Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Brave New World of Gestation Surrogacy (and its effect on donor-conceived children )
Crisis Magazine ^ | June 6, 2014 | Austin Ruse

Posted on 06/06/2014 6:47:12 AM PDT by NYer

gestational surrogacy

My great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was Aaron Ruse Sr. who was born in Virginia circa 1764. I know the name of his son and his son and his son and so on down to my own father. I know the names of their brothers and sisters. I know the names of their children. I know where most of these family members were born and where most of them died.

There is a house in Loudon County, Virginia that is called the John Ruse House, where Aaron Ruse’s grandson John—my great-great-grandfather—lived. I have seen this house.

With a little effort, I could find the name of Grandpa Aaron’s father and where he came from in England and could likely stretch it further back to France where they were Huguenots and came to so much grief from my Catholic brother Cardinal Richelieu.

My mother is a Luman descended from Kasers and Balches and in Marblehead, Massachusetts there still stands the Balch House, the oldest freestanding house in America. I have seen this house, too.

There is a kind of comfort in all this, to know where you came from, what stock, your kin, the land they walked and worked, and the houses where they lived, where they fought. The point is that I know.

There is pride in ancestry even if you can only go back to grandfathers or great-grandfathers and no further. But what if you did not even know the name of your father?

It was reported a few days ago that Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana vetoed a bill on gestational surrogacy that has caused at least a mini-eruption of outrage and served to elevate a vitally important issue that goes largely unreported and quite frankly undebated, too.

Gestational surrogacy is a messy business. There are many kinds: gestational surrogacy and egg donation, gestational surrogacy and sperm donation, gestational surrogacy and embryo donation, and others.

Consider this definition of gestational surrogacy and embryo donation: “A surrogate is inseminated using donor embryo. Such embryos may be available when others undergoing IVF have embryos left over, which they opt to donate to others. With this method, the resulting child is genetically unrelated to the intended parents and genetically unrelated to the surrogate.”

That’s right. The closest this lucky kid ever gets to blood relatives is never. And they do this deliberately in order to please adults. No other reason.

Who could object to fulfilling an adult desire to have children? Who could object to giving life to babies? Well, for starters, some of those babies, now grown, object.

A young woman named Alana Newman who was conceived from an anonymous donor has made it her life’s work to stop gestational surrogacy. All she knows about her father is the color of his hair and that he was a doctor. But even this is new for she thought he was a musician and an artist. In fact, Alana spent huge parts of her young life playing guitar and taking an art degree, all because she wondered if this made her more like him, that gaping hole in her life that should be called father.

The gestational surrogacy industry is massive, generating $3.3 billion per year. No one knows for sure, but estimates range between 30,000 and 60,000 children are born this way each year, by science and not by sex, except for masturbation.

What is largely unknown, ignored or mocked is the effect on donor-conceived children of being deliberately created through an exchange of money, through a marketplace where hair color and athletic prowess are picked from catalogues, and where fathers are unknown, unknowable, gone. Gone, too, grandfathers, aunts, uncles, cousins and all the family that generally comes with being born. What is the effect on such a child when he discovers this?

For the most part, we do not know and most folks don’t really care. If the child discovers this at all it’s usually by accident or when the family breaks apart. “You know, Johnny. Your father is not really your father. Your father was donor 2256 at the fertility clinic across town. You want to know who he is. Sorry. You’ll never know.”

When these children do find out their true origin, their worlds turn sideways and sends many of them skidding into a lifetime of serious problems. Some of them knew something was up all along because they did not seem like anyone else in the family. They may have looked like mom but nothing whatsoever like dad. Alana sensed she was treated differently from her biologically conceived sister. She didn’t know why until her conception was revealed to her.

Elizabeth Marquardt and two colleagues conducted the first ever study of children created this way and what they found is not at all surprising and profoundly sad.

They repeat a June 2008 Newsweek story of a woman who sought out the man whose sperm she used to become pregnant. The man visited the home where she had raised their son now ten. “When [the mother] told her son that she had tracked down his donor dad, ‘he lit up,’ she says, then burst into tears. For years, [the boy] had kept a ‘daddy box’ under his bed filled with special handmade items—a painted rock, an angel ornament with his photo in it. Finally, just weeks before his 10th birthday, he had someone to give it to. ‘I’ve always wanted a dad,’ he said.”

