Boston Attorney Helps Homosexual Couple Advertise for Surrogate Mother

From a friend:
"[I saw this] ad on Craig's List today seeking surrogate moms for wealthy gays [placed by a Boston attorney] ... on the Cleveland Craig's List page. Cleveland has one of the highest proportions of poor people of any major city in the country. It seems the wealthy gays are preying on poor people. This is sick."

Circle Surrogacy is long standing agency that has been helping match all kinds of families with fabulous gestational carriers. Headed by a well known attorney in Boston, MA for over 10 years and run by many caring and well educated individuals.

Same sex couple needs surrogate mother to help them start family. They are educated, kind, financially secure and ready to start a family. But they need a gestational carrier to help. Seeking someone:
-between 21-35
-has children
-healthy lifestyle
-BMI less than 33
-healthy pregnancies
-healthy lifestyle-medical
-maternity insurance
-open minded and easy going
-good sense of humor

Pay 20,000 fee plus all expenses. Couple is looking to begin soon and hoping for an open and friendly relationship. Compensation is 20,000 plus all travel, medical, legal and misc fees. Please visit http://www.circlesurrogacy.com/ for more information and fill out our online interest form....

* Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
* Please, no phone calls about this job!
* Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.

Boston Parents' Paper Normalizing GLBT "Families" -- Part III

Is this OK with Boston Parents' Paper?

Back to the Boston Parents' Paper's promotion of "gay parenting" (see our Parts I and II). The sidebars on parental rights (p. 25) and parenting resources (p. 28) bring up some serious concerns.

1. Parents' rights in the schools: The sidebar (p.25) title, "In school, the subject of same-sex marriage is an issue of parental rights," is fair enough. But Evelyn Reilly of the Mass. Family Institute perhaps misspoke when she said the subject of homosexual marriage "shouldn't be shoved down the throats of parents. This is forced indoctrination." It's not the well-grounded parents who are being indoctrinated; it's the young school children.

Reilly mentions that children ideally need both a mother and a father. True. But she fails to mention that homosexual "parenting" puts children in direct touch with unhealthy practices as a valid role model for their own adult lives. Reilly said, "We have no adversity [sic; did she mean aversion?] toward homosexuals. We're just trying to protect marriage." Why protect marriage unless there's something wrong with homosexuality, and especially in this context, homosexual "parenting"?

Well, we do have an aversion toward those homosexuals who -- as "parents" to young children -- encourage them in a GLBT identity. Besides the questionable "love life" models they show their children, it's common for homosexual "parents" to include their children in unseemly adult events such as "Pride" parades. (See the popular homosexual "parenting" book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride.)

We documented that Meg Soens, a leader of the GLBT extremists (attacking David Parker) in Lexington, was at Boston Pride with two of her young children in 2006. What did her boy learn there? He certainly saw the ManHunt.net float, which encourages anonymous sexual encounters. What did her young daughter learn there? She saw women with bare breasts riding motorcycles, and other women whose breasts had been surgically removed, dressed as "drag kings", and "tranny" parents. Is this the kind of good parenting the Parents' Paper is promoting?

See the paper by Real Women of Canada which points out these documented dangers inherent in "same-sex parented" households: higher incidence of domestic violence; higher incidence of mental health problems in parents; reduced life expectancy of parents; higher incidence of "same-sex orientation" in children; greater risk of sexual involvement with parents*; greater risk of social or psychological problems in the children; higher incidence of child molestation.**

See also Dawn Stefanowicz's web site. Dawn's childhood experiences with a homosexual father, who included her in his depraved and dangerous activities, are a warning to our too accepting society. (Her book is coming out in the fall.)

Parents' rights in the schools are not jeopardized only through "sex ed." "Family" topics of any sort should NOT even be discussed. No newly manufactured stories about Mommy & her boyfriend. No stories about two "daddies". No stories about divorce. No stories about Daddy undergoing sex-change surgery. No stories about Mommy's (or is it Daddy's?) collection of whips. No stories about "Daddy died." No stories about "Grandma's Alzheimer's."
Can't we just leave all this stuff out of the schools? Read classic literature instead. Keep it neutral, non-controversial. It's the old argument we've been putting forward for years: Return to academics, and leave the family therapy for families to deal with on their own. Schools -- and the government -- cannot solve these problems for our children. (It would be nice, however, if the schools didn't worsen things by assaulting our kids with sensitive, emotional materials -- and the government didn't create more problems by financial incentives for family dysfunction.)

