Christian Conservatives Explain Outrage Over Dave Rubin’s Surrogacy Announcement – Women Used As Props in Homosexual or Transgender Communities
I actually follow Dave Rubin on Twitter. I’ve known for awhile he used to be liberal and became a conservative at some point, and he is a homosexual.
I am not too educated on the topic of surrogacy, so that is something I need to research.
In the past year, and though I’m not a feminist myself, I started following a lot of anti-trans-agenda feminists (they tend to call it “radical feminism”), and some of them are strongly opposed to women being used as surrogates to provide babies for other people.
One of my only annoyances with this at this stage, based on what little I know, are Christians who criticize married, infertile (hetero) couples who turn to a surrogate mother and/or IVF, etc, to have a child.
The reason I dislike this, is that I find it hypocritical: most Christian churches, denominations, and persons present being married and having children as being “better” than being single and childless.
So, Christians shame adults for being single and childless, but when or if that adult then tries to take steps to make marriage or pregnancy possible (whether by using dating sites, IVF, a surrogate), that same Christian, church, or denomination will shame that single, childless adult.
You will get shamed or criticized by Christians for striving for the very thing or life goal they are constantly pushing in your face, whether it’s marriage or parenthood.
I may not necessarily be in agreement with all opinions expressed below by other authors.
(Link): No Allies Who Buy Babies
The problem of gay surrogacy reminds us that the right’s alliance with anti-woke liberals cannot and should not survive.
…This, of course, is the primary issue: the moral abomination of surrogacy itself, the commodification of the human child, the relegation of women to the status of incubators. But there is a secondary concern as well.
The same people who make a living being outraged that Lia Thomas, who is a man, is allowed to swim in the women’s races for his college cannot turn around and tell us that there’s nothing wrong with two dudes having babies together.
Is there a difference between men and women, or is there not?
The normalization of homosexuality, and especially the normalization of homosexual parenthood, necessarily leads to the more radical gender ideology advancing from the left today.
If men and women are perfectly interchangeable in sex, and in the role of a mother or a father—those things most closely tied to biological reality—then of course they must be interchangeable in everything else. The premises underlying the acceptance of L, G, and B logically lead to T, sooner or later.
March 17, 2022
by Mary Harrington
I welcome the space that we’ve created in the modern world for long-term, committed same-sex relationships. But all-male couples by definition can’t gestate a child.
And before we applaud gestational surrogacy in the name of gay rights, we should think very carefully about what — or who — is being instrumentalised in the process, or indeed in offering surrogacy as a solution to any infertility.
For in the name of granting an infertile couple — whether because they’re both male or for some other reason — freedom from the limitations of their biology, a human woman is being partly if not wholly objectified: transformed to a suite of manufacturing services.
…And while I don’t know whether Rubin is obtaining his babies via a paid or altruistic surrogate, the scandals that have dogged BioTexCom — including injured and even dead surrogate mothers and a 2011 charge of human trafficking — reveal how easily this de-personalisation and objectification of living human women becomes outright horror.
I have immense sympathy for people who can’t have children. The longing to be a father or mother is powerful, and people can suffer deeply when it’s unfulfilled.
But life is inescapably tragic, and most of us have to live with things we can’t change.
No matter how powerful the longing for children, we must not seek to transcend the limitations of our sexed bodies, if this comes at the cost of using women’s internal organs as industrial machinery.
(Link): Why Dave Rubin’s Use of Surrogacy Should Give Conservatives Pause – National Review
March 25, 2022
By BETHEL MCGREW
The popular commentator’s announcement of a surrogate ‘pregnancy’ was greeted warmly by many on the right.
…As the Twitter reveal went viral, congratulations began streaming in from some surprising sources, including anti-CRT firebrand Chris Rufo, BlazeTV, PragerU, Libs of Tik Tok, and other self-styled “right-wing” media voices. Even Ron DeSantis’s press secretary joined the chorus.
Meanwhile, some took silence as consent from strong social-conservative commentators such as Matt Walsh, who had vocally condemned the Buttigieg adoption.
