you anything to say about Louise article?
@David Nolan:
Yes. That it’s written from a position of extreme ideological bias, and lacking in the balance that the reader should expect of somebody holding themselves out to be an individual of academic integrity.
Wow, she’s the notorious @MariaLaoise? She has said some truly vile things on Twitter over the years, also manically engaging with anyone who interacts with her in the slightest bombarding them with Tweets incessantly, that’s very interesting indeed!
Excuse me but how does either of those tweets prove this author is “Maria Laoise” it’s just more speculation and the yes side playing the woman and not the ball because the fact is the author knows more about this subject matter than any of us posting on the journal. You don’t like what she has to say so instead of taking her on on her points you attempt a character assassination.
Also she quite clearly states that she is a “final year phd researcher” at the end of the article. Nice try though.
Selectively quotes the murray constitutional case without giving context, very low standard for a student in the final year of her doctorate. If she did that in thesis, she’d fail.
The No camp Richard are actually a tiny tiny tiny TINY group of people who just put themselves forward as diff incarnations of the same thing over and over to distract you from that.
Like me and 3-4 friends can come out one week as “this lobby group of university students”
“this new lobby group of rugby players”
“this new lobby group of young political activists”
“this new lobby group drinkers 4 booze”…and were all the same people but we can get a news cycle out of each separate announcement that’s what they are doing
They are not honest actors they are a nasty nasty vicious little circle of people and they always have been, that whole circle the youth defense etc they’re all quite willing to just flat out lie, cheat, use dirty tactics if it works, the ends justify the means for them they’ve zero problem bluntly lying to a voter I caught one of them doing it to my own sister who called me and asked if this vote would mean parents natural rights over their own kids would be weakened that they could be given up for adoption even if the mother and father are fine I said what who told you that…they did
A number of people, myself included, have already stated her points are valid, I agree with her concerns, but only in isolation of sexual orientation and the referendum, this article is like saying if we don’t lock up all gay people, some of them might commit a crime, while ignoring the fact that, by virtue of the population size, most of the crime is currently being committed by straight people! And I’m sorry Joe / Enoch, but you’ve not given a very good account of your own humanity over the last few months to be judging others, a bit selective with the bible it would seem, yeah yeah I know, you’re not religious.
@Joe:
No, she’s welcome to her opinion. She’s exercised it. But she’s not entitled to have it unchallenged (and it has been, by 3 Law Lecturers in Trinity, Limerick and Griffith College)
Watch here:
That should read final year PhD student, PhD researcher suggests a post doctoral researcher. That’s just from my experience
I know well Ryan and I couldn’t agree more with your description within the confines of the comments policy, I’ve been observing their sinister motives and manouevres over the last few years, this doesn’t end on Saturday for these guys by any chance, they’d probably ban contraception, divorce and women wearing trousers if they got half a sniff, seriously dangerous and ideologically unstable group who are absolutely convinced of being right, all of the time, of course it’s hard not to be right with the guy who made the universe on your side……!
Pot… Kettle?
These same people said legalizing contraception was a waste of time because tiny holes in the material are big enough for the HIV virus to pass through them, they are not new to weird unscientific lies
How do they know it’s her though?
I’ve encountered this Maria Laoise person pon twitter, I’m just wondering how she was linked to the lady who wrote this article.
The author of this article is a Twitter troll who has been tweeting homophobic abuse for months now; she, in particular, sent a nasty spite-filled tweet to a prominent LGBT activist and radio show host who just gave birth, insulting her and her partner. She has consistently lied about the status of her qualifications (I see that she is now claiming to be in a final stage of doctoral research: previously she’s assumed the title of Dr and claimed research that simply isn’t extant). I would ignore this person’s so called “research” and am surprised that the Journal has given said person a platform.
I can’t find any trace of her attached to any European university, not even the European University Institute of Florence, where she claims to be researching.
Perhaps she is studying in the world leading and world famous Iona Institute.?
The author’s entire argument is based on this:
“In Murray v Ireland, the Supreme Court recognised that all married people have a constitutional right to procreate, that right ‘being essential to the human condition and personal dignity.’ If the referendum is passed, same-sex married couples will have a constitutionally protected right to procreate.”
