Pro-life vid of the day: Co-parenting without the relationship
by LauraLoo
As reported in the DailyMail:
Rachel Hope, 42, is a property developer from Los Angeles. She is attractive, successful… and wants to be pregnant by January 2014. After 18 months of searching for a potential baby father, she has signed up to a website giving her access to thousands of men across the world who, like her, aren’t looking for a relationship, but want a child with someone who’ll take their parenting role seriously. Instead of strings attached, there’s an umbilical cord. “I’m in serious talks with three men – one from India, one from Germany and a gay man from the US,” says Rachel.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NciewvH_Mg0[/youtube]
Is there an increase of people around the world who really think this is a great way of parenting their children? Also, do you see any benefits to this type of co-parenting, or do you think this will destroy children since they do not have any sense of security because mommy and daddy are not in love and committed to each other?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
She should just be a single-parent. The child down the road will ask questions like “Why are you not with daddy?” or worse “Why did you have me?”.
If they can’t commit to each other, who is to say they can commit to the child.
Sheesh – are people really that clueless about the very basics of human relationships?
Have we really reached the point where people are that distant?
Children are not, and never should be, an item on someone’s bucket list.
What a bunch of crap!!!” It’s all about me, me, me”. IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU!!! Designer babies, designer baby daddies, designer baby mommas, sex selection, baby daddy selection, baby momma selection, human baby trafficking in third world countries because “I want, I want, I want a baby because my biological clock is ticking, my lifestyle, my sexual choices, my career, my house, my car, my stuff, and now I have to have my baby. I’ve got to have it allllllllll!!” Children don’t come into the world to fulfill you and make you happy and so you can check ”have a baby” off of your list. “Be grateful baby that I had you, I selected you and I can give you all this stuff, I even hand picked you a co-parent.”
What happens if this “designer baby” ends up with disabilities? I just saw the most recent research in a journal; autism is considerably higher in IVF babies than non-IVF babies also the women who take all the hormone shots to stimulate their eggs are at considerably higher risk for ovarian cancer than women who don’t do this . Makes since to me. We do NOT have a clue of all of the long-term side effects of catching eggs, catching sperm, mixing them up in a test tube, possibly freezing them, implanting them, juggling hormones, constant pre-natal testing them, genetic testing, inducing labor, C-sectioning, them (yes, most of these old primips- medical lingo for first time mothers will end up with a C-section trust me) and giving these designer babies to these designer mommas and daddies will be for these children. It’s not about you it’s about the children. God help us. The whole world is gone mad.
I agree with Prolifer L. The only thing “good” (I use the word very loosely) about this situation it allows the people who are into this kind of thing to come out of the closet, so to speak, and not use people by marrying them in order to have children.
Rachel and her myopic, selfish desires are an example of the tragic fallout that occurs when we try to live our lives separated from God’s plan for human relationships and sexuality.
“I just wanted the best for my children.” Um, no. You just wanted children. What this scenario has in common with abortion is the idea that “wantedness” is the sufficient decision-making factor. You don’t want children and find yourself pregnant? Kill him/her. You want children and aren’t pregnant? Manufacture him/her. Yes, the world has gone mad.
I’d rather have two parents involved in the child’s life rather than an anonymous sperm donation or something of that nature. I just wish people could even consider donating their time, money, and parental yearning to children in foster care who need someone to care for them either temporarily or permanently. It’s the same as when people wait for year for a “perfect” newborn to adopt or use IVF as a married couple, it’s all about the parents and not the children’s needs .
Read: “I want a baby, but I don’t want my life to change significantly, and I have ZERO comprehension of parenting. If you, like me, are incredibly delusional about the reality of parenthood, please sign here.”
*eyeroll* Babies are a BLESSING and a GIFT! BABIES ARE NOT A RIGHT! This sort of stupidity just plays into the culture of death, reinforcing the idea of human life as a commodity and therefore to be valued only as long as it makes us happy. It’s a sickness, the great plague of our time.
Hi Jack,
You make a great point. It grates me no end when people will spend thousands on foreign adoptions when a call to the local social service agency wouldn’t cost a dime. They would find an assortment of children of every race, ethnicity, religion, age, and both genders in desperate need of homes. Rather than presume to tell the rest of the world how they should care for their children, we would do well to set the best example by caring for our own.
Of course the dude from the US is gay. Of course.
And how the heck to do you get to be 42 without ever having a child, and then decide you want one?!
Our culture thinks that children are commodities — something to purchase when wanted, and discard when not wanted.
This is monstrous. This is an instance child use, and may well become a case of child abuse.
The best we can hope is that this child will be cared for as well as many courageous and loving single-moms do for their children. Let’s pray that this woman becomes human very quickly.
At 42, her chances of getting pregnant aren’t that great. If she does conceive, no doubt she’ll have an amnio to check for Down syndrome and other things, and, no doubt she’ll abort if it is a Down baby or has other problems.
