Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Dystopian Nightmares: When Nature Isn’t Normative
Just over the last few days, the following stories have drifted through my news feed. The first is the one you undoubtedly know about: Bruce Jenner has had himself surgically mutilated, and has (to great fanfare!) donned obscene amounts of make-up, and unveiled his new, feminine persona to the world.
Second, our newest class of More Authentic Persons is apparently the “transabled”: people who feel “like imposters” in fully functional bodies, and who deliberately deform themselves in order to achieve the disabilities they feel they ought to have. In this piece we are introduced to “One Hand Jason” (his preferred name), who cut off his own arm with a power tool because he felt, in his heart, that he was truly a disabled person.
Third, in Britain, a mother was denied custody of her own biological child on the grounds that — through an informal, handshake arrangement — she had originally agreed to sell the baby to the gay couple, one of whom provided the needed sperm. After the child was born, she reneged on the agreement (once again, never formalized) and chose to raise the baby herself. A judge ordered her to hand her daughter over to the two gay men, demanded that any visits from the mother be supervised, and for good measure insisted that she not speak about the case until the child is 18.
The judge’s justification? He thinks it’s in the little girl’s interests, since the two men look to him like more fit parents than the actual mother. The mother has not been found to be either negligent or abusive, though one grimly hilarious write-up I found tried to indicate that she must be, on the grounds that she breastfeeds the child, carries her in a sling, and shares a bed. Oh yes! And she keeps the little girl with her at all times. At 15 months. Call a social worker, quick!
Now, admittedly, there are elements to the British case that seem decidedly “off.” If, as it appears, the woman just wanted to have a baby, why promise to hand him over to the gay couple? There are quite a number of ways to secure a sperm sample that wouldn’t involve such deception and complication. The biological father might also have a fair case that his paternal rights have been violated (which is another good reason why babies really should not be conceived under such irregular circumstances.) But hard cases, as we all know, make for bad law. The legal precedent here seems to suggest that it’s all right to tear a child away from her mother, even against the mother’s stringent objection and with no evidence of abuse or neglect, simply because a judge thinks this is in the little girls’ best long-term interests.
I know many people here are nervous (or even contemptuous?) about the sort of ethical reasoning that holds nature to be morally normative. I understand that drawing the correct lessons from nature can be rather complicated. But if we aren’t prepared to view natural attachments as having any normative content, where does the crazy end? And what stops Leviathan from seizing everything that is most precious to us and reordering the universe according to the whims of our progressive overlords?
Here’s the sort of speculation that occasionally keeps me awake at night. (You can call me paranoid if you like, but keep in mind that my most progressive friends told me ten years ago that I was wildly paranoid for thinking that Christian wedding vendors would ever be shut down for refusing to service same-sex weddings. And in a world in which Bruce Jenner’s voluntary mutilation is celebrated as courageous and inspiring, can we really trust to “common sense” anymore? When people will actually debate whether a person who chops off his own hand because it “feels right” is acting rationally?)
There are gay couples in the world who would like to have children. Adoption is complicated. Surrogacy is expensive. And modern progressives have a bad habit of asking government to make up for the injustices of nature (see: HHS mandate). Is it the gay person’s fault that his sexual orientation hasn’t put him in a position to procreate naturally with the person he loves? Of course not. This seems like exactly the sort of injustice progressives would seek to address through law.
So how long will it take before someone muses, “You know, insane Catholic women like Rachel Lu seem to be having a lot of babies. More than decent people consider reasonable or seemly. There’s no way they’re going to be able to provide all those kids with a decent upbringing (which is to say, a full slate of “enriching activities” from age three, and constant supervision practically through adulthood). Meanwhile, Joe and Bob over here desperately want a child, and is it their fault that two men can’t have a baby together? Of course not. So wouldn’t it be more fair, and also in the best interests of those excess Lu children, to give them a better, brighter future with Joe and Bob? We’ll pay the mother for her gestational trouble, naturally. Think of it as eminent domain laws for babies.”
Paranoid? I hope so. But already, through surrogacy and the promotion of gay parenting, progressives are working to undermine the idea that there is anything important about the connection between a mother and the child she bears. What would prevent this scenario from eventually becoming reality?
Published in General
I believe this wish to be disabled is some kind of mental disorder in people–for some reason, the empathy part of their brain is overactive.
The first rule of medicine should be (used to be?) if an action is harmful and not in the best interest of the person, something is wrong.
We are on the verge of getting cheap functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) equipment and imagery. We will be able to see the parts of the brain that may be injured and causing people to, say, hoard objects or cats. From there, someone will figure out how to fix it.
It is a great tragedy that we did not have this capability twenty years ago when the American Psychological Association was less crazy itself and less influential, when we could frame healthcare goals that made sense for people.
Also recall that removing or disabling some organs (not generally limbs, digits, or eyes) may be seen as a way to regain functionality.
Uncontroversially, a gallbladder may be removed because of gallstones. More controversially, the uterus may be removed because of hemorrhaging or a painful history of miscarriages. Still more controversial, I suppose, are female swimmers who opt to have breast tissue removed in order to stay competitive. And so on. There’s a continuum.
