Homosexual surrogacy violates the child’s need for a lifelong relationship with his mother

All of this follows Dave Rubin and David Janet’s Twitter portrait last year of the high-profile duo — who have staked out high ground within conservatism — with twin sonograms, showing children soon to be born via surrogacy albeit several weeks apart.

Interestingly, in each of these cases, the homosexual couples chose to have male babies.

Because of their unwillingness to marry — the real thing, not the Obergefellian pretension — and to produce children by having natural sexual relations with their wives, their infant sons are motherless victims, and the two “dads” are their victimizers.

It may sound harsh to describe these smiling men in that way, but from their children’s perspective, that is precisely who and what they are.

Their actions, at least so far, demonstrate that they’re incapable of empathizing with their legal sons’ most basic need and right: a genuine, lifelong relationship with their mothers.

Snatched from the only parent they’ve known, they had deprivation etched on each of their tiny hearts, an act inflicting incalculable harm on each of these kids throughout their lives.

These men have replaced the role of their mother with a small army of other women: an egg donor, a surrogate, and likely female family members and other daytime caretakers.

Jennifer Roback Morse, founder of the Ruth Institute that helps the victims of the Sexual Revolution, has noted that homosexual couples who engage in surrogacy “have broken motherhood, the most fundamental human relationship, into a series of functions. They’ve transformed mother, an organic, integrated personal reality, into something artificial, scattered and impersonal.”

A wife could have performed all of these roles and done so brilliantly and lovingly while establishing the lifelong natural maternal bond their sons will forever crave.

Morse summed up the problematic nature of homosexual surrogacy perfectly: “The first duty of fatherhood is to love your child’s mother.

“Indeed, that is the ordinary way of becoming a father in the first place,” she added.

Surrogacy generally implies aborting a child’s siblings

Perhaps the most horrific aspect of engineering children via surrogacy is that it usually involves “selective reduction,” i.e., abortion, of unwanted embryos. Stored embryos deemed to longer be necessary for the parents’ pursuit of a family — often numbering a dozen or more — are discarded as nothing more than medical waste.

Children born via surrogacy often have to face the cold reality that their siblings have simply been tossed away by their parents, a fate they themselves might’ve easily met.

‘Build-a-baby’

In order to get an understanding as to how surrogacy fits into the Big Fertility industrial complex, watch “Build-a-Baby,” a three-minute satirical video ad illustrating how preborn children are commodified, treated as nothing more than disposable assembly line products.

The conservative, pro-life case against surrogacy

Katy Faust, the genius behind the child advocacy group “Them Before Us,” an organization that fights to protect every child’s right to his or her mother and father, has provided an excellent framework for understanding and arguing against surrogacy.

Writing at The Federalist, Faust offers solid answers to common questions:

● If You Love Babies, Why Don’t You Love Surrogacy?
● Isn’t Surrogacy Just Like Adoption?
● If Surrogacy Is Baby-Selling, Isn’t Adoption Child Trafficking Too?

“If it weren’t for #BigFertility, these kids wouldn’t exist, the argument goes,” Faust wrote at the conclusion. “Shouldn’t they be grateful to be alive instead of whining about their identity struggles, mother-hunger, feelings of commodification, separation trauma, lack of medical history, the dozens of half-siblings they may never know, and fears that they may be dating their brother?”

“And we wonder why these kids disproportionately struggle with depression, delinquency, and substance abuse,” she mused. “Just like children conceived via rape, we can celebrate their lives while simultaneously critiquing the circumstances of their conception. In fact, a conservative perspective will do exactly that.”

‘Abolish the monstrosity of surrogacy’

Olivia Maurel, a 40-year-old woman who was born via surrogacy, recently testified that she doesn’t blame her parents — a married man and woman — but “I do blame the system that is slowly but surely allowing surrogacy to be legalized.”

“This choice defined my entire existence,” Maurel said. “I am a consequence, and I hope that it will soon be me who will bring about consequences to abolish the atrocity of surrogacy.

“Surrogacy has to be abolished,” she said. “The greatest reason to abolish this monstrosity is for the sake of the child.”

I was born from surrogacy and I am now fighting against surrogacy.

Here is my speech given at a conference in the Czech Republic parliament, and most precisely in one of the most prestigious rooms of the parliament. I am so honored.

Please listen and feel free to share ! pic.twitter.com/Kjg0o9iboA

— Olivia Maurel (@maurel_olivia) November 22, 2023

‘The family is not a fad. In it there is a supernatural sense of belonging’

When a public war of words erupted in 2015 between Sir Elton John and world-famous Italian designers Domenico Dolce & Stefano Gabbana, a schism within the homosexual world suddenly presented itself.

Dolce and Gabbana, both homosexual, bravely stood against a future of state-enforced genderlessness, against a tidal wave of adult selfishness that overwhelms children’s rights and their best interests.

Here are a few quotes from Dolce and Gabbana’s interview published in Italy’s Panorama magazine:

● “The only family is the traditional one. No chemical offspring and rented uterus. Life has a natural flow; there are things that cannot be changed.”
● “Procreation must be an act of love.”
● Dolce: “I call children of chemistry, synthetic children. Uteri for rent, semen chosen from a catalog.”
● Gabbana: “The family is not a fad. In it there is a supernatural sense of belonging.”

They didn’t specifically use the terms “natural law” or “complementarity,” but they were clearly making a heartfelt appeal to both.

The complementarity of man and woman is not a religious construct; it is written on our hearts, spelled out in our DNA, and present everywhere we turn and look at nature. Resisting it has required a truly herculean campaign by academics, politicians, and media personalities advocating the novel idea of genderlessness.

Sir Elton John’s biggest complaint against Dolce and Gabbana was about their statement that children engineered for same-sex “marriages” are in some way synthetic:

How dare you refer to my beautiful children as ‘synthetic.’ And shame on you for wagging your judgmental little fingers at IVF — a miracle that has allowed legions of loving people, both straight and gay, to fulfill their dream of having children. Your archaic thinking is out of step with the times, just like your fashions. I shall never wear Dolce and Gabbana ever again.

While Dolce’s wording on this point may have been imprecise, he expressed an important truth: It’s not the children who are synthetic, for all human beings share equal dignity. Rather, it’s the process through which they come into the world that eviscerates a child’s “supernatural sense of belonging.”

 

 

Send an urgent message to Canadian legislators and courts telling them to uphold parental rights

Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com