|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 5, 2011 18:58:32 GMT -5
Allowing the child to see both parents seems to be more an issue of preventing the trauma associated with suddenly being cut off from a parental figure.
If we're going to pass judgment upon parents who choose artificial reproduction (versus merely disagreeing with them; and I'm seeing a fair amount of judgment going on here), should we not demonstrate that they're doing tangible harm to their child by only having one biological parent in his or her life?
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 5, 2011 19:07:40 GMT -5
Actually I believe the reverse: before you deny a child the opportunity to know and have a relationship with his own flesh and blood, you must prove that this would do tangible harm. Any human being is here because a mother and a father made him or her. I think the burden should be to show that the child is not due the right to a relationship with both of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runa on Sept 5, 2011 20:42:23 GMT -5
Unless they're proven to be a danger to the child, of course. Not, like, involuntary sterilization, but removal of custody and preventing them from adopting and fostering kids. Goes without sayin'.  |
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Sept 6, 2011 1:23:29 GMT -5
That'd be weird if any one of the kids is asked at anytime if they have any siblings. Yeah, what do you say to that..."I have 150 half brothers and sisters, most of whom I haven't met." and then what does you blind date say to that? "Um...oh...so have you read any good books lately?" |
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Sept 6, 2011 2:58:29 GMT -5
Just a little note for Cestlefun17; Most adoption agencies will deny the ability to adopt a child if the household is just a single parent. This does not happen in all cases, but single parents and particularly homosexual partners have to jump through many more hoops to gain authorization for adoption.
Yes adoption is in effect the best option, hell culling our species out a bit would also be the best option, but unfortunately in the real world these are just not possible.
On a vaguely related note to biological partner and legal partner. In one case in America, the ownership of the child was transferred to the legal parent over the biological parent because well the biological parent went kinda fundy and crazy. In most such cases though, the biological parent would normally retain custody, however, this case in particular sets the precedent for both parents to be respected equally.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 6, 2011 8:28:40 GMT -5
I agree a single-parent or same-sex household shouldn't automatically be denied an adoption. I realize there are a lot of kinks that should be ironed out in the adoption process. I'm just not sure that, in the meantime, it still makes artificial insemination a preferable option. I'd rather fight to iron out the kinks than just settle for insemination. Like I said, I have concerns about denying children ties to their biological parents.
First off, no one has "ownership" of a child; one has "custody" of a child. I realize that once legal parentage has been granted, in the eyes of the law all legal parents, biological or otherwise, are treated equally. But the child is still going to grow up knowing he has another parent out there somewhere. I also recognize that it is sometimes not in the best interest of the child to have a relationship with one or both biological parents because they pose a danger to the child. But this should have to be proven first before you cut off biological ties.
My issue with anonymous sperm donation, as I said earlier, is that an adult is putting his or her natural desire to have children over the child's right to have a close relationship to his mother and father from birth. I realize that this desire is deeply ingrained in our biology, but human beings are special in nature: we have the ability to think critically, to consider the future consequences of our actions, and to weigh them. What I see here are two conflicting rights: the right of someone to bear children, and the right of a child to have a close relationship with his mother and father from birth. For me, the second one is paramount to anything else. I see it as unfortunate that these 150 children will have, at best, a minimal relationship with their father, if anything at all. These 150 children were born because someone wanted to bring a child into this world without being able to give them a relationship with their father.
Another poster earlier gave a more favorable alternative: that of a lesbian couple where one is the biological parent, and the donor sperm came from a relative of the non-biological parent. This would be a much more preferable option, I think, than anonymous sperm donation: that if after careful consideration you cannot do an adoption but still deeply desire a child, have the donor be someone you know and trust and can be a major part of the child's life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Sept 6, 2011 9:06:49 GMT -5
To me it is an ethical issue: that one should have the right to know who one's biological parents are and, provided that the parents don't pose a danger, a child should, from birth, be able to have a relationship with both of them. Yeah, that way they can live hours or days away from one of them, and get that joyous feeling of sitting on the steps waiting for visiting hours, or better yet, wonder why they haven't heard from that parent in months! You are over rating bonds of blood by far. If I missed this, feel free to direct me to it, but have you ever had to live with the results of your ethical decision here? Separated families and people who don't particularly get a long when they aren't? I have. It isn't all you seem to think it is. As for why someone would want their own kid, rather than adopting one, you know your own damage, and even artificial insemination is going to give you a better chance at dealing with your own damage than the complete wild card you get with adoption. Most people can't handle their own children, despite them often being miniature versions of themselves, they aren't any more likely to handle a completely unknown quantity. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 6, 2011 9:20:40 GMT -5
If you cannot provide a child with a close relationship from birth with both biological parents, then you probably shouldn't be having children.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 6, 2011 10:00:39 GMT -5
If you cannot provide a child with a close relationship from birth with both biological parents, then you probably shouldn't be having children. My ex girlfriend's father decided, when his eldest (the ex) was ten, that he didn't want to be the patriarch of a family anymore. Didn't want the responsibilities. So he he divorced her mother and ended up married to another woman who had no kids. Lived in a nicer house than his kids, drove a nicer car than their mother, had nicer stuff, etc. He still was involved in his kids' lives but it was not the same as when he was their full time dad. My cousin was, at nineteen, engaged to her on again, off again boyfriend of two plus years. Then she got pregnant. He ran off (though there are questions as to whether or not the kid was conceived during an off again with someone else) before the kid was even born, and they haven't spoken in years. My cousin's eldest kid didn't even know her birth father's name until my cousin and her husband tracked him down* (and found he was a friend of the family). Why didn't the kid know her birth dad? Because he chose to have nothing to do with her when she was born, as he was too young for fatherhood. What I'm saying here is, fuck you. While I will admit that the latter two situations would have been better solved by learning how to use a damn condom, the point is that it takes two to tango and you can't always predict how both sides will react. My ex was born into a nuclear family with good money, my cousin was planning her life with this guy, neither father decided he wanted to stick around to be a dad. The moms, on the other hand, worked (in their own ways) to provide the kids with a supportive home life. Biological parents, nuclear families? That shit is overrated. *Incidentally, now that she's sixteen, her birth father (who has a wife and two kids now) wants a relationship with her. She knows she can't provide the relationship he wants (my cousin's husband will always be her Dad to her) and desperately wants to ask him why the fuck he didn't lift a damn finger while she was trapped in the care of an abusive cunt. So yeah. Not a lot of "What is my dad like?" angst there, more "Fuck you". |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Sept 6, 2011 11:34:05 GMT -5
What I'm wondering,cestlefun17: if you value blood relation so much, why are you suggesting that prospective parent(s) should choose adoption over donated sperm?
