Posted on 02/16/2007 6:43:00 AM PST by NYer
I read another story about this guy and it said he lives in his car with four dogs.
I'm guessing they would rather be in this situation, than not having been born...
I would in no way dispute that, but the children are victims nonetheless and will be effected by the ambiguity and uncertainty of their situation for their entire lives. Some will, no doubt, deal with it better than others but they will metaphysically wrestle with it for the rest of their lives. Indeed the more at ease and accepting of their circumstance, the more likely they will be to perpetuate and normalize the behavior.
Finally, I'm not saying there aren't certain applications for the technology (i.e. a sterile male in a stable couple who want children) but the wholesale practice without a system of ethics is not good for society.
Who'd want such a loser for a father to your children?
Seems like it was a personal choice to me, not necessarily societies concern.
It's not a "personal" choice when other lives are effected...
ahem.....we have a niece conceived in this manner....Mommy, between divorces....er ... marriages...decided she wanted another baby.....so she went "shopping" YES, SHOPPING. We heard from another source that she could choose the eye color, hair color, etc from the "catalog".....this child is now 19 years old.....Mom has since been married AND divorced again....
I don't know. Considering the alternative, they wouldn't be here.
On the other hand, these specific precious lives would not exist if not for modern science. Interesting conundrum.
Given how long ago they were conceived, before "two mommies" and such was popular, my bet is regular couples where the guy was infertile.
And you do?
LOL! That qualifies for FR Quote of the Month.
It seems, that when the mother chose this method of fertilization, she couldn't be sure she would conceive, so at the time, it must have been personal. Not much different of a choice than the old fashioned way of fertilization. Is the choice to have children a personal choice, or societal choice?
If one intentionally opts to defy societal convention and have a child, with the expectation of raising it as a single parent, I would argue it ultimately has an adverse oimpact on society. I know lots of single parents, and they struggle, even as they try to do everything right by their kid...kids raised within the framework of a healthy, normative two parent household have twice the parental resources, security, and role modeling to draw upon. Children with two parents grow up with a better expectation of what to look for in a mate and with healthier conceptualizations of relationships between the sexes. In any single parent household, the child will seek that other 50% elsewhere, be it from a teacher, coach, aunt, uncle, or classmate...to deliberately start a family as a Murphy Brown single parent does indeed effect society.
OK, we see things differently.
Oedipus Redux. V's wife.
I recall a few years ago, a young lady tracked down her (sperm donor) father and GMA arranged for a video meeting. The young girl was so excited at the prospect of finally meeting her 'Dad'. And then the big moment came. He appeared on the screen, standing next to his wife and two children. The girl excitedly blushed. The GMA hostes eventually asked the question everyone was pondering. "Do you have any other offspring as a result of your donations?" Indeed he did; the sperm bank estimated that he had several hundred progeny. Immediately the girl's smile deflated as the realization set in. She was no more important in his life than any other of those offspring.
The Encyclical Humanae Vitae, expresses this well.
“Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.”
And I respect your point of view...I would merely contend that what is "normal" is not always, "healthy," and vicea versa. Depending on what studies you look at, the general conclusion is that single parent households are now the "norm," in our country. That may be, but I would argue that is not necessarily what is best for our nation as a whole, or for the individual kids who find themselves in those circumstances. Obviously, I would not begrudge a spouse leaving an abusive relationship, and of course, the death of a spouse leaves a number of single parents for whom the lifestyle is not a choice. But, to knowingly and intentionally bring a child into a single parent family is ultimately unfair to, and victimizes the child.
I agree, that is why I see it as a personal choice...not necessarily a good one...but then again, I believe everything happens for a reason.
Your opinion won't sit well with those who say we need to produce more offspring to keep up with the Muslims.
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.