2. Parenting Resources Sidebar (p. 28) How can any "parenting" guide that mentions Fenway Community Health and PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians & Gays) be taken seriously?

Fenway Community Health Center is the group that passed out the Little Black Book to teenagers at the GLSEN Boston Conference in 2005 at Brookline High School. Fenway runs ads in the Boston "gay" newspaper seeking practitioners of "barebacking" anal intercourse -- for "tops and bottoms" -- to take part in HIV drug tests. They send bizarre "entertainers" to the Fens anonymous sex cruising grounds to hand out anal lubricants and condoms. (Some of their advice: "Safer sex is not necessarily about wrapping yourself in latex until no part of you is exposed. Although some people may find this appealing, for many people it comes across as a complete turn-off. So what else can you do?"... read more. And check out their Dr. Cox.) This is a "parenting" resource?

PFLAG bills itself as a group that supports parents whose children "come out" as G L B or T. (Are you ready for your teenage daughter to tell you she wants her breasts removed? If not, PFLAG will help you!) PFLAG is pushing hard for homosexualizing and transgenderizing your children. (See their pamphlet, "Our Trans Children.")They do teacher and counselor training and "GLBT pride days" in our public schools promoting homosexuality and transgenderism. We've drawn attention to their more secretive Transcending Boundaries conference which also promotes transsexuality, poly sexuality and "families" (multiple partner relationships), BDSM (whips & chains), and now hormone-blocking injections to pre-pubescent "transgender children" (making their later transitioning surgery less complicated). PFLAG also has a "straight spouse group"! (We think this means a spouse whose opposite-sex spouse is actively bisexual? So their child is seeing who knows what in the home?) This is a "parenting" resource?

From Real Women of Canada report:
*According to a study published in Adolescence, 29% of the adult children of homosexual parents have been specifically subjected to sexual molestation as a child by a homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents.These findings were confirmed in a study published in the American Sociological Review.
**Proportionately, homosexual men are more inclined to child molestation than heterosexual men.According to American studies, the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys and teenagers at rates completely disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. A study shows that the homosexual child molester accounts for approximately 7 times more victims than the heterosexual molester. When it comes to child sex abuse, men are almost always the perpetrator. Less than 3% of the population is homosexual, yet one-third of the sex abuse cases are committed again boys.

Boston Parents' Paper Normalizing GLBT "Families" -- Part II

The July issue of the Boston Parents' Paper (PP) uses a typical propaganda ploy in its attempt to normalize homosexual "parenting": It focuses on the innocent beauty of children, and the child's emotions regarding his "parents." The PP starts with the glowing face of a strawberry blonde imp on their cover, whose sideways smile leads your eye directly to the feature headline, "Gay Parenting: 'See Us as Family'." And whose heart wouldn't go out to the smiling boy "who is happy his parents got married" in a half-page color photo of a smiling "family" -- two men and a boy -- on the beach. We learn the boy was adopted from Russia. And we respond: "What a wonderful thing!"

But who are the "parents"? One assumes the two men partake of anal intercourse. If they were habitual smokers, or drug users, what would the PP say? Would they hold them up as model "parents"? Yet it is medical fact that anal intercourse and other typical homosexual sex practices are inherently unhealthy, even if the couple is monogamous and "committed." And the boy will of course accept it as normal, and perhaps be drawn into the very unhealthy and dangerous GLBT world. (Studies show children of homosexual parents are more likely to identify as homosexual themselves.) What sort of role models are they for the boy?

State Senator Jarrett Barrios, who has adopted two sons with "his spouse," Democrat consultant Doug Hattaway, is quoted. Why didn't the PP say "his husband"? Would that be unpalatable to most of their readership? Somehow the word "spouse" softens the conjured image a bit ... And there is no challenge to Barrios' claim that homosexual "marriage" is about "civil rights." This after the editor carefully states the PP takes no stand on "gay marriage."

