The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Surrogacy: who needs a mother, anyway? > Comments

Surrogacy: who needs a mother, anyway? : Comments

By David van Gend, published 12/2/2010

By what authority does any government permit adults to deny a child a mother AND a father?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Someone who would not otherwise have existed might think it better to have been brought into being in this unusual way, than not to exist at all.

Those who have been raised without a father-figure might say they would prefer to have been raised with one, but they do not and cannot speak for others who might prefer being alive to not.

I think the author has mis-identified the issues. The question is not whether you think single-parent or same-sex surrogacy is bad, it is whether you are justified in using force to prevent other people who don’t agree with you from bringing people into the world in this way.

You are right that it is vain to appeal to ‘social science’. The issue is the ethical one. But the fact that Margot Somerville fancies herself justified to go poking her nose into other people’s business doesn’t somehow raise her ethical values above those of others who, in bringing new life into the world to love, cannot be said to be doing more harm to it than those who want to use force to stop them.

It is also completely fallacious to identify society with the state, as if only the state has the competence or the goodness to decide what society’s values are or should be. If people decide to do something you don't like, that doesn't mean the state is somehow complicit in it merely because it doesn’t ban it. Your ethics are completely back-to-front.

You haven’t established that the issues you are concerned about are any business of yours or government’s.
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 12 February 2010 9:19:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I can advise the House that same-sex parents will be included among those who will be affected by the decriminalisation of surrogacy, because everyone - regardless of their sexual status or their gender -should be afforded the privileges of parenthood," Ms Bligh said.
But Ms Bligh says she does not believe allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt would have community support." ABC News
Wed Aug 19, 2009
Why would the Premier expect the community to support same-sex and single parents having a child through surrogacy but not support same-sex and single parents adopting a child?
Posted by blairbar, Friday, 12 February 2010 9:25:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
children need unconditional love and care, what gender they get it from is completely irrelevant it seems to me.

the evils of the homosexual community eh? denying birthrights, forcing other people into their world view, sexually and physically abusing children in their trust time and time again and again and again...oh sorry..my mistake..that's the church community.

pardon me ;-)
Posted by E.Sykes, Friday, 12 February 2010 9:55:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like everyone, Dr van Gend is entitled to his opinions. However it's appropriate to point out that in this continuation of his campaign against families headed by same-sex couples http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_insanity_of_same-sex_parenting/ , he is shamelessly attempting to mislead us.

First, he chooses to ignore the 60,000 http://www.aap.org/member/faqPublic.htm#question11 U.S. pediatric health professionals who follow evidence-based practice, represented by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) http://www.aap.org/

Instead he quotes from the American College of Paediatricians (ACP), a breakaway handful of wingnuts, established in 2002 in response to the AAP's refusal to engage in anti-gay lobbying: http://www.americancollegeofpediatricians.org/ The report that so enraged the ACP culture warriors can be found here: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341 In the ACP's literature, "the best available science" refers to the dodgy studies that meet their ideological, not scientific, criteria.

One measure of the authority of a website is the number and quality of other sites linking to it. Here are the links to the ACP: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&num=50&q=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.americancollegeofpediatricians.org%2F++&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= and here are the links to the AAP: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&num=50&q=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.aap.org&btnG=Search&meta=

Dr van Gend, medical practitioner and writer of "Charlatans of science" http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4821 actually prefers the claims of charlatans to those of evidence-based practitioners.

Second, oblivious to van Gend's indignation, the peer-reviewed studies are showing that the children of same-sex couples develop in exactly the same way, and experience exactly the same level of advantage and disadvantage as the children of opposite-sex couples:

"two systematic reviews of outcomes for children in lesbian
and gay families have been conducted that used similar
standardized and validated criteria to evaluate the
methodological strength (still restricted to quantitative,
comparative studies) and identified 23 and 8 studies,
respectively (Anderssen et al., 2002; Hunfeld et al., 2002).
All studies reviewed were found to be methodologically
rigorous, and both reviews found that the children in
lesbian families fared at least as well as those in
heterosexual families and those with single parents."
http://lawfam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/1/110 (subscription)

(Continues)
Posted by woulfe, Friday, 12 February 2010 9:56:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued from previous)

The AAP report (see link in previous post) makes it clear that most important for children are happy, loving, supportive parents. Parental gender makes no difference:

"children are rated as better adjusted when their parents
report greater relationship satisfaction, higher levels of
love, and lower interparental conflict regardless of their
parents’ sexual orientation. Children apparently are
more powerfully influenced by family processes and
relationships than by family structure."