She claims she had NO drama in her house? What? Her son was perfect in every way and everything was perfect? I don’t care if you’re married, single, divorced, widowed…there IS drama with raising a child because nobody is perfect.
I remember being told before I got married “You won’t always FEEL like you love each other. Feelings come and go. But it’s the COMMITMENT that will keep you two together.” I’ve never forgotten that and I’ve passed it on to other people getting married.
I think as human beings we have to remember that our feelings aren’t the only determination of what is the right decision or wrong decision. Sometimes we have to look at what’s true and moral and truly right to make the best decision, not just feelings.
Such excellent comments. LL
Great posts from everyone, especially Prolifer L.
How is she going to coparent with men from Germany or India anyway?
Mary…you’re a little uninformed. My sister looked into fostering and I have a friend fostering a sibling set right now. Did you know most kids in foster care are unavailable for adoption? My sister has 4 boys and did not want them to get attached to a potential sibling only to have the state rip that child away which happens ALOT. She felt she could not in fairness put her boys through that.
My friend who is fostering the sibling set has been to court almost EVERY WEEK for the past year trying to adopt these kids. Every week she has to pack their little things and be prepared to hand them over to their abusive, drug addict parents if the court says. It breaks her heart when all she and her husband want to do is be mommy and daddy to these little ones.
Some people find international adoption easier despite the cost because at least once they bring the child home the child is their child forever, not a pawn of the state.
New invention of the progressives. Will they ever get a clue remains to be seen. And yes I second your question MST. Long-distance co-parenting, haha. Somebody working on developing an internet-based program for that?
“Some people find international adoption easier despite the cost because at least once they bring the child home the child is their child forever, not a pawn of the state. ”
Yes, it’s about the adults, not the child. They want a child to be *theirs*. Let’s not pretend that a lot of adoptive couples are not much different from this lady in this blog post.
I don’t see why children who aren’t “up for adoption” don’t deserve stable loving influences too, even if they can’t be “forever kids”. And there ARE plenty of foster kids up for adoption, the problem being that they are too old or disabled to be of interest to many “parents”. There’s not the sixty billion that pro-aborts like to pretend there are, but there are many, you just have to look at many options. I seriously can’t wait until my kids are old enough that I can safely foster, I’m going to try to take in older boys because literally no one cares about them. Do you know a lot of the older boys (and some girls) are put into juvenile detention when removed from abusive homes because no one is willing to take them? I find that a lot sadder than some couple who has to adopt international because they can’t keep their foster kid forever.
Oh, and my ex told me about this one lady she took care of at the nursing home, her and her husband fostered for something like 25 years. They were infertile, so they decided to give their love to whatever kids needed it. She got a ridiculous amount of visitors, phone calls, and cards around the holidays with all those people seeing them as the only adults who ever cared about them when they were little. Her husband’s dead, but she has more kids than most of us will ever have. That story was one of the reason I think it’s a shame people focus so much on “boo hoo I can’t keep a kid forever” rather than “I can make a difference for many kids”.
I seriously can’t wait until my kids are old enough that I can safely foster, I’m going to try to take in older boys because literally no one cares about them. Do you know a lot of the older boys (and some girls) are put into juvenile detention when removed from abusive homes because no one is willing to take them?
Thank you Jack, I know you aren’t a believer, but I consider people like you saints! Its very hard to find adoptive parents for older children, especially children of color. Good luck.
Jack, I meant foster homes for older children.
Yes there’s a huge issue with older kids not getting placed in safe homes, and unfortunately race seems to be an issue as well. I don’t care if they’re purple, I’ll take them. I would do it now if it weren’t an issue of my children’s safety (I’m not naive, a lot of these kids have major problems and come from very chaotic environments, I can’t have them around my small children). I certainly don’t consider it saint-like though! I just think people need to be taking care of the kids who get ignored.
Adopting infants internationally isn’t necessarily always easier (or cheaper) than adopting them domestically, each has their own pros and cons.
Hi Sydney M.
I am well aware our foster care and adoption services leave much to be desired and that’s part of the point I am making. We should be providing better overall care to our own children instead of presuming to tell other people how to care for theirs. It angers and saddens me to hear of such situations as you mention concerning your friend. All too often we hear of children wrenched from stable loving foster homes that wanted to adopt them and returned to parents, and I use the term loosely, who aren’t fit to raise a litter of dogs because of the parents’ “rights”.
Sadly this is the situation with foster care, that it may only be temporary. But as Jack points out there are foster children available for adoption. Even if people such as your friend and the woman Jack mentioned can offer children temporary respite and stability, and positive role models, isn’t that better than nothing at all?
