Japanese Couple Lose Appeal Over Twins

[FG Lurker]

Japanese Couple Lose Appeal Over Twins
LA Times (AP), May 23, 2005

A Japanese couple has lost an appeal to have their 2-year-old twin sons -- born in the United States to an American surrogate mother -- registered in Japan as their own, the father said.

The Osaka High Court upheld an August 2004 family court ruling rejecting the couple's request, Yasunao Kondo told The Associated Press by telephone on Monday. Kondo and his wife, Yoko, planned to appeal to the Supreme Court.

[...]

The government has been considering legislation outlawing surrogate births and imposing criminal penalties, based on a health ministry panel's recommendation. The panel also urged that egg and sperm donations be illegal.

(Full Story)

Talk about a fucked up country where the left hand has no clue what the right hand is doing. Isn't this the very same place where the government is constantly complaining about the low birth rate and trying to encourage couples to have children?? Fucking idiots.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Does anyone know what the Japanese government's logic is behind banning surrogate mothers and artificial insemination? I'm not personally a big fan of either (I say do the good thing and adopt) but I certainly don't think they need to be outlawed.

[FG Lurker]

Does anyone know what the Japanese government's logic is behind banning surrogate mothers and artificial insemination?

SJ...Are you actually expecting logic from a government? From the Japanese government, no less? Give your head a shake man! They're just a bunch of smelly oyajis who are far removed from reality.

I'm not personally a big fan of either (I say do the good thing and adopt) but I certainly don't think they need to be outlawed.

Adoption would be good...except that finding kids in Japan to adopt is pretty tough. Adopting needy children from overseas would be fantastic, but since that is still pretty rare even in more "open" countries I don't expect to see it happen here anytime soon.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Does anyone know what the Japanese government's logic is behind banning surrogate mothers and artificial insemination?

SJ...Are you actually expecting logic from a government? From the Japanese government, no less? Give your head a shake man! They're just a bunch of smelly oyajis who are far removed from reality.

Shit, I don't know what I was thinking.

[American Oyaji]

Does anyone know what the Japanese government's logic is behind banning surrogate mothers and artificial insemination?

SJ...Are you actually expecting logic from a government? From the Japanese government, no less? Give your head a shake man! They're just a bunch of smelly oyajis who are far removed from reality.

Shit, I don't know what I was thinking.

[Socratesabroad]

Does anyone know what the Japanese government's logic is behind banning surrogate mothers and artificial insemination? I'm not personally a big fan of either (I say do the good thing and adopt) but I certainly don't think they need to be outlawed.

The Japanese gov't does have logic it relies upon.

The Ministry maintains that under Japanese law, according to a 1962 Supreme Court decision, the woman giving birth is the mother. The Ministry has always been willing to give citizenship to such babies if their parents adopt them.
http://www.japanlaw.info/law2004/Japan_law_2004_surrogate_birth.html

Japanese pols are not completely insane. Conservative perhaps, but not insane. In short, they fear the legal repercussions of allowing surrogacy. One point to remember is that in Japan citizenship is closely tied to bloodline rather than residence/location as it is in the West, and another is the lack of sufficient legal infrastructure (case law, lawyers, and courts) to handle a flood of surrogacy cases.

Lawmakers in Japan's conservative ruling Liberal Democratic Party have long opposed most fertility treatments because they fear legal custody battles and other possible repercussions for the traditional family unit.
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/8899022.htm

For a more detailed look at some of these legal repercussions:

A Ministry of Health and Welfare panel of experts came out against surrogate birth in its final report released last December, recommending that "a practice that uses women as reproductive tools should be banned." The panel proposed establishing a law that carries penalties within three years, and the government has begun seriously considering the issue with the aim of enacting such a law.

There are undeniably a great number of issues that accompany a birth involving a surrogate mother. As the pregnant woman is forced to bear most of the burden, how should the various risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth be handled? What should happen in the event that a surrogate mother becomes attached to the child to whom she gave birth and a dispute over parental rights develops? In its final report, the panel cited concerns over safety and the child's home environment as reasons for banning surrogate birth.
http://www.embjapan.dk/info/Japan%20Brief%20etc2001/jb010601.htm

[FG Lurker]

Does anyone know what the Japanese government's logic is behind banning surrogate mothers and artificial insemination? I'm not personally a big fan of either (I say do the good thing and adopt) but I certainly don't think they need to be outlawed.