Then we get to the part about special support groups for "gay and lesbian parents," sponsored by Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Jewish Family & Children's Service, and Fenway Community Health Services. PFLAG and COLAGE are listed as resources. But PP wouldn't dare mention the support groups for "poly" parented families ... at least not for a few years!

What's really going on here is a propaganda assault on hetero parents, because the "gay and lesbian parents" already know about their special support groups! There is no need for the PP to write about these for that limited, already informed audience. You don't go through an adoption process without already knowing all the support systems available for your special case! This is also just a lot of whining from the "gay and lesbian parents" who are facing many of the same emotional issues heterosexual adoptive parents face. But this article is all about building sympathy for the former.

We read about the Home for Little Wanderers in Boston, which places many children with homosexual couples. But nothing is said about its "Waltham House," which actually encourages transgenderism in teenagers. It's well known that the Dept. of Social Services, also connected to Waltham House, favors placement of children including those without special needs with homosexual couples. Adoptions to "gay and lesbian parents" have been going on for many years, and gave a major political weapon to homosexual activists, who could then lobby in the State House with babies and children in tow: "You can't break up our family by banning gay marriage!" (Even VoteOnMarriage bought this line.)

Last but not least, the article errs in saying that "gay marriage" was "legalized" in Massachusetts. Governor Romney issued Partner A/Partner B marriage licenses, but no laws changed to allow for this alteration of the marriage statutes.

[Coming soon: Part III on the PP article's sidebars: parents' rights, and resources.]

Contacts page: http://boston.parenthood.com/articles.html?article_id=8872
Editor: alison.murray@parenthood.com
Publisher: deirdre.wilson@parenthood.com
Email: boston.parentspaper@parenthood.com

Boston Parents' Paper Normalizing GLBT "Families" - Part I

Same-sex "parenting" is not a biological possibility. It is a twisted social construct of 21st-century secular Western values and IVF clinics.

God's construct is one man/one woman marriage with children. The failure of heterosexual marriage and parenting is the failure of man, not of God's design. (That's called "original sin".) And when it happens, our society used to be quick to label it a failure: the words used were dysfunction, abandonment, desertion; illegitimacy, etc. But now, not only are such judgments (on us all) silenced, but we may not even speak out against a "family" based on parents bonded through sexual perversions.

And worse, the July issue of the Boston Parents' Paper promotes "gay parenting" as legitimate. The very fact that the issue is addressed in the magazine means it's equated with normal parenting. Allowing such illegitimate use of the words "parenting" and "family" for such unnatural social arrangements is the first step to total acceptance of the other, the abnormal as the real thing. Yet the editor of the Parents' Paper [alison.murray@parenthood.com] dishonestly claims in her "Editor's Note" on p. 8:

"... we don't take sides on the issue of gay marriage; instead, we seek to illuminate -- to bring understanding -- to the plight of same-sex couples raising children. They face all of the same obstacles that the rest of us do, and then some. These parents are always mindful that others are watching, and sometimes disapproving, of their childrearing. The solution for many is to build their own communities of support. Read [our] article ... for some enlightening insight into how that's done."

Note the word "plight" -- the magazine clearly sides with same-sex parents. (The "plight" was very consciously chosen by the adults involved.) Anyone who doesn't accept same-sex parenting clearly is lacking understanding, is not "illuminated". The feature article "See Us As a Family" [discussed Part II of our commentary, coming soon] clearly supports and encourages such "families" by giving helpful tips, just as the magazine does for normal families.

