Posted on 08/20/2012 1:35:23 PM PDT by scottjewell
Canada, which has redefined marriage and therefore parenthood, is facing growing cases like this one:
A judge in this small northern Ontario town has ruled that allowing a biological father access to his 22-month-old son, who is being raised by his biological mother and her lesbian partner, is not in the best interests of the child because of “the risk of there being an adverse affect to the child.”
Citing arguments that introducing the child to his father would cause the boy confusion and insecurity, Justice Norman Karam of the Ontario Superior Court in Cochrane said, “Despite the child’s young age, it is impossible to know what disclosure of [the father’s] status as his parent might mean. All circumstances considered, the risk of there being an adverse affect to the child is too great to ignore.”
Justice Karam said he considered allowing access, but imposing limitations on what the child was told about his father, but decided that, “attempting to enforce such limitations would be virtually impossible.”
... Rene deBlois, the biological father of the boy, had requested interim access to his son in January, 2011 pending the outcome of the trial scheduled for October 22, 2012. That trial will look into the paternity rights muddle created when deBlois and the boy’s lesbian mother, Nicole Lavigne, entered into a home-made written agreement that deBlois, who had known Lavigne since childhood, would provide sperm so she could artificially inseminate herself, with the understanding that he agreed to relinquish his paternity rights.
According to a National Post report, part of deBlois and Lavigne’s agreement was that Lavigne would provide deBlois with a child of his own using his sperm following the birth of the first child. deBlois alleges that Lavigne reneged on her offer to carry a second child for him because it was not part of the written “Donor Agreement” that he signed.
In his application to the court for paternity rights, filed three months after his son Tyler’s birth in October, 2010, deBlois stated that he had been coerced into signing the Donor Agreement by Lavigne, who he described as a “bully” who forced him to sign “under duress.” -- LifeSiteNews
I see your point. But it is not the act which I am thinking of. I knew a case of a man (not gay) who had acted as a sperm donor, and later had a complete change of philosophy. He knew his progeny, carrying his bloodline, was out there.
In any case, I think sperm donation and surrogacy both are immoral and should be illegal as well.
“Actually, no child ever has a say in his/her conception.”
In a Christian purview, they actually do. For within this framework children conceived are done so within a sanctified union of man and woman, who create him or her naturally, in a state of love and commitment to eachother and to God. Isn’t this why up until about the 1960s marriage was considered binding for a lifetime, meant to be entered into with grave and somber regard, with children as God’s gift, to be lovingly guided and nurtured? Has the Pill, no-fault divorce, recreational sex, and gay rights not torn this asunder?
this is not loving a child....this is "having" a piece of property.....
there are consequences to every single act.....
where will it all end?....
Even within that framework, it is still not the child's choice to be conceived. If only the child did have that choice...
True. Not the choice, but at least better chances than in other frameworks for a reasonable foundation.
It should never have begun. Let’s hope it will end somewhere, and the sooner the better.
And when this kid has a son he will walk away because men are bad for children and it will confuse them if he’s there.
Good point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.