The Japanese gov't does have logic it relies upon.

While I do see your points, if the government is truly sincere about wanting to increase the birth rate they should be doing everything possible to encourage families. This is where I see a massive lack of logic.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Does anyone know what the Japanese government's logic is behind banning surrogate mothers and artificial insemination? I'm not personally a big fan of either (I say do the good thing and adopt) but I certainly don't think they need to be outlawed.

The Japanese gov't does have logic it relies upon.

While I do see your points, if the government is truly sincere about wanting to increase the birth rate they should be doing everything possible to encourage families. This is where I see a massive lack of logic.

Well, I doubt that surrogate mothers and test tube babies (there's a term I bet you haven't heard in a while) would have much of an impact on overall birth rates.

[FG Lurker]

Does anyone know what the Japanese government's logic is behind banning surrogate mothers and artificial insemination? I'm not personally a big fan of either (I say do the good thing and adopt) but I certainly don't think they need to be outlawed.

The Japanese gov't does have logic it relies upon.

While I do see your points, if the government is truly sincere about wanting to increase the birth rate they should be doing everything possible to encourage families. This is where I see a massive lack of logic.

Well, I doubt that surrogate mothers and test tube babies (there's a term I bet you haven't heard in a while) would have much of an impact on overall birth rates.

Correct, it wouldn't have much impact overall. But it is the whole "we want everyone to have babies" line, but then do nothing to encourage it. Not only not encourage it, but outright ban some things like surrogates.

[Socratesabroad]

While I do see your points, if the government is truly sincere about wanting to increase the birth rate they should be doing everything possible to encourage families. This is where I see a massive lack of logic.

I'm not saying I agree with the gov't's logic, merely that it has one.

But assuming Devil's advocate - seeing as how there are few Japanese lawyers posting here - I might respond:

Yes, we want to encourage families but 1) families that are Japanese and 2) families that are cohesive.

Second point first, look at all of the legal strife over surrogacy in the West. Surrogacy brings with it a host of legal issues like parental rights from the start. Is the woman who donated an egg the mother or is it the woman who brought the child to term? And what if, as has happened numerous times in the West, the surrogate initially agrees to the birth but decides while carrying, after birth, or much later that she wants 'her child' back or even limited parental rights to visit the child? Is a child born of a surrogate from an egg of another the property of the first woman]Kondo case[/url] (the case in the original post), a Japanese couple used the husband's sperm to fertilize the egg of an Asian American woman. They then had the egg implanted in a second woman to serve as surrogate. Now who's the mother? And if you were an immigration official, would you say the mother's Japanese?

But, you say in response to both points, motherhood isn't merely biological, it's also deed and action. Problem is you as the mother must have legal custody of the child to raise it (and thus become legally responsible for its upbringing). So we're back to the messy issue of deciding who the parents are.

Fault the Japanese gov't all you wish, but in my mind they sidestepped some major legal landmines that the West wanted to jump on. Lowly cowardice or intelligent self-preservation?

[FG Lurker]

While I do see your points, if the government is truly sincere about wanting to increase the birth rate they should be doing everything possible to encourage families. This is where I see a massive lack of logic.

I'm not saying I agree with the gov't's logic, merely that it has one.

Is logic that is not logical still logic? ]But assuming Devil's advocate - seeing as how there are few Japanese lawyers posting here - I might respond:

Yes, we want to encourage families but 1) families that are Japanese and 2) families that are cohesive.

Second point first, look at all of the legal strife over surrogacy in the West. Surrogacy brings with it a host of legal issues like parental rights from the start. Is the woman who donated an egg the mother or is it the woman who brought the child to term? And what if, as has happened numerous times in the West, the surrogate initially agrees to the birth but decides while carrying, after birth, or much later that she wants 'her child' back or even limited parental rights to visit the child? Is a child born of a surrogate from an egg of another the property of the first woman; if the surrogate backs out, is this breach of contract? Does the surrogate get to keep the child despite it coming from the first woman's egg? And is the father - a paternity test would prove it - still responsible for child support?

