Parent A and Parent B - and baby makes C? (or Thing-One and Thing-Two make Thing-Three)

Townhall ^ | July 29, 2005 | Kathleen Parker

[HawaiianGecko]

 

 

	Parent A and Parent B - and baby makes C? Kathleen Parker (archive)   July 29, 2005 | Print | Recommend to a friend The slippery slope that wasn't supposed to happen once same-sex marriage was granted is making [Mount] Everest jealous. In Massachusetts this week, Gov. Mitt Romney has been butting heads with same-sex couples over birth certificates for their newborns. I'll give you a minute to wrap your mind around that concept. The problem is that birth certificates as currently written reflect archaic notions of procreation, that is, involving a mother and father. Thus, gay and lesbian parents have asked the state to replace "mother" and "father" with Parent A and Parent B. And we thought Dr. Seuss was just being silly when he created Thing One and Thing Two in his "Cat in the Hat" series. Romney thus far has prevailed in declining to eradicate the notion of mother and father from his little corner of civilization, noting that all children not only have a right to a mother and a father but, in biological fact, (BEG) do have a mother and a father. Records should reflect that reality to the extent possible, says Romney. Nevertheless, recognizing that married same-sex couples do have children these days, Romney has been instructing hospitals to cross out the word "Mother" or "Father" and write in "Second Parent" as necessary to accommodate individual cases. The governor's view is that these altered certificates, while not perfect, at least resolve the immediate issue of recording the intended, if not the biological, parents' names. Problems arose recently when Massachusetts town clerks suggested that certificates thus altered might not pass legal muster in some circumstances and urged that new forms be created. Although Romney has refused, it's probably only a matter of time before the courts are asked to intervene. The fuss over birth certificate terminology might seem insignificant in the scheme of things, but words matter. The larger effects of this little two-word change are enormous over the long haul, despite protestations to the contrary, and Romney seems among the few willing or able to articulate them. Children are born of man and woman. Or so it has always been. Now with technology, sperm donors and "uterobots" - women willing to sell or give away the flesh of their flesh - any random collection of human beings can "parent." Or so the theory goes. In one case Romney recently had to entertain, two men - one a sperm donor and the other his boyfriend - became "parents" when a woman gave birth to the donor's child. The two men wanted their names on the birth certificate, with the boyfriend replacing the birth mother. In a bold act of increasingly rare sanity, Romney said "no." No doubt the gentlemen-parents were distressed by this negative intrusion into their familial fantasy, but Romney appears to understand that effectively codifying the "family" of two men and a newborn birthed by a uterobot has extensive implications. Meanwhile, one can't help but feel sorry for the infant - Baby C, or Thing Three? "Thing" is used here neither dismissively nor derisively, but as a term of stunning accuracy. Throughout our culture, children have become objectified, "thingified," created or acquired for the fulfillment of our selves - decor options, accessories, cute little bundles for our entertainment and amusement. Unless, of course, we're not in the mood, in which case we hit the "abort" button, the ultimate expression of "thingification." As long as children are viewed as mere extensions of our selves, put here to satisfy some narcissistic need for self-actualization, it is easy to suppose that our needs and their needs are complementary. If same-sex marriage is what "I" need, then two same-sex parents are what "my" child needs. What we know but the courts apparently choose to ignore is that identity and selfhood are rooted, in part, in our biological origins. Adopted children seek out biological parents in their quest for identity. Genealogical organizations do a brisk business as families try to reconstruct their lineage. "Who am I?" keeps psychotherapists in new Volvos. Obviously, narcissism isn't limited to the gay community, but it is surely at the root of the current skirmish in Massachusetts. What's really behind the push for biology-neutral birth certificates isn't fairness, or equal rights, but the elimination of any biological/procreative connection to parenthood. Same-sex couples need this and, therefore goes the Seussian Logic, it is good for the children as well as civilization. Once the idea of a biological mother and father is expunged from the culture, there is one less logical impediment to normalizing same-sex marriage, which is, of course, the point. ©2005 Tribune Media Services

!

