Sparkling Adventures in Child Neglect - "Gayby" is Born!

[Mama Mia]

Not bad Happy Atheist but, with respect, I think less focus on the cause and effect. Nobody, not even the mother herself, knows why she did an illegal 'surrogacy'. And, with respect to the mother who was a victim of horrendous violence, we ought not to speculate on whether or not the 'lifestyle', or her part in it, contributed to the murder of her son. Women are too often blamed for the violence of their spouses. Let's not contribute.

The upcoming trial, that is if he pleads not guilty (a guilty plea will mean only sentencing), will determine the factors contributing to the murder.

Let's remember she is a victim in the case. Not however a victim in her raising of her children and putting them in potentially dangerous situations, like sleeping while they roam around in the bush, or the selling of her son. The rainbow washing of that little arrangement continues with the dopey video made by the Gold Stars. 'Look at us! We got the kid through slightly illegal means but hey!'

Don't let them off the hook. their son spent 3 months in document limbo- was he a citizen? Perhaps. Why not speculate on that as a form of violence? Just like the Iceland govt does by making it illegal.

I don't get why you're equating everything that might possibly be illegal and/ or negative with violence? I'm not saying she hasn't suffered from some horrible things. Or done some horrible things. But how is a slightly legally dubious surrogacy a form of violence?

Eta: just saw you're feeling shy about posting, or think you've upset people. I'm not upset. Just curious.

[So Many Lies]

I'd love to hear more about the IRL sighting of Lauren.

A happy baby gives no indication of how that person will feel as an adult, or how his mother and siblings feel now and in the future. It could be fine, but given the fact she shouldn't have been participating in this a year after her baby's murder I don't think anyone involved gives a shit about feelings and the taking care of them.

august I agree with you.

[Oh auntie Em]

I don't get why you're equating everything that might possibly be illegal and/ or negative with violence? I'm not saying she hasn't suffered from some horrible things. Or done some horrible things. But how is a slightly legally dubious surrogacy a form of violence?

Eta: just saw you're feeling shy about posting, or think you've upset people. I'm not upset. Just curious.

According to the Gold Star Gays' 'we're a bit naughty but we got the baby' video they mention that both forms of surrogacy are illegal in Iceland due to human rights-in this case women's rights. Part of the established arguments against surrogacy, usually commercial, is that it is exploitation of women- a form of violence. Check out the work of Renate Klein. We can assume that Iceland takes this into consideration. So, to go against the law can, IMO, be considered a form of violence.

Eta: I'm not saying I'm for/against. Just putting the argument that in Iceland to engage in surrogacy is to be considered an abuse of human rights- according to the GSG video.

[Trudestar]

I keep wondering if Lauren and the girls are OK.

It's been so long since she's updated the blog, or even posted on facebook. I don't have instagram, has there been anything on there?

[busdrivingmom]

I keep wondering if Lauren and the girls are OK.

It's been so long since she's updated the blog, or even posted on facebook. I don't have instagram, has there been anything on there?

Nothing on instagram in the past few months.

[Guest]

NOT to sound all prudish and conservative and whatnot . . . but were the dads actually in the birthing tub? Does that strike anyone else as a little eww? And why does the one dad have his shirt off?

.

Skin-to-skin contact with a parent is good for babies. Lots of dads are doing it nowadays!

[blessalessi]

My cousin sat in the birthing tub )at the hospital) for hours with his GF. She leaned against him for comfort during contractions then, when baby was ready, she got on all fours and he sat and received baby in his arms as she pushed him out. Mama got the first skin to skin when she was ready, then he did skin to skin while mama needed some care from the midwives. They were super emotional and close all the way though.

It is all quite normal these days. :)

[Cheetah]

I keep wondering if Lauren and the girls are OK.

It's been so long since she's updated the blog, or even posted on facebook. I don't have instagram, has there been anything on there?

I know... I miss her! I hope the girls are all okay.

[Mama Mia]

According to the Gold Star Gays' 'we're a bit naughty but we got the baby' video they mention that both forms of surrogacy are illegal in Iceland due to human rights-in this case women's rights. Part of the established arguments against surrogacy, usually commercial, is that it is exploitation of women- a form of violence. Check out the work of Renate Klein. We can assume that Iceland takes this into consideration. So, to go against the law can, IMO, be considered a form of violence.

Eta: I'm not saying I'm for/against. Just putting the argument that in Iceland to engage in surrogacy is to be considered an abuse of human rights- according to the GSG video.