Read that without crying, you can’t, then multiply your tears by a few hundred thousand or more and you have a slight understanding of this global problem.

According to the Marquardt study, “My Daddy’s Name is Donor” these children are deeply harmed by what has happened to them.

The study found that for donor-conceived offspring “family relationships are more often characterized by confusion, tension, and loss.” And “young adults conceived through sperm donation experience profound struggles with their origins and identities.”

Donor-conceived children worry later about inadvertently meeting and falling in love with a sibling unknown to them. After all, some donors are the fathers of hundreds, even thousands, of children.

One common theme with the donor conceived is their intense desire to know where they come from. There are medical reasons for knowing since many conditions or diseases are inherited and these children will never know. But there are other more profound reasons.

Jennifer Lahl’s documentary Anonymous Father’s Day features a young woman who said, “I look in the mirror and I don’t know who I look like. I don’t know who I came from. I know my father is Jewish, so there is a whole family history that is probably painful and beautiful. I want to know that story. I want my children to know.”

Advocates for donor-conceived children argue convincingly that the focus on surrogacy is never on the children but only on the desire of the adults to have children, and the adults are quite willing to violate the human rights of these children in order to buy them.

Robert Oscar Lopez, who runs the blog English Manif, is a bi-sexual man raised by lesbians and now married with children who leads a campaign for children’s rights and calls for an end to gestational surrogacy. He believes it is a violation of human rights to deliberately create a child without a father, and is especially outraged by same-sex couples doing this because same-sex relationships are inherently unstable and therefore dangerous for children.

Donor-conceived children point out the industry is a form of slavery since children are bought and sold with genes that promise blond hair and blue eyes going to the highest bidders. They call it the commodification of human life, something the left ought to object to but largely doesn’t.

Others call it slavery for another reason. A young woman listing herself says, “Just to let you know, if chosen I will undeniably be the best GS mother…. If you wish me to stay bedridden that is what I will do. I am carrying your child and want you to have the optimal experience as well.” Just because it is seemingly voluntary does not mean it is not slavery. And note the bedridden woman is culpable in the buying and selling of another human being.

When Alana Newman stepped out to complain about this, she expected cheers, especially from the left. She got jeers instead. She says, “The method of my conception was humiliating and dehumanizing enough in itself but people are extremely vicious and use intimidating tactics.”

She said a commenter on a blog told a friend of hers, “Too bad you weren’t in the load your dad flushed down the toilet.” What Newman found was not compassion but a billion dollar business and men and women intent on buying babies.

Advocates say the problem is now global. In the early days a donor might have been one of the students at the local medical school and a donor-conceived child could conceivably write letters to those who went to that school in hopes of finding her dad. Now, the sperm just as likely may come from Denmark and the egg from Russia.

Many countries have regulations for this sort of thing; limiting the number of eggs that can be fertilized, for instance, or requiring a registry that children may access to find their fathers. But the U.S. is wide open. It is the Wild West. There are no regulations, none, seriously, none. And no way a child can find her father except writing letters and scouring the Internet. One plaintive Internet cry of the heart simply said, “Are you XYTEX Donor 2035?”

There is a Donor Sibling Registry that has been fairly successful in linking up siblings and even fathers and their children but it is entirely voluntary. Many, perhaps most, of these sperm donors do not want to be known. One donor-conceived woman finally found her donor father. After repeated attempts to contact him all she got back was threats of legal action. She was rejected once prior to birth and then this second shattering time.

One man featured in Lahl’s Anonymous Father’s Day is one of hundreds created at mid-century by a notorious fertility doctor in Great Britain. He discovered his origin in middle age though he said he knew all along there was a monstrous lie in the family. He just did not know what it was. He wrote a book about his search called Bio-Dad. He said that to pretend blood does not matter goes against human nature though the surrogacy industry insists that blood does not matter, that the donor-conceived have no need to know their own blood. The author of Bio-Dad asks who can possibly believe your relationship with a co-worker would not change immediately if you happened to discover she was also your sister.

