Poor attitudes against different family structures harm children most

[heliumduck]

http://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/poor-attitudes-against-different-family-structures-harm-children-most

 

Poor attitudes against different family structures harm children most

 

PUBLISHED

JAN 11, 2018, 5:00 AM SGT

 

I was dismayed to read Ms Ho Lay Ping's letter (Ban surrogacy to protect the interests of children and women; Jan 5).

It contains inaccurate and harmful claims.

Research shows that children of same-sex couples do as well, or even better, than children of heterosexual couples.

This is because while heterosexual couples can have children they may not want or are unprepared for, same-sex couples deliberately and consciously plan for a child.

The claim that children of surrogates are separated from their biological mother also attacks everyone who adopts children because adoption is often of a non-biologically related child.

Such claims are a great disservice to people who adopt.

 

 

The act of surrogacy itself is not a demeaning one.

In a proper, legally regulated, consensual environment like the United States, surrogacy is a valuable, loving gift given by women to other less-fortunate people.

It should not be trivialised.

It is only fair that the time and effort of the woman providing the service is properly compensated for.

It is not "buying a commodity".

Years ago, people used very similar claims about mixed-race or mixed-religion families, incorrectly claiming that children needed parents who are of the same race or religion to thrive.

They would point to examples of mixed-race or mixed-religion families failing due to bullying in society, and use that to call for the banning of mixed-race or mixed-religion marriage.

That, of course, completely misses the point that it is the attitude of society that should change to be more understanding and compassionate.

We now all should know it would be wrong to try to ban mixed-race or mixed-religion marriages.

What actually harms the children of same sex couples or singles, or those who have been adopted, are poor attitudes against them; attitudes that are completely opposite to the ideals of a compassionate society that accepts diversity, justice and equality for all.

Martin Piper

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on January 11, 2018, with the headline 'Poor attitudes against different family structures harm children most'.

[wilfgene]

There are women who consider, as their greatest assets, wombs but not vaginas.

[lovehandle]

Upbringing is most important

 

dont ever encourage child to compare

https://www.facebook.com/HQSociallife/videos/144086702969725/

Adults must first set eg nt to

Stop comparing dick’s size, laughg at those w no muscles or handsome face

 

many kindergarten start w child s bday parties-i dont think it s a good thing

they will compare their gift packages that other kids have given during prev bday parties

[theguestcat]

Thanks for sharing this letter! Very uplifting.

[Steve5380]

On 1/11/2018 at 9:00 AM, heliumduck said:

http://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/poor-attitudes-against-different-family-structures-harm-children-most

 

Poor attitudes against different family structures harm children most

 

PUBLISHED

JAN 11, 2018, 5:00 AM SGT

 

I was dismayed to read Ms Ho Lay Ping's letter (Ban surrogacy to protect the interests of children and women; Jan 5).

 

I also read Ho Lay Ping's letter, and I find it to be a typical case of profound ignorance mixed with the bullshit about the sexes introduced with malice by religious organizations.

 

Children need love and care, and children are naturally egotistic and pay little attention to the genders of the providers of such essential elements.

Love and care is what leads to successful adults, and all what the provider needs to do is to teach by EXAMPLE, that is, to be a decent person.  We all know that decency and sexual orientation are unrelated.  Also the relation of the provider to the child, be it biological parent, adoptive parent, guardian, etc. has only minor influence. 

 

This is from the side of the child and his/her provider.  The other term in the equation is society, and it is important that children don't experience any difference in the way society treats them depending on the providers they have.   Here is where the abominable letter of this ignorant "ho lay ping" works completely against the children.

[West93]

I actually agree with Ho Lay Ping's letter here. 

 

For anyone getting into a relationship with someone else, that other partner should be enough reason for them to want to settle down and be monogamous with. Nobody deserves a right to have a child. Certainly not with the issue of global human overpopulation pushing our planet's ecosystem to the brink. 

 

Surrogacy was originally meant for infertile couples to consider as an alternative way of trying for a child. I fail to see the logic behind two people in a same-sex relationship deliberately trying for a child through artificial or surrogate means when they already started a relationship together knowing that fundamental human biology means they can never procreate. 

