Assisted Reproduction – Dr. J's Blog

Memo to Ukraine and Anderson Cooper: What’s wrong with surrogacy

Surrogacy has certainly been in the news lately. Anderson Cooper took delivery of a newborn baby. Commissioning parents are unable to take delivery of babies in Ukraine. I must say, we at the Ruth institute have never seen so much interest in this topic in all the years we have been talking about it. I sense that people are ready to come to grips with the evils of surrogacy, in a way they have not been before. So, let me go straight to the heart of the matter and explain: what exactly is wrong with surrogacy?

It does not matter how much the commissioning parents want the baby. It does not matter how much the surrogate mother or the egg provider need the money. Their motives are not the issue. The issue is: what is owed to the child?

Pages: 12

Gene Editting: Once Again, the Managerial Class Empowers Itself

He Jiankui, Chinese scientist who performed gene editting.

In The Sexual State, I wrote about the Managerial Class and its commitment to The Sexual Revolution. Without their support, I argued, there would be no divorce on demand, no abortion on demand, no “gay marriage.”

Today, I see yet another aspect of our post-human future being created by the Managerial Class: gene editting.

A Chinese scientist defends his use of gene editting, the process which “works by using “molecular scissors” to alter a very specific strand of DNA – either cutting it out, replacing it or tweaking it.”

The technocratic elite seems comfortable enough with the process. At a major conference in Hong Kong, George Q. Daley, the dean of the Harvard Medical School is already endorsing the use of gene editing. The Chinese scientist who is being criticized just did things a bit out of order, but we are ready for “responsible” clinical use of gene editting.

George Q. Daley, dean of Harvard Medical School, who defends gene editting.

Further along in the twitter feed, we find this observation: Conflict of interest, anyone? Even further down the twitter thread, “The way this was done seems premature in practice, but not in principle.”

Rod Dreher comments:

Do you understand what’s happening here? The head of one of the top medical institutions in the United States, and therefore the world, is arguing that we should start editing human genes, and stop talking about whether or not it’s moral to do so. Because trust Harvard.

Let us give this a more specific name, more specific than even “conflict of interest.” This is the technocratic, managerial global elite, playing God. Assigning themselves monstrous power over other people. At least some professionals recognize the dangers:

“If true, this experiment is monstrous. Gene editing itself is experimental and is still associated with off-target mutations, capable of causing genetic problems early and later in life, including the development of cancer,” Prof Julian Savulescu, an ethics expert at the University of Oxford, told the BBC.

“This experiment exposes healthy normal children to risks of gene editing for no real necessary benefit.”

I introduced the concept of The Managerial Class in my recent book: The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives and How the Church was Right All Along. I hold them largely responsible for the devastation of the Sexual Revolution. Not the ‘March of History’ or some impersonal forces: but the well-educated, well-connected technologically sophisticated Elites created and imposed the Sexual Revolution. They are going even further, with their plans to make the manipulation of human embryos sound humane.

There would be no gene editting without the Managerial, Technocratic Elite.

Members of the Managerial Class, I implore you: rethink your principles. You are playing with forces you cannot begin to understand, much less control. The less priveleged will pay the price of the mistakes of our class. Please. enough is enough.

Gay Marriage is “here to stay,” says lawyer

Don’t disturb the Lawyers: Their minds are made up.

“Gay Marriage is Here to Stay, even with a conservative court,” says Cato Institute’s Senior Fellow Walter Olson. What he really means is: “Gay marriage has not inconvenienced the legal profession. We won’t be changing gay marriage.”

No-fault divorce did not overly inconvenience the legal profession either. Some lawyers make a lot of money from divorce. That does not mean unilateral divorce is good public policy. The children of divorce did not all “get over it,” as the experts predicted.

Obergefell redefined parenthood in the process of redefining marriage. Parenthood is no longer a natural reality the government merely records. Parenthood is becoming instead, a purely legal Continue reading “Gay Marriage is “here to stay,” says lawyer”

Your child is only your child when the government says so.

A little girl in New York is in foster care, even though her father is a perfectly fit parent. The court will not even recognize him as her father. How is this possible, you ask?