The war over the human person is closer to the beginning than to the middle. We do not know what monstrosities await us this century and beyond but we know they’re coming. We must thank God for the single institution that stands as a bulwark against all these monstrous notions, who always gets it exactly right, who stands foursquare for the human person even though the whole world hates Her for it. For the life of me I cannot understand how any religious person cannot cling to the Barque of Peter and never let go.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: austinruse; crisismagazine; moralabsolutes

1 posted on 06/06/2014 6:47:12 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; GregB; Berlin_Freeper; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; tiki; ...
Advocates for donor-conceived children argue convincingly that the focus on surrogacy is never on the children but only on the desire of the adults to have children, and the adults are quite willing to violate the human rights of these children in order to buy them.

Selfishness and greed ... and their children pay the price. Ping!

2 posted on 06/06/2014 6:48:03 AM PDT by NYer ("You are a puff of smoke that appears briefly and then disappears." James 4:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Children are now a commodity...like oil,wheat and pork bellies.


3 posted on 06/06/2014 6:57:01 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Rat Party Policy:Lie,Deny,Refuse To Comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Well, in the Marquadt study, what were the rates of substance abuse and trouble with the law in those conceived the usual fashion?

Does the study distinguish between those children artificially conceived for single parents and for married couples? Were the divorce rates different for the parents who conceived naturally and those who conceived by a third party?

We can leave adopted children out of the comparison, because they were seldom conceived on purpose, and they frequently get a difficult start to life, whereas donors/surrogates are screened and the child goes immediately into the parents’ home.

Just some devil’s advocate questions.


4 posted on 06/06/2014 6:57:13 AM PDT by heartwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

That was a surprisingly well-written article, and especially surprising was that it dealt honestly with very important elements of human nature and individual identity that people in the modern day like to try to ignore.

It’s refreshing to see that some people out there in the world still understand the importance of family.


5 posted on 06/06/2014 6:58:10 AM PDT by jameslalor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
A surrogate is inseminated using donor embryo. Such embryos may be available when others undergoing IVF have embryos left over, which they opt to donate to others. With this method, the resulting child is genetically unrelated to the intended parents and genetically unrelated to the surrogate.

The last part is incorrect. All babies share the mtDNA of the women who carry and bear them. When the first sheep was cloned years ago, the resulting clone was not a 100% genetic match because they had different dams. The nucleic DNA was identical to its donor parent, but not the mitochondrial DNA.

Women who act as surrogates may like to blithely shrug off the experience as simply being a gestational carrier, but their bodies and the babies' bodies must adapt to each others' so that the pregnancy can flourish. Biology bonds them together and that genetic mark is forever left in the child. In essence, these children have three, not two, genetic parents.

6 posted on 06/06/2014 7:12:48 AM PDT by two134711
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

All donor procedures sidestep the process of natural selection. The donor could be a mutant one-eyed, one horn, flying purple people eater and donate sperm in a tube. Darwin must be twisting in his grave.


7 posted on 06/06/2014 7:13:04 AM PDT by jonrick46 (The opium of Communists: other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Consider this definition of gestational surrogacy and embryo donation: “A surrogate is inseminated using donor embryo. Such embryos may be available when others undergoing IVF have embryos left over, which they opt to donate to others. With this method, the resulting child is genetically unrelated to the intended parents and genetically unrelated to the surrogate.”

I beg to differ. Insemination is done using semen, not embryos.

Regards,

8 posted on 06/06/2014 7:17:37 AM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: two134711

The mtDNA is carried outside the nucleus in the ovum, so that too comes from the egg donor mother.

During pregnancy a small number of cells migrate from the baby to the mother and from the mother to the baby and may live in the other for decades.

But a womb-mother (a mother carrying a baby not from her own ovum) does not provide mtDNA.


9 posted on 06/06/2014 7:33:42 AM PDT by heartwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Give me a break.

Substitue the word “adopted” for donor in the above screed and you will find people with the same viewpoint. I’ve read similar articles. It’s interesting that in a few threads above this one there is a story of a beautiful young woman who aspires to be Miss America, who happened to be conceived through rape. She doesn’t know who her (criminal) father is, yet she is determined not to let that define her.