 

Parent A and Parent B - and baby makes C?
Kathleen Parker (archive)
 

July 29, 2005 | Print | Recommend to a friend

The slippery slope that wasn't supposed to happen once same-sex marriage was granted is making [Mount] Everest jealous.

In Massachusetts this week, Gov. Mitt Romney has been butting heads with same-sex couples over birth certificates for their newborns. I'll give you a minute to wrap your mind around that concept.

The problem is that birth certificates as currently written reflect archaic notions of procreation, that is, involving a mother and father. Thus, gay and lesbian parents have asked the state to replace "mother" and "father" with Parent A and Parent B.

And we thought Dr. Seuss was just being silly when he created Thing One and Thing Two in his "Cat in the Hat" series.

Romney thus far has prevailed in declining to eradicate the notion of mother and father from his little corner of civilization, noting that all children not only have a right to a mother and a father but, in biological fact, (BEG) do have a mother and a father. Records should reflect that reality to the extent possible, says Romney.

Nevertheless, recognizing that married same-sex couples do have children these days, Romney has been instructing hospitals to cross out the word "Mother" or "Father" and write in "Second Parent" as necessary to accommodate individual cases.
The governor's view is that these altered certificates, while not perfect, at least resolve the immediate issue of recording the intended, if not the biological, parents' names.

Problems arose recently when Massachusetts town clerks suggested that certificates thus altered might not pass legal muster in some circumstances and urged that new forms be created. Although Romney has refused, it's probably only a matter of time before the courts are asked to intervene.

The fuss over birth certificate terminology might seem insignificant in the scheme of things, but words matter. The larger effects of this little two-word change are enormous over the long haul, despite protestations to the contrary, and Romney seems among the few willing or able to articulate them.

Children are born of man and woman. Or so it has always been. Now with technology, sperm donors and "uterobots" - women willing to sell or give away the flesh of their flesh - any random collection of human beings can "parent."

Or so the theory goes.

In one case Romney recently had to entertain, two men - one a sperm donor and the other his boyfriend - became "parents" when a woman gave birth to the donor's child. The two men wanted their names on the birth certificate, with the boyfriend replacing the birth mother. In a bold act of increasingly rare sanity, Romney said "no."

No doubt the gentlemen-parents were distressed by this negative intrusion into their familial fantasy, but Romney appears to understand that effectively codifying the "family" of two men and a newborn birthed by a uterobot has extensive implications.
Meanwhile, one can't help but feel sorry for the infant - Baby C, or Thing Three?

"Thing" is used here neither dismissively nor derisively, but as a term of stunning accuracy. Throughout our culture, children have become objectified, "thingified," created or acquired for the fulfillment of our selves - decor options, accessories, cute little bundles for our entertainment and amusement.

Unless, of course, we're not in the mood, in which case we hit the "abort" button, the ultimate expression of "thingification."

As long as children are viewed as mere extensions of our selves, put here to satisfy some narcissistic need for self-actualization, it is easy to suppose that our needs and their needs are complementary. If same-sex marriage is what "I" need, then two same-sex parents are what "my" child needs.

What we know but the courts apparently choose to ignore is that identity and selfhood are rooted, in part, in our biological origins. Adopted children seek out biological parents in their quest for identity. Genealogical organizations do a brisk business as families try to reconstruct their lineage. "Who am I?" keeps psychotherapists in new Volvos.

Obviously, narcissism isn't limited to the gay community, but it is surely at the root of the current skirmish in Massachusetts. What's really behind the push for biology-neutral birth certificates isn't fairness, or equal rights, but the elimination of any biological/procreative connection to parenthood.

Same-sex couples need this and, therefore goes the Seussian Logic, it is good for the children as well as civilization. Once the idea of a biological mother and father is expunged from the culture, there is one less logical impediment to normalizing same-sex marriage, which is, of course, the point.

