Honesty

[Maggyie]

I suppose I was the one who initially brought up adoption. I think the comparison does work, in the sense that parents see it all through the joy the children give them, and don't automatically understand from the child's perspective that a tragedy is involved in adoption (or donor conception, or having an unknown bio dad, etc).

And it's true that while acknowledging the loss, we should also celebrate adoptive families and children however they were conceived. God knew them before they were formed in the womb.

Obviously from the church's perspective, morally, there is no comparison. 

[Anomaly]

On May 28, 2016 at 0:04 AM, Maggyie said:

It's a loss for a child to be separated from his/her biological relatives. Too often a narrative exists that children should be grateful (whether adoptees, donor offspring, etc). As someone who navigated infertility and adoption, I learned that it's important to acknowledge when families start with a loss. It doesn't take away from the love they have as a family. It means children don't have what they are entitled to: living with and/or knowledge of their bio family. The law in the US should definitely change in this regard. There's no real place for closed adoptions or anonymous donation. 

It's also very difficult for a child to grow up without a father or mother. the experience of having a mom or dad is irreplaceable as anyone who has lost them would tell you. Especially for a boy and his father or a girl and her mother. Again, it doesn't take anything away or mean they aren't good parents. It just means Lee can't give her son everything he deserves. 

I totally disagree with the requirement for open adoption.   I have lots of childhood friends and family that are adopted.   In many cases, the open adoption results in disfunctional people inflicting their horrific lives on even more people and the child never escaping the damaging influence.   I know people that put their children up for adoption and insisted on being involved.  It's not always a Disney story.   There are often fundamental problems with people that contribute dna to children.  That DNA does not give them a right to be in their lives.   The child has a right to, and deserves, a loving family.  

A loving family is determined by acts of love and commitment, not the proteins in dna.  

Sure, it would be great, and arguably may be the ideal, that a man and woman mate, and are good parents and raise their children well. But that doesn't always happen.  

The bell is rung.  Some things can't be undone.  Lee's son is born and Lee and her wife have committed to raising him within their family.  At this point, the son deserves nothing less from society, you and I, to be as supportive as possible of the parents to continue and endure in their efforts.  Telling Lee she cheated or deprived her son is not  beneficial to anyone at this point.   That's a conversation to be had before conception. 

You say it doesn't take anything away that he doesn't have a father, but in the same breathe, you say he is deprived of something he deserves.  Illogical.

It doesn't matter if Lee's son was the product of a rape and born to a crack addict murderer. The boy deserves complete acceptance and love from all those around him.  

And from long experience, biology matters little in real loving families.  I've never sent for dna testing to make sure I am biologically related to the family I was raised in.   I don't doubt I'm family because of the way I'm loved and expected to love.   The same is true of most of our "non-biologically related family".   We don't all match in skin color, hair type, eye color, or general physical appearance.  Details and circumstances of the dna contributors of conception are irrelevant.   There is no shame or condemnation from conception circumstances that must be passed on to the child.  

At this point, it's only statistical tendencies how two same sex parents may influence the future happiness if Lee's son.  How he is treated and how loving parents care for him are definitely going to influence his current and future well being.   No family is perfect, no one is perfect.  We all do the best we can to help, after the fact when it comes to people. 

Edited June 2, 2016 by Anomaly

[little2add]

honesty is my greatest weakness

[Norseman82]

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 10:14 AM, franciscanheart said:

I don't understand people who do not see how their words -- especially relatively anonymous words on the internet -- turn people away from the love of Christ, and from the Church.

Or are they really upset because they are being told they are wrong?

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 7:39 PM, CatherineM said:

My parent's marriage wasn't recognized by the Church. We were still baptized and attended Catholic school. They didn't take communion. They never tried to pretend that everything was perfect. They just did the best they could. Their marriage could have been fixed with a bit of paperwork. We couldn't afford it though.

What you're doing is different. You are entitled to be treated with the same degree of human dignity as all of the rest of us. How two consenting adults decide to live their lives, is up to them, at least in countries where what you're doing is legal. Bringing a child into the equation is different.

I'm glad you have had him baptized and that you are sharing the faith with him. I wish you'd have loved him enough to give him a father. I raised two boys in a two female home. Boy Scout leaders and little league coaches helped, but they weren't enough. Them not having a dad wasn't my fault. I would never have intentionally sentenced them to a dadless life. I was cleaning up someone else's mess. I hope your son has an easier time than my foster sons did.