When pressed on Twitter by YouTuber Mark Dice, Walsh accused Dice of bad faith but made it clear that he would judge Rubin consistently. “There are indeed many ‘conservatives’ who’ve surrendered these fights,” Walsh replied, “but I’m not one of them and will never be one.”
…Rubin accurately diagnoses this in his video announcement, when he observes that, post-Obergefell, “most people just want to live and let live.” He doesn’t “see any real issue anymore with conservatives and gay people.” “Conservative” according to whom, though?
As far as Rubin is concerned, he’s “left the Left.”
But where is “the Right”? Apparently, making haste to meet Rubin halfway, along with other sensible moderate people who also favor low taxes, closed borders, and a free market. In essentials, unity.
But a few still refuse to budge. In a new video, BlazeTV podcaster Allie Beth Stuckey goes on record that she “definitely disagreed” with her distributor’s decision to make a statement “that seemed to be representative of the company as a whole.” Speaking for herself, she argues compellingly that with no commitment to biblical morality or the nuclear family, the center cannot hold. Conservatism shall not live by anti-wokeness alone.
… Stuckey also notes the irony that many of the same people congratulating Rubin spent that week protesting Lia Thomas’s ill-gotten NCAA championship.
If they’re so concerned about “female erasure,” what of the women “erased” in Dave and David’s announcement picture — both the surrogate mothers and the egg donor, selected on the egg-shopping equivalent of Tinder? (That’s Rubin’s analogy, not mine.)
…It’s a touching pro-natal message. That is, until you read the section on abortion in Rubin’s book, where he reveals that he and his family had collectively decided they would “terminate the pregnancy” if they discovered a severe disability.
This immediately follows a paragraph affirming abortion as a “right of women.”
Significantly, in all the talk of how heavy and “difficult” it would be for Rubin to abort his hypothetical disabled child, there is no mention of how the invisible woman carrying this child might feel, or how she, too, might “wrestle with the consequences” for years to come.
April 8, 2022
by Samantha Kamman
Controversy arose after political pundit Dave Rubin announced in March that he and his husband, David Janet, had fathered children through In Vitro Fertilization and surrogacy, methods of conceiving children that conflict with some Christians’ beliefs about family and human dignity.
However, the dispute over how Rubin and Janet conceived their children was only heightened after several prominent conservative organizations, such as PragerU and BlazeTV, publicly congratulated the political figure for fathering children through IVF and surrogacy.
While Rubin once had more left-wing views, he’s become more of a voice followed by conservatives and libertarians in recent years.
Christian author and radio host Michael Brown noted in an interview with The Christian Post that conservative outlets defending a gay atheist’s actions prompted some outrage.
Christian conservatives, Brown said, “stand for male-female parenting as God’s ideal and God’s plan.”
…Surrogacy also raises ethical concerns about the treatment of children, critics say. This arrangement involves a woman agreeing to give birth to a baby on behalf of another person or couple, deliberating depriving that child of a biological mother.
In Rubin’s case, the eggs are from one female donor, and two women are the surrogates. One baby will come from Rubin’s sperm and the other from Janet’s sperm. One will be born in August and the other will be born in October.
Rubin (Link): told Michael Malice last week that he’s not going to disclose how they will raise the children and how much contact the children will have with their birth mothers and egg donor, and indicated that would be kept private.
The Blaze founder Glenn Beck received an onslaught of calls to sever ties with Rubin. Rubin has said that Beck said publicly that he’d burn down his business before cutting ties with Rubin over this issue.
Brown believes society’s acceptance of IVF results from a “larger blurring of moral lines and lack of moral clarity.” Without a solid biblical basis for their beliefs, Brown warns that people fall prey to human emotions instead of living in a God-oriented way.
According to the Messianic Jewish host of the “Line of Fire” radio program, God intended for children to have a biological mother and father. When people fail to realize the importance of placing children in this ideal familial environment, it becomes easier to dehumanize them, especially during the earliest stages of their development.
…Morse noted that God intentionally designed human beings’ bodies to participate in creating new humans through the interaction between a man and woman.
Making a baby should be done “in love,” but she contends artificial reproductive technologies change what is intended to be a “relationship between the child, the parents, and God.”