Wrong! Murray v Ireland referred clearly to natural procreation and the right of the couple in question were not even allowed to be excercised in that case.
Michael, you are correct.
Louise Doris debunked by three legal experts and referendum commission chairman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIIvHgd-iko
The judge was very very careful to point out that it was in relation to natural means only.
Michael – the right was curtailed on policy grounds. There IS a right to procreate but because they were both incarcerated that gives the state the ability to curtail certain rights including facilitating procreation.
It’s rather sad that the only response to the article is in the form of personal and untrue abuse hurled at the author.
Flint, always check the credentials when someone claims the credentials.
Flint, if they pretend to be neutral they need to be called on it.
And if someone can find the article in our constitution that says we have the right to procreate (natural or not), I would really, REALLY appreciate the info!!
Micheal the distinction you outline is hard for some to understand who are not legally minded, I generally understand this stuff and it took me a few takes to get it, so imagine a novice? They are preying on people who are not familiar with this stuff trying to trick them
Michael
That “YES” argument is demolished in Dr. Tom Finnegan’s reply to Dr. O’Mahoney as it is properly contextualised and it’s full weight given the proper consideration in the light of this legilsation passing, – all bets are off, if passed.
The effects of the proposed amendment on future laws: a response
On the “Constitution Project” blog recently, Dr Conor O’Mahony of UCC Law Department, took issue with points made by Dr Tom Finegan of
Mothers and Fathers Matter on the likely effects of the proposed referendum on future laws on adoption, surrogacy and donor-assisted human reproduction.
Now, Dr Finegan responds to Dr O’Mahony’s critique explaining why it ignores several key factors and fails to rebut the No side’s legal analysis.
http://ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=3937
Ryan
Wrong Louise is clearly accurate in what she says about procreation as Dr. T Finegan from the same organisation has clearly spelled out the ramifications of such a judgement after the fact of the marriage referendum being carried. So Louise is more than quite correct she is highlighting considerations involving children which are the bottom line for all voters to have been informed of. Sterling work. You can never say you did not know or were not warned, Louise and co, have done their part.
This is the second article in the past few days where the author hasn’t been identified as being a member of the Iona Institute or Mothers & Fathers Matter, of which Doris is a member of the latter, pretending it’s an alternative voice by leaving this information out is deceptive, a nice hallmark of the No campaign, I also note a lengthy ‘biography’ of hers in The Irish Examiner last week omitted this information also. Shows how little appetite there is for this viewpoint, oh well, it will all be over Saturday until The Iona Institute mount their legal challenge to the Yes vote which they are currently finalising.
“The Mothers and Fathers Matter campaign said their issue lies with the timing of the referendum. Spokeswoman Louise Doris, who specialises in the area of surrogacy, said they were right to raise legitimate concerns.” – from The Irish Times.
Perhaps they aren’t sure which organisation to credit with the membership of this author – i mean seeing as there seems to be such a broad cross pollination of members.
Lolek?
Lolek Limited , the common thread of prejudice in Ireland, registered a charity for the promotion of Christian faiths and dogmatic fundamentalism.
Iona, inspired by hate, motivated by prejudice and consumed by a reactionary outlook.
@Richard.Come Sunday it will not be over.Im not going to stop until Iona ect are completely discredited as a political force.If we rest on our laurels they will re group and come the next ‘moral issue’ they will be back spouting the same type of s*it.I believe the next big issue to be the ‘right to die’ debate and Im not going to let them be involved with that to the degree they have been here.
I can’t find the third level institution where NO campaigner Louise Doris is researching her PhD. I can’t find any published academic articles by her.
Bioethical considerations are amenable to specific statutory regulation on a non discriminatory basis but do not constitute a valid excise to refuse legal equality.
This is what I have received on Tuesday from a gay man in his late thirties who left Ireland, has not come back to Ireland and who is looking at this Referendum very closely from afar.
“Dear all,
I just wanted to impress on you how strongly I feel about the upcoming referendum on marriage equality. If this had been a thing when I was growing up I could have avoided a confused and distraught period of my life when I thought myself an abomination and doomed to hell.
I wondered if my life was worth living as a gay man.