And as for the first point...
Science allows such a large number of people to be involved in the process of surrogate birth that the notion of 'family' disappears. In the Kondo case (the case in the original post), a Japanese couple used the husband's sperm to fertilize the egg of an Asian American woman. They then had the egg implanted in a second woman to serve as surrogate. Now who's the mother? And if you were an immigration official, would you say the mother's Japanese?

But, you say in response to both points, motherhood isn't merely biological, it's also deed and action. Problem is you as the mother must have legal custody of the child to raise it (and thus become legally responsible for its upbringing). So we're back to the messy issue of deciding who the parents are.

Fault the Japanese gov't all you wish, but in my mind they sidestepped some major legal landmines that the West wanted to jump on. Lowly cowardice or intelligent self-preservation?[/quote]
I am only saying that if the government wants people to have families then they should be working towards creating a family-friendly society.

[maraboutslim]

Just because the Japanese government wants more kids to pay into the retirement system doesn't mean they want them at any cost. The case against these unnatural methods of forming a parent-child relationship is quite strong. I can see why it's actually quite logical for the Japanese government to outlaw it.

Remember that Japan has a history of powerful men using other women to give them heirs, which are then considered to be part of the man's family. I'm not even talking about Shogun days, I'm talking even as recent as the Tsutsumi family. Maybe that's part of the hesitancy on this stuff? I don't know...

I have mixed feeling on adoption. If the kid has no other option, then fine. Give 'em a home. But it certainly shouldn't be promoted as a practice. It's just not natural to have a kid raised in an environment to which he has no dna connection. It's just a bizarre way for a kid to grow up. Trust me.

[FG Lurker]

Just because the Japanese government wants more kids to pay into the retirement system doesn't mean they want them at any cost. The case against these unnatural methods of forming a parent-child relationship is quite strong. I can see why it's actually quite logical for the Japanese government to outlaw it.

What "case against these unnatural methods"? You mean religious nutballs? Or actual facts? In either case, sources please.

Remember that Japan has a history of powerful men using other women to give them heirs, which are then considered to be part of the man's family. I'm not even talking about Shogun days, I'm talking even as recent as the Tsutsumi family. Maybe that's part of the hesitancy on this stuff? I don't know...

That's a pretty odd reason since it could be argued that surrogacy is a form of using another women to give a man heirs.

I have mixed feeling on adoption. If the kid has no other option, then fine. Give 'em a home. But it certainly shouldn't be promoted as a practice. It's just not natural to have a kid raised in an environment to which he has no dna connection. It's just a bizarre way for a kid to grow up. Trust me.

I have an adopted cousin as well as a couple of friends who were adopted. They've all turned out to be normal well-balanced people. I'm sure that not all kids do though, just as not all kids with biological parents turn out to be normal well-balanced people.

As for "if the kid has no other option", why do you think they ended up being put up for adoption? I would guess that most people don't intentionally have kids to keep the adoption business booming...

[maraboutslim]

Just because the Japanese government wants more kids to pay into the retirement system doesn't mean they want them at any cost. The case against these unnatural methods of forming a parent-child relationship is quite strong. I can see why it's actually quite logical for the Japanese government to outlaw it.

What "case against these unnatural methods"? You mean religious nutballs? Or actual facts? In either case, sources please.

Did you not read the posts by Socratesabroad? There were many powerful points made about custody questions and the concept of using women as breeders (for financial compensation).

[quote]
As for "if the kid has no other option", why do you think they ended up being put up for adoption? I would guess that most people don't intentionally have kids to keep the adoption business booming... ]

But people do intentionally donate eggs, and serve as surrogates in what is indeed a very booming business. My "no other option" comment refers to kids whose parents were killed in a car wreck and a friend of relative (best) adopts them. This is quite different than all these for-profit agencies scouring the world looking for women willing to give up their kids for adoption or searching out orphans and uprooting them from their native land and bringing them to the 1st world (for a fee) to satisfy the desires of a couple here. It's also different from women who give up their kids so they'll "have a better life". How about just getting your own shit together, stop doing the drugs or being a whore or whatever your problem is and provide that "better life" yourself, huh? That's 1mil times preferable to taking that kid to be raised by genetic strangers.