The AAP report concludes with an important message for van Gend and others who malign families led by same-sex couples:

"Although gay and lesbian parents may not, despite
their best efforts, be able to protect their children fully
from the effects of stigmatization and discrimination,
parents’ sexual orientation is not a variable that, in
itself, predicts their ability to provide a home
environment that supports children’s development."
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341#SEC3

Third, we need to be deeply suspicious of van Gend's reliance on "obvious insight" and "a self-evident fact of life". Human civilisation has brought us beyond self-evident facts like 'the earth is flat' and 'the stars revolve around the earth'. Evidence-based practice makes intelligent individuals capable of replacing simple truisms like "a child needs a mother and a father" with nuanced knowledge about the capability of all humans to provide a loving and nurturing environment for their children.
Posted by woulfe, Friday, 12 February 2010 9:59:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
woulfe,

Excellent stuff. Thanks.
Posted by rstuart, Friday, 12 February 2010 11:37:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I dont really care if children are raised by same sex parents or sole parents, but NO parent has the right to deny their child the truth about their origin or deny their child information about who their biological parent is. Apart from anything else, this legislation is about re-writing or erasing a child's real history. The parents who support it have tricked government into colluding with their deep insecurities.
Despite the quality of even the best parent-child relationship, most children will always want information about their origins. Same-sex or single parents are deluded if they think the fact of their name on the birth certificate will pursude a child they are its only or real parent. Only a moron would think they can convince their child of this. And, unless they support the child discovering information about their biological parent then they seriously risk losing the love of their child in the long-term.
Posted by nelle, Friday, 12 February 2010 12:15:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nelle

I agree with you, the child is most affected yet his/her needs and rights are ruthlessly disregarded to make an adult feel good. How can Anna Bligh anticipate the consent of the child to the falsification of his/her birth record and is it ethical to do so?

In any event, with more and more medical science demonstrating the relevance of genetic inheritance to disease, what right has anyone to destroy information that could be crucial to the child's later health decisions?
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 12 February 2010 7:04:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr.van Gend has some valid points he raised when he stated that all children have a right to know both their parents if at all possible, and preferably to live with them.

He lost me however when he mentioned being a committee member of the Family Council of Queensland. I looked it up, and yes , there were some other groups involved that made the whole article smell of anti-gay sentiments.
These other members included the Australian Family Association, the Salvation Army, the Catholic Church, and the Festival of Light.

The world has moved on from the 'good old days' when most families did consist of mum, dad and the kids. These religious groups need to move on with the times and realise that children need love in their lives- no matter from whom it comes from.

I do not agree that children should never be allowed to know any details about their biological mother or father in the case of surrogacy though.

At the very least, they should have medical and genetic information about their biological parents, as they should have after adoption as well.

If people such as single mothers and gay couples go through all the terrible problems they must do just to have a baby with a surrogate, then they are really wanting to have and love that baby.

Far better circumstances than many fertile two parent households who never wanted some of their children in the first place.
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 12 February 2010 7:44:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I totally reject falsification of records as ever being necessary or defensible. It should always be a serious offence. This is an objectionable and dangerous precedent by the State.

Those who proposed and supported it are unworthy of occupying a position of trust in the bureaucracy or in Parliament.
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 12 February 2010 8:44:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reading all David's other threads, it is clear that he is just another deeply religious catholic? bigot whose philosophy is more "thy shalt not" than "help thy neighbor"

Thank god he is in a minority.
Posted by Democritus, Saturday, 13 February 2010 5:20:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Democritus, van Gend is not making a religious case against surrogacy, so whatever it might be, his religion is not a basis on which to dismiss his article.

The problems with the article are that it
(a) cherry-picks from dodgy studies,
(b) follows the tobacco industry methodology of citing a legitimate-sounding professional body, which on closer examination turns out to be a front for partisan lobbying, and
(c) relies on folk wisdom rather than science.