Interestingly, there was a recent article in People Magazine about a same sex male couple who took in a deeply troubled foster child, who I believe had been through more than 20 homes, and eventually adopted him. Not that they had any walk in the garden. Their foster son gave them plenty of grief and frustration, and every reason to return him to social services. They persevered and the young man’s life has been completely turned around. Maybe he needed a couple of men to handle him.
I have seen physically and mentally challenged children fostered and/or adopted by single women, gay couples, and in racially mixed homes. I read of one black teenage foster child who just wanted to be adopted. The “experts” said she should have only black parents. She said she didn’t care what race her adoptive parents were, she just wanted a home! Perhaps we shouldn’t close our minds as to what constitutes a family or who is or isn’t fit to parent. How many children have been denied loving stable homes because we “know” what is best?
Jack, thank you for your decision to eventually take in foster children and I wish you every success.
First, I want to say Jack I think it is commendable that you want to be a foster parent once your children are older and to especially help boys that are in foster care. You have a heart of compassion for kids who have a rough life and I believe you are making a difference in this world and believe you will continue to do so.
Mary, I have an issue with your statement that the “we shouldn’t close our minds as to what constitutes a family and who is or isn’t fit to parent”. It may seem PC and ”ultra-tolerant” but it does not take rocket science to “know” what constitutes “a family”, it’s been comprised of a husband/wife/children for millennia and for generations. And there are over 50 years of research documenting that the healthiest, safest, and best place for a child is usually with his/her married, biological parents in a stable home.
Less physical and emotional illness, chronic disease, prematurity, SIDS, accidents, child abuse, educational failure, truancy, incarceration, early sexual debut, teen pregnancy, alcoholism, and drug abuse compared to kids in any other arrangement.
I am not sure you meant it to come across like it did to me as a Bible-believing Christian. but I feel I need to address this issue. Until the recent “evolution” by President BHO several months ago there was not a lot of debate about what constituted a ‘family” in this country. Actually it was Senator BHO who sat in Rick Warren’s church 5 years ago and said “Rick, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman and as a Christian you know I believe God is in the mix”. He didn’t even bother to say that “it was above his pay grade” when he answered this question but now that BHO has “evolved” every person who stands up for families being comprised of the two natural parents who created a baby together or adoptive man-woman parents has now become homophobic, “closed minded” bigots who need to be enlightened and educated. (Yes, I know some couples choose not to have any children or are unable to have children and other folks including gays bring children into their houses via a variety of methods and my late mother-in law was an awesome single parent who left an abusive, alcoholic husband and worked like a dog to give her children a decent chance in life so I know all marriages don’t work out) but it’s not about adults it is about children and what is best for children.
I don’t hate ANYONE,. I wouldn’t waste my energy on such toxic emotions too busy volunteering my time helping women, teens, children and babies. I understand that children in foster care or orphanages want a family but to say it doesn’t matter “who is or isn’t fit to parent” is not a valid statement. No child should be handed over to anyone who is not “fit to parent” and even biological parents who are unfit and are abusing their children, their children should be rescued from them.
Jack, I think being a foster parent to older kids is wonderful, but should people who want to adopt infants always be looked at as the bad guys? Adopted infants are needy children too, their biological mother has decided (and I firmly believe it should be her choice ONLY, without coercion) that she is unable to be a good mother. Not to mention that not every baby that seems healthy at birth necessarily IS healthy, problems can show up months and even years later.
P.S. And I’m talking about adopting infants of ANY race. Personally, if I were looking to adopt an infant, race wouldn’t matter to me.
I DON’T think people who adopt healthy infants are bad guys for the most part. I just don’t think they’re particularly admirable, no more than people who have biological kids. Adopting a healthy brand new baby because you love kids and and want to raise your own kid is fine, but it just… is. Nothing particularly selfless or awesome about it, just like I wouldn’t think someone was particularly amazing for deciding to have a biological baby. Thousands of couples are the same, and that’s fine.
I mostly just get annoyed with people the few couples I knew at my ex’s church, hearing them whine about how they want a forever baby and how they want kids so bad, while their homes could have a child in them very soon who needs help while they are waiting for an available infant, it’s just that they don’t want to. I don’t see how people like that are any less selfish than this woman on the blog post, waiting until the circumstances are right for yourself, and it’s not so much about giving a child love as it is that you want a baby to be yours. It just annoys me to death.
And I have a lot of issues with international adoption and the adoption industry in general, but it’s not really directed at the adoptive parents so much as the agencies and problems with unethical behavior that has happened in the past and today.
“I understand that children in foster care or orphanages want a family but to say it doesn’t matter “who is or isn’t fit to parent” is not a valid statement.”