The author begins the article by noting his storied ancestry. Apparently, if you can’t trace your bloodline to the nth generation, you don’t deserve oxygen. I bet even his dog is pedigreed.

And I call bs on the study citing that 25% of these children have broken the law... how many children overall have broken the law? The study first posits that a majority of these children aren’t even told about their origins, then says it studied them? 45% are bothered by the circumstances of their conception? This could be said for most of the typically conceived population in 2014.

Obviously, this author believes that children should only be conceived in the missionary position. The bottom line is that any child born is a blessing from God.


10 posted on 06/06/2014 7:43:03 AM PDT by Reddy (bo stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“Advocates for donor-conceived children argue convincingly that the focus on surrogacy is never on the children but only on the desire of the adults to have children”

“Advocates for CONCEIVING ANY CHILD argue convincingly that the focus on conception is never on the children, but only on the desire of the adults to have children.”

Fixed it.


11 posted on 06/06/2014 7:47:49 AM PDT by Reddy (bo stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Do away with this surrogacy nonsense and undermine a whole lot of homosexual pretend-marriage along the way.

Win-Win.


12 posted on 06/06/2014 7:54:13 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: heartwood
My mistake, cloning and IVF are not necessarily the same animal, pardon the pun. I was conflating the nucleic transfer of donor cell to recipient cell with implantation of an embryo to a "surrogate." I apologize for that misinformation.

Eukaryotic cells contain two distinct genomes. One is located in the nucleus (nDNA) and is transmitted in a mendelian fashion, whereas the other is located in mitochondria (mtDNA) and is transmitted by maternal inheritance. Cloning of mammals1-6 typically has been achieved via nuclear transfer, in which a donor somatic cell is fused by electoporation with a recipient enucleated oocyte. During this whole-cell electrofusion, nDNA as well as mtDNA ought to be transferred to the oocyte7,8. Thus, the cloned progeny should harbour mtDNAs from both the donor and recipient cytoplasms, resulting in heteroplasmy.
Although the confirmation of nuclear transfer has been established using somatic cell-specific nDNA markers, no similar analysis of the mtDNA genotype has been reported. We report here the origin of the mtDNA in Dolly, the first animal cloned from an established adult somatic cell line, and in nine other nuclear transfer-derived sheep generated from fetal cells. The mtDNA of each of the ten nuclear-transfer sheep was derived exclusively from recipient enucleated oocytes, with no detectable contribution from the respective somatic donor cells. Thus, although these ten sheep are authentic nuclear clones, they are in fact genetic chimaeras, containing somatic cell-derived nuclear DNA but oocyte-derived mtDNA....There are three possible outcomes in animals cloned by nuclear transfer via whole-cell electrofusion: homoplasmy of donor somatic cell mtDNA; homoplasmy of recipient oocyte mtDNA; or heteroplasmy due to mixing of donor and recipient mtDNAs".

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3042135/

However, I still assert that the "gestational carrier" IS a mother to the child, because those nine months of human to human bonding are not biologically insignificant. The genetic donors are parents, but so too is the woman who gestates. Her body will grow, she will experience radical changes, her breasts will produce milk as nourishment for the child she carries. Her body sees no difference to a "natural" child or an IVF baby.

None of this is insignificant, and to reduce a woman to a mere "womb" or "carrier" is something radical feminists have long condemned the pro-life movement of supporting. Now in a movement of supposed reproductive freedom, women are being turned into exactly that, and for pay. It reduces the child to a commodity and the woman as well.

13 posted on 06/06/2014 8:05:11 AM PDT by two134711
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Reddy
Substitue the word “adopted” for donor in the above screed and you will find people with the same viewpoint.

Absolutely wrong!

I am adopted as is my daughter. We both know our biological parents. These other children do not.

14 posted on 06/06/2014 8:15:36 AM PDT by NYer ("You are a puff of smoke that appears briefly and then disappears." James 4:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Adult desires, not children’s rights and needs: that’s it in a nutshell.


15 posted on 06/06/2014 8:27:42 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (“The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” - Flannery O'Connor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer; two134711; alexander_busek; heartwood; Reddy
Britain Moves a Step Closer to Allowing Three-Parent Babies
16 posted on 06/06/2014 9:10:11 AM PDT by Albion Wilde ("The commenters are plenty but the thinkers are few." -- Walid Shoebat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

Well, that’s another kettle of fish, with a more complicated recipe.

