Parenthood / Adoption

[Marcos]

A big debate at the moment has started in Ireland over gay couples adopting children

this has started due to a website being set-up that sends sperm over the internet to lesbian couples

the women can specify ethnicity, and physical traits of the father (hair colour, hieght, etc)

What do you think?
Should single sex couples be allowed to adopt or bare children in this manner? Is it morally correct?
Is this simply giving a service to stuff that has been going on for years?
Is specifying hair colour, etc, of the father simply doing what a woman would do anyway when she looked for a partner?
Many children grow-up in single-parent families and do very well - are two parents always better than one? Having said that, many do not!
Is giving Lesbians these rights just too liberal?

[veeco]

I would not have a problem with that if gay couples could do the same thing (adopt a child or have a surrogate mother (not sure if this is the right term)).

Everyone is entitled to procreate, however they want...

[Zelda]

We have just had this debate in Tasmania. The law in question passed. I personally dont have a problem with it, even if I believe that reproduction is a privledge and not a right.

[Marcos]

Originally posted by Zelda
I personally dont have a problem with it, even if I believe that reproduction is a privledge and not a right.

a slight contradiction?

[veeco]

Not necessarily a contradiction...

Say for example everyone had to get a license to make babies. Be it that they are homosexuals or heterosexuals. In that case reproduction is a priviledge (not allowed to everyone), but it is allowed to homosexuals (as well as heterosexuals) who are deemed worthy of raising their children correctly.

Now I don't know if that's what Zelda had in mind, but I think that points out that it is not necessarily contradictory.

[Artisan]

Originally posted by Marcos
A big debate at the moment has started in Ireland over gay couples adopting children

this has started due to a website being set-up that sends sperm over the internet to lesbian couples

I'm wondering what the hardware looks like that supports a "send sperm" interface? Is it a new version of USB?

Really now...People with axes to grind especially love it if they can somehow implicate the internet in their cause, since if it involves the internet it must somehow be tied to the nefarious forces of evil. Suppose they use a fax or telephone to work out the deal? Is Fed Ex doing the Devil's work by delivering these little styrofoam coolers?

Without a doubt this practice has been going on for a long time, and the debate around these issues will continue to increase as childless people (gay or straight) take advantage of new reproductive technologies as they become available. Artificial insemination is not new at all, and neither is email anymore. So the the use of "internet " in this debate is simply an attempt by the naysayers to color an issue, and disguise their agenda with the bigger issue of the rights of those with alternative lifestyles.

[lochinvar]

[off topic] Oh, I think you're making too much out of it, Artisan--tilting at monsters that aren't really there.

The mention of the internet is germaine insofar as The Web makes things so much easier and accessible, be it the buying of shoes, the disemination of ideas, or the distribution of "mail-order" ("e-mail-order?") sperm.

An incidental but inescapable aspect of this easing of communication/commerce is that it also serves to bring to the forefront of common attention practices and ideas that were relatively obscure in the past.

But that doesn't mean that anyone is trying to foster the equation Evil=Technology. It's merely a statement of fact, not an indictment. [/off topic]

As to the practice of same-sex couples adopting, I have no quarrel with it per se; however, I think there is an aspect to it that should warrent further study; i.e., where are these adopted children going to find role-models of the non-parental gender?

It can be argued--and was stated in the opening of the thread--that many children are the product of single-parent households and seem to do very well, so what's the difference?

But such an assertion fails to account for the numerous studies, as well as copious anecdotal evidence, that children raised in single-parent households do not do as well as children raised in stable, two-parent households. That so many seem to turn out "all right" is a testiment to their resiliance, not an endorsement of their upbringing.

And lest you think I'm just talking through my hat, I was a single parent. I raised my son alone from the time he was six until he left home at 18, and believe me I can pinpoint exactly the issues in his life arising from not having a mother around, some of which he still struggles with.

So, taking the case of two lesbians raising a male child as an example, where is the strong postitive male role-model needed for complete development of the boy going to come from? An uncle? A male friend of the family? Grandfather? And the same question is pertinant to a female child raised by two male homosexuals.

I don't have any particular ax to grind in this discussion, but I think there are more long-reaching questions that haven't been addressed, yet.

[Moonitic]

Some people would do anything for money. All they need is a hook & some bait...the fish will come.

In my view, it's kind of sad that something so precious as having a child could be turned into something so cheap.

[Soldier]

Originally posted by veeco
...Everyone is entitled to procreate, however they want...

Even sabris... sabreur... those who fence with a saber? Sabre? Saybur?

[Soldier]

In all seriocity (wonderful word, even if it isn't quite real), though, I think we need to do more adopting of the kids that are already out there, instead of coming up with more ways to make more of 'em. For that reason I'm against fertility drugs, aritificial insemination, etc. regardless of who will be raising the child.

[civiltech]

I'll be honest with you...I am totally against the whole thing..there I said it! (I think I am....)

