ChatterBank1 min ago
So What Are They Afraid Of?
56 Answers
http://
Not only do they take away her child they also take away her freedom to give her side. More to this than meets the eye methinks.
Not only do they take away her child they also take away her freedom to give her side. More to this than meets the eye methinks.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
O: Well! it CAN be!
M: No it can't!
M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.
O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!
M: Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
O: It is NOT!
M: It is!
O: Not at all!
M: It is!
O: Well! it CAN be!
M: No it can't!
M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.
O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!
M: Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
O: It is NOT!
M: It is!
O: Not at all!
M: It is!
Personally I think this was done to protect the child.
I supported a lady that had been abused. I had all the paperwork regarding the abuse and read it. Afterwards I thought it was completely wrong that her abuse was so public that anyone supporting her could read it. I believe that we should of been aware that she had been abused but it was up to her to decide what if anything she wanted to disclose.
I supported a lady that had been abused. I had all the paperwork regarding the abuse and read it. Afterwards I thought it was completely wrong that her abuse was so public that anyone supporting her could read it. I believe that we should of been aware that she had been abused but it was up to her to decide what if anything she wanted to disclose.
In case anyone missed it:
"The judge said the girl was born in January 2014 as a result of a surrogacy arrangement in which the mother agreed to bear the child. The gay couple would be the main parents, while the mother – who first met the father when they were both teenagers in Romania – would live with them to share parenting."
Emphasis on the closing sentence there. So, what changed was that there was a telationship breakdown. Although there was no marriage*, perhaps this whole breakup + custody battle should be treated as "divorce: special variety of"?
* Surrogacy is interesting in that it is explicitly the raising of a child outside of a marriage arrangement. It's old ground, I'm sure but it is not my job to know the regulations. Based on lack of research alone, I'd have thought the idea is that the mother's part of the bargain is to give up the child to the adoptees. This case, uniquely (?????) breaks that mould, by arranging for her to live with them and "be mother".
Shouldn't they have thrashed the contractural arrangements out, with legal advice, before the "insemination procedure" even took place?
"The judge said the girl was born in January 2014 as a result of a surrogacy arrangement in which the mother agreed to bear the child. The gay couple would be the main parents, while the mother – who first met the father when they were both teenagers in Romania – would live with them to share parenting."
Emphasis on the closing sentence there. So, what changed was that there was a telationship breakdown. Although there was no marriage*, perhaps this whole breakup + custody battle should be treated as "divorce: special variety of"?
* Surrogacy is interesting in that it is explicitly the raising of a child outside of a marriage arrangement. It's old ground, I'm sure but it is not my job to know the regulations. Based on lack of research alone, I'd have thought the idea is that the mother's part of the bargain is to give up the child to the adoptees. This case, uniquely (?????) breaks that mould, by arranging for her to live with them and "be mother".
Shouldn't they have thrashed the contractural arrangements out, with legal advice, before the "insemination procedure" even took place?
Tora - //some interviewer on the BBC/SKY etc can do the interview of Miss X just like they do with all sorts of annonymous people. //
But why would they?
Without the identity of the woman, and the context of the story, an interview would be meaningless because no-one could know who she is, or what she is talking about.
Anything that identifies her - which is anything she would want to discuss, destroys her anonymity.
But why would they?
Without the identity of the woman, and the context of the story, an interview would be meaningless because no-one could know who she is, or what she is talking about.
Anything that identifies her - which is anything she would want to discuss, destroys her anonymity.
Mamyalynne, //Get the public onside? To what end? //
There are always several different angles to any news item, but from an investigative journalist’s point of view getting the woman’s side of the story first hand in order to examine the justification for the rule of law that has been imposed upon her would be of interest. Her anonymity need not be compromised.
There are always several different angles to any news item, but from an investigative journalist’s point of view getting the woman’s side of the story first hand in order to examine the justification for the rule of law that has been imposed upon her would be of interest. Her anonymity need not be compromised.
It sounds like she has been gagged because of what she has said and how she has acted already. She does not want to be anonymous but the couple probably do and don't want her smearing them further.
The judge must not think very much of this lady, I would also love to see why she thinks this but have to respect that the judge does not want to put the other 3 through it.
The judge must not think very much of this lady, I would also love to see why she thinks this but have to respect that the judge does not want to put the other 3 through it.
sherradk wrote: Better two dads than one fruit-loop mum.
Nice....just because the woman has had to give up the baby (for whatever legal reason) does not indicate she is a 'fruit loop' To have a child who you are still in the process of breastfeeding, taken from you ,must be one of the most terrible things that can happen.
Nice....just because the woman has had to give up the baby (for whatever legal reason) does not indicate she is a 'fruit loop' To have a child who you are still in the process of breastfeeding, taken from you ,must be one of the most terrible things that can happen.
One clumsily worded paragraph:
"In her ruling, the High Court judge said the mother had defied a court order to register the girl with her surname and her own chosen first name without giving recognition to the father."
I would have preferred:
In her ruling, the High Court judge said the mother had defied a court order, by registering the girl with her surname and her own chosen first name without giving recognition to the father.
The article goes on in a different vein and leaves it up to the reader to decide whether the public record (register of births, that is) has been corrected, nor whether a deed poll change was required, leaving a paper trail which would threaten the child's anonymity when it comes to them applying for identity-sensitive services in years to come.
It was a smart move by the mother, assuring that clues are left behind for the child to discover in later life, in the event that it has no personal recall of contact with the mother (I don't, so I'm biased). Given the acrimony between them, I can hardly see the two males making any attempt to reinforce such memories, by regular prompting, for instance.
"In her ruling, the High Court judge said the mother had defied a court order to register the girl with her surname and her own chosen first name without giving recognition to the father."
I would have preferred:
In her ruling, the High Court judge said the mother had defied a court order, by registering the girl with her surname and her own chosen first name without giving recognition to the father.
The article goes on in a different vein and leaves it up to the reader to decide whether the public record (register of births, that is) has been corrected, nor whether a deed poll change was required, leaving a paper trail which would threaten the child's anonymity when it comes to them applying for identity-sensitive services in years to come.
It was a smart move by the mother, assuring that clues are left behind for the child to discover in later life, in the event that it has no personal recall of contact with the mother (I don't, so I'm biased). Given the acrimony between them, I can hardly see the two males making any attempt to reinforce such memories, by regular prompting, for instance.
here is the actual judgement.
http://
what a sorry tale for everybody concerned.
http://
what a sorry tale for everybody concerned.