©2005 Tribune Media Services

 

[shezza]

"Thing" is used here neither dismissively nor derisively, but as a term of stunning accuracy. Throughout our culture, children have become objectified, "thingified," created or acquired for the fulfillment of our selves - decor options, accessories, cute little bundles for our entertainment and amusement.

Precisely.

[LWalk18]

If you want to keep it secret, have a "for public use" record which has what the parents want. But lets make sure the OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS tell the truth.

Both the new birth certificate and the original birth certificate are official documents- in most states, the original is sealed after adoption, and depending on state law a child may or may not have a right to see it as an adult. In many states, you cannot ever see your original birth certicates without a court order and/or consent from your birth parents.

[MirrorField]

Now with technology, sperm donors and "uterobots" - women willing to sell or give away the flesh of their flesh - any random collection of human beings can "parent."

I'd take an exception to author's implications and use of term "uterobots" here. Said women are providing a service; no more, no less. And while the morality of providing such services may be questioned (like prostitution), casting sly comparisons with slavery is dishonest. Also, it would be quite dishonest to mark such mere "rent-a-womb" or "egg donor" as a mother, especially if she didn't provide the egg...

[HawaiianGecko]

 

 

	[All well and good except that, as the author pointed out, it's not about raising a child but about fulfilling a self want, a materialistic craving so to speak.] It's nice to see that someone "got" the intent of the article, rather than fulfilling a self want of the need to wordsmith, like in birth certificates are used as a  "means of identifying a child's legal parentage."

!

 

[All well and good except that, as the author pointed out, it's not about raising a child but about fulfilling a self want, a materialistic craving so to speak.]

It's nice to see that someone "got" the intent of the article, rather than fulfilling a self want of the need to wordsmith, like in birth certificates are used as a  "means of identifying a child's legal parentage."

 

[Mrs. Don-o]

Woman. Man. Marriage. One flesh. Baby.

As George Orwell said, "We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."

Or as G.K. Chesterton said, "The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice."

[HawaiianGecko]

Very well put!

[Mrs. Don-o]

The word robota (and its derivatives) occurs in the Czech, Polish, Russian, and - as I recollect - Ukrainian languages (in Russian it transliterates as rabota) and has the same meaning in each: work; and robotnik means worker.

Thus a "uterobot" is a "womb-worker." That's straightforward enough. If it seems to have a negative connotation, it may be because we sense there's something wrong with the objectification, reification, "thingification" of babies and mothers, whose personal relationship with each other --- like the personal relationship of lovers --- ought not to be reduced to a laboratory procedure or a commercial transaction.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I think it may vary from state to state, and of course laws change over time. Assuming that all or most states now retain some form of original biological parentage record to the extent that the information was available, it's still not the person's official birth certificate, once it's been replaced with the "legal parents" edition. And I believe that at least most states don't put anything on the new one to indicate that it's not the biological parents who are listed, and that if an adopted child isn't told that s/he is adopted, there's no way for him/her to tell from the official birth certificate.

[MirrorField]

You may note that we don't speak Russian or Polish here. The problem with "uterobot" is that it straightforwardly and incorrectly compares "rent-a-womb" worker with robot or android.

Those practices are questionable as themselves without incorrect vilification which can only weaken one's argument.

Note that I am not commenting on arguments themselves, for or against. Just nitpicking semantics...

[Mrs. Don-o]

A fellow nitpicker! Thank you. :o)

Hmm. How about "uteropreneur"?

[MirrorField]

Maybe. I do note that "gestational carrier" is wikipedia definition for such person and that the article notes that surrogacy is "not yet well defined". It is quite possible that this technology is so new that generally-agreed terminology for various participants and other parts do not yet exist... Which could give ...propagandally inclined... people opportunity to frame the debate on their own terms.

ObMyOpinion: Parents are what counts. Biological parentage is of far, far less importance. And if kids' guardian(s) are responsible and up to the task, I would approve parenting by AI, uplifted dolphins, space aliens or even gay couples. Unless positively proven incapable or unsuitable for the job of course, for example by being connected to kiddie molesting or such, but that's a job for CPS.