In a modern technology-rich world, folk wisdoms (“self-evident facts of life”) are no longer a safe way of organising human societies. The world turned out to be round, not flat, and science is showing that “common sense” often lets us down when dealing with complex human societies. Sure, “every child has a right to a mother and a father” sounds like an absolute pearl of wisdom, except that it denies the reality of deadbeat dads, mothers who would prefer a career to child-rearing, and the twists of fate that rend families asunder. Should a child whose mother is lesbian be condemned to life with a father and a mother who don’t love each other, or have the benefit of two mothers who “report greater relationship satisfaction” (see quote above http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10049#161876)?

In another example of his lazy and misleading cherry-picking, van Gend quotes the never-enacted 1959 UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child. The 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm, to which Australia is a signatory, states in article 2:

“States Parties shall take all appropriate measures
to ensure that the child is protected against all
forms of discrimination or punishment on the
basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions,
or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians,
or family members.”

With census data indicating that 20% of Australian lesbian couples and 5% of gay male couples are raising children http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/samesex/report/Ch_5.html#2 , the folksy righteousness of “every child has a right to a mother and a father” denies the reality of their children’s lives. It’s also an attack on the growing number of children born in (now nationally legal) surrogacy arrangements.
Posted by woulfe, Saturday, 13 February 2010 11:07:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Woulfe, thanks for that very interesting info- and I agree with most of what you said.

However, I guess that I am more cynical when I say that this guy is definitely coming from a religious point of view- albeit a very misguided, old-fashioned kind!
Posted by suzeonline, Saturday, 13 February 2010 12:36:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Woulfe,

I agree with you the post is a poorly cobbled together collection of half truths, dubious research, and homilies in order to justify an untenable bigotry.

I did not claim that the arguments presented were religious, however, it is often important to see from what angle the debater is coming from.

All his previous posts have followed the catholic church's dogma to a T, and there has to be some motivation for a supposedly intelligent man to spout such drivel.
Posted by Democritus, Sunday, 14 February 2010 4:51:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard


The author talks about children having a right to both a mother and father. Just because you have a right to something does not mean it is a necessity. I have the right to be filthy rich but it does not mean that I have to be so in order to lead a full life. Equating rights with necessity is just an emotional manipulation trying to make those who do not agree with the necessity appear to not value human rights.

If it is so necessary then why do we not take stronger action against those who deprive a child of one or both of its natural parents? Surely someone who murders a parent should be punished more severely than someone who murders a non-parent. They have taken a life but also deprived a child of an absolute necessity for its personal development.

I agree that there is some other agenda behind these protests. The aim is not to protect the well-being of children but to protect some other ‘value’ that is a cornerstone of a wider philosophical or religious world view.
Posted by phanto, Sunday, 14 February 2010 7:14:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No David. A child does not "need" both a Mum and Dad. A child needs a parent or adult role model who will love, nurture care and teach their child, hopefully meeting all of their emotional and physical needs. Regardless of whether that child has a Father or Mother.

Many people these days, in particular, a single parent are fully aware that it is in their child's best interests, for there to be a male and female role model to participate in their child's life regularly.

Whether it be an uncle/aunt, a brother/sister, a cousin or grandfather of that single parent raising their surrogacy, adopted or own child.

Many of these single parents have waited a very long time trying to become pregnant, or awaiting adoption or using the surrogacy method. These parents are "over the moon" when their child from God is finally brought to them. Quite a few of their children "eerily" in many cases, resemble the disposition of their single parent; in adopted cases also. Similar features, exhibit traits and behaviour as an 18mth old, of their parent, prior to learned behaviour.

An intended "Gift" from God is sent to these "single parents" while some Catholics [and I was raised as one] and some Christians sit back and condemn or write rubbish based on their own relationship with God or religious based crap!

It was not until a close relative of mine one day informed me as to why she was always sad when our families came together.She had been quietly and patiently waiting for 2 yrs to be granted the right to become an Adopted Mum. Her little girl finally arrived from an overseas orphanage; my beautiful little neice.

7 yrs down the track....their little family has impacted and changed the lives of so many other families children and people within the Australian community!

The most well adjusted, greatly loved and well raised little girl one could ever know David and she has [3] major male role models interacting in the family with her regularly.
Posted by we are unique, Monday, 15 February 2010 12:21:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy