What began as the necessary and commendable move in law and the culture at large to equate biological and adoptive parents for reasons of stability (as well as to defang abusive or absent parents) has led to the view that blood relations are insignificant in regard to families. As a consequence, a barrage of alternative arrangements—intentionally mixed families, artificial insemination by donor (AID), heterologous surrogacy—is now being justified on the grounds of the irrelevance of biology. One lesbian-support website describes a break-up of a lesbian couple and their wrangling over the offspring of one of the partners (conceived through AID.) The other partner, who has no biological connection to the child yet playfully calls herself “a Canadian lesbian female-father,” chides her estranged lover for not recognizing her claims to paternity: “You are also wrong if you think that upon separation that any father is given adequate rights with their child.” Bad grammar aside, the message here is clear: To father is a function, and with the proper planning, procedures and safeguards in place, this function can be filled, at least in principle, by anyone.
Whether men in general are aware of any of these alternative arrangements, they are undoubtedly aware that they have been supplanted in the culture at large. If a mere biological father senses he can easily be replaced—if he is fungible, as the courts would say—then it is that much more difficult to find a reason to stick around. If anyone can do all of that tiresome, demanding, and thankless work, then let him (or her or them) do it!
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Interesting Reflections On Fatherhood
An excerpt (H/T: Ori):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
"Yet, through the exhaustion, financial stress, screaming, and general chaos, there enters in at times, mysteriously and unexpectedly, deep contentment and gratitude. It is not the pleasure or amusement of high school or college but rather the honor and nobility of sacrifice and commitment, like that felt by a soldier. What happens to his children now happens to him; his life, though awhirl with the trivial concerns of children, is more serious than it ever was before. Everything he does, from bringing home a paycheck to painting a bedroom, has a new end and, hence, a greater significance. The joys and sorrows of his children are now his joys and sorrows; the stakes of his life have risen. And if he is faithful to his calling, he might come to find that, against nearly all prior expectations, he never wants to return to the way things used to be."
This paragraph made me cry. Everyone should follow the link and read the entire article. It is right on. I've been saying for years that the attitudes behind our country's origins are not entirely good. Such as the attitude that a certain authority cannot tell us what to do; we will do what we want. We are so removed from the days of monarchies that we don't submit to any authority unless we personally choose to. I also believe that belief in free-will plays a part in what the article is discussing. If you actually read early theologians, you will not find much support for free-will. Free-will has been pushed more and more over the the last 300 years. Concepts like fate are increasingly going the way of the dodo. I believe that all of these modern philosophies have contributed to the breakdown of religion, family, and society as a whole. We are increasingly believing that, if there is God, we are much smarter than what He has revealed in his scriptures, or we just believe that there is no God, or we believe that God rules by democracy or popular opinion.
Post a Comment