 

If the presence of a young one means so much for a same-sex couple, whatever is wrong with showing that same care, love and concern for one's nieces and nephews and young relatives? Do they mean less than a child which they can only seek to have through surrogacy, carrying one half of genes from a woman stranger they aren't even seeing (if we're talking about gays here)? 

 

Adoption has its virtues and right times/circumstances. I fail to see any of such right times/circumstances applying to same-sex couples. 

[Rhyn]

51 minutes ago, West93 said:

I actually agree with Ho Lay Ping's letter here. 

 

For anyone getting into a relationship with someone else, that other partner should be enough reason for them to want to settle down and be monogamous with. Nobody deserves a right to have a child. Certainly not with the issue of global human overpopulation pushing our planet's ecosystem to the brink. 

 

Surrogacy was originally meant for infertile couples to consider as an alternative way of trying for a child. I fail to see the logic behind two people in a same-sex relationship deliberately trying for a child through artificial or surrogate means when they already started a relationship together knowing that fundamental human biology means they can never procreate. 

 

If the presence of a young one means so much for a same-sex couple, whatever is wrong with showing that same care, love and concern for one's nieces and nephews and young relatives? Do they mean less than a child which they can only seek to have through surrogacy, carrying one half of genes from a woman stranger they aren't even seeing (if we're talking about gays here)? 

 

Adoption has its virtues and right times/circumstances. I fail to see any of such right times/circumstances applying to same-sex couples. 

 

“no one deserves a right to have a child”. Really? Why would you think no one deserves to? Should no one be entitled to having children? 

 

Also, unless you have statistics on making a claim about a fact (or any fact for that matter, just that you’ve spun into an opinion) about human population, please support it. Because data from 

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ specifies otherwise on the rate of population increase- that in recent past it is actually decreasing. 

 

Surrogacy was a solution to a problem, no doubt about it. But here again, you fail to see two things: one, that cultural and societal context plays a part in how humanity views a thing, in this case, context of surrogacy in LGBTQ couples. The second, is that you’ve deliberately limited yourself to a narrow view on procreation; that just because nature intends for something does not mean we necessarily have to conform to the expectations (another example is GMOs, since it’s about natural context and the deliberate methods to improve a certain thing).

 

Yes, you can shower the love to newphews and nieces, but it’s not the same as a direct, biological child that is conceived with intention. The process of thinking about birthing a human being, loving them, watching them grow up, frustrated with their cries every morning when they are just a mere one year old and till they graduate from school- these are experiences that make up a part of having a biological child, not something you can have with newphews and nieces. Also, the bonds created are stronger than that!

And genes, pfft is only part of the process needed to create a baby. Society is at a point where they’re so adamant that babies must be male and female that they dwell into the unnecessary argument of needing both to give birth that it eventually slides into unrelevant territories like genes. If you love a child, isn’t that enough? Because if genes matter that much, why allow adoption?

[West93]

"Because if genes matter that much, why allow adoption?"

Because adoption allows for the child without parents to be brought up in a supportive and loving family environment and stand a better shot at life, since it is quite abundantly clear that you can't turn back time and abort them before they were born, if only you knew they were going to end up parentless.  

NO ONE is entitled to have children. The INSTINCT to breed and procreate does not MEAN entitlement. Do not conflate the two. Show me where is it in the UN Charter of Human Rights that says it is a human RIGHT to be entitled to have children, as if infertile people are suddenly deprived of some earth-shaking and humanity-destroying right! You are ENTITLED to choose how many children you want to have in a family unit, and how far apart do you want to space their births into the family. That is a very different thing! 

As for your point about human overpopulation, read this: https://www.compassion.com/poverty/population.htm. Just because the RATE of population increase is DECREASING, it DOES NOT mean that the human population on Earth has flatlined and is in fact decreasing. Far from it! It's like you saying that a car has stopped simply because it slowed down its acceleration from 50m/s to 10m/s. 

