Gents,
As we
have discussed from time to time over the years in Ironmen, the
topics that relate to Marriage and Parenting have always been in the
mix. This discussion / dissertation is about that in more
detail.
The
background to this topic is as follows (there's a quite a bit
and there's logic for putting this upfront):
United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child:
http://www.unicef.org.au/Discover/What-We-Do/Convention-on-the-Rights-of-the-Child/childfriendlycrc.aspx
and
http://www.unicef.org.au/crc
Specifically:
Article
7
Children
have the right to a legally registered name and nationality.
Children also have the right to know their parents and, as far
as possible, to be cared for by them.
Article 9
Children
should not be separated from their parents unless it is for
their own good. For example, if a parent is mistreating or
neglecting a child. Children whose parents have separated have
the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this
might harm the child.
Article 18
Both
parents share responsibility for bringing up their children and
should always consider what is best for each child.
Governments should help parents by providing services to support
them, especially if both parents work.
Article 17
Children
have the right to reliable information from the media. Mass
media such as television, radio and newspapers should provide
information that children can understand and should not promote
materials that could harm children.
Article 29
Education
should develop each child’s personality and talents to the
full. It should encourage children to respect their
parents, their cultures and other cultures.
Article 34
Governments
should protect children from sexual abuse.
Article 36
Children
should be protected from any activities that could harm their
development.
-------------------------------------------
Abortion
in Victoria
Around
34% of woman aged 20-29 who have ever been pregnant have had an
abortion and an estimated 80,000 are performed each year in
Australia. Although this number might seem high, it's been decreasing
consistently since 1995.
The
rules for abortion are different in every Australian state. This
information applies to Victoria. It became law in Victoria in 2008
through the Victorian
Abortion Law Reform Act 2008.
When
can I have an abortion?
Up
to 24 weeks
You
can choose to have an abortion. You don't need a doctor's referral.
After
24 weeks
You
can have an abortion if at least two doctors agree. In making
their decision, the doctors must consider all relevant medical
circumstances and your current and future physical, psychological and
social circumstances.
Do I
have to have counselling first?
No,
you don't. If you would like to have counselling, you can do so
through your doctor. Your doctor can also refer you to a specially
trained psychologist or nurse. We offer one hour pregnancy
choices information sessions with
a nurse. These sessions provide factual information about all
the options available to support you in making your decision.
Where
can I have an abortion?
Private
abortion providers are listed in the Yellow Pages under 'Abortion'.
Public hospitals also provide limited free abortions.
How is
an abortion carried out?
The
two types of abortion are:
- surgical abortion
- medical abortion.
http://www.fpv.org.au/sexual-health-info/sex-and-the-law/abortion-in-victoria/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In
May 2012 the New South Wales Supreme Court found for the first time
in Australia that a same-sex couple to be the
parents of a baby that was born through a surrogate, with a court
ruling it was in the child’s “best interests”.
In
transferring the guardianship of the child to the two men, Justice
Paul Brereton was satisfied the pregnancy wasn’t the result of an
illegal commercial agreement and that the woman who carried the baby
wasn’t paid to do so. Justice Brereton noted that it was
“the
first application under the Act of which I am aware in which in the
intended parents are a same sex couple”.
The
Surrogacy Act, brought into effect last year, is part of new
legislation in NSW intended to make it easier and more acceptable for
parentage to be transferred in surrogacy arrangements. It allows for
altruistic surrogacy arrangements, where the birth mother is only
reimbursed for costs associated with the pregnancy. The Surrogacy Act
also imposes penalties for parties entering into commercial surrogacy
arrangements.
The
court heard the three had only an “oral arrangement” for the
surrogacy but at the hearing, an affidavit from the birth mother was
tendered indicating her consent to the two men being declared the
parents. The child, born in April 2010, now has the two Sydney men as
parents, with the birth mother agreeing to no longer be recognised on
the birth certificate.
The
Surrogacy Act also says that when the child turns 18 the child is
entitled to receive their original birth certificate and their full
birth history.
This
is certainly a good start to the legislation and shows that despite
the requirements of the Surrogacy Act, the judiciary is flexible in
relation to interpreting the legislation and making decisions on its
own. We look forwards to more successful applications in the future.
http://www.surrogacynsw.com.au/
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parenting
cases – the best interests of the child
When a
court is making a parenting order, the Family Law Act requires it to
regard the best interests of the child as the most important
consideration. Parents must also use this principle when making
parenting plans.
