not so easy, is it?
I reference Broken Clock theory.
It seems some things are sacred.
No country allows the sale of human beings, so why is surrogacy still legal? Even if it’s ‘altruistic’, there’s a price to pay
Actually, Social Services get paid per child in this country.
Forced adoption has another name, kidnapping.
There has been a total commodification of human life: click; choose race and eye colour; pay, then have your child delivered.
But three-parent embryos are fine? Make up your mind.
This week, Sweden took a firm stand against surrogacy. The governmental inquiry on surrogacy published its conclusions, which the parliament is expected to approve later this year. These include banning all surrogacy, commercial as well as altruistic, and taking steps to prevent citizens from going to clinics abroad.
This will indeed protect the women being exploited like a brood mare but also the poor children who would have been adopted into the cold arms of someone who refuses to provide them a family, yet the selfish people making this adoption decision in spite of a wealth of psychological evidence of harm are let off the hook? Adoption is not a wonderful, compassionate, beautiful thing – there are many cases of abuse from both ends and it is entirely financial as a decision and must be covered by the taxpayer in many cases otherwise nobody would take it on. Profiteering from child snatching is not kindness.
It is the new slavery, it treats human like chattel. Adoption and fostering are other immoral practices closely related, as a child has a legal human right to be with its kin, its blood, its biological family. You can’t have surrogacy without adoption, if one is immoral, so too the other.
Children’s human rights are, frankly, more important than any adult’s feelings on the subject.
Although of course their rationale is about using poor women for their bodies, which is also a good point, alas secondary.
I was born into a family of famous gay pagan authors in the late Sixties. My mother was Marion Zimmer Bradley, and my father was Walter Breen. Between them, they wrote over 100 books: my mother wrote science fiction and fantasy (Mists of Avalon), and my father wrote books on numismatics: he was a coin expert.
What they did to me is a matter of unfortunate public record: suffice to say that both parents wanted me to be gay and were horrifed at my being female. My mother molested me from ages 3-12. The first time I remember my father doing anything especially violent to me I was five. Yes he raped me. I don’t like to think about it. If you want to know about his shenanigans with little girls, and you have a very strong stomach, you can google the Breendoggle, which was the scandal which ALMOST drummed…
View original post 3,064 more words
Fresh research has just tossed a grenade into the incendiary issue of same-sex parenting. Writing in the British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, a peer-reviewed journal, American sociologist Paul Sullins concludes that children’s “Emotional problems [are] over twice as prevalent for children with same-sex parents than for children with opposite-sex parents”.
Probably being told a line that defies biology. mm or ff = baby
He says confidently: “it is no longer accurate to claim that no study has found children in same-sex families to be disadvantaged relative to those in opposite-sex families.”
This defiant rebuttal of the “no difference” hypothesis is sure to stir up a hornet’s next as the Supreme Court prepares to trawl through arguments for and against same-sex marriage. It will be impossible for critics to ignore it, as it is based on more data than any previous study — 512 children with same-sex parents drawn from the US National Health Interview Survey. The emotional problems included misbehaviour, worrying, depression, poor relationships with peers and inability to concentrate.
– because they’re missing one half of their biological parentage and denied its very existence. Compare it to single mothers? Single fathers? I think it’d be similar levels of tension and developmental disruption.
After crunching the numbers, Sullins found opposite-sex parents provided a better environment. “Biological parentage uniquely and powerfully distinguishes child outcomes between children with opposite-sex parents and those with same-sex parents,” he writes.
DARWIN WAS RIGHT.
As he points out, this has immense implications for public policy. The Elton John/David Furnish model of lavishing love and licorice on the offspring of surrogate mothers won’t do. Throwing down the gauntlet before supporters of same-sex marriage, Sullins contends that “the primary benefit of marriage for children, therefore, may not be that it tends to present them with improved parents (more stable, financially affluent, etc, although it does this), but that it presents them with their own parents.” …..
They’re going to be sued so hard one day. It’s a literal nanny state.