Not speaking for Mary, but I’m pretty sure she’s referring to the sentiment that single mothers, gay couples, etc shouldn’t be allowed to adopt and foster or are seen as not viable candidates for whatever reasons. Or stuff like when people are reluctant to allow a child of one race be taken care of by a family of another race. I actually do agree that bio parents in a stable relationship are best, but that’s not the reality we live in, and the constant insistence that other family structures aren’t real families is not helping the kids. If a gay couple is willing to take that boy in that no one else wants, as long as they go through the background checks and vetting that other foster and adoptive parents do, that child doesn’t deserve to be deprived of a family because it might not be “ideal”. I’m pretty sure that is what Mary is getting at. Me and my kids are a family, we didn’t magically not become one when my ex moved out, as well as all the other families who aren’t nuclear biological families.
First of all, Jack, you are making some WILD assumptions about couples and about adoption. You have NO IDEA how difficult it is to adopt and how selfless and how loving it is to adopt ANY CHILD and how hard it is to give back that child because that child is not legally yours (this can happen due to technicalities with birthfather rights, such as when a birthfather refuses to relinquish his rights). You have NO IDEA of the intense level of scrutiny that an adoptive couple undergoes when they complete their homestudy. Adoptive couples get to choose what they think they can handle: newborn, different race, disabilities, newborn, older baby, toddler, older child – and for good reason. Children who are older, even older babies can develop something called Reactive Attachment Disorder, and it can be very, very difficult to deal with. I mean a child’s behavior can be very violent, and there are serious issues with bonding. Reactive Attachment Disorder is very common among children who are adopted at older ages, and as an adoptive parent, if you feel that you could not handle this kind of behavior, then you should be able to choose not to enter into that adoptive situation. It is better for people who feel that they CAN handle it to choose that type of situation.
Second, the Catholic Church teaches that adoption of a child by a married couple is a moral, right, and good thing to do. It offers a child a family – a loving mother and father. What this lady in this news report is doing is IMMORAL, and is WAY different from adoption. She is, without the benefit of the sacrament of marriage, and without love and commitment, using immoral methods to obtain a child through biological artificial reproduction technology, which is, in itself immoral. Do not compare a righteous deed to an unrighteous one. While it is true that some parents may adopt a child to serve their desire to HAVE a child, the desire to HAVE a child is good, holy and moral, as long as one does not enter into illicit or immoral means to obtain said child. Adoption is good and moral, as long as it is done properly by a married couple, and with the birthmother’s consent. A family is seen as answer to prayer by the birthmother, and the child is the childless couple’s answer to prayer.
The fact that older children and domestic children need homes does not negate the fact that infants ALSO need homes, and the fact that foster children are available does not mean that a particular adoptive couple is necessarily the best couple to raise said child. MOST foster children are not even available for adoption, and unless you have walked in the childless couples shoes and have been faced with the prospect of returning a much-loved child, as ordered by the law, then you should not condemn adoptive couples who long for a forever child.
All people want a forever child. Would you want your biological child to die tomorrow? Death and grief is what a couple experiences when they lose a child due to legal technicalities. Are you saying that it is wrong for a couple to not want their child to disappear from them forever, and in essence “die”? You see, once you lose a child to legal technicalities, that child is gone FOREVER from you – alive, but gone, and you are left with a raw, aching heart FOREVER – FOR THAT PARTICULAR CHILD!
“You have NO IDEA how difficult it is to adopt and how selfless and how loving it is to adopt ANY CHILD and how hard it is to give back that child because that child is not legally yours (this can happen due to technicalities with birthfather rights, such as when a birthfather refuses to relinquish his rights).”
Yeah… that’s his kid. He’s not a “birth father”, he’s one of the biological parents and if he does not want someone else to raise his child, that’s his right as long as he is a fit parent, not abusive, etc. That’s not a technicality. Children should be with their biological parents who want to raise them, if at all possible and it’s a safe home, because that’s in their best interest. It’s certainly not selfless to think that you have the right to a child if they have a fit biological parent who wants to raise them.
This entitlement mentality is NOT making me think adoptive parents are more selfless, btw. It’s the epitome of entitlement to call a biological parents rights (assuming he’s fit, not abusive, and wants to raise his child) “technicalities”.
“You have NO IDEA of the intense level of scrutiny that an adoptive couple undergoes when they complete their homestudy”
Yes, I do. And it’s good. We shouldn’t put babies in the homes of people without vetting them thoroughly.
“Adoptive couples get to choose what they think they can handle: newborn, different race, disabilities, newborn, older baby, toddler, older child – and for good reason. Children who are older, even older babies can develop something called Reactive Attachment Disorder, and it can be very, very difficult to deal with. I mean a child’s behavior can be very violent, and there are serious issues with bonding. Reactive Attachment Disorder is very common among children who are adopted at older ages, and as an adoptive parent, if you feel that you could not handle this kind of behavior, then you should be able to choose not to enter into that adoptive situation.”
I have plenty of attachment issues and other things from childhood, so I bet I know a bit about it. I’ve said nothing about forcing people to take a child that they don’t feel able to handle. I simply refuse to pat people on the back about how selfless they are because they want a child with no problems. It’s fine if they don’t want an older child, but it’s not laudable. And I’m thoroughly disgusted with people who wouldn’t adopt a baby based on something like race, so there’s that.
I think it’s amazing that people will say that adoptive parents are automatically as good as biological parents, but they also see nothing wrong with picking and choosing their children. Isn’t this type of thinking where aborting for disabilities comes from? A biological parent should be expected to care for and love their children regardless of any physical or mental disabilities the child comes with (unless they are incapable or abusive). Adoptive parents are held to a different standard for good reason, but I’m not going to pretend I think it’s something to celebrate. If you want a child with no apparent issues right off the bat, go for it, but don’t act like it’s selfless.
I don’t care, at all, what the Catholic Church thinks is moral, righteous and licit. I can make comparisons as I see fit whether the Catholic Church likes them or not. And I do think that waiting around, passing up children with problems or that you can’t legally have as your own so you can have one that doesn’t have any apparent ones problems, is far more to this lady’s end of the spectrum than someone adopting a child with deficiencies, I don’t even see it in the same ballpark.
“The fact that older children and domestic children need homes does not negate the fact that infants ALSO need homes, and the fact that foster children are available does not mean that a particular adoptive couple is necessarily the best couple to raise said child. MOST foster children are not even available for adoption, and unless you have walked in the childless couples shoes and have been faced with the prospect of returning a much-loved child, as ordered by the law, then you should not condemn adoptive couples who long for a forever child.”
There are something like twenty couples for every infant put up for adoption in the US. I’m not going to kiss anyone’s feet for adopting a healthy infant, sorry not sorry. I don’t think they are bad people for not wanting a child with problems (though, they might be in for a shocker because all kids have their own issues), I simply am not going to act like they are some saint for fulfilling their desire for having a child. I see them as the same as people who want biological kids, nothing less or more for the most part. It sucks that for whatever reasons they can’t have bio kids.
I do find the idea of people picking and choosing which children are worthy to grace their homes based on things like age, race, disability, etc vulgar and definitely not selfless, but whatever people are people and I doubt it is something that’s going to change.
“All people want a forever child. Would you want your biological child to die tomorrow? Death and grief is what a couple experiences when they lose a child due to legal technicalities. Are you saying that it is wrong for a couple to not want their child to disappear from them forever, and in essence “die”? You see, once you lose a child to legal technicalities, that child is gone FOREVER from you – alive, but gone, and you are left with a raw, aching heart FOREVER – FOR THAT PARTICULAR CHILD!”
Lol, whenever I bring up the trauma that adoption can cause biological mothers in some cases (which people like to gloss over), people enjoy telling me that “she just needs to be okay that her child is being cared for!!” and things like that.
Is something stopping adoptive couples who “lost” a child for whatever reason from regaining touch with the child as an adult, btw? The child isn’t dead, in the vast majority of cases, so comparing it to death isn’t very apt.
Perhaps more people would marry if we encouraged more realistic views on marriage. Two people who are compatible and want to “co-parent” could marry without the romantic feelings extolled in movies and novels.
Hi Prolifer L,
As always it is good to see you here and as always I greatly respect your input.
What I say has nothing to do with being PC or tolerant. It has everything to do with life experience and observation. Yes, I wish this was the ideal world where every child has the ideal family. It has never happened and it never will. I’ve seen and heard too many horror stories about “ideal” families. I’ve seen too many “perfect” marriages end in divorce. I’ve seen too much hypocrisy. I’ve seen too many facades.
Also, we need to dispense with any notion of ”loving” marriages and ”ideal” families over the centuries, or now. Marriages were financial and political arrangements. They were to guarantee future generations. For a long time, I’m not certain how long, they were strictly secular and did not involve clergy. One just went to the town magistrate. Wealthy and royal men were expected to have mistresses, and did. After all the marriage was just an arrangement. Meanwhile the lower classes could visit the cat houses, and I don’t mean pet stores. I’m not excusing anything, just stating facts.
Also, speaking of the Bible, didn’t some of the men have multiple wives? Wasn’t Abraham told to commit adultery? Didn’t teenage girls marry older men? Actually this is no surprise. Older men could support a wife and family and were established. Women weren’t likely to die of old age so child bearing began early. Life was very difficult. I mean no disrespect to your beliefs PLL, and please correct me where I am wrong, but I only point out the different cultural perspectives and life circumstances, then and now.
Also, children were brought into the world to work, to carry on the family name, were abandoned, sold into slavery, abused, orphaned, survived on the streets, prostituted, (my brother, a former police officer, could tell you of children prostituted to drug dealers to pay for the parents’ drug habits) were sold into marriage, were recruited as soldiers, were taken captive in wars, and have been victims of genocide, famine, and epidemics. Let’s get over any notion that children, then or now, have ever had some idyllic existence in blissfully happy families.
