|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 6, 2011 14:47:34 GMT -5
Because you're deliberately creating another child who, from the get-go, will not have a relationship with one biological parent. I feel it is more productive to take in a child who has already been created, and due to other circumstances cannot be reared by his biological parents.
Other than religion (for which our country protects the utmost freedom), everything you describe doesn't refer to lifestyle choices. You don't choose to be a man; you don't choose to be a woman; you don't choose to be white. I certainly do think society would be better off if one parent (either the man or woman) stayed home and cared for their kids until at least they can go to school. In these economic times, it's not so easy. I'm not saying I want to force that on anyone by law; it's how I think society would ideally operate.
|
|
|
|
Post by verasthebrujah on Sept 6, 2011 14:50:53 GMT -5
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 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. I still don't get your argument. You keep talking about ideals, but I'm not sure how ideals matter to a child who is the product of artificial insemination. How does a loving homosexual couple or a financially stable single mother deciding to have a child through this process have negative effects on society as a whole? If the child itself is well-balanced, what negative consequence could there possibly be? If it is just that they didn't rescue another child by adopting it, why don't straight couples deserve the same condemnation? My wife's aunt and uncle had two children by artificial insemination. Would you argue that they should have adopted, or are they somehow exempt as a heterosexual married couple? If we're talking about upholding traditions, should parents who don't take their children to church regularly be seen as less than ideal? What about interracial marriages? |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 6, 2011 16:02:05 GMT -5
It is my personal conviction that everyone should have the right to have a close, involved relationship with both one's biological parents, unless such a relationship would cause harm to the child. I'm sure many of the children in your example are well adjusted, but can you ever just ignore the fact that there is someone else out there who made you, whom you may never know? Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't. I'm certainly not the only person who feels this way either, as the issue is always being studied. NPR did a story last year on the subject which you can find here: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129233185. They talk about some of the issues donor families face, and also the various websites that have been set up to reconnect donor children (now adults) who want to find their other biological parent. It's certainly a complex issue. Not if the sperm came from the uncle and the egg came from the aunt. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 6, 2011 16:42:56 GMT -5
Not if the sperm came from the uncle and the egg came from the aunt.  You're REALLY hung up on this "related by blood" thing, aren't you? |
|
|
|
Post by Runa on Sept 6, 2011 17:28:27 GMT -5
Fuck off, cestlefun17.
Of all my biological family, I'm closest to my maternal aunt, who's become something of a surrogate mother-figure to me since my own treated me like shit, and my paternal half-sister (and I don't speak to her more than once a month). I'm actually closer to my best mate, who I consider like a brother, and his mother, who I see as an aunt-like figure.
Blood might be thicker than water, but it's the emotional bonds which count.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 6, 2011 17:40:30 GMT -5
I guess so. It is something that is intensely studied by psychologist and social scientists. Many donor children grow up with a longing desire to know who their "other half" is. It is something worth studying and not something you should just dismiss offhand.
For the billionth time, I recognize that the biological parents are not always the best parents. The ideal that we all should strive for is that every child is conceived between a loving, responsible, and capable father and a loving, responsible, and capable mother, who are themselves in a stable and loving marriage. It takes one man and one woman to make a baby, and the ideal scenario is that they should both raise, competently and lovingly, their own children that they themselves produce. If you can't do this (whether you're a single mother getting knocked up by an anonymous stranger or a heterosexual married couple who are drug addicts, etc. etc. etc.), then it is my deeply held opinion that you should not produce children.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 6, 2011 18:03:35 GMT -5
I guess so. It is something that is intensely studied by psychologist and social scientists. Many donor children grow up with a longing desire to know who their "other half" is. It is something worth studying and not something you should just dismiss offhand. I imagine most of this has something to do with the societal emphasis (as displayed by your own posts) on blood. So, basically, your ideal is one man + one woman in matrimony raising children. The implication of such a thing being an ideal is that all other things are inferior. Including two men or two women or multiple men and women as parents. This is what your post is implying. Should I give you a chance to backpedal a bit? |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 6, 2011 18:11:07 GMT -5
The existence of alternative families indicates that something tragic has happened: that a man and a woman made a baby but, for some reason, are unable to care for him or her. Certainly, any alternative family who takes in such children and can provide a loving home for them should be admired and given the utmost respect, but you should not go out of your way to make such children.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 6, 2011 18:15:25 GMT -5
The existence of alternative families indicates that something tragic has happened: that a man and a woman made a baby but, for some reason, are unable to care for him or her. Certainly, any alternative family who takes in such children and can provide a loving home for them should be admired and given the utmost respect, but you should not go out of your way to make such children.No. Just no. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 6, 2011 18:16:52 GMT -5
Well why then?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 6, 2011 18:38:09 GMT -5
Because it's a bigoted load of crap based off of a fundie misinterpreting a study to mean male+female is the best. male and female, male and male, female and female, biological or not, there is very little difference. In fact, those same studies have shown that female and female tends to be the BEST of the three two-parent families. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 6, 2011 18:45:13 GMT -5
You are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that a man and a woman should not make a children together if they can't raise them.
When those children are made, it is unfortunate. And there are all sorts of loving homes that take them in. Whether adoptive parents are of the same sex or opposite sex makes no difference. But you cannot deny that it requires one man and one woman to make a baby. And if that man and that woman can't commit to raising the child they're going to be bringing into this world, then they shouldn't have him or her.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Sept 6, 2011 19:50:31 GMT -5
Other than religion (for which our country protects the utmost freedom), everything you describe doesn't refer to lifestyle choices. You don't choose to be a man; you don't choose to be a woman; you don't choose to be white. I certainly do think society would be better off if one parent (either the man or woman) stayed home and cared for their kids until at least they can go to school. In these economic times, it's not so easy. I'm not saying I want to force that on anyone by law; it's how I think society would ideally operate. You missed the point. Of course you can't control any of those things except being Christian. The entire point of my post was that there was a time when the vast majority of people in American society considered that situation to be ideal. That absolutely anything else was wrong and evil. Non-whites were considered little more than animals. Non-Christians were killed, or at least openly shunned. Being a single mother outside the death of your husband wasn't "tragic", it was shameful, with women often tormented in public over it. Those were, at one time, the societal ideals you seem so adamant about adhering to. Well, I say fuck society and its ideals. Each and every one of us has our own moral compass. Our own personal limits formed by quirk of birth and life experience. If you think a child has to be raised by both biological parents and that everything else is inferior by default, by all means have that situation yourself. But to sit there and have the gall to try and say intentionally creating any other type of loving and nurturing environment for a child is irresponsible... I can have absolutely no respect for you. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 6, 2011 20:00:16 GMT -5
It is cruel to hold something to be an ideal that is impossible for others to achieve. Making being "white" the ideal is cruel because black people can never be white. It is not behavioral. Regardless, you can't exaggerate by saying that advocating for some sense of ideal in some area in society is equivalent to some other monstrous "ideal."
I am not advocating for people to be tormented over their poor life choices. I would not, for example, go up to a mother who had a child with an anonymous man in real life and chastise her. Just like I wouldn't chastise a person wearing pajama pants in public even though this is the biggest pet peeve in the world for me. But this is an Internet forum, where we're supposed to talk about our opinions. Particularly since this is the Politics/Government section, where we're supposed to talk about society and the policies that drive it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Sept 7, 2011 11:14:54 GMT -5
cestlefun17, you're describing an ideal, and to a certain degree I agree with that ideal. However, you then proceed to state that everything outside this ideal is, essentially, not worth living for from the children's POV. If you can't do this, then it is my deeply held opinion that you should not produce children. And that's bullcrap. |
|