I agree with what CatherineM says.  And to paraphrase a pro-life saying, some people are in a bad or irregular situation by chance, but none should be there by choice.

Amor, who is going to be the positive male influence/role model in your son's life?

[Maggyie]

11 hours ago, Anomaly said:

I totally disagree with the requirement for open adoption.   I have lots of childhood friends and family that are adopted.   In many cases, the open adoption results in disfunctional people inflicting their horrific lives on even more people and the child never escaping the damaging influence.   I know people that put their children up for adoption and insisted on being involved.  It's not always a Disney story.   There are often fundamental problems with people that contribute dna to children.  That DNA does not give them a right to be in their lives.   The child has a right to, and deserves, a loving family.  

A loving family is determined by acts of love and commitment, not the proteins in dna.  

Sure, it would be great, and arguably may be the ideal, that a man and woman mate, and are good parents and raise their children well. But that doesn't always happen.  

The bell is rung.  Some things can't be undone.  Lee's son is born and Lee and her wife have committed to raising him within their family.  At this point, the son deserves nothing less from society, you and I, to be as supportive as possible of the parents to continue and endure in their efforts.  Telling Lee she cheated or deprived her son is not  beneficial to anyone at this point.   That's a conversation to be had before conception. 

You say it doesn't take anything away that he doesn't have a father, but in the same breathe, you say he is deprived of something he deserves.  Illogical.

It doesn't matter if Lee's son was the product of a rape and born to a crack addict murderer. The boy deserves complete acceptance and love from all those around him.  

And from long experience, biology matters little in real loving families.  I've never sent for dna testing to make sure I am biologically related to the family I was raised in.   I don't doubt I'm family because of the way I'm loved and expected to love.   The same is true of most of our "non-biologically related family".   We don't all match in skin color, hair type, eye color, or general physical appearance.  Details and circumstances of the dna contributors of conception are irrelevant.   There is no shame or condemnation from conception circumstances that must be passed on to the child.  

At this point, it's only statistical tendencies how two same sex parents may influence the future happiness if Lee's son.  How he is treated and how loving parents care for him are definitely going to influence his current and future well being.   No family is perfect, no one is perfect.  We all do the best we can to help, after the fact when it comes to people. 

Donor conceived children (and adoptees) overwhelmingly want to know their genetic origins. This doesn't mean their biological family has to be in charge of making sure they have clean underwear. And it doesn't mean they are upset with their social parents either! It just means they are interested, and they have the human right to know. With direct to consumer programs like 23andme, closed arrangements are also becoming unsustainable. 

There is a resource called Anonymousus.org which serves as support for donor conceived adults. Some of their perspectives published online are painful to read but important. With adoption, professionals have gradually come to understand the importance of the adoptee perspective in the adoption constellation.  I worry that with donation, we're not there with that understanding. At the end of the day it's still about getting the parents needs met. 

What many offspring express is that the mantra of "genetics don't matter, love is what matters" is incredibly damaging to them, since it suggests their interest in their first family is reflective of a lack of appreciation or love on their part.

Love is what matters, but genetic history is not "nothing." It's easy for those of us who don't have that missing part of the story to play it down. 

I agree that the bell is rung and we are after the fact, however helping these families be happy and healthy means we've got to change the narrative so that it's about the child's rights and what they are entitled to. That's what fuels the resentment and anger in offspring, is the denial that their biohistory is a human right and the subtext that their feelings about their conception are invalid - they should feel grateful to exist at all, like an object that was made with nails and glue, or in the case of adoption, that their first mother so kindly didn't destroy them.

[Socrates]

This is all very sad.

First of all, people are conceived in plenty of less than ideal circumstances, and the child should not be blamed.  And I have no doubt that Lee does in fact love her son.  What's in the past can't be undone, and I'm not sure much can be done now, other than  pray that things work out best for everyone and that the kid finds a good father-figure in his life. However, that does not make the actions involved with the boy's conception and the "family" he's born with right and good, and I don't think we all need to just sit there and pretend this is all fine and good and wonderful.  Especially not on a website devoted to preaching Catholic truth.