[Samurai_Jerk]

How about just getting your own shit together, stop doing the drugs or being a whore or whatever your problem is and provide that "better life" yourself, huh? That's 1mil times preferable to taking that kid to be raised by genetic strangers.

Wow. If only the world had known it was so simple, many a tragedy could have been avoided.

[maraboutslim]

Wow. If only the world had known it was so simple, many a tragedy could have been avoided.

Nothing is easy. But who you gonna put it on? The mother (to just do it) and/or her relatives (to step in if she really can't)? Or you gonna just put it all on the kid? We've got to stop thinking that it's absolutely fine to just take a kid and have him/her be raised by genetic strangers. It's a negative and needs to be counted as one when you are balancing things out and trying to decide what is appropriate.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Wow. If only the world had known it was so simple, many a tragedy could have been avoided.

Nothing is easy. But who you gonna put it on? The mother (to just do it) and/or her relatives (to step in if she really can't)? Or you gonna just put it all on the kid? We've got to stop thinking that it's absolutely fine to just take a kid and have him/her be raised by genetic strangers. It's a negative and needs to be counted as one when you are balancing things out and trying to decide what is appropriate.

I don't even know what you're talking about, dude. You're making it sound like people are pushing adoption as the latest greatest thing in child rearing.

[FG Lurker]

Wow. If only the world had known it was so simple, many a tragedy could have been avoided.

Nothing is easy. But who you gonna put it on? The mother (to just do it) and/or her relatives (to step in if she really can't)? Or you gonna just put it all on the kid? We've got to stop thinking that it's absolutely fine to just take a kid and have him/her be raised by genetic strangers. It's a negative and needs to be counted as one when you are balancing things out and trying to decide what is appropriate.

Why do you think genetics should play such a large role in rasing kids? As a parent I would say that environment (ie. love & support) are far more important.

[FG Lurker]

I don't even know what you're talking about, dude. You're making it sound like people are pushing adoption as the latest greatest thing in child rearing.

Heh, I don't think he knows what he's talking himself! But hey, since when has that stopped anyone from spouting off, especially on the 'net...

[maraboutslim]

[Why do you think genetics should play such a large role in rasing kids? As a parent I would say that environment (ie. love & support) are far more important.

Sounds like something somone would say if they were raising someone else's kids: are yours yours? Anyway, as a parent myself (of my own genetic kids) I understand that environment is important. But I also see how alike my kids and I are in many ways that are not environment specific. Furthermore, as a child, I can also tell you that nature is often much more important than nurture. It determines so much about how we turn out and I just think it's important that kids be allowed to grow up with others like them in this regard and not be raised by people with completely different looks, personality traits, natural talents, medical risks and other genetic dispositions, and so on...

I'm not saying that a junky natural parent is better than a clean adoptive parent. But that as a society we should do everything in our power to help natural mothers raise their children well, instead of supporting an industry of adoption to remove the kids from the poor situations. And we should discourage the selling of eggs and sperm and the birthing of babies for profit. I feel sorry for couples who can't have kids the natural way, I do. But I feel more sorry for the kids that must grow up with genetic strangers and ignorant of their own genetic background, which might contain life and death information (how would you like to grow up not knowing where you came from and therefore not knowing any hints on where you might be going, and always having to leave blank the medical questions that ask "do you have a family history of x, y, z"?).

don't even know what you're talking about, dude. You're making it sound like people are pushing adoption as the latest greatest thing in child rearing.

There are indeed plenty of people out there doing just that. It's a huge industry. People birthing kids for other people, people using other people's eggs or sperm to give birth to other people's kids, people importing kids from far away lands...and much, much money trading hands.

[FG Lurker]

[Why do you think genetics should play such a large role in rasing kids? As a parent I would say that environment (ie. love & support) are far more important.

Sounds like something somone would say if they were raising someone else's kids: are yours yours?

Mine are mine, of that there is no doubt. Any other personal comments you'd like to make?