Cytoplasm mother, nucleus mother, womb mother, sperm father, and polyamorous adoptive parents. You ought to throw a milk mother in there too.


17 posted on 06/06/2014 9:15:21 AM PDT by heartwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NYer

This stuff is only just beginning. Gene splicing, in particular, is in its infancy. Our rulers and masters will be the first to ‘benefit’ from this new tech - creating tall, athletic, intelligent children for themselves, free of defect.


18 posted on 06/06/2014 9:31:43 AM PDT by olepap (Your old Pappy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: heartwood

I pity those poor little “products of conception.” Adolescence is hard enough for natural born kids.


19 posted on 06/06/2014 9:38:55 AM PDT by Albion Wilde ("The commenters are plenty but the thinkers are few." -- Walid Shoebat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: heartwood

I can understand the children wanting to know where they come from but the fact that money is made for this service is not something to complain about. Should they do it for free? The children that were conceived this way were no doubt very wanted and I’m sure that if the happy 80% were asked, they would appreciate that they were given life.

I wouldn’t choose this way for myself as I did have a choice at one time and chose adoption instead as my first husband couldn’t have children. I then remarried later and had a birth child.

We live in a world that is wrong in so many ways, but I know a woman’s desire to have a child is very strong and their decision to have a donor may be something that is actually right. There will always be a certain percentage that aren’t happy.

I have mental illness in my family, i.e., my mother. Because of that my childhood was not happy. Today, I suppose we could put a law into effect that mentally ill people will not have children. You would create more of a police state with more people feeding off the system and charging the tax payer. I think buyer beware works best.


20 posted on 06/06/2014 9:48:37 AM PDT by Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl; heartwood; Mrs. Don-o; Reddy
I can understand the children wanting to know where they come from but the fact that money is made for this service is not something to complain about. Should they do it for free?

Dear cowgirl, do you have a family ... mother, father, grandparents, aunts, uncles and a family history? How many times throughout your life have you heard stories about your ancestors who ... came from somewhere, settled here, served in the military, etc. For these children, there is no such family history, because they don't know from whom they are descended.

The children that were conceived this way were no doubt very wanted and I’m sure that if the happy 80% were asked, they would appreciate that they were given life.

Wanted? Children are neither a right nor a commodity. This process of creating children serves only the interest of the couple or individual who wants a child and will get one at whatever cost. Being wanted does not assuage the inherent right of a child to know its ancestry. I recall a GMA program where a 16 y/o girl, conceived through donor insemination, had tracked down the sperm clinic and discovered the name of her "donor dad". This young woman was now afforded the opportunity to meet him on live tv. Like the boy mentioned in the above article, she was so excited and when he appeared on the monitor, she blushed. She had a few questions: "Do you have large feet?" and his response confirmed her suspicions because she also had large feet. Her face glowed with happiness to finally see her "dad". The GMA host also had some questions: "Do you know if you have any other children?" The man smiled and said: "Yes! I understand there are more than a hundred and I hope they don't all come looking for me". In an instant, the girl's smile became deflated. The glow left her face as she understood that she was nothing more than a commodity, wanted by her single mother.

In Great Britain, about a decade ago, scientists were able to extract eggs from aborted female babies. They viewed this as yet another solution for infertile couples. Fortunately, psychologists intervened and suggested that society was not ready for such an advance. Imagine growing up, searching for your birth mother, only to learn that she had never been born.

You have an adopted child, as do I. I raised my daughter with full knowledge of her adoption and kept a detailed fact sheet on her birth mother, in anticipation of her questions. I also gave her a photograph of both her birth parents. The children in this article are denied that as well.

It is a natural and normal desire to want to know one's biological origins.

21 posted on 06/06/2014 11:39:38 AM PDT by NYer ("You are a puff of smoke that appears briefly and then disappears." James 4:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Not all adopted children know who there parents are, there are closed adoptions.

I’m just pointing out that I have read similar arguments against adoption as the ones outlined in the article.


22 posted on 06/06/2014 11:46:45 AM PDT by Reddy (bo stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

Homosexuals also foster-parent and adopt in most states.

