SUBSCRIBER LOGIN






Search First Things

Advanced Search

RSS

Masthead

Recent Comments

  • De Las Casas: First of all a faulty premise cripples this discussion. It trips over nothing and falls into unreality...
  • Raymond Takashi Swenson: One makes arguments to persuade. Arguments based on a common religious belief are going to...
  • Kevin: Here are the truths from which we can not escape. SSM involves a pledge. It’s a pledge of committed...
  • Truth Unites... and Divides: Tom Gilson to Nikolai Volk: “Wrong. Obviously wrong. Blazingly, glaringly, wrong....
  • Bret Lythgoe: I think that it’s fair to say that we have people on both sides of the SSM “debate”,...
  • Nikolai Volk: Okay, this could help clarify things. Suppose we did what I want the state to do, and not regulate...
  • Archives

    Categories

    Monthly


    « Previous  |Home|  Next »         

    Saturday, June 26, 2010, 10:39 AM

    … Despite the latest propaganda in favor of a father-optional future, this study suggests two stubborn truths: Children long to know and be known by their biological fathers, and they are much more likely to thrive when they have their own father in their lives.

    [From Bradford Wilcox: Daddy Was Only a Donor: A Troubling Report on Children Conceived by Single Mothers Who Chose Insemination. - WSJ.com]

    2 Comments

      Sarah Flashing
      June 26th, 2010 | 8:44 pm | #1

      While culture will probably continue down this very confusing road of reproduction, nothing is going to change their perspective until the church, the regular people in the pew, understands these issues and influences the people in their lives to adopt a biblical understanding of the family and of human dignity.

      Jeremy Pierce
      June 27th, 2010 | 10:24 am | #2

      I think it’s paramount, however, that we not frame the arguments in a way that makes adopted kids feel like second class children. We ought to encourage adoption as (in general) superior to the use of extraordinary technology to conceive genetically-related children, so the argument can’t simply be based on the morally inferior status of not knowing your genetic parent.

      Part of the issue is the use of expensive and extraordinary means, which is also one of the key features of why some cases of passive euthanasia might be morally allowable when death is imminent but why many cases are still immoral (because what is withheld is not extraordinary means).

    Links

    Blogs

    Find Us

    Contact