"...because nature intends for something does not mean we necessarily have to conform to the expectations", is that your best argument for surrogacy? Someone has not been watching Jurassic Park, because just because you can do something doesn't mean you should! When we are talking about making new human lives out of any artificial methods just to satisfy the wants and desires of same-sex couples, then the act of bringing a human life in the the world ceases to be one made in the best interest of the child but becomes one made to cater to the baser undeniable instincts of procreation in two individuals engaged in a same-sex relationship! What does that make of the whole argument about LGBT people being "born this way" then? Which wins out more, the desire to procreate heterosexually or the desire for someone of the same sex romantically and sexually? If LGBT people are truly "born this way" then how could it be that nature and evolution made them desire someone of the same sex and hence unable to biologically procreate, and yet give them the directly opposite and contradicting desire to procreate, which requires someone of the opposite sex? 

Oh, and one parting jab at you. "Society is at a point where they’re so adamant that babies must be male and female". Really? Did you fail biology? It it society being adamant, or the fact that evolution and human biology has made it such that we are ALL born with either a MALE or FEMALE sex organ between our legs? Jesus fucking Christ. The more I read your rebuttal the more stupid you start to look. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by West93

[Steve5380]

7 hours ago, West93 said:

I actually agree with Ho Lay Ping's letter here. 

 

For anyone getting into a relationship with someone else, that other partner should be enough reason for them to want to settle down and be monogamous with. Nobody deserves a right to have a child. Certainly not with the issue of global human overpopulation pushing our planet's ecosystem to the brink. 

 

Surrogacy was originally meant for infertile couples to consider as an alternative way of trying for a child. I fail to see the logic behind two people in a same-sex relationship deliberately trying for a child through artificial or surrogate means when they already started a relationship together knowing that fundamental human biology means they can never procreate. 

 

If the presence of a young one means so much for a same-sex couple, whatever is wrong with showing that same care, love and concern for one's nieces and nephews and young relatives? Do they mean less than a child which they can only seek to have through surrogacy, carrying one half of genes from a woman stranger they aren't even seeing (if we're talking about gays here)? 

 

Adoption has its virtues and right times/circumstances. I fail to see any of such right times/circumstances applying to same-sex couples. 

 

Yes, it seems that you think along the same lines as the Ho Lay Ping.

Like the idea that a relationship forces the partners into monogamy.   One does not see this as a law of nature.

And that there is a right to have children that needs to be deserved.  Again, this is not a law of nature.

Equally unfounded is your idea that same-sex couples should not adopt.

You must have never heard of the lives of children in orphanages.

[West93]

8 minutes ago, Steve5380 said:

 

Yes, it seems that you think along the same lines as the Ho Lay Ping.

Like the idea that a relationship forces the partners into monogamy.   One does not see this as a law of nature.

And that there is a right to have children that needs to be deserved.  Again, this is not a law of nature.

Equally unfounded is your idea that same-sex couples should not adopt.

You must have never heard of the lives of children in orphanages.

 

If you don't want to be monogamous, why even get into a relationship where at least a certain level of loyalty is to be expected by both parties? 

If you want to just follow nature's law where everyone fucks everyone, do you want to campaign to abolish the institution of marriage then? So what happens to your precious campaign for recognition of same-sex marriages and relationships in Singapore? 

If you put having kids in future as your top priority in a successful relationship, then don't be LGBT, simple as that. Before IVF and artificial insemination and surrogacy were invented, how did same-sex relationships and LGBT individuals exist? Did they place such a huge emphasis on wanting kids of their own somehow, or did they see their love for their partner who happens to be of the same sex as they do as being more important? 

The lives of children in orphanages are largely shit. I know that. That's just one motivation to justify adoption which I would fully support.

[Cube3]

8 hours ago, West93 said:

Show me where is it in the UN Charter of Human Rights that says it is a human RIGHT to be entitled to have children, as if infertile people are suddenly deprived of some earth-shaking and humanity-destroying right! You are ENTITLED to choose how many children you want to have in a family unit, and how far apart do you want to space their births into the family. That is a very different thing! 
 