The OP posted on a Catholic board something that she probably knows is blatantly at odds with the Church's moral teaching, so she should be able to handle it if Catholics on said board challenge her with such teaching.  She's an adult.

God willed that children should be conceived by an act of love between a man and a woman committed to one another.  Children should not be consumer products impersonally produced to be sold and bought.  And having a child is not a right owed to whoever wants one, but a gift of God.

 

The reality is that every child has a father and a mother.  At some point the kid's going to find out that the stork didn't actually bring him to his "two mommies," but he will learn that Daddy was some guy who never even met, much less loved, his mother, masturbating into a cup at some clinic somewhere, probably while looking at porn, in order to make some extra bucks.  And his conception was the result of a business transaction his mother made with people she probably never knew personally.

It may be harsh and impolite to say that, and I'm sure this won't make me more popular on here, but one can only imagine how harsh  it will be for the boy.  Just some things to think about.

And, no, one cannot be a "good Catholic" while willfully disregarding the Church's moral teachings.  Sorry, but that's honesty.

[franciscanheart]

44 minutes ago, Socrates said:

This is all very sad.

First of all, people are conceived in plenty of less than ideal circumstances, and the child should not be blamed.  And I have no doubt that Lee does in fact love her son.  What's in the past can't be undone, and I'm not sure much can be done now, other than  pray that things work out best for everyone and that the kid finds a good father-figure in his life. However, that does not make the actions involved with the boy's conception and the "family" he's born with right and good, and I don't think we all need to just sit there and pretend this is all fine and good and wonderful.  Especially not on a website devoted to preaching Catholic truth.

The OP posted on a Catholic board something that she probably knows is blatantly at odds with the Church's moral teaching, so she should be able to handle it if Catholics on said board challenge her with such teaching.  She's an adult.

God willed that children should be conceived by an act of love between a man and a woman committed to one another.  Children should not be consumer products impersonally produced to be sold and bought.  And having a child is not a right owed to whoever wants one, but a gift of God.

 

The reality is that every child has a father and a mother.  At some point the kid's going to find out that the stork didn't actually bring him to his "two mommies," but he will learn that Daddy was some guy who never even met, much less loved, his mother, masturbating into a cup at some clinic somewhere, probably while looking at porn, in order to make some extra bucks.  And his conception was the result of a business transaction his mother made with people she probably never knew personally.

It may be harsh and impolite to say that, and I'm sure this won't make me more popular on here, but one can only imagine how harsh  it will be for the boy.  Just some things to think about.

And, no, one cannot be a "good Catholic" while willfully disregarding the Church's moral teachings.  Sorry, but that's honesty.

Perhaps not a good Catholic, but not a person who doesn't love her son. That's what I took issue with.

 

For the record, I spoke privately with @beatitude to address the confusion from our exchange, and to apologize for any harm done. At the end of the day, we may disagree with the approach of others here, but I do understand that the OP opened herself up to some pretty forthright criticism by sharing such intimate details of her life. I also realize that making the decision once and then sharing about it is less likely to garner the same outcry as sharing excitement over the prospect of doing it again. Responding to conscience, others here are likely to take issue and to denounce the practice before it happens again.

[dUSt]

"Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation. They are teachers and coaches. They are mentors and role models. They are examples of success and the men who constantly push us toward it. But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing — missing from too many lives and too many homes... And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it." - Barack Obama

[Anomaly]

Some sadness, but certainly not all.  There is no less valuable humanity whether you have three dads, a prostitute mother, or rapist priest father.  

People have abortions to avoid the shame, criticisms, and opinion the child can't avoid misery in a less than ideal family.  

The issue I have is the thought that sharing DNA is going to make you a better parent, or more legitimate family, or that not knowing your DNA donors is some horrific violation that can't ever be overcome.   Those are some significant reasons I believe this sanctimonious society unintentionally causes so many abortions and leaves children in orphanages, foster homes, or with unfit parents.   They're very similar arguments I remember from the 60's and 70's decrying interracial marriages.   

[dUSt]

My opinion on all of this is super complicated and confusing. I may have to write a book about it.

[CatherineM]

Just to clarify, I never said that She didn't love her son with all her heart. I said it was a shame she didn't love him enough to give him a father. The reality is that being broken humans, we aren't capable of giving our kids everything they need. Most parents do the best they can. 