I'm going to completely disagree with calling anything that could remotely be described as exploitive as equal to violence. It's not the same thing. The word "violence" has a particular meaning. Surrogacy may, or may not be exploitive of women, but I don't see how it could possibly be described as an act of violence. Violence is physical or sexual assault. Using the term for everything else is disrespectful and dismissive of people who have suffered from actual violence.

I had a long drawn out post that got eaten about why it's a strange logic that people will call freely entered into commercial gestational surrogacy an exploitation of poor women - but at the same time pushing that instead of surrogacy, children in foster care should be adopted - instead of focusing instead on advocating for money being put into the family support services that could keep many of the eligible for adoption waiting foster care children with either their parents or their extended families.

Yes, with the system as it is now, there are many kids who need to be adopted from foster care, some will always need to have parental rights terminated as the parents simply are too unstable or abusive to care for the children, even with education and significant support. But the unfortunate reality is that many, many families could provide a stable home if they had on-going, intensive financial and emotional and physical help. Which costs money. Lots of money.

It just seems ironic that it's considered exploitive for a woman to freely choose to be a gestationatl surrogate to have money to care for her family -- but a-okay to adopt children who likely have parents whose issues could be mediated with an on-going stream of financial and other support ( mental health care, drug treatment, respite care, housekeeping, home visitors etc.)

[Maggie Mae]

I'm going to completely disagree with calling anything that could remotely be described as exploitive as equal to violence. It's not the same thing. The word "violence" has a particular meaning. Surrogacy may, or may not be exploitive of women, but I don't see how it could possibly be described as an act of violence. Violence is physical or sexual assault. Using the term for everything else is disrespectful and dismissive of people who have suffered from actual violence.

I had a long drawn out post that got eaten about why it's a strange logic that people will call freely entered into commercial gestational surrogacy an exploitation of poor women - but at the same time pushing that instead of surrogacy, children in foster care should be adopted - instead of focusing instead on advocating for money being put into the family support services that could keep many of the eligible for adoption waiting foster care children with either their parents or their extended families.

Yes, with the system as it is now, there are many kids who need to be adopted from foster care, some will always need to have parental rights terminated as the parents simply are too unstable or abusive to care for the children, even with education and significant support. But the unfortunate reality is that many, many families could provide a stable home if they had on-going, intensive financial and emotional and physical help. Which costs money. Lots of money.

It just seems ironic that it's considered exploitive for a woman to freely choose to be a gestationatl surrogate to have money to care for her family -- but a-okay to adopt children who likely have parents whose issues could be mediated with an on-going stream of financial and other support ( mental health care, drug treatment, respite care, housekeeping, home visitors etc.)

I think there are a lot of people who have a very optimistic view of family; whereas i personally think there are a lot of families that would take the money and still mistreat the unwanted child. Junkies are going to be junkies. Extended families are often not interested in raising a relative's child. Regardless of money. Some people are just assholes.

[Mama Mia]

I think there are a lot of people who have a very optimistic view of family; whereas i personally think there are a lot of families that would take the money and still mistreat the unwanted child. Junkies are going to be junkies. Extended families are often not interested in raising a relative's child. Regardless of money. Some people are just assholes.

Oh, yeah, DEFINITELY a sizable chunk of people are just assholes. And a few are just monsters.

There will always be a fair number of children whose parents and/or extended family can't and care for them - no matter what.

But in my experience, there's an even larger group of kids whose parents end up losing parental rights, but they could care for the kids, if they had a permanent support system. Not just money for financial basic needs, but hands-on help and support services. Most of the ones that I'm talking about don't even fit into a specific category - they are just barely functioning in life. They may be intellectually challenged - but not severely enough to get services. That's really common. On top of it they might have impulse control issues. Or problems with decision making. Or medication resistant depression. They might have family who would like to help, but can't take on a bunch of kids full-time. They don't have a big enough house or they are too old or too precarious themselves. Or they can't afford childcare while they work. The family members might all love each other very, very much. But the parent's have a really difficult time filling the role of parent independently.

There really needs to be a system that provides on-going home visitors, or supervised, supported permanent housing for these families ( there's some small programs, but they are very, very few ) . The problem is these families come tothe attention of CPS, and there are short term services and resources, but once they are out of CPS jurisdiction, they are usually back to square one really quickly, because they don't have the skills to keep it going. So they go back under CPS, the kids are pulled again. And again. Eventually they are permanently placed. By this time they are generally hard to adopt. Because they are older, or it's a large sibling group, or they have various emotional and behavioral issues.

Comfortably Middle class to wealthy family's can often avoid the kids being permanently placed because they have the resources to send mom off to in-patient treatment even after CPS is out of the picture ( plus CPS doesn't get involved as frequently in the first place ). Or for a grandmother or aunt who is already home to take care of the kids. Or to have the family live nearby and have someone take over financially, and provide that support. Or to pay for a sitter.