 

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

 

UN may not specifically champion the universal right to have children, but they do champion 'equality' in rights. Men and women should have equal rights; different races should have equal rights; so why should you be denied any right that non-LGBT people have? If an infertile man has the right to surrogate a child, so should you. Because you - West93 - are worthy and valued, as much as any other member of the human race. 

[Rhyn]

7 hours ago, West93 said:

"Because if genes matter that much, why allow adoption?"

Because adoption allows for the child without parents to be brought up in a supportive and loving family environment and stand a better shot at life, since it is quite abundantly clear that you can't turn back time and abort them before they were born, if only you knew they were going to end up parentless.  

 

NO ONE is entitled to have children. The INSTINCT to breed and procreate does not MEAN entitlement. Do not conflate the two. Show me where is it in the UN Charter of Human Rights that says it is a human RIGHT to be entitled to have children, as if infertile people are suddenly deprived of some earth-shaking and humanity-destroying right! You are ENTITLED to choose how many children you want to have in a family unit, and how far apart do you want to space their births into the family. That is a very different thing! 

 

Thank you for clarifying on why I asked about why no one is entitled to have children (the point of my question and bolding is to highlight the absolution in your words), because you came from a point of view that was negative- your definition and implication about people being unworthy of children is due to biological, or otherwise, hurdles. I used the word entitled because entitlement falls under LGBT community- this is specific to that community because only straight couples in Singapore, lawfully and biologically, are able to adopt or procreate, and that by itself is entitlement because the LGBT community are unable to do so (to an extent), biologically or otherwise. About the part of deprivation, Singaporean LGBT are deprived of that choice because the law constrains the ability to have children to only straight families. I'm speaking in context of Singapore here, maybe I should make this clear. 

 

While it is true that most humans have an instinct to procreate and that entitlement to children is not connected, the argument here does not account for the maternal/paternal instinct. A straight or gay male have different attractions, but it does not mean that their paternal instinct does not exist. A paternal instinct drives a being to want to procreate so that they can fulfill that instinct. 

 

 

7 hours ago, West93 said:

As for your point about human overpopulation, read this: https://www.compassion.com/poverty/population.htm. Just because the RATE of population increase is DECREASING, it DOES NOT mean that the human population on Earth has flatlined and is in fact decreasing. Far from it! It's like you saying that a car has stopped simply because it slowed down its acceleration from 50m/s to 10m/s. 

 

Here's an objective viewpoint from Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell with a reference to UN estimates and statistics that overpopulation is not exactly an issue. Have a look at it if you desire, it's an enlightening add-on to the conversation. 

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, West93 said:

"...because nature intends for something does not mean we necessarily have to conform to the expectations", is that your best argument for surrogacy? Someone has not been watching Jurassic Park, because just because you can do something doesn't mean you should! When we are talking about making new human lives out of any artificial methods just to satisfy the wants and desires of same-sex couples, then the act of bringing a human life in the the world ceases to be one made in the best interest of the child but becomes one made to cater to the baser undeniable instincts of procreation in two individuals engaged in a same-sex relationship!

 

What does that make of the whole argument about LGBT people being "born this way" then? Which wins out more, the desire to procreate heterosexually or the desire for someone of the same sex romantically and sexually? If LGBT people are truly "born this way" then how could it be that nature and evolution made them desire someone of the same sex and hence unable to biologically procreate, and yet give them the directly opposite and contradicting desire to procreate, which requires someone of the opposite sex? 

 

Your Jurassic Park scenario is based out of fear, which is what holds people back. The same question could be asked of similar situations: should we send humans to the moon even though the chances of them dying is high? Fear, is irrational and the cure is rationalising the problems that are inherent to a process that is new, in some ways or others. 

Surrogacy, only definition and without context, is the process of giving birth as a surrogate mother or of arranging such a birth. Going back to the paternal instinct part, it may not be a want or desire, but rather a need. Your sentence here:

 

'When we are talking about making new human lives out of any artificial methods just to satisfy the wants and desires of same-sex couples, then the act of bringing a human life in the the world ceases to be one made in the best interest of the child but becomes one made to cater to the baser undeniable instincts of procreation in two individuals engaged in a same-sex relationship!'

