"Three" Parents, Surrogacy, and Commercialization in Conception and Birth

I've been thinking about this subject for some time.

First, some admissions:

• Getting pregnant was NEVER a problem for me.  I had 3 kids in four years.  Coulda done more, but I was really getting tired of birthin'


• In my younger years, I did follow the crowd and use contraception.  Never had to consider an abortion, which I thank God for.  Some things, it was just a mercy I hadn't been in a position to have to decide upon - I don't know that I'd have decided in a good way.


• There have been days my kids drove me crazy.  Well, the same is true of my husband.  But, I never wished they hadn't been born.

I never had to wrestle with the conflicts between a strong desire to have children, and the ethical problems that lay within that decision.

In high school, we all read "Brave New World" and "1984" (funny, seldom do kids read either these days.  1984 is too uncomfortably close to the near-worship of our current leader.

And, Brave New World, with its manufactured baby products, seems WAY too close to modern elite parenting.

And, it IS an elite problem - they are the ones that delay pregnancy until conception is difficult, if not impossible.  They are the ones (Octo-Mom notwithstanding) who have the money to make their quest for a mini-me possible.  And, they are the ones that can see a potential egg donor or surrogate, and see - what?  A virtual non-person?  A "lesser" human being?  A bought-and-paid-for servant?

Egg donors take enormous risks.  The process of "harvesting" eggs requires the donor to be pumped full of drugs, some of which will imperil future pregnancies, cause premature menopause, or, even, serious illness or death.

The surrogates take risks, too.  They take on the normal risks of pregnancy, plus the added complication of implantation or medical intervention to join sperm to egg.  If the sperm donor is gay, she risks AIDS exposure, hepatitis, or other STD (Yes, I know that the sperm is screened.  Keep in mind that, in the pre-AIDS testing years, such an unknown pathogen couldn't have been guarded against.  Caveat emptor - or rather, let the SELLER beware.).

Here's a thoughtful look at the ethical challenges that commercial child-buying entails.

Here's a look at sperm buying, from a person whose father was "Donor".

Sex was not necessary for me to exist. I was not the natural fruit of a marriage. I was a very clear decision, an economic transaction and exchange of services rendered by buyers and sellers who did not know each other—not even as acquaintances. - See more at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/03/4628/#sthash.8H149Qag.dpuf

He differentiates between types of immortality:

There are two types of immortality: genetic and memetic. Genetic immortality includes the preservation as well as the reproduction of genes. Living forever like Duncan MacLeod in Highlander is one example of genetic immortality through preservation; freezing your body cryogenically is another. Genghis Khan and his now 16 million living descendants are an example of genetic immortality through reproduction. Memetic immortality, on the other hand, has little to do with the physical matter of our bodies. It is the theory that mental content and "cultural units"—ideas, beliefs, patterns of behavior, etc., can be reproduced from mind to mind—as individuals influence each other to adopt new ways of thinking, preferences, and so on. - See more at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/03/4628/#sthash.8H149Qag.dpuf

How does the never-present father benefit?

Fifty years ago a man had to devote his life through marriage to pass on his genes. Today he doesn’t even have to buy his mother’s child a drink. - See more at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/03/4628/#sthash.8H149Qag.dpuf

If the seed of the father contains at least SOME of the character traits - introvert/extrovert, easy-going/uptight, athletic/clumsy - then will our future civilization be shaped - perhaps NOT for the better - by the careless seeding of these absent men?

This woman was charged with crimes.  Read it, and tell me - just how different are her actions from the LEGAL actions of those purchasing surrogates?

A Blog You REALLY Have to Put on Your Daily List

I've long been a fan of Francis W. Porretto's writing, both his blogs and his fiction.  Please, consider adding his blog to your list of frequently checked sites.

How to work with Liberals/Leftists?  He has some good advice:

Compromise is potentially constructive only when it's strictly about means: i.e., when the two sides angling toward a compromise sincerely agree on the end to be sought, and are both willing to allow that they might be wrong about what means would best serve that end. Under those conditions, everyone involved will be watching the outcome and judging the means applied by that standard alone. When the ends are opposed to one another,compromise must disserve one or the other. It cannot be any other way.

If your end is political liberty -- the maximum possible freedom from coercion or constraint for peaceable persons -- there's absolutely no reason to "dialogue" with persons whose end is an expansion of State power. Compromising with statists means promoting their end, which is the exact opposite of your end. Yet many a freedom-minded person will feel a tug toward such a "dialogue," and the ideal of compromise, despite the clarity of the above. This is the Nice-Guy Trap in action.

We're indoctrinated practically from birth about the goodness of "sharing," and how Nice Guys should "try to see both sides" -- of everything. Nice Guys mustn't declare others to be The Enemy even when The Enemy has already done so in the plainest possible ways. That's because confrontation is bad, don't y'know. At any rate, it's unpleasant, which in modern "thought" amounts to the same thing.

Hidden beneath the Nice-Guy Trap is a pair of steel jaws that can snap any principle cleanly in half. This is so obvious as to be tautological: He who compromises on principle has surrendered it to some other end.

There's more, and I suggest you read it.