Though 20 years ago, some doctors were already using positron emission scanning to try to diagnose ADD. And it’s not clear in retrospect whether having the imaging tool led to more accurate diagnoses. It can take a lot longer to figure out how to usefully interpret imaging results than it does finding a new way to image…
Patience, my pet :-)
OK, so the woman was manipulative and uncooperative with the courts. So? How does that make her unfit *as a parent*? Obviously she was terrified of exactly what happened in the courts, hence the refusal to be straightforward.
Tom asked how things would be different if the father were a heterosexual male. I suspect it would have worked out very differently on the judge’s end. If it were just a question of 1) parent who hasn’t actually played any role whatsoever in the child’s life other than putting up a sperm sample, and 2) parent who has gestated, birthed and then nurtured her from the first moment of her existence, I think it’s fairly evident who would have the stronger claim. Again, I grant that all parties made some poor decisions. But it still seems evident to me that ripping an infant away from the mother who bore her and has nurtured her her whole life is a *very* drastic step. I think that should be obvious to anyone. (Of course you know that I am also horrified by surrogacy laws through which the state agrees to back a purchaser’s contractual claim to seize a child from the woman who gestated and bore him, against her will. It is absolutely not the government’s place to do that.)
Anyway, I suspect what makes this case seem different, to the judge and to the sympathetic commentators, is precisely the fact that the other involved party was a gay couple. People sympathize with the “plight” of the gay couple who wants a child but has no natural way of producing one. And that sympathy weakens their natural aversion to the breaking of the mother-infant bond.
The default assumption, to let things just be, was supposed to come prior to state intervention. The person who had property was supposed to be able to keep it, absent a lien or legal commitment. The person who was married was assumed to be married, absent a divorce procedure. The child placed for adoption had to be placed.
This decision seems to be a kind of analogy to Kelo, where the state goes around deciding who it likes best as parents.
If the libertarians ever stopped getting sucked into internationalism and concentrate on limiting the evils of domestic government, they’ll be well-equipped to propose real alternatives.
In what other situation would you justify lying to the court and this kind of manipulation?
Most people are terrified of what might happen when they’re called to court, and face similar temptation. Why is it wrong for them to give in to temptation (say, in a murder trial), but right for her?
You’re not suggesting biological ties trump truth-telling and human decency… are you?
Generally, lying and being manipulative is rightfully seen as a mark of extreme untrustworthiness.
Again, in considering the connection to my dystopian scenario, note that even though the involved parties in this case clearly made some bad choices, progressive liberals also view, shall we say, over-enthusiastic fecundity as a bad choice. And they’re also demonstrably willing to charge neglect on grounds that to me seem utterly trivial (like leaving a child buckled in a normal-temperature car for two minutes, or allowing a nine-year-old to play in a park unsupervised.) Once your definition of “neglect” comes to include those kinds of offenses, we can easily reach the point where it really is all but impossible to raise six kids non-negligently. Never mind that humans have been successfully raising families of that size for eons.
The fact that the mother’s natural parenting preferences (breastfeeding, shared sleep, sling-wearing) were cited as evidence of unfitness is creepy for precisely that reason. Progressives already want to find an excuse to procure children for gay couples; does anyone doubt that they would love to do this at the expense of the offensively-fecund? And all of those parenting practices are quite common among the religious conservatives I know (keeping in mind, once again, that we’re talking about a baby!)
Midge, as a mother, I would do exactly as that woman has done to keep my child. I would also defy court orders and disappear in order to keep my child because I love my children so much. I would absolutely regard myself as justified in doing this and I think that my children, when they were grown, would agree. When the world has gone mad, you do what you have to do in order to do right by your child.
I don’t really understand your questions, Midge. Her behavior in court might be bad-but-understandable; I don’t think I exactly presented a full justification. Rather, I suggested that dishonestly in such a case probably isn’t evidence of extreme moral depravity.
The point is that taking the child from her mother should be seen as an extreme, drastic sort of step. Most people lie or at least hedge at one time or another but we generally don’t think this a good reason to revoke custody of their children. It seems evident to me that the author of that report was desperate to paint the mother in the most negative possible light, in order to justify what should to normal sensibilities be an egregiously offensive measure.
I mean, in this case the woman’s behavior probably wasn’t prudent anyhow; she gave the judge fodder for his decision. I would certainly defy the orders of a court, or “manipulate” court proceedings, to protect my child from being removed and handed over to near-strangers! But the point is that bad court behavior, even if there was some, is a paltry excuse for such a drastic step.
Rachel, hold on! The posse is coming!
No-one has yet explained how this case differs in any real way from one involving adoption proceedings between two heterosexual couples. If you can charge that the court is being unduly sympathetic to a gay couple, does that mean I can turn around and charge that you are being unnecessarily frightened of normal (though tragic) family-law matters because one of the parties is LGBTQIAWTFLOLROFLMAOBBQ?
No, in all honesty, I suspect that you, like me, might feel compelled to be more truthful – the reaction of many law-abiding citizens of testifying in court.
Or, if you wished to deceive and manipulate in order to keep your baby, you’d at least be smarter and more subtle about it.
Yes, this is one reason why I don’t rely on the best outcomes argument in relation to marriage. After all, if “science” determined that kids are best raised by 60 year old Asian ladies that hardly means I’d sign up my kid for Tiger Mom boarding school or support government regulation of education by compelling my kid to attend Tiger Mom boarding school. It’s better all around for society, parents, and kids for the biological parents to have a duty to their offspring.
Adoption and ARTs are separate and complicated issues. However, as you say, exceptions make for bad law.
Adam, in normal adoption proceedings the natural parents choose to give up the child. This mother wanted to keep hers.
It’s admittedly a little hard to get inside the woman’s head just because the initial decision to insemenate herself with a gay man’s sperm while indicating she would hand over the child for him and his partner to raise is obviously a very bad one. (Needless to say, not something I would advise or do!) But the fear of losing a child through a court proceeding… well, that would be utterly terrifying. It’s pretty hard to say how exactly I’d respond but I’m pretty confident my scruples about being a law-abiding citizen would be highly secondary in such a scenario.
I assume there has been at least one case where the biological parents suffered an 11th hour change of heart.
Correct but — like Adam — I’m not sure the principles at stake would be noticably different if it was an adoption that was renegged on rather than a surrogacy.
Usually biological parents are allowed to have a change of heart. Certainly if they decide to keep the child from the moment of birth. I know of no cases in which children were taken away from birth parents against the parents’ will merely because they had previously investigated adoption as a possibility.
A cursory googling comes up with these results:
Our Failed Adoption Story (WordPress)
Heartbreaking court battle as foster parents launch 11th-hour bid to halt adoption of two young children (Guardian UK)
Our Failed Adoption (Adoptive Families Circle)
From FamilyEducation.com: “Probably the most intensely felt fear of adopters is that the birthmother will make an adoption plan—and then flip-flop and decide to raise the child herself.”
Tell me how your case differs from any of these, with the sole exception of the sexuality of the prospective adoptees?
To put the point another way, it isn’t legally permissible to renounce all parental rights to your own children prior to their birth. You can begin some proceedings, but nothing can be finalized until the post-partum. Except in states where surrogacy laws have been enacted to change that long-standing practice, obviously for the purpose of enabling the not-fertile-for-whatever-reason to feel more secure in their commercial arrangement with a surrogate.
See, now we’re getting somewhere. Did the surrogate sign a contract stipulating this? How does this contract differ from that signed by people contemplating giving a child up for adoption? If standard practice for surrogacy contracts stipulated that the contracts be written and executed in an identical manner to ordinary adoption contracts would that satisfy you? Why or why not?
Rachel, I mostly agree with you, but it seems like you’re eliding the point that the arrangement wasn’t merely investigated or considered – it was agreed to. That makes a difference doesn’t it? Also the point that the guy was the biological father; you use the term “ripping” the baby from the mother but can’t we come up with emotioanlly loaded terms to describe you’re preferred solution of preventing the farther from enjoying his parental rights? Now, one might argue that we should allow for a change of heart upon actual birth or that we should even consider more strict regulation and restriction of ARTs (probably my position), but the fact of prior agreement between the biological parents matters doesn’t it?
The case you cited involved a dispute between foster parents and would-be adoptive parents; the natural parents weren’t party to the dispute. No, I don’t think people should be able to sign contractually-binding agreements to terminate their parental rights prior to birth. But in any case, no, the mother had not done so.
Ed, I think the woman did wrong the father, but I also think it’s exceedingly dangerous to allow an informal email exchange to be legally determinative in this way. Also, while I of course agree that fathers are important, the fact that this father had effectively no relationship with the child (and almost none with the mother) surely makes a difference, doesn’t it? The natural relationship that is broken through this ruling is far more fundamental than the one that is restored.
Should they be allowed, to, though?
These change-of-heart rules are, as I understand it, an innovation. And not necessarily a good one.
Ed, the reason birth mothers have always to my knowledge had the option to change their minds after birth is precisely because the actual presence of the baby sometimes does that for them. This should be respected. The emotional pull is very, very strong and that is something we as a society need to encourage and not allow mothers to sign away before they see the baby. We want mothers to be deeply attached to their babies, and nature sees that this happens in most cases. That’s Rachel’s original point about nature and why it should be respected.
Yes. Emphatically yes. When you see the baby everything is different. In the adoption cases I know about, there is a waiting period before the adoption is final in case the mother changes her mind because it is cruel to take a baby away when she realizes after birth that she has made a mistake.
Agreed, but the argument then is for regulation of ARTs, possibly including prohibition of binding agreements until birth especially when the “target” parents have some DNA in the mixing bowl, so to speak. For the current situation, though, I think the agreement between the biological parents ought to count for something.
Let’s not pretend that we haven’t already discovered that keeping the government from paying for it is a great way to naturally suppress all sorts of deviant behavior.
Perhaps Rachel is correct that none of it should be binding until after birth. Seems like that would avoid alot of this (naturally unavoidable) mess.