Posted by
Playful Walrus on Monday, March 23, 2009 1:48:52 PM
Did you know I say shocking things about parenting, marriage, and children?
There’s a foul-mouthed blogger out there who has responded to my blog postings on her own blog (no link... too much profanity... you can use Google to find it). So far, the standard response to me includes charges of racism, sexism, misogyny, and various forms of hatred and "what!?!"
Why? Because I maintain that parents have obligations to their children, including, but not limited to 1) not killing them; 2) raising them in a peaceful, married household, meaning with both a mother and a father; 3) being healthy for their children.
Radical? Only to people fixated on their wants over the needs of children.
Sure, Numbers 2 and 3 aren't always possible, but there are ways to make them more likely and there are people who deliberately fail to provide their children with these things.
So, in response to those who would judge me, strangely, for being "judgey", thus pointing the finger right back at themselves as they judge me, I will quote and respond here. The blog entry that started all of this is found on The Opine Editorials, here.
maybe the teen birth rate was up because of abstinence only training?
Funny, I thought it was intercourse involving teens that led to teen births. Teens who do not engage in intercourse don't give birth, nor do they have abortions. Even if they never touch a condom or contraception. This is basic biology. Rape is a different story. But the general birth rate was up, not just teen.
I wrote, about women choosing to raise children without a husband: "It helps keep sperm banks in business and is one reason I plead with men to never, ever donate sperm."
because married couples in which the wife is fertile, but the man's sperm isn't doing anything never, ever use sperm banks. ever. sperm banks are only used by evil, single feminists and lesbians.
Adoption is a good thing.
I didn't say anything about law, and nor did I say sperm banks are only used by "evil, single feminists and lesbians". Not everyone is going to listen to people like me who urge men NOT to donate sperm. So there will still be sperm banks around.
There is no right to reproductive medicine. If you can conceive and carry children as a couple, then you have a natural right to do so. But involving others is not a right. It should involve their consent. As long as all involved are consenting (including the people paying for it), I lean towards the idea that there's nothing wrong with a MARRIED COUPLE – MOTHER AND FATHER – using a sperm bank. This would include someone who banks his own sperm to use later because of impending or threatening medical issues, although I don't think it is wise to conceive children if you have a high risk of mortality in the near future, and I do believe it is immoral to create "extra" human beings (frozen embryos) that will be killed.
I would be okay with our laws restricting the use of sperm banks. IVF, donated eggs, etc. to married couples. The libertarian-leaning side of me would prefer the companies providing these services voluntarily adhere to that standard (or better yet, the individual customers would), but in some places that kind of discrimination is illegal, and the profit motive squelches it anyway. The doctor who helps a woman who does not have a husband obtain a child is financially rewarded and has a happy woman on his hands. He won't be around to when the child asks sadly, "Why don't I have a daddy?"
Some people working in this field have made mistakes (using the wrong sperm sample) or deliberately unethical choices (using their own sperm). Mistakes and unethical actions happen throughout medicine, but we’re talking the very lives of human beings who are not consenting to any of this.
Guys who use sperm banks thinking they are getting paid to do something they would otherwise do anyway for free, with no strings attached, sometimes find that the reality is different. Sperm donors have been held financially liable for their biological offspring.
There is also the chance, however remote, that either the sperm donor or one of the donor's offspring (known or unknown) may wind up in a sexual encounter or relationship with a child conceived from the sperm bank deposit, possibly conceiving children.
So there are many reasons I tell men not to donate to sperm banks, including the possibility that they will be aiding in condemning a child to a fatherless life by design.
I wrote: "If a woman doesn't have the time or personality or patience to find, attract, and keep a man she is willing to marry (or a man who will at least have sex with her), should she really be a child's only parent?"
that's right. if you're not angelina jolie, you have no business ever being within 5 feet of a child.
I never wrote or implied that.
unmarried women are all ugly and mean.
I never wrote or implied that. I didn't mention appearance at all.
For good measure, here are some of the comments made after the blog entry:
Wow. That's just [wonderful]. Who is this guy again?
...
What the hell does ability to find a mate have to do with parenting ability? Some people just aren't any good at getting into relationships (shifty eyes) but that doesn't mean they couldn't be good parents.
...
*those women, who don't "put for the effort...blahblahblah bull----"? generally can't find a man who will let them be THEMSELVES, who they are happy with and can live with. but, of course, to f------ like Walrus here, women don't matter, thier happiness doesn't matter, their very f------ LIVES don't matter, so long as they are bowing to the Patriarcy and pop out lots of babies for Thier Man. Husband. Overlord.
...
Seriously? Being a good parent is dependent upon the ability or desire to get a man?