The little girl’s mother is in a same sex union. The girl is in foster care, because of neglect petitions pending against both the mother and her lover. Although the five-judge panel agreed that the fact that the child was in foster care was “relevant” and “concerning,” they nevertheless denied the father’s request to prove his fatherhood.

In the court’s logic, this man “merely donated sperm, belatedly asserting parental rights.”

In other words, he is not a father unless we say so.

The news stories about this case focus on its implications for “Marriage Equality.” The Daily Beast story has a sub-headline: “judges rule in favor of marriage equality over biology in case of 3-year-old girl.” A Canadian paper, The National Post describes the case this way:

Without legal advice, Christopher and the women drew up a contract in which he waived any claims to paternity, custody or visitation, and the women waived any claim to child support. But troubles arose, and they disagreed on Christopher’s access to the child…In April 2015, Christopher went to court, seeking an order for a paternity test, and later for custody of the child.

The Post is not too clear on what “troubles arose.” We get a clue, from the court documents (page 18), which The Daily Beast cited only in passing, that the child has been in foster care for a lengthy “period of time” since the 2015 hearing.

Perhaps this explains why he “belatedly asserted parental rights.” Maybe he saw what the child welfare authorities eventually saw. These women were neglecting the seven-month-old child.

Christopher volunteered his sperm as a “humanitarian gesture” to two women who were family friends. He evidently absorbed the Grand Gay Narrative that assures us:

biology is overrated: any two people who love each other and the child are just as good as any others and,
lesbians make the best parents ever.

If the Grand Gay Narrative is true, a man might logically conclude that donating his sperm could be a “humanitarian gesture.” He might well believe that agreeing in advance to stand down from active fatherhood was a fine thing to do, costless to himself and his child, and beneficial to these two women.

The problem is that the Grand Gay Narrative is false. Biology does matter, both parents and children care about their biological connections. Being raised by a same sex couple does present risks to kids, compared with being raised by one’s own biological parents. The people who say otherwise base their opinion on highly suspect, cherry-picked data, from small unrepresentative samples. Frankly, most of it is highly publicized junk science.

Neither of these women has pulled herself together enough to have the little girl returned to her care. I was a foster parent in San Diego. I know that child welfare agencies try to give parents every opportunity to reunify with their children. If the child has been in foster care “for a lengthy period of time,” these two women must be bad news. Christopher was trying to be a nice guy in 2014 when he donated the sperm. He has been trying to be a responsible father since April 2015 when he first petitioned the court.

Isn’t this how we want men to behave toward the children they sire?

The five-judge panel was not interested.

“We believe that it must be true that a child born to a same-gender married couple is presumed to be their child… A paternity test for an outsider, who merely donated sperm, belatedly asserting parental rights, would effectively disrupt, if not destroy, this family unit and nullify the child’s established relationship with the wife, her other mother. Testing in these circumstances exposes children born into same-gender marriages to instability for no justifiable reason other than to provide a father-figure for children who already have two parents.” (emphasis added.)

News flash to the judges: a child in foster care is already “exposed to instability.” Is letting her father be involved more disruptive than foster care?

The court’s ruling does not protect the child’s best interests. Their ruling circles the wagons to protect the Grand Gay Narrative.

“Marriage Equality” advocates assured us that removing the gender requirement from marriage was only a matter of making same sex couples the legal equivalent of opposite sex couples. This case shows that “Marriage Equality” creates a whole round of new inequalities. Some fathers are permitted to be involved in their children’s lives. Others are not: the law actively blocks Christopher from his own child. Some children have a legally recognized right to their fathers. Others, like this little girl, do not.

She only has the parents the government allows her to have. And that is way too much power for any government.

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. is the Founder and President of the Ruth Institute. They recently released their special report, Marriage and Equality: How Natural Marriage upholds equality for children.

Originally published at The Stream, on February 9, 2018, under the title: “New York Court: A Girl’s Right to Her Father Doesn’t Matter. Protecting ‘Marriage Equality’ Does.”

Dear Dr. J: My niece is expecting twins with her same sex partner.