Benghazi Update

Here's a link to a THOROUGH summary of the events of 9/11/12.

I'll continue blogging on this issue in the future.

WHY is it important?  Here's a link to Neil Young singing about ANOTHER 4 dead.



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They didn't have to die.



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, well, is that SUCH a big deal?  As Madam Secretary Clinton <s>said</s> yelled, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a BAD Idea!

Honestly, you'd think that one of the requirements for people working in government today is a COMPLETE IGNORANCE of the Constitution!

There seems to be no other way to explain this boneheaded decision:

FCC to "monitor" news broadcasts for bias

Even more EXCITING, the firm that the FCC is looking at to conduct the study of the media, specializes in "social welfare".

Here's a link to the actual proposal.  I'm not that concerned about them looking at what they call "Critical Information Needs" - that's examining the actual content, and comparing it to how well it matches what the public has a need to know (assuming, perhaps unrealistically, that our Leftist government minions can fairly judge that) - but, that the major focus of the study seems to be on "perceived" needs.

Whose perception is going to take precedence?  Leftists?  Minorities (including transgender, transexual, bi-, undecided, Arab-heritage - the RIGHT kind, the Muslims, not those "icky" Christian Arabs, those with quasi-psychiatric diagnoses that are PROUDLY used to excuse horrible behavior, et al)?

I'm confident that this will be used as a club to eliminate non-Leftist media.

BTW, isn't it funny that the ones that seem to be getting most enervated about this are NOT the Old Media, but the New Media?  Who says the MSM haven't outlived their purpose?

What Do You REALLY Know About History?

A recent review of books about Ulysses S Grant made me wonder.

Too often, history is written by supporters of the leading party.  In present day, history taught in schools is SOLIDLY controlled by Liberal/Leftist teachers, and written to reflect that slant.

Therefore, what children learn is:

• Washington, Jefferson, and almost all of the other WHITE Founding Fathers were racist, sexist, and, generally, Bad Guys.  The ONLY reason for the "3/5ths" clause in the Constitution is that they ALL Hated Black People.


• After those early days, the only presidents worth mentioning are Andrew Jackson (man of the people), Abraham Lincoln (we won't mention his party affiliation, but we LOVE him because he abused the Constitution to keep the Union together), Teddy Roosevelt (another unmentionable party, but not REALLY - he was a Progressive!  Which is a Wonderful Thing!), and Wilson (REALLY smart - an honest-to-God PhD - and we LOVE his League of Nations idea, which only failed because of those BAD Republicans, who like to see helpless creatures die grisly deaths, among other failings.  They love him MOST because he was a Progressive).


• Then, after a period of prosperity (for some STRANGE, unknown reason, it coincided with a series of Republican administrations ), we have The SAINTED FDR (who, just like Wilson, trashed the Constitution), followed by Cold Warriors (including Truman, who, although a Democrat, had the unfortunate habit of not always kowtowing to Communists), followed by Another SECULAR Saint, JFK (he had to be a Secular Saint, because he sure wasn't all that Catholic, according to his family), LBJ (Bad-Good - Bad on Vietnam, Good on the Great Society), The VERY BAD - in fact, E-V-I-L Nixon (Yeah, the Progressives went all Impeachment on yo' a$$!), Ford (Eh.), Carter (there are no words to describe how bad a president he was, except to say that he and Obama are neck-and-neck for the ABSOLUTELY WORST!), Reagan (Boo!  Hiss!  Yet, amazingly, the economy improved and the debt lessened under his administration - and, foreign relations were terrific).


• Then, Bush I (Eh.), Billy Boy Clinton (who managed to eclipse JFK for sleazy, tawdry actions - in his case, both in and out of the bedroom), and Bush II (neither as bad nor as good as his enemies and friends say).


• And, then, there's Obama.  Who:
  
  
  
  • Took office under the cloud of probable primary and election fraud.
  
  
  • Proceeded to mis-manage the economy so badly that we're still mired in unemployment, low GDP, and national debt.
  
  
  • Blithely ignored the Constitution (What, exactly, was he supposed to be an expert on?)
  
  
  • Handled corruption and other impeachable offenses by grandly declaring that he, and all his people, were completely innocent, even before the investigation began.  Then, proceeded to block those investigations.  Then, again declared that there was nothing to the charges.
  
  
  • Has a backside that is covered in layers of lipstick from the Mainstream Media.  Still enjoys telling them to shut up, and take his word for everything.  They still grovel at his feet.
  
  
  • Has stirred up more racially-based hatred than ANY president, including Woodrow Wilson, who segregated the Federal government.  His take on current events:  If you're Black, you could be my son.  If you're White, why are you even talking - you know you're a Hater!
  
  
  
  

One bright spot is the recent fictional books by Rush Limbaugh, which are intended for young people to learn more about the United States' history, not as they are often taught in school.

I'm convinced that it will be the efforts of SEVERAL generations to remove the Leftist detritus from our culture.

How Often Do Comparative Things Happen?

Check out XKCD to see the graphic - REALLY cool.

How Bill Clinton Stole a Generation's Innocence

This is a GREAT post on PJ Media.  The comments alone are worth reading.