[Era Might]

Family and parenthood are overrated. Many people would have turned out much better without their father in the home. I say "their father" and not "a father" because family is not an abstraction or an ideal, it's a reflection of our societies. Parents are condemned to give up the hard way of honesty to be what they have to be in society, because that's what family is for the most part, a socialization of children into society. The less a person has in common with their society, the harder it will be to have a family. No doubt, this is unavoidable in our civilizing evolution, but we raise family to a divine level because we are selfish and lazy, and want our children to follow in our footsteps as members of this society.

Anyway, family has its good and its bad aspects, but ultimately parents and their kids have to learn that they're both just clueless travellers in life. Here's some advice from Kurt Vonnegut, who created his own broken family but tried to maintain a friendship with his kids, not as wise old turtle to young turtles, but as one human being talking to another. Our kids are people...they are born into a society just as their parents were. Such is life. If we take this artificial ideal too seriously we can rail against anything....fathers working outside the home instead of in the field, mothers working at all, etc. We have such families because we have such a society. If we had to restrict family to an ideal, nobody would have kids...imagine slaves bringing human beings into this world, or people in war daring to procreate. Shame on them for not waiting till the ideal was realized.

Quote

We are all experiencing more or less the same lifetime now.

What is it the slightly older people want from the slightly younger people? They want credit for having survived so long, and often imaginatively, under difficult conditions. Slightly younger people are intolerably stingy about giving them credit for that.

What is it the slightly younger people want from the slightly older people? More than anything, I think, they want acknowledgement, and without further ado, that they are without question women and men now. Slightly older people are intolerably stingy about making any such acknowledgement.

...

We are so lonely because we don’t have enough friends and relatives. Human beings are supposed to live in stable, like-minded, extended families of fifty people or more.

Your class spokesperson mourned the collapse of the institution of marriage in this country. Marriage is collapsing because our families are too small. A man cannot be a whole society to a woman, and a woman cannot be a whole society to a man. We try, but it is scarcely surprising that so many of us go to pieces.

 

Edited June 3, 2016 by Era Might

[Era Might]

3 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Some sadness, but certainly not all.  There is no less valuable humanity whether you have three dads, a prostitute mother, or rapist priest father.  

There's a beautiful story in the John Steinbeck novel East of Eden. One of the characters is the son of Chinese immigrants to California. His mother and father came as indentured servants, but she came disguised as a man, because they didn't allow women to join their husbands, it made the men less subservient. Once the men laborers found out she was really a woman, they all savagely raped her...they were men starved of family and worked like slaves. But once the baby was born, they all raised him tenderly as their own. We underestimate the social and economic factors that creates our families. Conservatives like to point to some unique collapse of the black family, as if it were some monstrosity unique to blacks, and not a consequence of the economic life of this country (e.g., the collapse of industrial jobs in the 70s that deprived black men of the chance to be middle class, and helped create a social context where their only realistic option was gangs and drugs).

Edited June 3, 2016 by Era Might

[Norseman82]

50 minutes ago, Era Might said:

Family and parenthood are overrated. Many people would have turned out much better without their father in the home. I say "their father" and not "a father" because family is not an abstraction or an ideal, it's a reflection of our societies. Parents are condemned to give up the hard way of honesty to be what they have to be in society, because that's what family is for the most part, a socialization of children into society. The less a person has in common with their society, the harder it will be to have a family. No doubt, this is unavoidable in our civilizing evolution, but we raise family to a divine level because we are selfish and lazy, and want our children to follow in our footsteps as members of this society.

Anyway, family has its good and its bad aspects, but ultimately parents and their kids have to learn that they're both just clueless travellers in life. Here's some advice from Kurt Vonnegut, who created his own broken family but tried to maintain a friendship with his kids, not as wise old turtle to young turtles, but as one human being talking to another. Our kids are people...they are born into a society just as their parents were. Such is life. If we take this artificial ideal too seriously we can rail against anything....fathers working outside the home instead of in the field, mothers working at all, etc. We have such families because we have such a society. If we had to restrict family to an ideal, nobody would have kids...imagine slaves bringing human beings into this world, or people in war daring to procreate. Shame on them for not waiting till the ideal was realized.

 

[Socrates]

1 hour ago, Norseman82 said:

Pretty much my reaction to most of his posts these days. . .