The
Family Law Act
The
Act makes clear that:
- both parents are responsible for the care and welfare of their children until the children reach 18, and
- arrangements which involve shared responsibilities and cooperation between the parents are in the best interests of the child.
http://www.familylawcourts.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/FLC/Home/Family+Law+Principles/Parenting+cases+%E2%80%93+the+best+interests+of+the+child/
---------------------------------------------------------------
In
1995 the Family Law Reform Act introduced some significant
new developments in Family Law in Australia. One of those significant
new developments was the introduction of 'parental responsibility' as
opposed to 'parental rights' and the new emphasis on the best
interest of the child as the paramount consideration in all
matters involving the parenting of children. This new development is
in keeping with Australia's obligations under the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Australia is a
signatory. Specifically the convention provides: Article 9 "States
Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or
her parents against their will, except when competent authorities
subject to judicial review determine ... that such separation is
necessary for the best interests of the child", and,
"States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is
separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and
direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is
contrary to the child's best interests". How then do the
courts determine what is in the best interests of every child? The
answer is by painstakingly assessing the individual circumstances of
each and every case and the individual needs of each and every child.
http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/39/the-best-interests-of-the-child.aspx
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Artificial
Insemination and the Meaning of "Parent"
A
recent decision of the Family Court has dealt with the meaning of
“parent” under the Family Court Act 1997 in instances where
artificial insemination procedures are used.
The
mother of the child advertised in the Perth gay press as a single
lesbian looking for male co-parents for a child. The applicant
responded to the advertisement and the parties had various meetings
to discuss their plans to conceive a child with the mother undergoing
artificial insemination with the applicant’s semen on five or six
occasions.
The
applicant arranged for a parenting agreement to be drafted for the
parties to sign which allowed for an equal, shared co-parenting
arrangement where the care and decision making for the child along
with the financial costs associated with raising the child would be
shared.
However,
the applicant got cold feet when the mother refused to enter into
this parenting agreement and decided to put things on hold until a
parenting agreement had been entered into. At the time of this
decision the mother discovered that she was pregnant.
The
applicant applied to the Court for parenting orders namely that the
parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. The
mother opposed these orders and sought sole parental responsibility
for the child on the basis that the presumption of equal shared
parental responsibility in the Family Court Act did not apply in this
case as the applicant was not a “parent” of the child under the
Act.
The
Court discussed the meaning of parent under the Family Court Act
where there was no dispute that the child was conceived as a result
of an artificial conception procedure between parties who were not
married. The only definition of “parent” in the Family Court Act
relates to adopted children, so the Court turned to the Artificial
Conception Act 1985. Section 7(2) of this Act states that where a
woman becomes pregnant in consequence of an artificial insemination
procedure and a man produced sperm for the purposes of this procedure
this man:
- shall be conclusively presumed not to have caused the pregnancy; and
- is not the father of any child born as a result of the pregnancy.
In
accordance with this definition the Court held that the applicant was
not the legal father but, rather, the genetic or biological parent.
This meant that the presumption contained in the Family Court Act of
equal shared parental responsibility did not apply.
The
Court then stated that persons other than parents may apply for a
parenting order if they are a person concerned with the care, welfare
and development of the child and if it would be in the best interests
of the child to make such an order.
On
this basis the Court found that the applicant was a person concerned
with the care, welfare and development of the child. However, due to
the discord and disharmony between the parties on almost every issue
relating to the child, the Court held that it would not be in the
child’s best interests for an order for equal shared parental
responsibility to be made. The Court then made an order for sole
parental responsibility in favour of the mother and for the applicant
to spend time with the child as was age appropriate.
http://www.findlaw.com.au/edocs/document.aspx?pcid=1904
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like
many couples, R.W.S. and B.C.F. wanted a child of their own. But the
couple—in this case two gay men from Minneapolis—had ruled out
adoption, which left surrogacy their only viable option.
So the
two men did what so many others in their position have done: They
turned to the Internet.
On the
website of Surrogate Mothers Online, a volunteer-run support group
for the surrogacy community, they came across a posting from a
Minneapolis-area woman offering her services as a surrogate. Before
long, the couple entered into a contract with the surrogate and paid
her an undisclosed fee for her services. Through medical science, the
woman soon became impregnated with a baby from R.W.S.' sperm and her
own egg.
Nine
months later the surrogate gave birth—first, to a healthy baby
girl, then to litigation.
At
first, everything went smoothly between the new fathers and their
surrogate. After the baby girl was born, the surrogate visited the
newborn at the men's home, and the nonbiological father proceeded
with his plans to adopt the little girl, which was to have included a
voluntary termination of the surrogate's parental rights.
Then,
seemingly out of the blue, about a month after giving birth to the
girl, the surrogate—identified in court records only as E.A.G.—
showed up unannounced at the couple's front door with her father,
young son and another surrogate in tow. She proceeded to tell the two
men she had changed her mind about giving up the baby and wanted the
girl back.
Sound
familiar? Surrogacy first entered the collective public conscience
almost 25 years ago when Mary Beth Whitehead reneged on her promise
to give up all parental rights to Baby M, the daughter for whom she
served as a surrogate for a New Jersey couple.
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/as_surrogacy_becomes_more_popular_legal_problems_proliferate/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foetal
– Maternal Bonding
Important
biological bonds are established between the mother and her foetus
during pregnancy. One of the most concrete examples of the importance
of this bond comes from knowledge of foetal-maternal physiology. The
hormone oxytocin plays a crucial role in priming the gestational
mother to respond in accordance with her natural maternal instincts.
In a
recent review of the importance of mother-infant bonding , the
authors describe elements of the interaction between a mother and her
newborn child, which include skin-to-skin contact, eye gazing, and
breast-feeding. These actions initiate the simultaneous release of
oxytocin, which facilitates important physiological processes that
help the newborn to develop and the mother to recover. In addition to
providing health benefits, this hormone-like substance promotes
bonding patterns and creates desire for further contact with the
individuals inciting its release.
In
addition to this biological bonding, the cognitive and developmental
psychology literature indicates that there is a crucial window of
time from the moment of birth onwards, whereby the baby begins to
form cognitive attachments through intersubjective interaction with
the gestational mother. Rather than living in a buzz of ambivalence
or confusion as envisaged by some, an infant’s behaviour is
innately fashioned to coordinate with the social behaviour of other
people. This is because an infant already has the cognitive
mechanisms and psychological capacities in place to influence as well
as be influenced by other people, and in particular his or her birth
mother.
Therefore,
at the very least, one ought to be especially concerned with any
process that disrupts the important bond between mother and child,
which derives from both biological and cognitive/psychological
aspects of human nature, beginning during gestation and continuing
after birth. Surrogacy ruptures this bond and such is the importance
of the emotional attachment between the surrogate mother and the
child she has carried, that it has lead to many cases from around the
world where surrogates have been unwilling to relinquish their child,
such as the Baby M and Evelyn cases. As evidenced in these
much-publicised cases, having to relinquish a child can be wrenching,
the end result being custody battles. Added to this is the evidence
that surrogates may live with the psychological burden of giving up
their gestational child for many years
http://www.bioethics.org.au/Resources/Online%20Articles/Opinion%20Pieces/1901%20Oh%20Baby%20Baby%20The%20Problem%20with%20Surrogacy%20MT.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In
Australia, the number of children who do not reach the age of 15 in
an intact family with both of their biological parents has almost
doubled within a generation.
While
the chances of a marriage ending in divorce have been increasing in
the
last
25 years, the increase in children experiencing parental separation
is largely a consequence of the rapid rise in the numbers of children
born into de facto relationships, which subsequently break down. h
ere has also been an increase in the number of women giving birth to
a child without having a cohabiting partner. In 2009, 35% of all
births were outside marriage......
The
number of children in need threatens to overwhelm state and territory
child protection departments. The Council of Australian Governments
estimated in 2009 that State and Territory governments currently
spend in excess of $2 billion annually on child protection services,
with average annual increases of more than 12 per cent.
The
dramatic increase in reported child abuse and neglect, and the
increase in the numbers of children in care, is only a part of the
story of deterioration in the wellbeing of Australia’s children and
young people. On many measures, although not all, the situation for
adolescent girls in particular is deteriorating rapidly. More than a
quarter of young people aged 16-24 years have a mental disorder,
compared with one in i ve (20%) in the general population. A further
24% of young people who have never experienced a mental disorder are
experiencing moderate to severe psychological distress. Evidence
around the country indicates the problems are getting worse. In New
South Wales, public school data indicates that there has been an 8%
per year increase in diagnosed mental health disorders other than
autism. More than half the calls to Kids Helpline in Western
Australia now involve a mental health issue, almost double the number
just i ve years earlier. Nationally, in the last three years, there
has been a large increase in the numbers of children being prescribed
anti-depressants.
There
is psychological distress is reflected in the data on self-harming
behaviour. There was a 66% increase in the numbers of 12-14 year old
children having to be hospitalised as a result of intentional
self-harm between 1996 and 2006. The level of self-harm by young
teenage girls in this age group leading to hospitalisation is about
six times the rate for boys. In the same period, there has been a 90%
rise in hospitalisation of 15-17 year old girls due to self-harm
incidents.
Psychological
distress can also manifest itself in risky and damaging behaviour. An
example of this is binge drinking. Although alcohol consumption by
children and young people has declined a little in recent years, and
significant progress has been made in reducing the levels of risky
drinking by those under 18, children are having their first alcoholic
drink at a younger and younger age, and dangerous binge drinking by
adolescent girls – that is one or more drinks on one day - seems to
have increased. Which is dangerous level of drinking is reflected in
an increase in levels of hospitalisation due to alcohol intoxication.
For young women aged 15-24, the rate of hospitalisations due to
alcohol intoxication more than doubled between 1998 and 2006. There
was also a substantial increase in hospitalisations due to alcohol
for young men.
Another
adverse trend is in terms of risky sexual behaviour among younger
teenagers.
Teenagers are engaging in sexual acts at a younger age and with more
people today that they did in previous generations. That carries with
it many risks, including sexually transmitted infections. h ere has
also been a substantial increase in the number of teenage girls
reporting unwanted sex. h e most common reasons for unwanted sex were
being drunk or because of pressure from a partner. These are not just
Australian problems. Numerous studies both in North America and
Europe point to a very substantial increase in adolescent
psychopathology in the last thirty years, and this cannot be
explained away merely by changes in awareness, or in diagnostic
tests. h is ought to be a grave concern, because many mental
disorders burdening adults begin in childhood or adolescence.
It
would be tempting to see these problems as affecting just a minority
of
Australian
young people. Governments, perhaps the community at large, tend
to see
social problems as being like spot i res, one here, one there,
another in the distance. If the spotfire is threatening enough,
action may be taken to deal with it. Too rarely do we recognise the
possibility that behind the visible spotfires, a major bushfire is
burning.
http://sydney.edu.au/law/news/docs_pdfs_images/2011/Sep/FKS-ResearchReport-Summary.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The
Australian Greens Policy on Sexuality
- legal and social environments free from harassment, abuse, vilification, stigmatisation, discrimination, disadvantage or exploitation on the basis of sexuality or gender identity.
- the legalisation of marriage between two consenting adults regardless of sexuality or gender identity.
- de facto relationships to have equal status in law and government policy regardless of sexuality and gender identity.
- access, regardless of sexuality and gender identity, to adoption, fostering, artificial insemination and in vitro fertilisation procedures.
- the education system to provide age-appropriate information about the diversity of sexuality.
http://greens.org.au/policies/care-for-people/sexuality-and-gender-identity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greens
challenged on poly marriage policy
"One
of the polyamorous community leaders who made a submission to the
Senate committee reviewing the same-sex marriage bill has said he
believes the Greens will eventually support multiple-partner
marriage. In a blog, James Dominguez said the Greens were not against
polyamorous marriage. "They have actually said simply that it's
not part of their platform. "If there is ever a popular movement
to legalise poly marriage in the future, the Greens will be the first
to lend their support, I guarantee it. A few poly people are angry
with them for not expressing support, but I think we need to be
realistic."
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Why
Shouldn't Three People Get Married"
Three
Brazilians in love have their nation up in arms over whether
their relationship, now enshrined in a three-way marriage, is legal.
The public notary who conducted their marriage says there's no reason
the threesome – or "thruple", as the internet has
charmingly labelled it – shouldn't enjoy the same kinds of rights
imparted upon two people who get hitched. But traditionalists are not
impressed: lawyer Regina Beatriz Tavares da Silva, of the Commission
for the Rights of the Family, has it "absurd and totally
illegal....
Is it
possible that if we allowed more people to marry simultaneously that
more marriages might be successful? Fewer breakups over infidelity
might occur, for example, if those who found themselves in love with
more than one person didn't have to choose or conceal their feelings.
And relaxing the expectation that one partner should fulfil all of
one's needs – good sex, complementary taste in television and
shared preference for dogs over cats may just be too much to ask for
– might mean that people who opt for a portfolio of other halves
(or thirds) could outdo the rest of us in happiness.
Legalisation
wouldn't send stampedes of people to the registry office in
five-aside squads; for many of us, monogamy does feel the most
comfortable option, whether it's because our brains aren't wired to
love more than one person or because the prospect of making multiple
people happy is too complex. But three's not a crowd for everyone.
And as long as everyone is entering a marriage equally, as long as
everyone is really going to make an effort to be open and honest to
everyone else, it's probably not the government's job to tell them
how many of them there should be."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/30/three-people-get-married-thruple
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parenting
cases – the best interests of the child
When a
court is making a parenting order, the Family Law Act requires it to
regard the best interests of the child as the most important
consideration. Parents must also use this principle when making
parenting plans.
The
Family Law Act
The
Act makes clear that:
- both parents are responsible for the care and welfare of their children until the children reach 18, and
- arrangements which involve shared responsibilities and cooperation between the parents are in the best interests of the child.
http://www.familylawcourts.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/FLC/Home/Family+Law+Principles/Parenting+cases+%E2%80%93+the+best+interests+of+the+child/
------------------------------------------------------------------
However in an interview Sir Elton confessed:"it's going to be heartbreaking for him to grow up and realise he hasn't got a mummy. But he's so happy. I've never seen a more contented child"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay,
so you've read various snippets I have coalesced from multiple
sources, they are just snippets in a plethora of content.
And I have hardly scratched the surface.
So
what is my point, one could ask of this? And I can hear the
naysayers and politically correct, human rights, non discrimination
campaigners ready with their verbal knives. To which I don't have a
problem with, except that we need to keep this as rational and
respectful as we can. I can see that I will be branded a bigot,
homophobic, a "traditionalist" and Christian ignorant stuck
in the old world.
So,
Henshall, what is your point?
My
point is this, that the rationality and justification of the world,
in all it's glory and intelligentsia is "whacked".
Rationalism (the principle of accepting reason as the supreme
authority in the matters of opinion, belief and conduct) and the
follow-on justification of that rationality by the world (regarding
this topic), is perched against itself, trying to stay on the
mountain of non-discrimination, human rights and equality, only to
fall off. It's arguments do not hold the other up. And
though the mountain seeks to obtain many lofty values and ideals (to
which I in general endorse those notions), the justifications for
it's actions (laws/regulation) are non-sensical.
This
rationality from citizens of those specially blessed to have grown up
in places like Australia, where democracy along with some free press,
some level of transparency and where free health and
education are afforded to the masses, is counter-fit to the
original purposes of those lofty ideals.
Rationalism
is an interesting concept in itself, because it has to have
a foundational ultimate benchmark in the first place.
To whom decides that benchmark? To where and how far to the left or
right of the political spectrum do we place the marker?
It's a
bit like my brother (I mean in the universal sense) says that life's
plumb-line is "to live as a good person, don't do bad stuff".
But where does good start? When does it become not good and
maybe fall into "bad"? Who is the arbiter of Good
(and therefore Bad - because if there is no Bad, then Good
does not exist, Good becomes: "just is")?
So
when we add Rationalism, to our society as a prism to make decisions
and then build that into legislation, then it becomes interesting.
You
see, my prism of rationality is based on The Bible (the instruction
set for life), I believe that is the ultimate benchmark for making
decisions rationally. I believe there is a God, and because He is the
Intelligent Designer, he created the World, Universe, the eco-system,
you and I with a purpose. And if that is the case, then the
Designer has to communicate the instruction set of what that purpose
is, and how we are to function within that. Much like an A380 - a
extremely complex piece of engineering, it doesn't just
turn up at Qantas just like that, it has been designed for a specific
use case, it turns up with an instruction set on how to run it, what
fuel it needs, how much load it can take, how to maintain it, how not
to damage it etc etc. It even turns up with a trainer who
models how to operate it. That is, the instruction manual for the
World, from the Designer, is the Bible, the modeller is Jesus Christ.
So if
my ultimate, foundational benchmark for my reasoning is the Bible and
God, which forms my Rationality for making opinions, beliefs and
conduct then this will likely vary considerably with my neighbour.
So where does Australia and other nations put the plumb-line of
rationality? Where does the common man or woman sit?
It
would seem in today's world, it doesn't really know.
How so
you might ask?
Well,
let's take the UN Rights of the Child charter to which Australia is a
signatory. It states, the following:
Article
7
Children
have the right to a legally registered name and nationality.
Children also have the right to know their parents and, as far
as possible, to be cared for by them.
and
Article 9
Children
should not be separated from their parents unless it is for
their own good.
Then
we have the Family Law Court of Australia stating
that Children's well being is the highest priority when
making decisions about their future:
Parenting
cases – the best interests of the child
When a
court is making a parenting order, the Family Law Act requires it to
regard the best interests of the child as the most important
consideration. Parents must also use this principle when making
parenting plans.
The
Family Law Act
The
Act makes clear that:
- both parents are responsible for the care and welfare of their children until the children reach 18, and
- arrangements which involve shared responsibilities and cooperation between the parents are in the best interests of the child.
Then
we only have to listen to Politicians, Community Leaders, Professors
and the like stating Children and Parenting are the highest calling,
the nations number 1 priority.
AND
THEN... watch now,
we
have on Victoria's "betterhealth.vic.gov.au" web site from
the department of Health, legislating for babies to be aborted (even
after their magical 24 week incubation) with the approval of 2
doctors.
Or
better still, our rationalism has afforded us to legislate and fund
the working of "manufactured" children that do not
have a right to it's parents. That the higher calling is the right of
the adult over and above the right of the child. That children
can be "created" and not have the slightest right or access
to it's father. As one single woman said on a 4 Corners program about
IVF, I was watching several years ago, "why would she (child)
need a father, I'm everything she needs". Or Elton John stated
recently, "it's going to be heartbreaking for him to grow up and realise he hasn't got a mummy. But he's so happy. I've never seen a more contented child"
Our
rationality towards Mt Olympus of Non-Discrimination and Equality as
a"Human Right", is falling over itself to reach that ideal,
while the original purpose (in this case the Human Rights of a child)
is being walked over to get there.
Am I
missing something, or is this “rationality” turned on it's head?
(I
should just tighten the reins here and slow this horse down to focus
where my argument is headed. Because my intention is not
to bring judgement, or bigotry or hatred and ill to people
who have had abortions, or are homosexual, bi or transgender, by no
means. He who has not sinned cast the first stone. Better
yet for the LGBT, my argument is not about your sexuality, just as
with heterosexuals there is cause and effect with that
lifestyle and subsequent legislation, so to for people of any
sexual orientation )
Let me
ask you this: To what value do you place on a child? To
what legislation do we want to enhance a child's life? Why
do we want their life to better than ours? Why care? What's the
rationale behind that belief?
My
answer, is because it's the “right” thing to do, it's built into
us. What generation wants their children to live a worse life than
they currently do? What government (sane and rational) wants
legislation to destroy the next generation? And we know that when
societies and government's do worsen the next generation, there is
“hell to pay”. One only needs to see this in the aboriginal
communities or Claymore in Sydney to see the effect.
My
conjuncture would be that any person who has seen a baby
being conceived, "baked" in the womb and then born,
would agree it is an "act of God", or for the hard nosed
atheists, a "miracle" or "unexplainable process of
wonder".
Then
one only needs to read the masses of scientific, psychological,
neurological, physiological (I could go on) studies and
observations about the bonding process between mother and baby, and
then father and child. And "rationality", common sense
tells us that this is the way it works best, is designed, the purpose
for which it occurred. That is, there is no accident that all these
things comes together and the child get's what it needs to excel.
Much like an A380 doesn't just take off and land itself, it has a
complex set up steps to reach those milestones, but following
correctly, it makes them, time and time again.
And
why is that rationality so strong? When the process breaks down and
the child doesn't get what it needs, then problems arise. And at
times, the community is left with a massive massive bill in every
sense of the word.
But
no, instead the intelligentsia put forward an argument and
rationality that abdicates the original purpose of life and promotes
“self” and individuality as the supreme authority.
Let me
ask you, have you seen a
foetus at 8 weeks? It has a heartbeat, that is, the child has a
heart, it has hands
and a brain,
eyelids, knee-joints....
(http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-8-weeks)
For
Victoria's legislation, (NSW and other states are pretty much the
same give or take a couple of weeks difference), they are so
concerned with upholding the right of a child, that they actively
legislate for the following without question up to 24 weeks to be
killed – no questions asked. And the taxpayer funds it.
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-24-weeks
Even
more interesting in the Victorian State Legislature, is that the
following baby can be killed, following the approval from 2 doctors:
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-37-weeks
I
appreciate the word "kill" is direct and without
"scientific, medical or managerial" overtones like
"abort" or "termination of a pregnancy" or “DNC”
(I'm married to a midwife).
Would
you consider this rational? Would you consider this to be the “right”
thing to legislate? Does this align to the Human Rights of a Child?
Is this part of our “values” as individuals and a society we want
to uphold?
One of
the best medical terms I heard for killing a baby, was on a 60
minutes story earlier this year, they interviewed the supposed
inventor of the "selective reduction" process for women who
had more than 1 baby in utero, and did not want the other babies. So
this "doctor" invented a way to insert a long needle into
the womb and poison the unwanted babies. "Selective
reduction" is what it's referred to.
As the
Doctor replied when asked by Michael Usher suggesting this is murder:
“What is life?” The age old question on abortion: when does a
foetus get promoted from a bunch of cells to a human being? Hang on,
you and I still are just a bunch of cells....
As
another aside, it's funny, in researching this, I came across the
well attended women's blog: mamamia that commented on the Sixty
Minutes story, as the writer states (Kass Hall) " I
am strongly pro-choice – in fact I believe both men and women
should have complete control over their bodies and what they do with
them."
That
we are abdicate the rights of the child, over our rights. My argument
is not with Kass so much, as with the mentality of "women's
right to chose".
That's
funny, because I thought we were “rational” and holding to the
rights of the weak and voiceless and our most precious of society,
our children?
Well
what about the baby? Does it not have the right to chose and make
decisions? A rationalist and ethicist may conceive (maybe Peter
Signer) the argument: “Why don't we let the baby live and when the
child is old enough to make "rational" judgements for
itself, it then can decide if they want to live or die?” (these are
my words BTW, not Peter's)
After
all, as our society states, children need the highest level of
protection and cover. Or aren't we so concerned with
universal "human rights" that are meant to protect
the vulnerable and defenceless? Where did that
rationality go? I am struggling to find it under the weight and
stampede of the individual adults right to chose...
http://www.mamamia.com.au/parenting/selective-reduction-what-is-it-really/
If we
are to follow this aside argument, I also note there is a common
pre-tense (one of many) for legislating abortion in the event of rape
and incest. To which are extremely difficult circumstances. But of
those 80,000 that happen a year in Australia, what percentage are
from that situation?
What
does one say to my friend, who was conceived in rape, and is now a
healthy adult, married with 3 children?
I have
not walked a women's shoes to comprehend her pain at bearing a child
from an horrific situation. I am not outlining an argument to rule
out abortion period.
What I
am suggesting, is that to put forward a “rational” argument that
has “self” as the highest benchmark, means that my friend would
not be alive today. Sorry sweetheart we thought better of it.
However,
I would not be surprised in the rise of “unwanted” pregnancies
are rising given the increased sexual activity by teenage girls and
the alcohol fuelled pressure situations they may find themselves in:
Date:
October 06 2010
Mark
Metherell
More
than 61 per cent of year 12 girls said they had had sex, compared to
44 per cent of boys of that year, the study by LaTrobe University's
faculty of health sciences researchers found.
In a
trend the report links to heavier drinking by adolescents, the
proportion of sexually active year 12 girls who reported having had
sex with three or more partners in the previous year more than
doubled to 27 per cent in the decade to 2008. Among boys, 38 per cent
said they had had three or more sexual partners in the year.
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/teenage-girls-more-sexually-active-than-a-decade-ago-20101005-1669s.html?skin=text-only
So I
come back to my original line of argument, that the rationality of
this world is whacked, and even more so when put to the light of the
“smartest” intelligentsia in the room.
If we
had a “benchmark” to baseline our arguments, then it wouldn't be
as whacked. Of course I am referring to God's benchmark.
“Don't
steal, lie, cheat, have sex outside of marriage, covet, murder,
honour your parents, don't worship yourself or anything else, have
respect for my name....”
“Love
God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love others as
you love yourself”
“Husbands,
love your wife like Christ loves the Church (you and I) and gave
himself up for the Church (you and I)”
“chase
after the fruits of the spirit: peace, patience, kindness, love, joy,
gentleness, forgiveness”
“Forgive
your fellow man 7*77 (keep on forgiving)”
pretty
straightforward one would think. God goes on with more practical
advice and wisdom..... read Proverbs, read the Gospels, read the Book
of James...
Yet we
replace the benchmark with whacked rationality and then even better
we legislate it to show how clever and “progressive” we are.
In
closing that argument, it brings me to another part, Marriage. Which
is a funny old thing, God says “for this reason a man will leave
his parents and be united with his wife, and the two will become one
flesh”
And
the Greens and various groups want to dismantle it and redefine it on
the premise of Discrimination, Equality and “Love”. Which on the
prima facie of it, is very noble and of taking the high moral ground.
To
those principles (discrimination, equality and love) are noble in-deed.
Yet
when used to justify anything, are non-sensical.
You
see, it seems nice to have marriage defined between any two people,
irrespective of gender or sexual orientation, but why stop there?
If
children are created in a lab and then baked in a uterus, then let
science be the ultimate authority and have it's way and the unfolding
relationships that the children are raised up in, be whatever form
the individual wants. After all we can see that the UN Rights of the
Child are just concepts and of no consequence.
But
it's funny, that we get hotly nervous, when scientists talk of
cloning. We don't want that legislated. Why? Because then we'd lose
our individuality and “self”. The threshold of unease is breached
and we don't want cloning. But then there is Designer Babies....
because science can create it. Eugenics is the formal term, but the
media and science want to call it “selective breeding”, stamping
out all the bad bits a human being might inherit with it's sperm and
egg DNA.
And
the argument goes, if Marriage is of no consequence, children can be
created in a lab, and the values that Marriage brings are let off,
then why legislate for Marriage in the first place? Why not have
carte blanche?
The
merry-go-round of self justification never stops...
But
politically, of course the Greens don't want to go that far, they
argue that gay suicide would drop if they were legally recognised as
a Marriage. What of the polyamorous people who commit suicide, would
their suicide rates drop off if they were allowed to be recognised by
the Federal Government as a Marriage? Would their rates of
depression and mental illness subside?
I
mean, forget the kids, they are just creations of science. As the
Greens state:
9.
access, regardless of sexuality and gender identity, to adoption,
fostering, artificial insemination and in vitro fertilisation
procedures.
Wouldn't
it be wonderful, if all the Greens members, were products of a test
tube and never got the chance to meet their parents and better still
had legislation that actively prevented them from having that right
in the first place....
And
then Senator Cori Bernardi was “whacked” by the media for his
speech on Same Sex Marriage the other week, because he put forward
the argument, that if Marriage is redefined now, what is to stop it
being redefined further to include Polyamorous relationships and even
animals, as the highly esteemed Professor of Ethics at Princeton
University, Peter Signer stated he was ok with beastiality and asked
“what's wrong with that?”
Irrespective
of what one thinks of Senator Bernardi, his argument was sound, and
was just being the messenger, yet no media took offence at Peter
Singer or replayed his comments about being ok with beastiality.
