Parenthood / Adoption

[epeefencer74]

That is correct philistine, my main objection is to artificial procreation, for both homosexual and hetrosexual couples.

Adoption I say is the way to go if you really want kids but can't have your own. There are kids out there that nobody wants and many don't make it to adulthood.

Veeco, let me just ask you this, do you consider a fertilized egg alive?

I believe it is, for the simple fact that it can grow and divide.

Then we come to the next question, is it human?

Again I say it is. The reason being that all humans, male, female, black, white, yellow or brown, must pass through this stage of development. Therefore a zygote is part of human development and thus human. The genetic material of the human being doesn't change even as the form changes.

So that brings me to the next part. If you get rid of those eggs that have been fertilized but found to posses this genetic defect are you then not getting rid of something that is alive and human?This is what I have a problem with.

I believe that at the moment of fertilization, a complete and unique human being is formed, one that must be accorded all the rights of an individual person, especially the right to live. Therefore I don't think that the benefits of artificial procreation whether for the individual of for the species justifies this type of wanton murder.

[Marcos]

A slightly different take on the issue is to look at what happens in nature.

Did you know that there are lesbian seagulls - they court in the same way as heterosexual seagulls, mate, build a nest, etc. One or other of the pair then "seduces" a male seagull to get impregnated, and the lesbian couple bring up the chicks in the regular way.

There are many instances in nature where females work together to bring up offspring (Lions, Apes, Whales, etc) and there is little contact with a male.

In fact in human cultures, it is often the case that women bring up the child and the father (out hunting or whatever) has little contact.

Is there an arguement, therefore, for saying that lesbian couples should have as many rights as heterosexual couples?

But , as there is no example I can think of of two males bringing-up kids, that two gay men should not be allowed to rear children.

[Craig]

However if they are going to use advances in technology to procreate, to have children that bear their genetic material, then I say that's just plain wrong.

My son would disagree with this.





Craig

[lochinvar]

Marcos makes an excellent point which needs examination.

It is the norm, not the exception, in most of the mammal world for the female to raise the young, often cooperatively with other females. Males serve only as sperm donars and guardians of the group territory (silverback gorillas, male lions to name just two examples).

However, this fact fails as a model for informing human behavior. Most mammals are self-sufficient within a year and sexually mature within 6-10 years, depending on the species.

Human offspring, however, are not self-sufficient for at least 12-15 years, in many case not reaching that goal until after sexual maturity; i.e., they cannot fend for themselves even though they are capable of procreation. This is anomolous in the mammal--indeed, in the entire animal--world.

Given this long maturation process, arguments that children can be raised sans male input because animals do so is specious. The two cases are not congruent.

Socialization is the controlling force, not mere sustanance. There is too much to learn in order for a child to become fully "human" in the sense of functioning successfully as an individual within the social group--and no humans that we know of function successfully outside a social context, at least not voluntarily and usually not for long.

That having been said, the primary mechanisms for socialization in any society are observation and emulation of members of the same gender, primarily focused on relatives and secondarily on other members of the social group.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that those tools might be truncated or seriously skewed in a homosexual household, particulary if the child is not of the same gender as its "parents".

[Philistine]

Originally posted by lochinvar

{snip}
That having been said, the primary mechanisms for socialization in any society are observation and emulation of members of the same gender, primarily focused on relatives and secondarily on other members of the social group.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that those tools might be truncated or seriously skewed in a homosexual household, particulary if the child is not of the same gender as its "parents".

I tentatively accept, as being intuitive based on your argument, that a loving heterosexual couple who want a child is "better" for the child's development than an equivalent loving homosexual couple who want a child.

However, to me, it seems just as obvious that said homosexual couple would be "better" for the child than an equivalently loving single parent (where the other parent is absent via death, abandonment, etc.) Where there is involvement with the other parent, It is too circumstance-dependent to make a clear choice over which is "better" for the child.

In addition, I would also consider it intuitively "better" for the child to be adopted by a homosexual couple than to continue in foster care.

I do question your "seriously skewed", primarily based on what would now be considered "serious." Is the child whose parents have remarried several time more skewed than the child of a homosexual couple?

--Philistine

[Peach]

Originally posted by lochinvar
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that those tools might be truncated or seriously skewed in a homosexual household, particulary if the child is not of the same gender as its "parents".