Dear Dr. J,

What do I say to a same-sex married lesbian niece whose mother (my sister-in-law) just left a phone message saying they “are expecting twins”? Congratulations just doesn’t seem right but it’s not the children’s faults. It doesn’t seem right to create a family rift over this but neither can I be happy about it. I have no idea who the father is, which of the females in the relationship is carrying the children, whose eggs were used, etc. Nor do I know if I will ever be told because the family knows I do not believe in gay ‘marriage’. I can’t just ignore this, but do I say nothing? What do I say when the children are born? Any kind of congratulatory words would come out as fake, & they would be falsely said.

Help!

Dear T.

Your problem is becoming increasingly common. We are all figuring this hatched-by-2-chicks out on the fly. So, let me offer a few suggestions for you to consider.

You cannot give people the impression that you approve. It sounds as if you have that covered.
Your instinct that it is not the children’s fault is a sound instinct. Remember that God loves these children. He wills their existence, even if He does not will the circumstances of their birth. Pray for these kids, starting right now.
You can, and should rejoice that new life is coming into the world. There is nothing immoral or wrong about you sending them a card, or a gift that the children would enjoy, or that they would enjoy. They are going to have problems, that is for sure. You don’t necessarily need to pile on. Reality will exact its own punishment.
Pray for wisdom to find an opening to be good friends to the adults, and eventually, to the children. A time will come when they will need friendship. But don’t push it. It may take years for this situation to unravel sufficiently that they see the need for friendship.
In the meantime, pray to have all the sting of your disapproval removed from your relationship with these adults. They are beyond the point where you can talk them out of or into anything. They have chosen their path. You may be their only connection with Jesus. Don’t let that connection be soured. (No pressure!)
Real life stories of Donor Conceived Persons
Don’t ask questions about the identity of the father/mother at this point. Your niece will interpret that as a hostile act. When the children are older, they may want to know. You may be one of the few people in their lives who will honor the fact that they want to know. You may be their best source of support for the kids.
Check out Anonymous Us. Read the stories there. I think the pain that the kids feel in these situations will become more real to you. You may also see stories from mothers who used donor sperm. You can see their thought process. All this will prepare you to be an empathetic friend when the time comes.

In general: keep your powder dry. Save it for when you really need it. There is absolutely nothing you can do right now to prevent this situation from unfolding. A time will come when you may be able to make a truly unique and valuable contribution. Prepare yourself for that time, through prayer and charity. Who knows? Maybe your preparation will allow you to help someone outside your family.

Your friend,

Dr Morse rg_broch_children_donor_cover

PS: We have a couple of pamphlets that might be helpful to you (don’t even think about giving them to this couple.) Children and Same Sex Parenting, and Children and Donor Conception.

Do you have a question for me? Send an email to info@ruthinstitute.org.

“Nobody told me it was wrong”

healing-family-retreat_postcard_front — Postcard, describing our most recent Retreat.

The Ruth Institute held another Healing Family Breakdown Retreat this past weekend. As I listen to people share their stories of family breakdown, a procession of past encounters marches through my memory. People tell me their stories, and not just at times appointed for this purpose, like the Retreat. I recall:

a college student in tears at our student conference: “Dr. Morse, you are the first adult I have ever heard say that divorce is hard on children.”
a middle-aged man whom I met at a party. He later told me that his mother (who had been married and divorced multiple times) recently revealed to him that she had had an abortion when he was in high school. The man was in shock over the loss of a sibling.
a woman in her sixties ran out of my talk at a conference. At the dinner that evening, she shared with me, that my talk stirred up the pain of her parents’ divorce.
a man who has been married and divorced twice, confided that he and his former wife had a child through IVF. The child is now a teenager. He has agonized for years over what to do with the 10 “leftover” frozen embryos. He would have to get the consent of his former wife, the mother of the embryos, for anything he might want to do. “When you are trying so hard to have a baby, they don’t tell you that you may end up killing babies.”
a couple on their second marriage, who had both chosen to sterilize themselves during their first marriages. Both were in tears, because they now wanted children with each other. They were Catholic and finally realized that the Church teachese that deliberate sterilization is sinful. “No one told me it was wrong,” they each said through their tears.

And that, for me, is the bottom line: no one tells people the down-sides of any aspect of our Brave New World. “No one told me it was wrong.”

Memo to priests and catechists: You are not hurting people to tell them “it is wrong.” You may be saving them from tremendous heart-ache. And incidently, you are doing your job.