Over on Dalrock’s comments, there’s an interesting conversation about the prospect of surrogacy and technology allowing single men to conceive and raise motherless children. Dalrock is a religious blog, and naturally, people look to the New Testament for guidance. It’s particularly murky on this topic, though.
honeycomb sez to Billy…
We disagree .. unless you can show me with scripture that it’s evil.
(Rather than cite a specific source, Billy made a general statement, then alluded to honeycomb being an idiot)
honeycomb retorts…
Ah yes the ole personal attack & no supporting documentation bit.
While I don’t share Billy’s personal sentiments (i.e. I don’t think either honeycomb or AT are idiots), honeycomb is asking for something that no reasonable person would expect to find in the New Testament. The bible is a product of its age, and the thinkers who produced it had no reason to denounce men masturbating into a sex robot, then producing a motherless kid via an artificial placenta.
Lots of things aren’t listed in the bible that would be, if someone was writing it today. (Weird trannies being allowed in the girls’ public toilet, the prevalence of S&M sex play, nose piercings, etc.)
Either honeycomb has adopted AT’s fallacy, that everything not specifically prohibited in the text is explicitly permitted (thoroughly debunked by a guy named Lyn87, over a year ago) or he knows some part of the bible which allows for motherless kids to become a societal norm. I’ve never seen this allowance myself.
So is bringing a motherless child into the world sinful? I don’t personally have an opinion on that. I think it’s for the religious bros to try and work out what qualifies as sin. Is it socially destructive? I think it certainly is. Any kid brought into the world in these circumstances will desperately want the love and example that a decent mother provides her children. S/he will look around at other kids who seem to take this situation for granted, and will feel deeply hurt by the lack of it in his/her own life. That wounding will not go away. It will likely result in deviant behavior. This is almost understandable to me. Why should such a child grow up feeling invested in a society which s/he doesn’t identify with?
Now, guys who promote this have a couple of choices. They can be inverted feminists, and demand that every child be stripped of his/her mother (the way kooky feminists do now, demanding that father’s day be abolished, &c.) They might also try to start a separate society made up only of single fathers (women don’t have the strength or foresight to do this, but I think men might try it). Either way, their kids will ultimately pay the price for their narcissism.
Good points, both about the Bible and about single fatherhood. Especially this:
From a more materialist view there is also this problem: human children take a lot of work to raise. It usually takes two and often takes help from even more (especially if there are multiple children). Where do these folks who promote single fatherhood going to get this help? Do they just plan on sending the kid to day care while they are at work? Or do they plan on making their parents raise a second set of children when they should just get to be grandparents?
From a religious point of view (and really a natural law point of view) there’s something inherently wrong about surrogacy and IVF in and of themselves. Children are human beings: they should not be bought, sold, created in a lab, etc. It is a horribly arrogant attitude to think that just because you want children you should be able to create a child whenever and however you want, disregarding the way human beings naturally reproduce and raise children (which corresponds to what is good for those children, and more broadly, for society).
It’s tough for people who wish to place their values on others and justify it with intimidation / the threat of Bible verses that don’t exist.
A private interpretation of the Bible is directly commented on though.
(I ain’t no Toad .. lol)
Now that I have a little time I’ll respond to why BillyS got my whiskers (or my beard) twisted.
I don’t care for other men (or women or government) enforcing their morality down mine or anyone else’s throat.
Especially under the veil of scripture.
If you can call a man raising a child as a single father (dad) then you had 1) have your reference’s on stand-bye and 2) you’d best be consistent with your application of EVIL.
Had BillyS gone down the road of calling it “sin” .. I’d probably just shrugged my shoulders and let it be .. but “evil” .. not in my understanding of the word evil.
Anyway .. hate I left such a quick and abbreviated comment earlier.
He still hasn’t answered my questions.
PS .. though I have no dog in the fight .. it really is a personal freedom issue and men with money will opt for it as has been shown & I do believe a new market will flurish to fill the need.
PPS .. I’m an advanced age bachelor with zero known children .. no desire for children .. but believe in equality .. if it’s good for Th Wimminz it must good for us too ;@D
BillyS’s response to my queations .. sortta .. not really ..
Boxer,
I generally agree with the post you made that Dalrock restored. I go back to the basic principles, and God made marriage as a man and a woman and that is the core unit to raise a family. Other things may happen, but nothing in the Scriptures indicates they are to be pursued. Neither does common sense for that matter.
Responding to single mothers and the modern flawed system by proposing the mirror image is not bright. Go ahead and believe that way though Honeycomb if you want.
He can’t even begin to defend his position of calling “evil” and he can’t divorce himself from my comments not being my personal choice but an observation of what is actually happening right now.
Hmmmm .. I think he’s a woman.