That's a "might" which is way too emphatic for the actual evidence. I shy away from making blanket statements about the influence of parents, since research has repeatedly shown the influence to be conditional.

Parents are certainly part of the socialization process of children; kids often model parts of their personalities on their parents. However, this isn't the whole story, or even close to it. Children model themselves on many other people: older siblings, peers, people in their neighborhoods, and media figures, for example. I teach kids, and though they obviously model themselves on their parents, they also equally obviously model themselves on many other factors.

I also question whether having two parents of the same gender necessarily means they can't provide the necessary tools for socialization. Holding down a job, using the correct utensils, knowing how to talk to other people and join in activities, acting appropriately in a relationship: none of these is primarily determined by modeling on the parent of the same gender.

[mini-romance]

What an intersting topic, I always love seeing other people's views on moral issues such like this.

To answer in the same, very organized fashion as MyrddinsPrecint (mm, I'd use a shorter form of your name, but being new here, I'd feel disrepectful..)

Should gays adopt? It's my thinking that they should if they want to. I think that as long as the adopted child has a parent or parents who love them and will give them support, then the parent or parents could be anyone! I'm very for adoption, because I'd really like to see everyone be able to have a wonderful supportive home life. I have a wonderful mom who's widowed since I was three, and believe you me, I would not be the person I am today without her love and guidence, which I think that anyone, yes including gays or lesbians, can provide.

The second one: Should we be able to pick the characteristics of our children? I don't really think so. I think that once you start messing with genetics, that's kind of unfair. Sure I'd love to have a boy with wavy brown hair and green eyes, but I'm not going to go messing with the genetics to get it. I think it lessens the...gosh how do I explain...it's kind of like saying that yeah, you'd love the child you had naturally, but you'd love them more if they were "perfect." By the way feel sorry for my firstborn son, because his name's going to be Octavian Agustus (insert surname here).

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by epeefencer74
I don't think gays should even be couples let alone have children.

Why? Is a gay couple fundamentally incapable of love, affection, committment? Do you think that a gay person has a genetic inability to feel the same emotions that "straight" person experiences?

Originally posted by epeefencer74
However if they are going to use advances in technology to procreate, to have children that bear their genetic material, then I say that's just plain wrong.

Again, why? Are you saying there is something genetically inferior with gay people? What if they used donor sperm AND donor eggs? Why is it fundamentally worse for gay people to procreate than hunchbacks, people with sickle cell anemia, or, (gasp) Methodists?

Originally posted by epeefencer74
How gays choose the way they live... well I may not approve but it is their choice. I reserve the right to disapprove, just as they reserve the right to choose how they live. What they do is between them and God.

Seems to me you're annointing yourself as God's arbiter here. See "shear human arrogance" below.

Originally posted by epeefencer74
They should just accept that because they have a same sex relationship, it is just not possible for them to have children the natural way, the way God had intended.

So, let's posit a good, dutiful Catholic couple. They live a life of piety, go to Mass, go to confession regularly, wish nothing else than to bring other good little Catholics into the world to do God's work. Alas, Mr. Pious has low sperm count. Mrs. Pious has Fallopian tube scarring that prevents egg transmission. Is this God's will? Is this procreation "the way God had intended?"
Let's say they can harvest their own sperm and eggs, and fertilize and implant them. It would be akin to putting in a handicapped ramp to the cathedral. You think God disapproves of people using their ingenuity to live and worship and reproduce as other, more able-bodied folks?
And if that's the case, how is that different in principle from a gay couple doing the same thing?

Originally posted by epeefencer74
The creation of children via artificial means is tantermount to playing God, that is what I have an issue with. It is shear human arrogance to think that just because it is possible to create children artificially that one should go ahead and do so.

Who says that wasn't part of God's plan? Helps those who help themselves, and all that...Besides, if it's such an abomination, why hasn't God opened up a big can of Sodom and Gomorrah whoop-*** on the in-vitro clinics? Or is it just the church hierarchy who is pointing the ecclesiastical finger?

Originally posted by epeefencer74
How many embryos are lost, destroyed at each attempt to create a child? What makes you think that we, as fallible as we are should be allowed to choose what kind of kids we have?