Your argument that this creates an inequality between the parents is very weak: in a classical family, the relationship to the two parents is never completely identical either. And by the time the child is even able to know and understand that one of their parents isn't biologically related to them, this knowledge is going to do fuck all against several years of parent-child relationship.
Also, your decision to give blood relation a special status is valid for you; not necessary for everyone else. There are millions of people out there who don't care in the least about that (as several posters in this thread already pointed out.) You can't use your values to conclude about the values of other people.
A child who grows up with a caring and loving biological father will love and value their biological father. A child who grows up with a caring and loving father will love and value their father.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 6, 2011 12:13:18 GMT -5
In response to the past two responses:
I fully realize that a biological nuclear family is not always the best. There are times when biological parents are irresponsible and incapable and an adoptive parent makes a much better caregiver.
I'm glad we live in a society of individual rights, but I also hold a very collectivist view of society: that we have our individual rights, but just as importantly we all have responsibilities to the other members of society. We owe it not just to ourselves, but to those around us, to procreate in a controlled and respectable manner. The ideal scenario is for a child to be born to a loving, capable, and responsible mother and a loving, capable, and responsible father, who are themselves in a loving and responsible marriage and who will raise their own biological children. It is only when this ideal cannot be upheld, due to tragic circumstances (e.g. the parents are drug addicts, the parents die, the parents can't afford to support their own children), that other family structures should be considered. A single woman who opts to bear a child with an anonymous stranger (rather than adopting a child who is already born) is purposefully bringing a child into this world, who from the get-go, will be born into less than the ideal circumstance.
I realize that what constitutes the "ideal circumstance" is subject to opinion. It is my opinion that the ideal circumstance is that children be raised by the people who made them, and that the people who made them are loving and responsible. As I believe that we all have the responsibility to uphold the ideals of society, I would be critical of purposeful actions that erode this. Again, this is only my opinion of the ideal circumstance, so I am not calling for this to be mandated by law, but on the same token we shouldn't be so blinded by individual rights that we forget how our actions affect society as a whole, and ignore very real problems our actions can cause like the original article discusses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 6, 2011 12:39:57 GMT -5
If you cannot provide a child with a close relationship from birth with both biological parents, then you probably shouldn't be having children. As others have said, I think you're putting way too much stock into biological relations. Emotional bonds are formed by interaction with the people around us, not DNA. So a same sex couple is always going to be one step below a heterosexual one? Even if both sets of parents are equally capable of raising a child? |
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Sept 6, 2011 12:56:57 GMT -5
Shouldn't you be more annoyed with the chronic masturbator who is the father of 150 kids than with the mother who only has one that she is actually caring for?
|
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Sept 6, 2011 13:08:21 GMT -5
I realize that what constitutes the "ideal circumstance" is subject to opinion. It is my opinion that the ideal circumstance is that children be raised by the people who made them, and that the people who made them are loving and responsible. As I believe that we all have the responsibility to uphold the ideals of society, I would be critical of purposeful actions that erode this. Again, this is only my opinion of the ideal circumstance, so I am not calling for this to be mandated by law, but on the same token we shouldn't be so blinded by individual rights that we forget how our actions affect society as a whole, and ignore very real problems our actions can cause like the original article discusses. Society's ideals change over time, and as often as not aren't worth upholding. In case you forget, the ideal American society used to be one white Christian man who made the money, one white Christian woman who was little more than a slave, and three kids who were beaten if they were one degree off "normal". Anyone who tries to uphold that ideal today is rightfully known as a bigot. |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Sept 6, 2011 14:04:25 GMT -5
That didn't really answer my question: If you value genetic relations, why do you prefer a 0-genetic-relation family over a 1-genetic-relation family: I do not understand why, with so many unwanted children in this world, people would want to artificially create more children. I can understand why a married heterosexual couple would want to have their own biological children, whose genes come from both parents. But a single mom wanting a kid? Why doesn't she either adopt a foster child or you know...try some human interaction? Get to know people? Find someone you love and are compatible with? Settle down, get married? Why would she want to conceive a child with an anonymous man she'll never meet? It's just completely irresponsible. (from page1) After all, it's closer to the ideal you described. |
|