Of course the assholes , of any financial status, wouldn't benefit from permanent family services, but there are a lot of troubled families that would. And the problems with instead just advising people to adopt from foster care are that by the time the kids get to that point they are beyond the "cute, malleable babies and toddlers that everyone wants. And not everyone is suited to handling the more severe challenges of kids with already identified serious issues, or large sibling groups. And if they know they aren't really aren't able to commit to that , they really shouldn't be pushed - it's not good for anyone.

Anyway, my point isn't that adopting from foster care isn't a neccessity , and important. But that the financial inequities are being considered if it's a surrogacy situation, but not for mothers ( and fathers) who already have existing children they can't care for.

[August]

It's not just involuntary temoval of children. How many women make the decision to adopt out a child because they cannot afford to raise them? Particularly American women, because they live in a country which could support them if it chose to.

[Mama Mia]

It's not just involuntary temoval of children. How many women make the decision to adopt out a child because they cannot afford to raise them? Particularly American women, because they live in a country which could support them if it chose to.

Oh, absolutely a huge issue with adoption as a "choice" ( and abortion too ). I just assumed the writer of the article that was against surrogacy as a form of exploitation of women probably had the same thoughts about the adoption industry. But maybe not.

Yea, it's never a true choice if the primary stumbling block to having or keeping or raising a child is money.

[ladyaudley]

Lauren posted a picture on Facebook and she's cut off her dreads! She has a cute short pixie cut and it looks lovely.

No update on the blog or Instagram, but now that she's come out of hiding, hopefully she'll update soon.

[sparkles]

Whoa, that's interesting, to say the least. She does look good but I wonder what was behind it. What happened to authenticity?

[ladyaudley]

I cannot wait for the mind gymnastics she'll no doubt come up with to explain how it's still totally authentic.

Lauren, you can just say "I was sick of the weight and the upkeep and cut them off because it's only hair!" just a friendly hint. :wink-kitty:

ETA just noticed I am now a bodily fluid performance artist. eeeeew!

[anjulibai]

I never understood how dreads were more authentic, anyways. What makes dreads so much better than anything else people do with their hair? I have nothing against dreads, btw, it's just strange the pride she took in hers.

[Blahblah]

I never understood how dreads were more authentic, anyways. What makes dreads so much better than anything else people do with their hair? I have nothing against dreads, btw, it's just strange the pride she took in hers.

In Lauren's universe, dreads are not just hair. They are the equivalent of the Freemasons secret handshake that immediately identify you to fellow travelers of the alternate lifestyle route. They bestow upon the wearer immediate sparkliness and authenticity. They signify that you are a more enlightened, unburdened soul who is far superior to those silly mainstream people who work, earn an income and otherwise provide for themselves as opposed to sponging off the tax payer dollars.

She has invested so much time and effort into spruiking her dreads that it's mind boggling that she's chopped them off. She'll probably have some explanation - donated them to make socks for endangered fruit bats or something.

[browncoatslytherin]

which fb was this? i must have an old one because the one i have, the last post is from march.

[sparkles]

which fb was this? i must have an old one because the one i have, the last post is from march.

Red Gypsy Lauren

[browncoatslytherin]

Red Gypsy Lauren

i forgot about that one, thanks!

she looks incredibly cute with her hair like this. she must have cut her dreads off a little while ago as it looks like it's grown out nicely. that or she grew out her roots for a minute before she cut off the dreads. either way, i'm curious as to why. she only had them for, what, a few years, tops?

[happy atheist]

Whoa, that's interesting, to say the least. She does look good but I wonder what was behind it. What happened to authenticity?

Lice?

[browncoatslytherin]

Lice?

lice is treatable without cutting off dreads, just takes effort.

[sparkles]

Lice?

Nah, not lice. When the girls had lice Lauren pretty much left it up to them when it came to getting rid of the little creepy crawlies. They had lice for so long Lauren could probably have declared them as dependants too.

Maybe she had an epiphany and realized that it really wasn't terribly authentic to have to sit for hours while someone teased and rolled and otherwise tortured her hair into a style that was completely unnatural for its hair texture. One could hope.

[DaisyD]

Dreads are a sort of secret handshake, true. I wouldn't say they make you more or less "authentic". When I started allowing my hair to dread, I had more than one "family member" offer me a brush and say that I really didn't want to go that route. They are a pain. They pinch and tug on your scalp and require regular separating from each other, which can be painful. They are by no means required to be rainbow. Hopefully it was her choice to get rid of thrm, and not forced upon her like it was me. That shit was traumatic even if they are uncomfortable.