Voting yes takes nothing away from straight people but gives an amazingly strong message of acceptance to gay people. Particularly to children and teenagers who are struggling with their identity.
Thanks x ”
Criticise me for my insensitivity and my toughness but just think seriously about these words from a gay man, a gat man who lives abroad because he could not endure Ireland.
Please thing about the real harm that a NO vote will do and the real good that a yes vote will do. Please.
Bioethical implications can be addressed by specific legislation.
People think we’ve come so far but why are the vast majority of LGBT people still in the closet? Why do a huge chunk refuse to even use one of the above labels at all? Why are 88% of sports players in Ireland in the closet according to the latest study?
One look at this campaign (with the No side balking at being called homophobic) will tell you why, we’ve along way to go yet, it’s not just in civil rights this is just the next battle but
-Stereotyping
-Internal homophobia BY and AGAINST the scene queens needs to be addressed
-Segregation
There is so much more ground to go yet
Tragically, that is so true.
Ryan Anth
The intelligent are turned off and shamed by the makey up bull$ from you,
” Why are 88% of sports players in Ireland in the closet according to the latest study? ”
How did you manage to invent that crap ?
Intelligent people don’t want to be associated with your hetrophobia and hate, your lies are bad enough without that.
Gerard be careful calling something crap when you’ve no idea what you’re talking about, it’s from a recent study of LGBT people in sports, I can give you a link to the PDF and a page number if you want?
Aint no heterophobia here mate 90% of my friends are str8 and I’ve slept with more women than many of them so I’d be a very odd homophobe
*heterophobe, you can see why I’d slip up like that considering heterophobe IS NOT A BLOODY WORD
The claims that India would be a source country are debunked by the fact India has banned same sex couples from using surrogates. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9811222/India-bans-gay-foreign-couples-from-surrogacy.html
India wasn’t mentioned in the article which I suspect you didn’t even read.
You’re the last person in the world to stick to the article at hand Joe, your hypocrisy is admirable and brazen!
But its relevant to the question of where surrogates could be supplied from.
I wonder will Joe disappear come Sunday?
@Colm.I suspect the mothership will arrive to collect Tom on Sunday morning.
Indian women are taken to other countries like Nepal. One of the stories that emerged recently after the earthquake in Nepal was the number of Indian women who were left behind after their surrogate babies were airlifted to the country of their gay “owners.”
Sources please? Because I note that the sources for a lot of these sorts of claims tend to be lifesitenews or equivalent.
Heterosexual couples who are infertile (because of medical conditions or age) have the constitutional right to marry under the status quo. Like same-sex couples, they can only procreate using assisted reproduction methods like IVF or surrogacy, and yet no right to either of these procedures has ever been found by the courts. We know, for a fact, that allowing couples who cannot naturally procreate the right to marriage does not result in a situation where the state cannot regulate surrogacy/IVF because infertile heterosexual couples have been fully entitled to marry for as long as fertile heterosexual couples have been and this has not occurred.
The Adoption Rights Alliance, who campaign on issues relating to children’s identity rights, has called for a Yes vote. They’ve said the No campaign’s misleading conflation of this referendum with surrogacy/IVF is a hindrance, not a help, to their campaign to vindicate the rights of children. They also say: “Though this matter is not related to the referendum, we wish to point out that heterosexual people also avail of adoption and assisted human reproductive services and those who exclusively focus on lesbian and gay parents are disingenuous in the extreme. Simply put, homophobia has no place in discussions around children’s rights.” [source: http://www.adoptionrightsalliance.com/ARA%20Marriage%20Equality%20PR_14-05-15.htm.
This article and the broader No campaign’s focus on assisted reproduction is scaremongering, pure and simple. If surrogacy was totally banned, they would find some other difficult, complex issue to dishonestly pin on same-sex couples. They can’t come out and say what they really believe (i.e. that homosexuality is immoral, that gay people should not be treated equally, etc.) so instead they have fabricated a non-existent connection between surrogacy law and this referendum in order to sow confusion, drum up homophobia and play off widespread suspicion of gay people. I hope people don’t fall for it tomorrow.
Disappointed in the Journal. I thought ye would respect the moratorium. At the very least not post “opinions pieces” that have no bases in fact and serve nothing but to scare monger people just less than a day before we vote.