Should we do away with foster parenting and adoption, too?


23 posted on 06/06/2014 11:48:17 AM PDT by Reddy (bo stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Reddy

“their”, not there.


24 posted on 06/06/2014 11:49:16 AM PDT by Reddy (bo stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“I raised my daughter with full knowledge of her adoption and kept a detailed fact sheet on her birth mother, in anticipation of her questions. I also gave her a photograph of both her birth parents. The children in this article are denied that as well.”

You are generalizing too much. There is a huge segment of donor conceived children whose parents are known donors. Check out snowflakes.org There are options for anonymous AND known donation.


25 posted on 06/06/2014 11:53:28 AM PDT by Reddy (bo stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

“Darwin must be twisting in his grave.”

The homosexual deviants are thrilled, though; how do you think many of them buy their children?


26 posted on 06/06/2014 12:39:51 PM PDT by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic warfare against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Reddy; Cowgirl; Mrs. Don-o
Not all adopted children know who there parents are, there are closed adoptions.

There was a time when closed adoptions were the norm. But even back then, such information often slipped out, usually when the child was an adult. At that point, they felt betrayed.

There is a HUGE difference between adoption and surrogacy. Arranging an adoption for one's child is a selfless act, whereas surrogacy, selling one's egg and renting one's womb, is selfish.

As I commented earlier, children are not a right; they are a gift from God. When we pray the Our Father, hoping for a desired response, we also defer to God when we say: "Thy will be done". As such, we must be willing to accept God's will in our lives, rather than imposing ours. This is true with adoption. I could not in my heart, buy a human being and entrusted this plea for a child to God. He responded; my daughter came through a series of truly extraordinary circumstances with no exchange of money. It was an act of selfless love by all involved.

Sadly, in contemporary society, such faith and trust in God has been replaced by scientific advances. Why have faith and trust when I can purchase what I want, regardless of the cost. In so doing, the aim is self gratification rather than considering the emotional needs of children conceived in petri dishes.

27 posted on 06/06/2014 2:37:25 PM PDT by NYer ("You are a puff of smoke that appears briefly and then disappears." James 4:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Reddy

I’ve known kids raised in homosexual relationships.

Yes. I don’t believe in it.


28 posted on 06/06/2014 3:27:34 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

Neither do I. But the o/p said that by eliminating donor conceived children, we would eliminate homosexuals raising children.

It wouldn’t happen.


29 posted on 06/06/2014 4:38:01 PM PDT by Reddy (B.O. stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“Why have faith and trust when I can purchase what I want, regardless of the cost”

With all due respect, is this what one is expected to say when they need open heart surgery? Don’t worry about going to the doctor, just have faith that you will be fine.

I guess we can agree to disagree about the differences between adoption and surrogacy. Guiliana Rancic needed a surrogate to gestate her son after dealing with infertility then breast cancer. Guiliana and her husband were no more selfish than any other couple that desires children. They used modern technology to achieve that desire. Just as anyone uses modern technology to achieve the desire of a longer life through heart surgery.


30 posted on 06/06/2014 4:45:09 PM PDT by Reddy (B.O. stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The gift of a child

2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church's traditional practice see in large families a sign of God's blessing and the parents' generosity.163

Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. "What will you give me," asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"164 And Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"165

Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."166

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169

2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."170

2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.

163 Cf. GS 50 § 2.
164 Gen 15:2.
165 Gen 30:1.
166 CDF, Donum vitae intro.,2.
167 CDF, Donum vitae II,1.
168 CDF, Donum vitae II,5.
169 CDF, Donum vitae II,4.
170 CDF, Donum vitae II,8.
171 Cf. Mt 5:27-28.

31 posted on 06/06/2014 6:08:30 PM PDT by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: two134711
If an embryo confected from Egg Donor Anna and Sperm Donor Bob is implnated in Gestational Surrogate Cathy, the embryo will neither have any nuclear DNA nor any mitochondrial DNA from the woman who gives him birth.

Best you can hope for --- in terms of genetic connection --- would be some incidental microchimerism.

32 posted on 06/06/2014 6:18:03 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Small disconnected facts, if you take note of them, have a way of becoming connected. - Walker Percy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson