Does this mean you’d be happy to scratch maternal uterine effects off the list of potential co-factors that may influence sexual orientation?

Or would you insist that “gestational motherhood” should only matter when “our LGBT side” is served by it mattering, but not when it’s an inconvenience for us gay people?

Because I don’t see any consistency in arguing that birth-motherhood has objective, scientific bearing when the question is “Why are some people born gay?”, but that we are obligated to ignore it because of a surrogate-uterus contract that a woman signed.

A married heterosexual man whose wife is completely infertile (she can neither produce healthy eggs nor safely carry a pregnancy to term) contracts with his sister for her to be the gestational surrogate, using the man’s sperm and an anonymous donor egg. After the baby is born, the sister reneges on the contract and attempts to claim custody rights as the gestational/birth mother. In other words, a case that EXACTLY parallels this one, biologically speaking, except that the legal spouse of the genetic father is a woman, and not a man.

Can anyone here really claim to predict with certainty that this hypothetical case would’ve turned out differently than the current dispute between Ms. Robinson and Mr. Robinson?

As to your analogy, no I don’t think I would still be the legal owner of the harvest, nor do I think Ms. Robinson should be considered a “legal owner” of these girls. She gave birth to them, her name would be listed as “mother” on their legal birth certificates, but she clearly gave up her legal rights to them when she entered into the original contract.

Just because someone is considered someone’s mother or father in a legal sense doesn’t mean they should get custody of them. That was my point.

I could see a judge perhaps granting joint or total custody to a mother who was genetically related to the kids, but I don’t see how they could justify granting this woman custody (if it comes to that with the final decision) when there has been no reported mistreatment of the girls and the woman filing for custody is not biologically related to them and was not a parent to them prior to her filing for custody.

And what is this crap she’s trying to sell about being “coerced” into it. How do you get coerced into this situation? I mean I could buy it if she was some young girl who needed the money and was poor,had no family support & turned to this “job” out of desperation, but she agreed to do this of her own free will for her brother and brother-in-law. She went to a fertility clinic, allowed herself to be inseminated,carried a child to term and only 5 months AFTER the birth did she attempt to get custody. Did they hold a gun to her head? Did they threaten to kill her if she didn’t agree? No. They asked, she agreed and she signed a contract relinquishing all claim to those children.

I really hope the parents (the male ones) do not lose their kids in the end. What she has done has just confused those kids and made their lives 100 times harder than they had to be.

The Miller/Jenkins case is a different thing altogether,imo because they were in a committed relationship when their daughter was born, planned to raise her together and Ms. Jenkins was an active parent to the child for over a year before the split. Thought she may have no biological connection to her she was acting as a parent to that child and had formed an emotional bond with her.