Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, August 23, 2010

Which Can You Do Without? A Mother Or A Father?

If you could somehow have a say in it, would you choose to be born into a family with your own parents, you know, the old fashioned way, with a mother and a father of your very own, or would you choose to forgo a mother in favor of two fathers, or a father in favor of two mothers? You don't know anything about the character of any of those involved, just the gender composition of your prospective parental choices, and that in only one case will both your parents actually be yours.

What if somebody told you that you would never get to meet your father because your mother "didn't need him"?  I don't think anybody can honestly say that they would choose anything other than the chance to born into their own family. Granted, it doesn't always work out so well, but any future is uncertain. I think, however, that most of us understand that nobody has the right to decide that a child doesn't need their own father or their own mother and then proceed to whip up a batch of baby for one's own amusement like a bowl full of garlic mashed potatoes.

We understand that circumstances sometimes arise that make it impossible for one or both parents to raise their children, and for those tragic situations, of which, it seems, there are always far too many, good people step in and raise those children as their own. We call that adoption, and as a society deem it to be a good thing because it takes misfortune and makes it better.

What we should absolutely not deem to be good, or even acceptable, is the creation of children as pets, which is what seems to be happening these days.

Neil Patrick Harris and his Male Partner are having twins. Of course, they are not actually having the twins, because that is not possible. So they have hired a cow to grow their new made to order accessories - things we used to call children, but since we are tossing thousands of years of human evolution and tradition in the dust-bin anyway, why not call it what it is?

One thing is obvious here, those two men care very much about themselves and would, given the chance, surely rant Ad Nauseum about their rights and gay rights and their own personal fulfillment, and their own wants and needs. The only rights they don't seem to consider are those of the two motherless children they have ordered. And nobody else seems to consider them, either, least of all the cow who is doing the cooking.



Why are we letting this happen? Are we really that far gone that we have decided that things like mothers and fathers have no significance in one's life? Personally, I can't think of anything that has more significance in my own life than my parents, other than becoming one myself. This is nothing short of carefully planned and paid for child abuse. It is disgusting, and it doesn't say much about us as a society if we allow this to become common practice. Somebody is going to have to answer to these children when they grow up.

RH

Memo to Jennifer Aniston: You may not need a man in your life to raise a child, but the child will. - The child will refer to that man as his or her father, and that man will be the most important man in that child's life for a very long time. -  Here is a bit of free advice. Stop obsessing about yourself for awhile and maybe you will catch a man long enough to get yourself married and knocked up. Meow.

5 comments:

Jamie said...

I agree! Good for you for saying it!

Anonymous said...

Oh the hipocracy. As if heterosexual couples all have children for the right reasons, or bring them up the right way. As far as adoption goes, it has nothing to do with treating children like pets. Its heterosexual individuals deciding they don't want their children, and god bless any loving, nuturing couple who does want to take them in and raise them! Now I would not want to go without my mother or my father, but I feel that way because I've been blessed with great parents. I know plenty of people who had deadbeat narsissitic parents who would've rather been raised by a gay couple who would've cared for them. I can somewhat agree about surrogacy, but would you honestly be as critical of a straight couple experiencing infertility? Would you jump on your high horse and say its not God's will for them to have children at all if they can't physically manage to concieve? Lets be honest about what really hurts children. Abandonment, neglect, and abuse. If someone loves and cares for their child to the best of their ability, regardless of orientation, thats the least of our worries. Theres so many heterosexual people running around out here having kids for the wrong reasons yet people spew hatred toward couples who want a (albiet unconventional) loving family.

Retro Housewife said...

1. Two wrongs don't make a right. There are enough problems in the world without adding to it with special order children.

2. Read what I said. Adoption has nothing to do with pets as children. Adoption is a wonderful thing, people who adopt are great. I am not against gay people adopting, I am sure plenty of them are swell folks who would do a fantabulous job raising kids. I would, however, rank them behind married couples, all other things being equal...which is why I am against "gay marriage". (Besides the fact that it is absurd)

3. Hindsight is 20/20 - you have great parents, suppose you never got to meet them, because somebody decided it wasn't all that important?

4. No, I wouldn't be as critical of a straight couple, obviously, because they will at least mimic normalcy for the kid... i.e. said kid will have at least one mother and one father. I will keep my nose out of that one for the time being. But two men are not "infertile" they are one man too many, one woman too few as far as baby making goes.

5. God doesn't keep me informed of what HIS will is, however, in Biology class I learned a little about how babies are made... (Hint, no stork involved). Go argue with Mother Nature if you have a problem with how things work. Although, I seem to remember a margarine commercial that warned against just that.

6. I just might get on my high horse anyway.

7. I am spewing very strong criticism, not hatred you bozo. And you are darn right people are against this, it is messed up, and so are you, you liberal freak.

8. There are also a lot of bad gay parents, I am sure. Probably a few who want kids for perverted reasons, too. You don't get to argue that because some natural parents are bad, everything else is justified. The logic of that is messed up ...i.e. wrong.

Have a nice day.

RH

Pickhradt said...

Are you serious? A child can be just as happy with a single parent! it's a matter of perception. We live in a world that tells us that having a Mother and a Father is normal. What is "normal"? It's what someone else tells us it is. If a single parent can take care of a child and have that child grow up happily, then whats the problem? Nothing, ass. A child doesn't see things like "What's normal". I never minded living with my Father, a single parent.

Retro Housewife said...

Normal: (a)conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal; "serve wine at normal room temperature"; "normal diplomatic relations"; "normal working hours"; "normal word order"; "normal curiosity"; "the normal course of events"

(b) in accordance with scientific laws

Yes, we do live in a world where society tells us that having a mother and a father is normal. Because it is. See?