 

Can you justify that the LGBT couples who want children are not in the best interests of the child because they want surrogacy? How do you define best interests anyway? Is it the wellbeing? The care given? Who the care is given by? Is it monetary? How will you define it?

 

For your argument about LGBT people being "born this way", there is no clear evidence scientifically but there are some developments in that field, along with the whole 'nature' vs 'nurture' argument. If you want to know my opinion, I believe it is a sociological viewpoint that many people (I believe is misguided) agree on because the answers are not satisfying, and that in response to the discrimination they are facing, they need a defense to guard against the unnecessary harm that causes their marginalised status in society. On the procreation part, it is a lot more nuanced than just if sex = male, therefore able to procreate. It's not a logic gate, not a binary switch where if you are something, therefore you should be something. We are constrained by our biological makeup and it is inevitable, in some cases inescapable. 

 

I'm not following your question about which wins out in terms of desire to procreate heterosexually or desire for someone of the same sex. How are they mutually inclusive that it becomes a matter of the former or latter? Seems like a mutually exclusive subject here between these two. 

 

8 hours ago, West93 said:

Oh, and one parting jab at you. "Society is at a point where they’re so adamant that babies must be male and female". Really? Did you fail biology? It it society being adamant, or the fact that evolution and human biology has made it such that we are ALL born with either a MALE or FEMALE sex organ between our legs? Jesus fucking Christ. The more I read your rebuttal the more stupid you start to look. 

 

Apologies at the wording, it should be male OR female, not male AND female. 

[Rhyn]

8 hours ago, West93 said:

The more I read your comment the more I find you are no different from the idiotic third-wave LGBT crowd in Western countries. England indeed. Pah! People like you are why bi guys like me refuse to openly associate with the LGBT crowd in society. You think all in terms of ENTITLEMENT, without thinking what exactly you are entitled to, what's a want, what's a need, and you also happen to fail basic biology for reasons which I  screwed you over in my rebuttal to your comment. 

 

Don't bother replying. You nutcase. 

 

I wasn't emotionally involved in this thread because I believe that people should communicate openly, rather than shut down others with negative, personal jabs on a person. But now I am. Your attitude, along with countless others in the LGBT community and the people who reject us, are one of the many reasons the chasm between people who misunderstand and are not as educated is growing. 

 

Also, in reply to your assumptions about my location and etc. I'd like to point out that I'm a Singaporean, and I've lived there for more than 20 years. I grew up in that cultural and societal context, and I'm also in a relationship with a man who identifies as a bisexual that was once in the closet for fear that his sexuality is the reason he will lose his friends. I convinced him that his friends, if they are accepting or denying, determines whether or not they are really what people would call "friends". I did not use entitlement as a way of boring through the conversation like an "entitled", LGBT person. I used it as a way to frame the conversation (which I covered above). 

 

This is a forum, not an echo chamber. I didn't come here to make enemies, I came here to discuss, argue and learn from multiple perspectives, agreeable or disagreeable. But frankly, I've lost interest in this conversation the moment you started making it personal. 

[Steve5380]

4 hours ago, West93 said:

 

If you don't want to be monogamous, why even get into a relationship where at least a certain level of loyalty is to be expected by both parties? 

If you want to just follow nature's law where everyone fucks everyone, do you want to campaign to abolish the institution of marriage then? So what happens to your precious campaign for recognition of same-sex marriages and relationships in Singapore? 

If you put having kids in future as your top priority in a successful relationship, then don't be LGBT, simple as that. Before IVF and artificial insemination and surrogacy were invented, how did same-sex relationships and LGBT individuals exist? Did they place such a huge emphasis on wanting kids of their own somehow, or did they see their love for their partner who happens to be of the same sex as they do as being more important? 

The lives of children in orphanages are largely shit. I know that. That's just one motivation to justify adoption which I would fully support.

 

Monogamy is not synonymous with loyalty  They are two different things.

NOBODY wants to abolish the institution of marriage.  More and more people want it extended to same-sex couples, which is fair.

Every unbiased expert in the field finds that children are as well off with same-sex parents as with mixed sex parents, and often better.