However, I met a couple of ladies who were at a Christmas party last year. Eventually I clued in they were a couple. They had just had a child together...uh...I assume with some help. Both were teachers in the area, and quite level headed. to tell ya the truth, they seemed like excellent parents. Let's face it....as the babies develope into adults,...we'll find out what the social results are...but I wonder if I'm crying fire over nothing! When I see some of the teen moms out there who just don't have a clue (and no, not all of them!!!), this couple shouldn't even be compared...they were real PARENTS!

Anyways, here in Canada, the whole right to be legally married by the State in happening for gays. The highest court in Canada has said it shoudl be permitted as a constitutional right under the constitution, and Parliament is attempting some sort of legislation for it. The Canadian Alliance Party has a proposed bill to be voted on in the upcoming week to shoot it down. That will definitely be very interesting to watch!


Regards all.

[civiltech]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

Sorry..apparantly the bill was just voted on.

It was shot down with a margin of 5 votes from the Liberal Party of Canada. The governing power presently.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

two separate moral issues here:

should gays adopt?

and

should we be able to pick the characteristics of our children?


1) yes. gay people have problems to overcome when raising children- but so does everyone else. disabled people raise kids, kids are raised by one parent, four parents, grandparents, older siblings, and even your standard two parent middle class household will have issues that make parenting difficult. gay people are not constitutionally labeled as sub-citizens, so it makes no sense to not allow them to have their own children. when so many kids are in desperate need of adoptive parents, it makes little sense to deny a huge group of people who could be great, loving parents, just because they're attracted to a different gender than the average person of their gender.

2) i'm a little more fuzy here. i don't think we should be able to pick things like in the movie Gattaca- we shouldn't be able to pick the hair color, whether or not they'll need glasses, etc.... but if i were going to go out and get pregnant, and i wanted my baby to have white skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes, i certainly wouldn't find the nearest Liberian and try to copulate! women who like men can choose the characteristics of their "involved" sperm "doner", shouldn't women who don't like women be able to choose the characteristics of their "uninvolved" sperm doners?

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by veeco
Everyone is entitled to procreate, however they want...

What, even epeeists?!

[veeco]

Yes, even gay single parent epeeists, and for that matter, even "I only need 4 parries" sabreurs!

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Who needs the other three? Just present in 5, and make a universal 2-parry for everything!

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by MyrddinsPrecint
if i were going to go out and get pregnant, and i wanted my baby to have white skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes, i certainly wouldn't find the nearest Liberian and try to copulate!

You don't think the East Coast is aswarm with double-recessive Nordic gene-laden Liberians?

I don't see a major problem with same-sex couples adopting or procreating. My only question is how the inevitable custody/inheritance issues would play out in states with no same-sex marriage provisions.

[epeefencer74]

I don't think gays should even be couples let alone have children. There I said it, feel free to flame me for my conservative catholic opinions.

I will admit that they must not be denied any opportunity or rights open to hetrosexuals, except when it comes to having children through the use of artificial means.

I have no objections if the couple wish to adopt. In fact it would be a good thing to do. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 what happens to the viable embryos that do not posses the characteristics that we desire? Destroyed? Then you have become the murderer of your own children.

[Philistine]

Originally posted by epeefencer74
I don't think gays should even be couples let alone have children. There I said it, feel free to flame me for my conservative catholic opinions.

Consider yourself flamed. But do you think that gays should be prevented--i.e. laws passed against them having children?

I will admit that they must not be denied any opportunity or rights open to hetrosexuals, except when it comes to having children through the use of artificial means.

But your objections below seem to be to anyone using artifical means to have children, not just gays?

I have no objections if the couple wish to adopt. In fact it would be a good thing to do. 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.

{snip}
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.

Actually, it is. They just need a helpful third party who is willing to relinquish parental rights....

Do you also think that heterosexual couples with fertility problems should accept that it is not possible for them to have children the natural way?

{snip}
And what happens to the viable embryos that do not posses the characteristics that we desire? Destroyed? Then you have become the murderer of your own children.

AFAIK, we are not at that point where the characteristics of an embryo can be determined and the "best" one chosen. Although it might (?) be possible to determine sex?

--Philistine

[veeco]

Originally posted by epeefencer74
And what happens to the viable embryos that do not posses the characteristics that we desire? Destroyed? Then you have become the murderer of your own children.

Just playing devils advocate here for a minute:
If we could do it, even then, I think it would not necessarily be looked at in a bad way. From an evolutionary standpoint, consider a couple that has a high chance of giving birth to a child that has a genetic disease. If they can fertilize a lot of eggs, and then eliminate all those that have that disease, and randomly choose one from the resulting, disease free set, then they would be doing a service to the human race, their government's social security service by having a child that doesn't have any disease.

Of course, if that was the case, then one would have to define what is an "acceptable genetic defect" for one embryo to stay in the pool and and what would be a genetic defect that would be considered problematic enough to warrant being removed from the pool.