subscribe btndonate btn

Welcome
Monday, 19 February 2018 16:27

Adoption Versus Surrogacy

Written by

Many people arguing for the moral and social legitimacy of surrogacy will rather recklessly throw out the issue of adoption, believing that the two are quite similar things. But the truth is, they could not be more different. This is especially noticeable when we focus the discussion on children and their wellbeing. The main difference certainly involves the children themselves. In adoption there is a need for children to be looked after, so substitute parents are brought in to look after them. In surrogacy there are no children involved – at first. They are deliberately created, or manufactured, to satisfy adult desires. As one relinquishing mother put it, “In adoption, a family sought a child in need of a family. In surrogacy, you are creating children for adults’ needs.” Moreover, in adoption legislation, the interests of the child are clearly paramount, something which is not the case in surrogacy. As one bioethicist puts it:

Adoption standards and practice have been constantly revised and refined in the light of new understandings developing in the field. . . . It is illegal to take a consent to adoption prior to the birth of the child, for the reason that a woman cannot be expected to make a lifelong decision for herself and her baby in the vacuum of the non-existence of the child.
As Kevin Andrews has remarked: “Adoption is a community response to the necessitous circumstances of a child already conceived and born, which differs markedly to the circumstances of a child conceived and born for the purpose of transfer to another couple”. Ethicist Leon Kass says this: “We practice adoption because there are abandoned children who need good homes. We do not, and would not, encourage people deliberately to generate children for others to adopt.” Or as Maggie Gallagher has put it:
Surrogate contracts and adoptions are not comparable. Adoption is the fulfilment, not the negation, of parental responsibility. Especially in a country where abortion is cheap and easy, when a woman gives her baby up for adoption she has thereby acknowledged her obligations to her child. Almost always, adoption is part of a conscious attempt to do what is best for the child. The surrogate mother does not admit she has any special obligations to her child; she does not admit that it is hers. The child cannot obligate her, she obligates it: It is a product, conceived for sale and use.
David Blankenhorn also adds his voice to the fundamental nature of adoption:
Adoption is a wonderfully pro-child act. Adults respond to a child’s loss with altruistic, healing love. . . . Adoption does not deny but in fact presupposes the importance of natural parents. For this reason, despite all the good it does, adoption is ultimately a derivative and compensatory institution. It is not a stand-alone good, primarily because its existence depends upon prior human loss.
Natural parents of course largely disappear in surrogacy arrangements. Ethicist David VanDrunen discusses the differences found between adoption and surrogacy. He speaks about the moral question we must face as to “whether we ought intentionally to create situations in which biological links between generations are attenuated, confused, or even ruptured. In essence, third-part-parenthood arrangements intentionally create adoption scenarios.” But this is how they differ. Adoption, he says, is “a charitable act that rescues abandoned and orphaned children.” He continues:
Surely it is a charitable act – precisely because we recognise these children’s tragic circumstances. In an ordinary adoption situation the adoptive parents are responding to a child’s tragic situation and seeking to bring good out of it. In a third-party-parent arrangement, however, the parents are creating a child’s tragic situation, a situation in which he will be taken away from his birth mother or be raised by someone other than his biological mother or father.
And Jessica Kerns, a product of surrogacy, whom I mention above, also explains why we are dealing with apples and oranges here:
It really is the buying and selling of babies, and the commodification of women’s bodies. There’s a huge difference between the adoption world and the donor-conceived world. [The] institution [of adoption] was not … created for the parents, to give them a kid. It was created for the opposite, to put children in a home, because they’re here already and we’re responding to a catastrophe. Donor-conceived [children], we’re creating them with the intent of separating them from their biology, and you know … it’s vastly different.
Bioethicist John Ling offers us the big picture on all this, and is well worth quoting from here. He says:
Should we view surrogacy not only as the commissioning mother wanting a child, but also as the surrogate mother – and in law, she is the legal mother – not wanting her child? She has deliberately embarked on a pregnancy with the clear intention that she will abandon her baby. The birth of any child is surrounded by a spectrum of emotions, perhaps none stronger than that of the mother’s love for the child she has carried and delivered. The surrogate knowingly sets out to ignore these natural instincts. Furthermore, can a commissioning mother develop this maternal love without the psychological and physical springs of this bonding, namely, pregnancy and childbirth? Surrogacy is not like adoption. The great difference is that adoption seeks to enhance the love for, and security of, the child. Surrogacy has the long-term, premeditated intention of just the opposite. It should be shunned.
One lobby group, Them Before Us, is quite concerned about this and the other new reproductive technologies. Katy Faust reminds us once more what the core issue is here. It is all about the child. The interests of the child should always be paramount here. As she says in an article highlighting the differences between surrogacy and adoption:
Them Before Us supports adoption, when it is properly understood. Adoption must always be viewed as a child-centric institution, not simply as a means for adults to have children. No adult – heterosexual, homosexual, or single – has a “right” to adopt. Rather, every child has a right to parents. In adoption, the intended parents are not the clients. The child is the client.
Monday, 19 February 2018 10:51