Children are floundering in foster care, people who would love and want a child, and be very capable of caring for them, are denied, while we concern ourselves with the ideal family. I am involved in activities for special needs children and can only be in awe of the love, devotion, and hard work of their single, gay, and parents of a different race who are often caring for the damaged results of bad heterosexual parenting. Parents who abused drugs during pregnancy or their children after birth.
Yes I agree with the studies you point out and see the breakdown of the family as a serious problem. But I also want to see children in stable, loving environments. I don’t think we should close our minds to the fact that heterosexual parents don’t always provide love and care, and gay, single, and different race homes can.
I recall years ago one black woman stating that at one time, a single black woman wanting to adopt children would be laughed out of the adoption agency. If what she says is true, then I have to wonder how many children lost out on the opportunity for a loving parent, extended family, and stable home because of some absurd prejudice?
An Old African Proverb Never tear down a fence until you know why it is there”. Yes there will always be dysfunction in this fallen world and there will always be some awful situations but “no one rises to low expectations” and no matter how hard people try they cannot redefine “family”. It won’t work.
People always relish bringing up the dysfunction of Biblical families with more than one wife as an justification when those families dysfunction actually shows why it was not supposed to be that way and we have had millennia of wars still going on to this day to back up it was not right. Still does not give anyone a pass to redefine a “family”. I know it does not mean much to non-Christians but it is still true Jesus said when asked about getting a no-fault “I don’t want you anymore divorce (my paraphrase) “In the beginning it was not so, a man was to leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and the two were to become one flesh. What God has brought together let no man put asunder” I’ve seen, dealt with and worked with enough young people, teens and babies devastated by the “make up your own family anyway you want to” culture over the years, it doesn’t work.
Why does Jill’s blog exist? To expose, educate and stop the devastation and mutilation of innocent unborn babies due to abortion. Why is there so much slaughter of innocent unborn babies? Because people insist they should be able to have sex out-of-wedlock (I believe the stat is about 85% of babies aborted are out-of-wedlock pregnancies), People say I can make up my own rules, live immoral lifestyles and get rid of the consequences without any restrictions, How dare you tell me I can’t have sex when I want. How dare you tell me I premarital sex and “shacking up” is wrong. How dare you tell me it’s wrong for me to abort my baby. How dare you tell me a family is a married husband/wife/children. I can redefine a “family” anyway that I want. Yes, you can try to but I guarantee there are consequences just like we are suffering the consequences of killing our unborn on the altar of ”sexual freedom” and “reproductive choice” we will suffer by trying to redefine “family”. There are always consequences. The fence is there for a reason. Not PC but still the truth.
I encourage you to read “Why Marriage Matters” and The Ring Makes All the Difference” both by Glenn T. Stanton.
Hi PLL,
I don’t relish bringing up biblical situations, but rather use them to point out different cultural factors and eras. If a wife couldn’t have a child, a man was permitted to find a woman who could. Young girls were married off at puberty since life was very difficult and life spans were brief. Reproduction had to start early. I’m not convinced that many of the “very old” women of the Bible who had children were all that old. A difficult life can age one very quickly and there was certainly no Lady Clairol or cosmetic surgery. To the people of that era, these women were old, to us maybe not. The man may lose a wife or two to childbirth. People were being practical and surviving. My great grandmother had 9 children and lost 5. She was considered lucky to have 4 survive to adulthood. Women of her era had several children just to make certain any survived to adulthood. They couldn’t take that for granted. Widowed parents remarried not out of love, but to make life easier.
I don’t redefine “family” I only say there has never been anything carved in stone and there are times we have to open our minds to the possibility that another alternative may be necessary and even desirable. That is why I brought up the experience of the single black woman. Was it better that children remain rootless and separated from siblings rather than adopted by a loving single mother? Also, the foster and adoptive parents of the mentally and physically challenged children that I mentioned. Would we rather see the young man in the People Magazine article end up victimizing innocent people and spending his life in jail, or having his life turned around by a determined and loving gay couple? One of our favorite posters Jack who as a single man plans to open his home to children in need.
In our country we have people who practice polygamy, some for several generations, viewing it as divinely ordained and apparently seeing themselves as loving and stable families. My happily divorced brother can’t imagine anything more horrible than a bunch of wives!
Mary I am truly saddened to read your posts. I know you are sincere and you are entitled to your opinion. Now that you have added not just homosexuals and lesbians but even polygamous co-ops into the equation of who should adopt and foster parent troubled, abandoned and neglected children under the guise of rescuing them and although you think that people should not be “closed minded” about “who is and isn’t fit” to parent a child or a teen I definitely think you are misguided in what you believe and I definitely believe you are out to redefine the ”family”. I think that you have really jumped off into deep territory. I believe these people can love children and can be well intentioned but that does not make it right or best or better for these children. The old saying is “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
I am sure the socially liberal who come to this pro-life blog will not agree but the LGBT movement is not about children it is about affirming adults “rights” to practice certain sexual behaviors. Masha Gessen, a lesbian journalist, was being honest when she stated the institution of marriage “should not exist” and that homosexual activists are “lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there”. I know she doesn’t speak for every gay person btw but I think she hit the nail on the head. I said that to say this, this thread which started off being about co-parenting a “new social experiment” involving children is just a part of another social experiment by the LGBT agenda to redefine and make up “new families” where children call one woman “momma” and the other woman “mummy” or call one man “daddy” and another “poppa” to gain acceptance. Now you have added to the mix polygamists who see themselves “as divinely ordained as loving and stable families” where children can potentially use all four of these names to call their “family”. If you think bringing children especially abused or neglected children into this confusing conglomeration is rescuing them I am indeed sorry for you and can only pray for you.
Please when you get a chance take a look at the articles below. The first one by Jill Stanek is titled “Matters of Life and Death: Sex and Consequences
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=209125
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/08/3761/
http://www.publicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/
Hmmm. If posting on a pro-life blog about protecting the lives and wellbeing of children from the redefinition of ”families” has now become an unpopular viewpoint and “gay” unsterile unions and even polygamous unions are becoming ”loving and stable families”, I wonder what is next?
It’s ok, I was warned about this in a very old sacred book that this day would come, it’s just coming faster than ever.
Oops the last link was incorrect. Sorry about that.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065
Hi PLL,
I didn’t suggest that polygamous people should adopt, I said they view their lifestyles as much divinely ordained as some people view the heterosexual marriage. They also view their families as very stable and happy, and maybe they are. Again PLL, I’m pointing out that there are different perspectives and always have been.
The young man I mentioned who was in the People article. He had been through 29 foster families by the age of 13! Obviously he was a deeply troubled child. Obviously his parents were heterosexual but they had abused him horribly. Like it or not it was the gay men who stuck it out and turned this young man’s life around. Would this young man ending up in prison, in a life of crime, or dead on the street have been preferable to a gay couple adopting him?
I mentioned the gay couples and single women who had adopted challenged children. Some of these children were the result of neglect, abuse, and drug use by heterosexual parents. Do we think these children should be deprived of the love and care a single parent or gay couple can give them? The devotion and hard work of these foster and adoptive parents is humbling. One single woman has adopted 4 children with serious physical challenges. The gay women cared for a severely challenged child confined to a wheelchair. Sorry PLL, I can only feel gratitude towards these caretakers and I’m sure the children they love and care for don’t concern themselves with anything but the love and care they get.
From the dawn of the human race children have endured, and still endure, horrors far worse than having single or gay parents. Some of those horrors have included abusive, neglectful, and totally unfit heterosexual parents. Also, gay parents certainly didn’t just fall out of the sky. GLTB people married and had children, and tried to fit into what society dictated. I’m a history and trivia buff and it fascinates me the “heterosexuals” who were prominent, married, and with families who in fact dallied with the same sex. Oh, and with the opposite sex as well.
I’m afraid PLL that I am just a realist. Yes I would like to see children raised in “ideal” families but I’ve seen too many “ideal” families turn out to be anything but. When I was old enough my mother shared many family secrets with me as did members of my father’s. Good grief! My dear great aunt did that! I hardly think we were alone. Human nature is what it is and “ideal”, while a great concept, never has and never will exist.
When I was in high school my sociology teacher told us this account out of WW2 England. Children were being evacuated from London because of German bombing and this included the children from the worst parts of the city and from the worst homes. How wonderful, it was thought, to take these children out of such horrible environments and away from mothers who were drug and alcohol addicts, streetwalkers, strippers, and criminals, and send them out to the country where they will have clean beds, take baths and have clean clothes, decent shelter, and 3 square meals a day. Yet 9 out of 10 of those children cried themselves to sleep every night. They wanted their mothers. They wanted to go home. Even if mom was a streetwalker and they lived in a cellar, that was their family and that was their home.
To me PLL there are just too many exceptions to the “rules”.
I will end with this final discourse.
Does not seem to me that you read Jill’s article or the others I posted and that is your right. Too bad. Your stories indicate you have the opinion that nothing but stable wonderful kids come out of homosexual families despite research to the contrary and hetero parents really mess their kids up which is the opposite of what over 50 years of research proves for most 2 parent families (I recommended 2 books earlier with tons of research).
Actually no, there are not really too many exceptions to the “rules” when it come to what is best for children. Pretty simple “rules’ about how children are created. Pretty simple “rules” that a child cannot have 2 mothers, 2 fathers and several fathers, mothers or combinations of parents (still does not work). “Two wrongs will never make a right.”