Anyway, as a parent myself (of my own genetic kids) I understand that environment is important. But I also see how alike my kids and I are in many ways that are not environment specific. Furthermore, as a child, I can also tell you that nature is often much more important than nurture. It determines so much about how we turn out and I just think it's important that kids be allowed to grow up with others like them in this regard and not be raised by people with completely different looks, personality traits, natural talents, medical risks and other genetic dispositions, and so on...

Again, I ask you to provide proof to back up what you write. Perhaps you can't provide it because it doesn't exist? Just a thought.

I'm not saying that a junky natural parent is better than a clean adoptive parent. But that as a society we should do everything in our power to help natural mothers raise their children well, instead of supporting an industry of adoption to remove the kids from the poor situations.

You are not basing your thoughts on the reality of today's society. Of course it would be great if everyone could be coaxed into being responsible and taking care of their own kids. However, especially in developed western countries, this is far, far from what is possible.

Since we are stuck with dealing with reality (sad but true), there are a few options:

1. More abortion
2. Forcing incapable mothers to keep their children
3. Supporting adoption

I would suggest that #3 in combination with freely available birth control (free = no cost and available to anyone who asks, along with related free medical checks) is the best way to proceed. For birth control probably a patch under the skin would be the safest thing.

And we should discourage the selling of eggs and sperm and the birthing of babies for profit. I feel sorry for couples who can't have kids the natural way, I do. But I feel more sorry for the kids that must grow up with genetic strangers and ignorant of their own genetic background, which might contain life and death information (how would you like to grow up not knowing where you came from and therefore not knowing any hints on where you might be going, and always having to leave blank the medical questions that ask "do you have a family history of x, y, z"?).

Generally speaking in egg/sperm/surrogate cases family medical history is provided. Now that this point is gone, do you have any others? Oh, and any facts to back up your opinions?

don't even know what you're talking about, dude. You're making it sound like people are pushing adoption as the latest greatest thing in child rearing.

There are indeed plenty of people out there doing just that. It's a huge industry. People birthing kids for other people, people using other people's eggs or sperm to give birth to other people's kids, people importing kids from far away lands...and much, much money trading hands.

Apart from bringing needy children from poor countries, the rest of what you wrote has nothing to do with adoption. What is your point? You're all over the board and making very little sense.

[maraboutslim]

Again, I ask you to provide proof to back up what you write. Perhaps you can't provide it because it doesn't exist? Just a thought.

I'm not going to go look up studies on nature vs. nurture. You can do that yourself. But everyday the balance tips more towards nature. Everyday more is understood about genetics and what it sets us up for. But feel free to forget about that: What we are doing here is sharing personal opinons, not scientific research.

And my personal opinion is that it absolutely sucks to be adopted. It's a ridiculous existence to not know one's own genetic history and to have been raised by people with completely different personalities and dispositions and all that jazz and to be completely in the dark on one's genetic background (and therefore likely medical future). I know it's just an anecdote, and not the scientific study you for some ridiculous reason seem to be wanting out of me -but damn, man, we're just shooting the shit so that's my opinion based on my own experience.

It is bad enough that many kids must grow up this way thanks to tragedies in their lives. It is much worse that we promote the formation of such familes through egg donation and surrogates and foreign adoption and the like.

I'm not trying to convince anyone else to adopt (cough) this opinion as their own. I'm not that kind of guy. You feel free to base your opinions on your own experiences. All I'm doing is putting it out there the way that I feel on the issue.

So instead of taking up my posts and arguing with what I've said, why not just post your own opinion and leave it at that? Why do you care that I, as an adopted kid, think adoption absolutely sucks? Why do you demand that I share with you facts to substantiate my own opinions? Isn't enough to say that they are simply based on my own life experiences? Your experiences may not match up to that: that's fine. But these have been my experiences and why I am not a supporter of adoption. Dig?

[FG Lurker]

The problem I have had with your posts is that you have been stating your opinion in such a way as to make it look like fact. It is not fact, as you just said, but your opinion. Opinions are fine of course, but as the saying goes, they are like assholes -- everyone has one.