Download your free ebook

Written by
[et_pb_section bb_built="1" fullwidth="on" specialty="off" next_background_color="#000000"][et_pb_fullwidth_header title="Download your free eBook" subhead="For freedom Christ has set us free." background_layout="dark" _builder_version="3.0.90" text_orientation="center" header_fullscreen="off" header_scroll_down="off" image_orientation="center" content_orientation="center" custom_button_two="off" button_two_icon_placement="right" custom_button_one="off" button_one_icon_placement="right" max_width_tablet="50px" saved_tabs="all" background_color="#99d3df" title_text_align="center" content_text_align="center" /][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built="1" prev_background_color="#000000" next_background_color="#000000"][et_pb_row _builder_version="3.0.90"][et_pb_column type="2_3"][et_pb_text _builder_version="3.0.90" background_layout="light"] Many concerned pro-life people lack the time or resources to be involved full-time in the fight to end abortion. But there's a simple way that everyone can be involved: by using social media. Whether you're a stay-at-home mum, commuting dad, retired, disabled, a teenager or anyone else for that matter - everyone can spare 15 minutes a day to help share the pro-life message. This ebook gives you 20 quick tips to get you started. Simply fill in the box below and you'll be on your way to armchair activism that actually makes a difference! Plus, you'll never miss an article from The Freedoms Project again: you'll also receive our fortnightly newsletter right to your inbox! [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type="1_3"][et_pb_image admin_label="Image: baby/phone" _builder_version="3.12.2" src="https://www.thefreedomsproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/1-e1469702248567.jpg" alt="Download Your Free eBook" /][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type="4_4"][et_pb_signup admin_label="Email Optin updated 30/01/18" mailchimp_list="Divi Builder MailChimp|b05c950822" aweber_list="|none" title="Do you want to do more to end abortion?" button_text="Yes! I want to share the pro-life message on social media." use_border_color="off" saved_tabs="all" _builder_version="3.12.2" activecampaign_list="|none" campaign_monitor_list="|none" constant_contact_list="|none" convertkit_list="|none" emma_list="|none" feedblitz_list="|none" getresponse_list="|none" hubspot_list="|none" icontact_list="|none" infusionsoft_list="|none" madmimi_list="|none" mailerlite_list="|none" mailpoet_list="|none" mailster_list="|none" ontraport_list="|none" salesforce_list="|none" sendinblue_list="|none" result_message_font_size_tablet="51" result_message_line_height_tablet="2" focus_text_color="#e09900" description="<p>Get 20 simple actions for sharing the pro-life message on social media with this free e-book.</p><p>Do your part to make abortion unthinkable using Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or Youtube or your favourite social media channel.</p>" /][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built="1" fullwidth="on" specialty="off" prev_background_color="#000000" next_background_color="#000000"][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built="1" fullwidth="on" specialty="off" prev_background_color="#000000"][/et_pb_section]

Not content with killing babies, traumatising parents and harvesting body parts, abortion providers are always looking at new strategies to inhibit the work of the pro-life community or to bolster their income. For of course, every baby saved from abortion means a slimmer pay-packet for the abortionist and his staff. In Australia, that could mean a loss of around $600 for a first-trimester abortion and up to $7700 for a late-term abortion. So it's little wonder that abortionists are eager to have special laws created in order to get women to keep those appointments. One example is the profusion of bubble-zone laws that have sprung up in recent years. In a western liberal democracy, we should be very concerned when the government enacts laws that target one specific group of people. Laws should be created solely to target behaviour, not groups or organisations. But exclusion-zone laws in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia do just that. 

Thursday, 15 February 2018 09:24

How Close to Broke Are You?

Written by

The poor and the middle class in the western world are not as far apart as some might imagine. There are many folk who stand at the Tavern's bars who would be very hard done to find a few hundred bucks at short notice. Many seemingly 'middle class' could be wiped out overnight by an unexpected expense. How are you doing? Close to skint occasionally?

It never ceases to amaze me that comments such as "keep your legs closed" or "keep it in your pants" still pop up under articles about abortion in this day and age. Last week's article by Richard Grant about Tanya Plibersek, and her calls for uniform laws to make abortion more readily available, attracted many comments like this. Obviously, I can see the hypocrisy and share the outrage of our readers, but honestly, can't we come up with more constructive comments that express the reality of the situation, and not just one crudely-worded aspect related to unplanned pregnancies? [The same goes for such comments as "They (abortion advocates) should be aborted" or calls for 'retrospective' abortions.]

Wednesday, 07 February 2018 22:18

"Do You Really Want to Do This?"

Written by

With bubble-zones in two Australian states and two territories, and abortion advocates lobbying for their introduction in other states, it’s important to realise just how many babies are saved through the intervention of sidewalk counsellors. This story is about one such baby, named Ava. Ava’s mama, Nancy, suffered for many years after her two abortions. She wasn't told there could be side-effects, such as severe emotional disturbances or subsequent miscarriages. Nancy is now a very strong advocate for life and is active on social media exposing abortion and encouraging mothers to choose life. 

Heaven help Australia's unborn children if the Labor Party wins government and Tanya Plibersek becomes Deputy Prime Minister. For in her article "Patchwork abortion laws a lottery for women", Tanya equates the brutal slaying of an unborn child by abortion to medical treatment for a hip replacement or a broken bone. Moreover, in a classic example of Orwellian doublespeak, Tanya stated that "it seems tragic that a woman would bring a child into the world for no reason other than she couldn't afford to have a termination". By these words, Tanya is portraying a God-given "good" {the bringing a child into the world) as an "evil" while portraying a satanic "evil" (the extermination of a child in his or her mother's womb) as a "good".