Ummm...As a Catholic, aren't you under some pressure to marry in the church and raise more Catholic drones? As you choose your mate, aren't you already engaging in speculative genetic selection? "Well, Paul, is nice, but he's only 5'2", and has a really bad overbite. Peter is taller, but that lisp and those port wine birthmarks! Mary's hair is already thinning out at 21, and that lazy eye just gives me the creeps!"
As to the loss of embryos, how is a miscarriage fundamentally different from a failed implantation attempt?

Originally posted by epeefencer74
Therefore I don't think that the benefits of artificial procreation whether for the individual of for the species justifies this type of wanton murder.

Does that make someone with one or more miscarriages a wanton murderer, then?

Originally posted by epeefencer74
Are we so sure of our skills that we might not be introducing some major defect, dieseas or disablity into the child when manipulting the genetic material?

And we've done so well with: Cystic Fibrosis, MS, hemophilia, ALS, Rett Syndrome...literally hundreds of genetically transmitted diseases. Is it your theory then, that because there is a risk of unwanted genetic defect during artifical procreation, people with the known risk of passing on genetic defects should also be barred from normal procreation?

[Soldier]

I personally don't know why everybody's so up-in-arms about having children anyway, let alone making it easier/more common. The world's already so overpopulated, why don't we just start relaxing a little and adopting? Or better yet, just not having kids at all - let the population slow down some.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

I agree totally with reducing birthrates. I think the historic record is pretty clear on the fate of species that overpopulate beyond their ability to find food.

It's the "I get to have kids but THEY don't" mentality that bugs me.

[lfortier]

This topic is kinda confusing as I have mixed opinions on both sides going against each other, but the way I see it, the real question is- Would the child grow up more content/normal like other children with a strait couple than with a gay couple? Would the child have trouble deciding his or her own sexuality later on in life?
I do agree that all people are entitled to procreate; however, I am totally against the idea of sperm banks and artificial means- Choosing/Manipulating one's genetic makeup just doesnt go with my morals, and thats why its so hard for laws and such to be passed on this topic-there's simply too many opinions and morals to narrow things down to one norm.

[Marcos]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
Ummm...As a Catholic, aren't you under some pressure to marry in the church and raise more Catholic drones

majority of the posts have put their point of view in a thorough and respectful way

don;t lower the tone, please, by using this kind of language!

[Craig]

Originally posted by lfortier
I do agree that all people are entitled to procreate; however, I am totally against the idea of sperm banks and artificial means- Choosing/Manipulating one's genetic makeup just doesnt go with my morals, and thats why its so hard for laws and such to be passed on this topic-there's simply too many opinions and morals to narrow things down to one norm.

By being selective in choosing a mate you are choosing (to some extent) the genetic makeup of your child. That's the whole idea behind "natural selection". If you want a child that's blonde, then go find a blonde to mate with and you have increased the chances of having a blonde child.

If by "choosing/manipulating" you actually mean going in on a genetic/chomosomal level to pick out which genes the child will inherit, then you are making a big (and unsupported) leap by lumping sperm banks and artificial means (by which I assume you mean Artificial Insemination and In Vitro Fertilization).

I'm seeing a lot of posturing and theorizing without evidence of much knowledge of the science and practice behind the process. If you want to be informed, then check out http://www.ivf.com/ for lots and lots of information on the actual diagnoses and practices surrounding infertility.

(Yes, it's a personal subject for me: http://www.teamharkins.com/gallery/album01/aab )

Cheers!
Craig

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally posted by Marcos
majority of the posts have put their point of view in a thorough and respectful way

don;t lower the tone, please, by using this kind of language!

ok, i'll say the same thing, with a better tone:

according to the catholic dogma, the point of romantic relationships is to prepare one for marriage.

you aren't supposed to engage in sex, or, for that matter, anything that could lead to sex, until you're married to your partner.

once you and your partner are married, your marriage is only valid if you have had sex. if you haven't, there's possible grounds for a church-allowed annullment.

married couples are not allowed to use any form of birth control that has any sort of success rate- the rhythm method does NOT count as successful.

catholics are supposed to remain catholic. catholics are supposed to convince other people to become catholic.

being catholic means you agree with the infallible pope on issues of religion where he is infallible. meaning, if he says "all people should like toast" you don't have to agree, if he says "i'm making a statment about religion, and this is what god tells me" - you have to agree, or you're catholic- except for..... (blah blah blah)

any arguments so far?

thought not. 9 years (on and off) of catholic school will teach you a thing or two about catholicism.

ok- according to the logic of combining the past few bits of knowledge, or, reading other bits of dogma that pretty much say this out:


marriage is a sacrement bestowed upon two people who love each other very much and want to have children. they are married for the purpose of procreation, and once they have children, they will be catholic. the parents and the children have to agree with us, or they're not catholic anymore.

-------> the purpose of being catholic is producing lots of catholic drones


that said, all of the really good catholics i know would rather their children be good people than catholic. the only people i know that are actually producing 'catholic drones' i dont' really consider catholic in the first place, even if THEY consider themselves catholic.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Back in the shadowy mists of antiquity--my college days--I actually had a discussion in a comparative theology class about the structure of the Catholic Church and the working hierarchy of a beehive. The drone part apparently stuck.

It's still irksome that many religions believe they have the right or the duty to inflict their beliefs and practices on those outside the faith.

[Marcos]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo

It's still irksome that many religions believe they have the right or the duty to inflict their beliefs and practices on those outside the faith.

as opposed to "free and democratic" countries insisting that the world adheres to their way of life? Tear up a country then fill it with MTV-watching, McDonalds-eating clones?

all in the interest of giving them freedom of course.

anyway slightly moving away from the thread.

is the fundemental question about our attitudes to sex?

If you really believe that two men should not be allowed to have sex, then you will also believe that they should not rear children.

If you believe that sex should be the preserve of stable heterosexual relationships, such as found in marriage, then even if one or other of the couple can't have children, they should have access to medical help in bringing a child into the world.

Conversely, if you believe that anyone whould be able to have sex with whoever they chose (within legal limits), then anyone has a right to adoption/artificial insemination?

[OCTAVIA]

I don't think anyone should buy sperm over the internet, it's very uncaring. Every person born on the earth should know their parents, who they were what they did. It's a human beings first anchor to the planet, if you don't give the person the right of knowing their heritage, then it means we've failed as a species, that we take life lightly.

There are many children already born onto the world that need homes, so I believe in adoption. To have to 'carry' your own baby to term is sort of vain. It's like saying you believe you're better in some way, and that the present multitude of children without homes is not as good.

There are millions of kids who are hungry, with disabilities, mentally retarded; crippled and so on without a decent home. No-one wants to take a chance and the longer those kids stay in institutions the more institutionalized they become, making their adjustment to society, the workplace, schools and so forth, difficult if not impossible. People are nicer to animals than to other human beings.

The world's population went to 8 billion in 1987; it was at 5 billion about 1984; the growth rate was too much, I think it was all ego driven.

[epeefencer74]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
It's still irksome that many religions believe they have the right or the duty to inflict their beliefs and practices on those outside the faith.

Catholicism is no different from any other religion. Religion is such that each claims that they are the true religion and all people of the world should follow them. This is even more so in the Monotheostic religions like, Judaism, Islam and of course Christianity. It is true even of Buddhism, Hiduism, Shikism.

It is our duty, those of us who have a religion, to spread our beliefs. It is our right speak about our religion, just as it is your right to refuse to listen. You cannot stop us speaking, nor can we force you to believe. This is your choice to make, we merely speak out to highlight and to advertise our faith, so that if and when you decide to choose you have the information available.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by epeefencer74
Catholicism is no different from any other religion. Religion is such that each claims that they are the true religion and all people of the world should follow them.

Yeah...that's the part that has always puzzled me. Out of all the "one true religion" variants that have cropped up over the millennia, how does one pick the correct one? What if the Zoroasterians had it right, but now they're all extinct? What if Chili's is selling eternal damnation with every order of baby-back ribs? You just don't know until you've made your choice and shuffle off the mortal coil. Then it's too late to regret not becoming a Christian Scientist or (insert favorite religion here) when you had the choice.

Originally posted by epeefencer74
It is our right speak about our religion, just as it is your right to refuse to listen. You cannot stop us speaking, nor can we force you to believe.

Boy, try telling THAT to a couple of fresh-faced young Mormon lads camped on your doorstep while your spaghetti sauce is on fire...