I'm sorry your adoption doesn't seem to have worked out well for you. To be very direct about it though, would you sooner that you mother chose to have an abortion? In many cases those seem to be the two options people feel they have to choose between, shitty though that limited choice may be.

As for my opinion... Well, I have no problem with adoption overall. My father was adopted, so I too have experience first hand. So was one of my cousins, and so were a couple of friends. An adopted & supportive family is far better than a biological & shitty family -- in my opinion. And although I am pro-choice, I would say that being adopted is better than being aborted.

[maraboutslim]

I don't care that you have a problem with my posts. I do care about the annoying way in which you've expressed having a problem with them. Don't be one of those jerks who keep picking quotes out of someone's post and asking them for justifications for everything. It's tiresome, trolling behavior.

We have much more civilized discussion when one states their opinions, and another comes along and simply states theirs. Refer to my initial post in this thread for such a post. I didn't negatively comment about anyone else's views: just stated my own and intended to leave at that until you came along and for some reason felt the need to deny my right to state an opinion without justification that suited you.

BTW, the appropriate question isn't whether one would rather have been aborted than adopted. that's ridiculous: If aborted, no existence, therefore no delima. The question is whether one would rather have been raised by their genetic parents or relatives or thrust into a strange environment (as these japanese parents are doing to their kid: remember the topic of this thread?). My opinion on that is clear. Nothing particularly wrong with my adoptive parents (rest in peace) but we were clearly cut from a different cloth and it's fairly annoying being alienated from one's source in the way we adopted kids are. I don't expect you to understand and can't even understand why you feel you can have a legitimate opinion on the matter since all your information is merely heresay from cousins and fathers.

[FG Lurker]

I don't care that you have a problem with my posts. I do care about the annoying way in which you've expressed having a problem with them. Don't be one of those jerks who keep picking quotes out of someone's post and asking them for justifications for everything. It's tiresome, trolling behavior.

I don't care that you have a problem with me asking you to justify what you write. If you are going to post opinions in a public forum don't act all surprised if someone challenges them. This is a discussion forum, not some sort of group therapy session where everyone states their thoughts and no one challenges them.

BTW, the appropriate question isn't whether one would rather have been aborted than adopted. that's ridiculous: If aborted, no existence, therefore no delima.

I feel this is a valid question because "abort" or "give up for adoption" are the two options that many women choose between.

The question is whether one would rather have been raised by their genetic parents or relatives or thrust into a strange environment (as these japanese parents are doing to their kid: remember the topic of this thread?). My opinion on that is clear.

Yes, I remember the topic of the thread...I started the thread. Surrogate parents and their issues in Japan, remember?

Nothing particularly wrong with my adoptive parents (rest in peace) but we were clearly cut from a different cloth and it's fairly annoying being alienated from one's source in the way we adopted kids are.

I agree that many adopted kids feel alienated at certain times, likely some much more than others.

I don't expect you to understand and can't even understand why you feel you can have a legitimate opinion on the matter since all your information is merely heresay from cousins and fathers.

You asked me for my opinion about this! Funny how it is a problem if I challenge your opinions, but not a problem for you to first ask for my opinion and then turn around and say it isn't legitimate for me to have one. Does the word "hypocrite" mean anything to you? I think it should...

[Socratesabroad]

[maraboutslim]

I don't care that you have a problem with my posts. I do care about the annoying way in which you've expressed having a problem with them. Don't be one of those jerks who keep picking quotes out of someone's post and asking them for justifications for everything. It's tiresome, trolling behavior.

I don't care that you have a problem with me asking you to justify what you write. If you are going to post opinions in a public forum don't act all surprised if someone challenges them. This is a discussion forum, not some sort of group therapy session where everyone states their thoughts and no one challenges them.

Fine, as long as you realize it is only the ego-maniac or self-rigtheous who feels the need to "challenge" other people's opinions. It's one thing to challenge people who are trying to set public policy that will impact you, or to challenge people who are behaving in ways which will negatively impact you: Everyone has the right, even the duty, to challenge that. But I have done nothing of the sort and to feel the need to criticize and probe someone's personal opinion on every little topic is, uh, lame.