You seem to think I have lived in some bubble and have not seen the devastation caused to children by hetero parents making poor choices, it has been my life’s work to help women, expectant parents, new parents, children and parents of teens. Our sinful (I know that is an old-fashioned horrible word today) choices are why so many children are hurt. IT’S STILL NOT ABOUT US!!! I have not put down single mothers. You have ignored the things I have said about my late mother-in-law being an awesome single mother who worked her fingers to the bone to provide for her children working 2-3 jobs most of her life after leaving an abusive, alcoholic ex-husband. She still taught her children that marriage was sacred and good and that they should and could have strong, stable marriages and my husband is a testimony of that by being an awesome husband and father. Instead of perpetuating the cycle of fatherlessness, poverty and divorce, he broke the cycle with God’s help.
Your repeats about “ideal” families over and over is interesting. No one has a “perfect” family if that is what you are getting at. We are imperfect and we all struggle. But we can all receive wholeness and healing through Christ.
Finally your last story about the WW2 children really proves my point that every child still in his or her heart longs to have a home with his/her ”mother” and a “father” even kids who have not had healthy families, they long for their parents. My husband’s father abandoned them most of his childhood and he longed for his dad, he never remembered living with his dad but he cried himself to sleep as a child some nights when the burden of being fatherless and not having a real “daddy” got to him because his parent divorced before he could remember him.
Not buying it “the fence was put there for a reason” we are paying the awful consequences of destroying families already and redefining families does not solve the problem at all, as Dr. Robert Lopez talks about is his article I posted, he “suffered because of it”. I’m done here but not done praying for your eyes to be opened to the truth because it will set you free. So long.
Hi PLL,
In fact I did read your posts and certainly respect your viewpoint.
I said nothing about stable wonderful kids always coming from homosexual relationships, I pointed out an otherwise incorrigible child who’s life was turned around by the love and determination of a gay couple. I did the same with single mothers. As the child and grandchild of single mothers, no one appreciates the difficulty of being a single parent more than I do. I was pointing out that as much as we want to see children in stable heterosexual families, it never has always been and never will always be. There have always been alternative situations, whether it was single parent, grandparent(s), orphanages, older siblings, etc. No these may not have been the ideal, but they did provide the child with the needed care.
I don’t believe there is any “redefining” of family. Divorce, abandonment, blending families, neglect, children raised by single parents, relatives, older siblings, concerned friends and neighbors, in orphanages, by unfit parents, etc. is as old as the human race. Marriage is culturally defined and children around the world, then and now, are raised in any number of types of families and circumstances.
I agree with many black conservatives that gov’t “assistance” had a devastating impact on the black family. I will also agree that making it difficult for single black women to adopt denied many black children a loving home and family. I agree that the boy in People Magazine should have been raised in a home by a loving heterosexual couple. I am also thankful that after 29 failed foster care placements he finally found a home with men whose love and determination turned his life around. I’m thankful for the gay women and single mother who have adopted and loved the severely challenged children whose own heterosexual parents were unable or unwilling to care for, and who in some cases were responsible for the disability.
You see PLL, I’m all for the two parent home. I wish I was raised in such a stable and loving home. I am angered by the efforts to make illegitimacy look glamorous and easy and like you I have seen the tragic consequences of dysfunctional families. I wish there was no need for foster homes and child protective services. But I’m also realistic enough to know we never have and never will live in a world where every child lives in an intact loving family with a mother and father willing and able to care for them. While intact stable two parent families are best, they never have always, and never will always exist. If this means other alternatives that will provide children with love, safety, stability, and care, then I believe we should be open to those alternatives. They may not be the ideal, but they are certainly preferable to children being institutionalized or shuttled from foster home to foster home, or just given up on.
The WW2 example I was pointing to was in fact children from the “worst” and most dysfunctional homes and parents imaginable. There were no fathers or what ones there were weren’t much better than the mothers. The “experts” were convinced these children would be far better off away from their parents, mostly single mothers, and homes. I think it shows the bond of love a child can have for the person they perceive as loving them or who provides them with some element of security, no matter what the circumstances.
I strongly emphathize with your husband. I was so jealous of friends and relatives who lived in a peaceful home and who’d father came home from work every night sober. Even the dog ran and hid when my father came home. Much to my mother’s dismay, my stepfather spoke so ideally of the father who abandoned him and his brother as children. Adoptive children will often idealize their unknown parents, only to be bitterly disappointed when they meet them. I agree children do want the normalcy and stability of two parents.
As a young adult, my mother often contemplated on the fate of her father, who abandoned her and her brother as small children. She began an effort to look for him then it occurred to her she’d probably get stuck with having to support or take care of him and decided she didn’t owe him that. She left well enough alone.