According to Morse, when Rubin or others use these technologies, they have “slipped themselves into the position of God, whether they intended to or not.”
“This is the core problem with IVF, surrogacy, and donor conception,” the family advocate wrote. “This problem exists whether the parents are married or not, whether they are a same-sex couple or whether they are a desperate infertile married couple.”
…To Morse, there is nothing “conservative” about commercializing gametes and depriving children of a mother because that is not how God intended things to be.
“In God’s providence, every person is a gift from God, with the cooperation of the human parents. My mother and father were gifts from God to their parents,” the author wrote. “I was a gift from God to my parents. My children are gifts from God to my husband and me. When technology enters the picture, the situation changes.”
In an interview with CP, Jennifer Lahl, director and producer of the 2010 “Eggsploitation” documentary examining abusive practices in the fertility industry, revealed another issue with IVF and surrogacy. Lahl is also the president of the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network.
“The surrogate mother [is] exploited because they’re not patients, they’re doing risky things to their body. They’re taking risky drugs that they have no medical need to be taking, and they’re being paid,” she said.
Lahl cited the case of a surrogate mother carrying a baby for two gay dads and how she was forced to deliver a pregnancy 11-weeks early via C-section because the pregnancy was high-risk. Lahl said the mother and her child’s life were in danger because the woman was part of an unethical commercial contract.
She pointed out how surrogacy contracts between the surrogate and the intended parents can also lead to exploitation. Such contracts, she said, often give the intended parents the right to decide if a pregnancy should be terminated, even though the surrogate is the one carrying the baby.
— end —
When Morse says that “children are a gift from God, but when technology enters the picture the situation changes,” is she somehow saying that babies conceived via tech are any less human, or worthy, or not deserving of love?
Does she really want to go there? That seems to be one possible outcome of where her attitude can lead – she is dehumanizing little humans who were put together in a petri dish.
I would not argue that a baby conceived via donors, surrogates, etc, is any less human or worthy of love than a baby conceived via sexual intercourse in a standard, hetero, marriage.
There again, I don’t know what to make of all this debate about surrogacy at this time (I may research this more later), but I do find it very, very hypocritical that the same Christians who have turned parenthood (and marriage and the nuclear family) into an idol will then turn around and act shocked, incredulous, or infuriated, when adults take unconventional steps to achieve that goal (parenthood – or marriage) that the church says that Christians should want to obtain – and if you fail to obtain it, they will either ignore you or shame you.
All preference by Christians and most churches goes to married couples with children. If you are not married, and/or you do not have children, most churches either ignore you, shame you, or insult you for being single (or childless). And yet, some of them have the audacity to even fault married, infertile, hetero couples who seek a baby via technology.
You church people with traditional, pro-nuclear family sentiments need to make up your minds on all this.
If you find surrogacy objectionable, then stop, stop, stop writing or broadcasting, the shaming essays, podcasts, magazine articles, books, You Tube videos, sermons, and blog posts where you criticize and shame adults for remaining single and/or childless.
Start affirming singleness and childlessness, which the apostle Paul did in 1 Corinthians 7, or, at the very least, stop criticizing singleness and the state of being childless, and stop “hyping” parenthood and marriage to the nutty degree that you all do.
Stop elevating parenthood and marriage to the degree you make any adult who lacks one or both feel like garbage failures so that they feel like they must run out and use IVF or surrogates. Maybe if Christians reassured people more often that there is NOTHING WRONG with being single or childless by CHOICE or by CIRCUMSTANCE, we’d not see so many people marrying the first person that comes along, or using surrogates.
(Link): Hypocrisy: Conservative Christians / Catholics Pressure Women To Feel Their Only Worth is in Becoming Mothers, But If Women Try to Use Medical Technology to Get Pregnant, the Women Are Condemned by The Same Groups
(Link): Pro-Life, Yet Anti-Celibacy, Anti-Childless Christian Site Tweets Story about Mother Who Slit New Born Infant Son’s Throat to Save Her Sex Life (Christians equating single or childless / childfree women to women who murder their babies)