You asked me for my opinion about this! Funny how it is a problem if I challenge your opinions, but not a problem for you to first ask for my opinion and then turn around and say it isn't legitimate for me to have one. Does the word "hypocrite" mean anything to you? I think it should...

I asked you for your opinion? I did nothing of the sort. I posted my own opinions in a straight-forward way. You immediately started trying to break them down. I responded to that with further explanations of why I feel the way I do. You can have any opinion you want - just don't expect me to change mine to match (which is the only motivation I can think of for you to keep questioning my opinions instead of simply reiterating your own).

My statement wondering why you feel you can have a valid opinion on the topic is just a recognition that you have no personal experience with the topic being discussed. Feel free to say that you think it is fine and dandy, but realize that it is not as valid of an opinion as someone who has actually lived it. This doesn't mean you can't pull an opinion out of your ass and hold it, but it's not quite the same thing as an opinion based on experience. It's the difference between those newbie reporters pieces on japan and our own views as people who have actually lived years in the society.

[FG Lurker]

I don't care that you have a problem with my posts. I do care about the annoying way in which you've expressed having a problem with them. Don't be one of those jerks who keep picking quotes out of someone's post and asking them for justifications for everything. It's tiresome, trolling behavior.

I don't care that you have a problem with me asking you to justify what you write. If you are going to post opinions in a public forum don't act all surprised if someone challenges them. This is a discussion forum, not some sort of group therapy session where everyone states their thoughts and no one challenges them.

Fine, as long as you realize it is only the ego-maniac or self-rigtheous who feels the need to "challenge" other people's opinions. It's one thing to challenge people who are trying to set public policy that will impact you, or to challenge people who are behaving in ways which will negatively impact you: Everyone has the right, even the duty, to challenge that. But I have done nothing of the sort and to feel the need to criticize and probe someone's personal opinion on every little topic is, uh, lame.

So in your world it is not okay to challenge someone's opinion, but it is fine to call someone a "troll", "self-righteous"[sic], an "ego-maniac", or "lame." I am glad I am not stuck living in your world.

You asked me for my opinion about this! Funny how it is a problem if I challenge your opinions, but not a problem for you to first ask for my opinion and then turn around and say it isn't legitimate for me to have one. Does the word "hypocrite" mean anything to you? I think it should...

I asked you for your opinion? I did nothing of the sort.

I quote: "So instead of taking up my posts and arguing with what I've said, why not just post your own opinion and leave it at that?"

Anyway... Obviously this is a very sensitive topic for you and you are spending your life walking around with a chip on your shoulder about it. I didn't intend to step on your toes when this all started -- it was simply a discussion of opinions. If you weren't interested in discussing this topic I am not sure why you posted your opinion on an open discussion board.

[maraboutslim]

I intended to discuss it by posting my feelings on the matter. I did. I didn't intend to have to answer demands for "facts" to back up my personal opinion: something that is impossible. That's what was so annoying about your posts.

And when I asked (rhetorically) why you don't just post your opinion and leave it at that, it was meant as a comment about the fact that you didn't do that: you instead spent all your time trying to take apart my posts. It was a question about why you post that way, not a request for you to post your opinion. (but you are free to do that if you want: just leave my opinion out of your post, why don't you? I.e. instead of saying, "how can you think that slim, what's your proof?" just say "intersting perspective, but i see it this way...". The latter is much more civilized.)

[Samurai_Jerk]

maraboutslim,

You're right. I feel bad for those third-world kids who are adopted by Hollywood millionaires. They'd be much better off if left to fend for themselves on the street or languishing in orphanages. I've know people that could and did have children and still adopted because they had the resources to give a kid a chance who probably wouldn't have ever been adopted. How do you feel about that? Is it wrong?

So only a person who has personally experienced something has a truly valid opinion on it. I guess that means your opinions on artificial insemination and surrogate mothers aren't worth shit then. Or are you a test-tube baby too?

I would actually argue the opposite and say that your personal experience makes you too emotional to look at the situation rationally. I don't think anyone here is saying that being raised by loving biological parents with a mother that gave birth to you naturally is not the best option. Unfortunately, it's not always an option.