Hi Mrs D. I hear what you are saying and it sounds very well intentioned and authentic. I respect your position, totally.
I am at a loss as to how to respond regarding judgement on how or why a baby comes to be. I just don’t go into the judgement aspect of it. The baby is an innocent. If he feels loved, and is loved, I’m not sure he’d agree the situation is “broken.”
Thank you for being reasonable.
Gushy nonsense. No wonder the American family is crumbling, despite all the "skin to skin" connections the trendy set may make.
Would you say the same for a pedophile loving a child?
Would you say the same for a pedophile loving a child?
First, nobody's blaming or being "judgmental" toward the child. The child is innocent, and also ignorant, and will bond somehow with anybody who holds and feeds him, whether it's mom, coyote, cousin, kidnapper, or Comrade Katya at the Detsky Dom (as was the case with our adopted son from Russia.)
Any child will respond to care, even veterinary care. But a broken, full-orphan or half-orphan situation should not be a pre-planned part of the deal. No one should sign onto a scheme to conceive by contract, carry without kinship and hand over for cash. This should not be imposed on any child by choice.
When I say "broken" I mean intentionally ripped away from the organic bonds which are rooted in our human nature. There is a physical/psychological unity between a pair-bonding man and woman, especially after their union has produced a child. There is a physical/psychological unity between a mother an an infant: they bond prenatally, and go on provoking physical responses in each other, years after the birth.
Recently discovered: a process known as "microchimerism" (LINK), where some of the the unborn babies' stem cells actually migrate through the placenta and his cells permanently colonize his mother's body. Nobody knows the full medical implications of this yet, but it seems there is a permanent, demonstrable "co-sharing" of cells that goes on, possibly instinctively sensitizing mother and baby to each other.
If you believe in evolution, this is an excellently balanced naturally-selected trait that has been refined for 1.75 million years to maximize the survival of the species. If you are a creationist, this is a supreme example of Intelligent Design.
Of course, you can raise a child without all these intricate interwoven safety features. But it would be wrong to deliberately, with full intention, make a PLAN to deprive him of them from the git-go.
Therein is the violation of his rights. That he was stripped out of his natural kinship environment, not by chance but by choice.
The homosexual men CREATED a warped plan to get them a baby. They MADE that child motherless; they signed a contract that will KEEP him motherless; they'd get a court order to keep the mother away by force of law, if need be; they paid the money and, via a tech team and a rented woman, they concocted themselves a baby boy.
All driven by their wants, not his needs.