I find
it so intriguing that a man of such great intellectual stature is
okay for humans to have sex with animals, yet is so protective of
them that he is a vegetarian. Professor Singer is an atheist, by the
way. I say that to highlight that his “benchmark” for values is
not based on The Bible.
Imagine,
a society where Marriage is continually redefined and the
generational implications that has on education, law, children,
communities..... follow that piece of string and see where that leads
to.
For
those interested in reading the whole of the Senators argument, it
can be found here:
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Fd1b86af2-b8ee-4367-ad53-c5359a072920%2F0198;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fd1b86af2-b8ee-4367-ad53-c5359a072920%2F0000%22
I have
cut and paste a couple of paragraphs that give context to his
beastiality comments. (NOTE: He is not saying Gay people WANT
beastiality recognised, nor saying the Gay lobby will endorse it,
which is what the media inferred he said)
“If
we are prepared to redefine marriage so that it suits the latest
criterion that two people who love each other should be able to get
married irrespective of their gender and/or if they are in a sexual
relationship, then what is the next step? The next step, quite
frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other
being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society—or
any other type of relationship. For those who say that I am being
alarmist in this, there is the polyamory community who were very
disappointed when the Greens had to distance themselves from their
support for numerous people getting together and saying they want to
enter into a permanent union. They were disappointed because they
were misled that this was about marriage equality and opening up
marriage to all people who love each other.
There
are even some creepy people out there—and I say 'creepy'
deliberately—who are unfortunately afforded a great deal more
respect than I believe they deserve. These creepy people say it is
okay to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals.
Will that be a future step? In the future will we say, 'These two
creatures love each other and maybe they should be able to be joined
in a union.' It is extraordinary that these sorts of suggestions are
put forward in the public sphere and are not howled down right at the
very start. We can talk about people like Professor Peter Singer who
was, I think, a founder of the Greens or who wrote a book about the
Greens. Professor Singer has appeared on Q&A on
the ABC, the national broadcaster. He has endorsed such ideas as
these. I reject them. I think that these things are the next step. As
we accede to one request we will then have the next one which will be
for unions of more than two people. We will have suggestions for
unions of three or four people. I notice the Greens are heckling, but
the point is that they misled their constituent base and there was an
outcry about this. Where do we go then? Do we go down the Peter
Singer path? Those that say this is the end of the social revolution
have no history of being honourable about that. They continue to push
and challenge our social and cultural mores. We simply cannot allow
such an important social institution to be redefined, especially when
Australians do not see this as a priority issue.”
Now
watch this: http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=81967
And
God says, get married to one person of the opposite sex, have kids,
love each other, commit for life to become one flesh and get on with
it.
God
even says, keep on having sex with each other because He designed it
that way (for pleasure, bonding and procreation) and if you stop
having sex, then go and pray and come back together soon, otherwise
you're going to wander off with someone else.
If you
don't get married, then keep your pants on.
Pretty
straightforward advice really. (NOTE: There are complications with
people of all backgrounds and medical issues, I get that, but the
same applies to people of all sexual persuasions)
You
know the really interesting outcry of the Senator's speech was the
media and Gay Lobby groups detesting his link (incorrectly) that Gay
Marriage was the same as Beastiality. Yet his argument is that if you
change, slowly over time the goal posts get moved to accommodate more
and more.
And
he's absolutely right. 2 or 3 generations ago, I would suspect they
would be aghast at the amount of freely available pornography to
children and adults, the legalising and normalising of soft (and
hard) pornographic material. The fact that virtually every child
will be exposed to porn before 18 and a large majority will use this
as their sex education tool. We moved to accommodate more and more of
the pornographic industry which 2 and 3 generations ago, it would
have been shot down, period.
I
suggest you watch this to understand how normalised porn has become
for children:
The
very fact that a discussion is even happening on national TV asking
the question: “Is watching pornography harmless for children or a
cause for concern?” is the evidence that “rationality” left the
building a long time ago and standards and values have accommodated
Mr Devil Dysfunction himself.
So I
come back to Marriage and the argument for it (not) to be redefined.
What
is marriage for? What is the value it has? Why does a government need
to legislate it? What is the highest aspirational relationship we
want for our children? What example do we want to set for the next
generation? Why even care about the next generation?
Where
do our value systems, benchmarks and rationality come from?
What
is the likley self image a daughter will have of herself, if she has
a father that tells her she is beautiful, a joy to him and the apple
of his eye? That tells her she is more precious than gold, and has a
gift to give to her husband that no one else will have?
What
is the likely self image a son will have of himself, if he has a
father that says he loves him, sees him as a noble man, full of
character and strength? That tells him to honour a woman and treat
her like a precious jewel.
What
is the likely outcome if the siblings have a mother and father that
treasure them and teach them to respect their parents, forgive and to
be great people giving out more than they receive?
And
what is Truth, when spoken or acted out?
Truth
doesn't change.