Yeah, I think you should be able to get along with other people before deliberately bringing another person into the world - one who will be entirely dependent on you. Crazy, I know. Kids don't get to choose their parents. So while men can avoid or say no to or leave a woman, the child doesn’t have a choice. If a woman is "too busy" to find a partner, she is certainly too busy for a child. If she can't get along with another human being well enough to conceive a child, what kind of a mother will she be? The same applies to a man who hires a surrogate (and, perhaps, buys a donated egg) so that he can have a child to raise without a mother involved.
Children need a mother and a father. They can survive without one, and sometimes there is no choice (one gets murdered, for example) but it isn't the best condition to raise children. To do it deliberately is a selfish move that puts the wants of the parent over the needs of the child.
Walrus, you just don't like women.
That’s a lie. I love women - especially my wife. I don't like everything that some women do. Clearly, this person doesn't like everything that all men do (nor do I), but that doesn't mean she hates men, any more than me.
I think women are so important that a child should have a mother.
I wrote: "I don't think I've ever heard in recent decades, from an anonymous source or otherwise, 'I wanted to get an abortion, but I couldn't find a place where I could get one.' Please. There are people out there willing to fly you somewhere and pay for it."
as if anyone would suggest to an opiner that they desired, or even worse, had obtained, an abortion.
I'm not talking about just to me, personally. Where are the complaints out there in anonymous forums from anyone who wanted to get an abortion (in recent times) but couldn’t find a place to do it? I'm sure if it is a common problem, there must have been a cable movie about it. Has HBO dropped the ball on this obvious award-winner?
I wrote: "The March of Dimes likes to use this [increasing premature birth rate] as a call to fundraising."
helping babies with birth defects is bad! bad!
I never said fighting birth defects or helping babies with birth defects was bad. This is what I did say: "However, I wonder just how much of it is due to 1) an increase in multiple-baby pregnancies due to the use of 'reproductive technologies'"
sarcastiquotes why?
Because so many of the human beings conceived with such technologies are deliberately killed, either as "extra”"embryos, or through selective abortion. That’s hardly reproduction.
I also cited a rise in obesity as a possible reason for an increase in prematurity.
That got some blowback (I guess we know who is obese and in denial) including this:
that s--- about fat women - i mean, look everyone knows that obesiety interferes with FERTILITY, not having the f------ baby!
And guess what infertile people who want a baby do? They use reproductive technology that could result in a multiple-baby pregnancy (and "extra" embryos)… and multiples are usually delivered early.
Obesity contributes to unhealthy conditions, including diabetes and high blood pressure (among many others) that could prompt an induced or c-section delivery prior to term. Obesity rates have been increasing in recent decades, and so has prematurity. Mere coincidence? Of course, once an obese woman is pregnant, very few doctors are going so say anything to her face about her obesity. The goal at that point will be protecting all patients.
But I'm sure the real reason for an increase in prematurity has to be global warming, flouridation of tap water, or vaccinations.
Someone brought up a quote of mine from a different discussion (it really ticks them off, so I'll have to keep using it):
"...same-sex couplings have not produced anything for society, except for the spread of disease."
He's a mean, bitter, angry white male "Christian" who is not in the least bit Christ-like.
Notice the racist, sexist, ad hominem attack, instead of countering my quote. It is true that same-sex couplings have not produced anything for society, except for the spread of disease. Homosexual individuals have contributed many great things to society, but not because of homosexual behavior. In contrast, both-sexes couplings have perpetuated society and contributed taxpayers, soldiers, doctors, and so forth.
Jesus Christ called evil evil. He told people to repent. He told them to sin no more. He affirmed marriage. He valued children. He affirmed the Hebrew Scriptures as the Word of God. Ever read those? This idea that Jesus Christ was (and is) some sort of pushover who stayed silent about morality and never had a stern word to say about anything or anyone is certainly not backed up by either the Bible or history. He never would have been executed if He had been like some people maintain. And He didn't call us to roll over and let society decay. He told us to care for those in need - and those lacking morals, or an understanding that men and women are different are definitely in need. Children are in need.
Finally, another ad hominem attack is that I'm a Mormon. Because, you know, only Mormons (we’re not counting Mother Nature) would think that a child should have both a mother and a father.
So let me state clearly again...
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member or attendee of any church that claims Joseph Smith as a prophet, or the Book of Mormon as Scripture. I do not believe those things to be true. I am not a Mormon. Not that the "attack" makes a good point other than showing that the attacker is incapable of making a good argument.
Although I am obviously in disagreement with some important Mormon doctrine, I fail to see why a Mormon should have any less right to speak out about these issues as the next citizen.