NO campaigner Louise Doris debunked by three legal experts and referendum commission chairman.
Hardly debunked, unless they have the ability to predict the future and somehow know that the trend in other countries wouldn’t be repeated in Ireland.
Bout time the truth came out
Ye I really can’t see how Yes campaigners can rebuke this article. The author is an expert in the field and has studied this issue thoroughly.
Because a same sex couple would not need to be married to avail of surrogacy options – therefore marriage is irrelevant to the subject of surrogacy and surrogacy is irrelevant to the subject of marriage.
Graham the article points out that SSM might confer a constitutional right on gay couples to access surrogacy. That would be a lot different to the current situation.
If the article was about surrogacy and procreation for both heterosexual and gay couples it might have some validity, however the author has chosen to use it as a stick to beat gay people with and ignored any concerns about heterosexual surrogacy, laying bare her unbridled prejudice and yes, scaremongering.
“Might” seems like a somewhat tenuous argument. Especially when it could be applied to heterosexual couples also – i mean is the issue here surrogacy or same sex parents?
Same sex marriage acts an accelerant for surrogacy. Couples are far more likely to seek surrogacy or sperm donation services when they are married hence why the American surrogacy organisation mentioned in the article has setup here and is hoping for the introduction of same sex marriage here. Gay marriage drives demand for these unethical practices.
Marriage is an accelerant! Greater numbers of infertile heterosexual couples avail of surrogacy! Call a spade a spade here, Joe!
An accelerant? Really? Is this the new on trend phrase for the “slippery slope” argument? Because I really don’t buy that one either. Of course whenever I ask someone making that claim to furnish data from other jurisdictions which permit same sex marriage to back up their claims, they go notably silent.
Joe, stats please to back up your claim. The last time I asked for stats you sent me a brochure. The truth is you don’t have any stats except scaremongering and hearsay. there are a handful of surrogacies per year from Ireland and ninety five per cent of these are heterosexuals. Your point is moot.
That’ll be Joe gone from this thread; Joe doesn’t do evidenced-based approaches very well!
Basically if you’re against surrogacy, you should be lobbying for surrogacy legislation to be brought in – but banning same sex marriage will NOT stop people (married or otherwise) from availing of surrogacy.
How much does IVF cost? How much does surrogacy cost? Has anyone taken the Irish government to court for not paying for either?
http://constitutionproject.ie/?p=503
Plenty of straight people with infertility issues also use it in the US.
Not necessarily Joe. As marriage has never been an option for me in the past it has never felt like a prerequisite for having a child.
Joe as you have been told before. The number of surrogacy babies born in the last year to Irish parents is two that is the NUMBER 2. Both born to heterosexual couples who had fertility issues.
The truth is if this imagined sudden increase in a demand for surrogacy was real. We as a country would have seen it with the introduction of civil partnership.
This is an undeniable fact.
You can argue all you want. BUT A FACT REMAINS A FACT.
Joe, are you willing to stand over the academic credentials of Ms. Doris?
Once again…SO WHAT? Even if your bs is correct and it gives a right to procreate…SO WHAT?
Whats the big problem?
The woman entirely misrepresented the Murray V Ireland case..
Yes, a couple has a right to get down to business and create their own baby, the government can’t stop them – but in the Murray case the couple were behind bars, it was the state who was stopping them. If they wanted to exercise their “right” to procreate, they’d need conjugal visits.
They weren’t given them. Because the ruling stated that the rights of the family had limits, and the fact that this, heterosexual and presumably fertile couple, we’re separated by the prison walls – they had no “right” to procreate. They couldn’t use the placement of marriage within the section on “family” as an argument to get conjugal visits because a married couple with or without children constitutes family as per article 41.
But of course, this highly educated woman who studies these kind of things for a living left that out of her opinion piece. A lie by omission if you will.
Hence why she was completely demolished by three law lecturers and the head of the Referendum Commission in the video posted by Were Jammin (if my memory serves me correctly)
My apologies – it was John Ryan, his comment starts with a mention of Mothers and Fathers Matter.
@ thejournal: Can you please mark this CLEARLY as an opinion piece, given that the votes tomorrow?
It is a mere opinion piece and the provenance has not been established.
The academic credentials need to be checked. No doubt they are in order, but it pays to be careful.
Stranger and stranger.
The European University Institute in Florence don’t have a doctoral researcher registered named “Louise Doris”.
Martin Doris is an alumni.
I’ve usud Jstor , Lexis etc, Google Scholar and can’t anything published by a Louise Doris.
Is she from Belfast?
She is, different jurisdiction.
Thanks Richard. Different jurisdiction, as you rightly say. She does not seem to have any corpus of published material. In fairness, she does not pretend to have the slightest expertise in the Constitutional law of Ireland.
Nor yourself Anthony, especially in relation to Newton’s law of cause and effect, based on the Socratic law of causality, or as often remarked on ‘ the Iron Law of Human Destiny’. The blinded leading the blind springs to mine presently.
Ah, an article from the most vicious troll on Twitter, who happens to have no qualifications at all in her claimed area of expertise.
And the alter ego Maria Laoise has noted this piece on twitter.
Looking highly suspicious, I think.
Louise Doris debunked on Irish law.
LOUISE DORIS is a mystery. Nothing comes up as published.
The Irish Examiner notes Louise Doris as
“Louise Doris is a final-year PhD researcher at the European University Institute, Florence. Her doctoral thesis is a comparative study of assisted reproduction laws and surrogacy laws in European countries. She studied law at Queen’s University Belfast.”
But there is no record of her being a researcher on the records of the European University Institute in Florence. It would be helpful Ms. Doris could clear up this anomaly. Clearly, it is a minor mistake, a slight name variation and easily resolved.
@Louise Doris
Can Louise let us know the following, please:
-
1. At which third level institution she is studying her PhD
-
2. Provide a link to any of her publish work
Hardly relevant to any of the points that she makes here.
Her qualifications aren’t relevant? Seems like it’s all that’s relevant
If the academic credentials have been misrepresented, this calls the integrity and credibility of the author into serious question.
The qualifications are vitally important. Critical thinking demands critical judgment.
Just because you can’t see her credentials doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Well can you stand over her “credentials” ?
Something I feel has been lost in the debate, even if there is a no vote, surrogacy is outlawed and ss couples are banned from adopting, the “every child should have a mother and father debate is very sexist. Lesbians could still have IVF treatment. This argument is disproportionally discriminating against gay men, in my view. Vote yes, because even if you vote no, come Monday morning same sex couples can still legally adopt thanks to the C&FR Act 2015. And wouldn’t it be better for an orphan to be in a loving family with two parents of the same gender than in an orphanage or state institution?
Well said Amy.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFcSXC9WAAAT_Lx.jpg Maria’s greatest hits of abuse she has sent online!
Surrogacy is a separate topic to equal marriage. And
when we get around to debating it I for one will be arguing for laws that apply to all citizens. So why it could be an issue now is beyond me.
Ah yes, Murray v Ireland. Maria, sorry “Louise”, forgets to mention that the couple who brought the case were told that the State can put limits on the constitutional right to procreate. And if they can put limits on the rights of married couples to procreate naturally, as the State did for the Murrays, then it follows they can certainly do it for married couples who procreate with the assistance of 3rd parties.
“were told that the State can put limits on the constitutional right to procreate”
Oh thank God…so lets tell the Jayos and Nahhhalies they can’t have a kid please…PLEASE!
Just another last ditch effort by the NO brigade to try muddy the waters. I’ve never heard or read such specious,irrelevant , stupid, nasty , call it what you like, BULLSHIT from the NO side as I did in this debate . It’s an insult to intelligence and honesty to have been subjected to such drivel.
Anybody with an ounce of decency or fairness in them should just go out tomorrow and vote YES, YES for equality YES for dignity. YES to begin to undo the bigotry and hatred perpetrated against the gay community for years. For all those “I’ve nothing against gays but I’m voting no” hypocrites, I have nothing but contempt.
there’ll be a huge business opportunity to arrange foreign businessmen to have brief holidays here, get married, transfer assets, and avoid capital gains tax. Russian oligarchs, Middle Eastern Oil Barons, maybe even Carribean Telecoms Svengalis – they’ll all be getting married rather than transferring assets through conventional means.
it worries me how you can’t be pro gay marriage, but dare to suggest that we are not implementing it in the right way.
even suggest that whatever bureaucrat drew up the wording for the constitutional change might have made a mistake or forgotten to recognise the legitimate repercussions and you’ll be screamed at ‘homophobe homophobe!’ as though there is no more perfect way to realise the gay equality we all agree with.
groupthink gone mad. Ireland is pathetic at thinking ahead. As our recent history proves.
An Irish SSM is not going to be recognized in Russia so it would do the ”oligarchs” sweet FA good
Will someone please, PLEASE tell me what article of our constitution states that we have a right to procreate?
I understand that the judge in the Murray case ‘said’ it, but specifically WHERE is it written in our constitution?
It’s not, they are inferring this from a gross misinterpretation (a purposeful one) of a judgement on something else.
That’s what I assumed. I have searched the constitution SO many times for this supposed right that everyone keeps talking about – every time I hear this “constitutional right to procreate” argument I read it and have been convinced I’m going crazy!!
So, to clarify… our constitution does NOT say we have a right to procreate?
Can anyone argue that statement?
Derry, I think that the Constitutional foundation of the right to procreate is not that strong. It is not an explicit right. It is a judicially inferred unenumerated right and, to the extent that it arises, it is limited and it is likely limited to a right of natural procreation, not involving any form of assistance.
There is no existing Constitutional right to surrogacy. The Referendum, if passed, will not confer such a right.
A quick google shows Louise Doris as a Mothers and Fathers Matter member.
https://www.google.ie/?gws_rd=ssl#q=louise+doris+mothers+and+fathers+matter
She’s hardly going to have an unbiased opinion.
Ban surrogacy for all unless it’s between siblings
Um… do you want to clarify that statement?! It could be taken two ways!
Joan Burton is sad and demeaning.
Trying to intimidate the NO voters!
Strange world.
Equality in marriage for gays and lesbians = inequality for children!
Vote NO and protect marriage!
Sad about Enda’s statements on RTE last night!
To me, it is misleading referring to the referendum in the headline of a piece on surrogacy and bioethics.
The vote on same sex marriage would not necessarily lead to this subject.
The Catholic Church has taught us for years that the purpose of marriage is procreation of children. It does not mean that the current population of Ireland, many of whom fed up of the criminal sexual antics and other abuses carried out and supported by so many in that great, self styled ‘moral compass’ of the people, need to abide by their teachings. Plus many no longer consider themselves Catholic, or never were.
Marriage can be a declaration of commitment between two people where each can exercise rights and responsibilities over each other not available in other forms of relationships.
Any couple can decide whether they want children and look at various options where the usual method is not easily or effectively available to them. The issue does not affect only LGBT marriages.
I think this is a way to complicate a much simpler issue.
right to procreate will be decided in court to mean genital intercourse. problem solved.
it won’t mean ‘acquire a baby’ through a 3rd party.
So this is a red herring for the No camp.
Tax abuse however, will be a problem. ‘Marriage’ will hereforth be a tax term, and exploited richly, in the absence of any requirements to consummate.
Entry into a marriage knowing consumation is not possible means it is not a reason to make the marriage voidable.
So Dave your point is that same sex marriages are non-voidable? That seems unfair if opposite sex marriage has the option of voidability under the established legal definition of non-consummation if one partner chooses to take it to court.
Seems then we are being asked to vote for a change to the constitution to allow a form of marriage that is inferior to the current definition as the existing definition has voidability criteria and the new one doesn’t. That’s not equality.
Poorly thought through change.
Lack of Consumation does not void a marriage anyway silly. Also there’s more than one reason to void a marriage. You’re clutching at straws now.
“By giving special recognition to heterosexual marriage we by definition giving a lesser status to gay and lesbian couples who want to enter a loving commited relationship”.
This is the bull that annoys me. We are not giving special recognition to heterosexual couples. We are giving a different recognition because family is what marriage is about. To preempt I know not all married couples have children but the central theme of marriage is about having a family. If a central theme if marriage is about procreating then it’s wholly appropriate that marriage as it stands is preserved for family. Of course it’s impossible to legislate differently for those heterosexual couples who don’t have children and who would want to but let’s not use marriage / family for what it’s not designed for.
Gay couples can have all the protection they want in civil partnership but they want marriage to make a point.
It reminds me if the unionists insisting on marching down the Garvahey road despite having many alternates, just to make a point.
Same sex couples can’t produce children without a third party. That’s the biological situation now, next week and in 100 years. The relationships are different and always will be.
They should be treated fairly but differently for no other reason than, they are different and they have different needs.
All the protection and security same sex couples NEED is available if the civil partnership is incorporated into the constitution. I say need and not want because same sex couples want is not what they need.
We are using an inappropriate referendum to make gay people included. We make gay people feel safe and includes by education and teaching tolerance and acceptance of gay people and appreciating their gifts. I don’t want to be accused of generalisations but gay people have die yak gifts unique to their sexuality. Graham Norton is very very funny and I’m sure we all agree a major part of his humour is his sexuality. It’s what makes him unique.
Are we going to pretend it doesn’t exist. Different dies not mean less or inferior, it just means, well different.
Tom. – the main reason I will be glad when this is over is the fact that you and the other hateful, snide individuals will disappear from this site.
Tom – further, if it is all about the children, why have I never seen you on here condemning the Catholic priests when they were anally raping young boys and raping young girls.
Paul, “Tom” is a whole load of hateful, snide individuals.
Oh Tom you forgot your obsession with gay sex being thought in schools. It’s like a frenzy of extreme no tonight … Hopefully the last stings of dying wasps. I used to do a programme with kids who were going from primary school to secondary, to prepare them for bigger classes and timetables etc. We had one session that dealt with bullying and without fail the day we would do that would be the day that bullying would be most obvious. There has always been an element of our society that treats the lgbt community badly, since this all started they have become far more obvious. No matter what the outcome tomorrow is I hope, if people have learnt anything, it’s that this exists and it is not something that should be ignored or accepted as the norm. I really hope it’s a yes tomorrow but if it isn’t, hell yeah we will be coming back to this and it will be a yes next time.
Turnout is high. It’s looking positive for a Yes outcome.
The whole thing is a farce in an arse of country. Michael Collins is turning in his grave
Michael C would be out waving a rainbow flag.
Surrogacy is happening whether we all like it or not. The state doesn’t have the power to stop it. The only choice the state has is to leave it in a complete vacuum or to regulate the sapects that it can regulate.
As someone else already posted, by far the most cases of surrogacy involve heterosexual couples. That won’t change. I believe gay people deserve the right to marry but when the referendum is over (hopefully with a YES result) and the dust settles, married gay couples will be a small section of the population. Take the total number of gay people; reduce it by the proportion of them that are adults; of them, the ones who are in long-term committed relationships; then the proportion of those who want to get married; then the proporton of those who want to have children at all; then exclude almost all the lesbians, who will have the babies themselves; the ones who don’t like the idea of surrogacy at all, preffering to try adoption, etc; and then consider who actually has the means to attempt to have a child by means of surrogacy. And then compare that number to the general level of demand for surrogacy by heterosexual couples. The “gay” part of this is not going to figure and it certainly doesn’t make the difference between surrogacy being a phenomenon we have to deal with in some way and not being one.
As it stands, there is no legislation governing surrogacy. This has been abused by heterosexual married couples for several years. Apocryphal tales abound of straight couples using surrogacy, who end up with a child with one kind of disability or another, who they then treat as disposable, and dump in an orphanage in the country where surrogacy has occurred. There have been several high-profile court cases, of surrogates in Thailand and the Phillipines trying to force American parents to come and claim their babies, who have a disability. However, these are the children of straight married couples. Nobody is disputing the need for extensive research and legislation around assisted human reproduction. There are several human rights issues involved, including the welfare of children and mothers in countries where they are open to exploitation. Of course, we need to protect these women and children. All of this has absolutely nothing with what you are being asked to vote on today. A ‘yes’ vote will not affect this situation in any way. Because there is absolutely no legislation around surrogacy.
Ah
A Face to @marialaoise
I’ve seen her nasty fundamentalism online
Now sh’es writing for The Journal
Ooops.
‘Commodification’ of children you say? Heinous! We must never let it happen. Again.
have your say