But what of the plight of the children being brought up by "same-sex couples"! Last weekend's Boston Globe Magazine ran another article normalizing "two mommies" -- where one of the mommies actually admitted her son's verbalized yearning for a father he'll never really know. See "Two Moms and No Dad -- For Now" ("for now" meaning, that's because the lucky kids might get to meet their sperm-donor "dad" when they get older, and are past all those annoying years when they wanted him to do stuff with them.) If you don't get the heebie-jeebies when reading this, you're ABNORMAL:

When 10-year-old John was 3, he told me one morning as I was driving him to preschool that not having a dad made him feel sad. He has said this on a number of occasions over the past seven years. We do what we can to fill the gap. He's very athletic, and we take him to play baseball, soccer, basketball, and ice hockey, anywhere that men congregate to coach and cheer on their sons.
I have come to love the fathers of his teammates at the testosterone- soaked hockey rink who slap my son's helmet and say, "Way to go, John!" I love his first-grade teacher, who has become his unofficial Big Brother and who takes him to Red Sox and Celtics games, Northeastern hockey games, mini-golfing, and bowling. I love the father of one of my son's friends who takes him camping and teaches him to build rocket launchers.
These men are godsends, but sometimes I wish we could have provided my son with a real live father. The scourge of HIV ended the lives of some of my gay men friends whom I had asked to help me start a family 15 years ago, and the two straight men friends who volunteered were subsequently un-volunteered by their girlfriends. In the end, I scoured the country for donors who would agree to meet the children at a specified later date. When I became pregnant with our first child, I bought $10,000 worth of his sperm so that all our children would be genetically related.
I feel him with us much of the time. He is on the Brookline soccer fields when the mother of one of Katie's friends says, "Your donor must be an Olympian!" Katie runs like a gazelle. I feel his presence when I look at the children and see a wonderful similarity among them, despite two being born to me, and one to my partner. He is there when our Christmas cards go out, and we get back notes referring to "your beautiful children." In six years, when Katie turns 18, John will be 16 and Meg 10.
That is when they can meet him. I don't know what level of interest he will have in them or they in him. I can only hope that it will be mutual, and it will be strong.

Whose emotional well-being are the Parents' Paper and Boston Globe most concerned for -- the children's? or the adults'? And is it just a coincidence that the Boston Parents' Paper and the Boston Globe Magazine both feature articles promoting same-sex parenting in this lazy month of July?

In case you missed our posting from some months back, read this very sad piece by a young woman who was the product of an anonymous sperm donation: "The Pain of Not Knowing Your Biological Parent."

Boston Parents' Paper (offices in Jamaica Plain ... are we surprised?)

Contacts page: http://boston.parenthood.com/articles.html?article_id=8872

Editor: alison.murray@parenthood.com

Publisher: deirdre.wilson@parenthood.com

Email: boston.parentspaper@parenthood.com

Are Same-Sex Parented Embryos Imminent?

Until lately, most pro-lifers' energies were devoted to the abortion issue. Now, they're also concerned about cloning and embryonic stem-cell research. But how many are aware of this other very troubling area of research: engineering embryos from two parent cells of the same sex.

The homosexual/lesbian population is quite excited about this work. We remember hearing our child speak of a feminist science teacher announcing to the class a few years back that "two women would soon be able to have a baby together -- without a man!" Here's an article on a lesbian website foaming over this possibility: "Parthenogenesis: Do We Need Men Anymore? Creating Children Without Men or Sperm." (Of course, the gay men don't want to be left out.)

John Howard, a Massachusetts activist pushing for legislation banning this frightening research, has reminded us of his blog on this subject. We encourage you to contact him if you're interested in promoting legislation to block this looming nightmare.

Check out this article he's linked: "Three Mothers Make a Baby: Is that Sex? Yes, Or Maybe?" by Nancy L. Jones (from the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity):

Perhaps you haven’t heard, but the doubt in some men’s minds regarding the age-old question “mother-baby, father-maybe?” may one day be forever removed. Results of a scientific experiment announced in April [2004] demonstrated that no paternal role was needed for the creation of a most uncommon baby mouse.* The triumph of Japanese researchers, this mouse (named Kaguya) was the product of two female mice. In creating Kaguya, scientists combined one normal mouse egg and one very manipulated mouse egg to form a “parthenogenic” embryo, who was then implanted into a surrogate female mouse and subsequently born.* Though this process is not reproducible (as of yet) in humans, researchers are nevertheless uncovering the keys for controlling early human development and producing artificial gametes....

...If Kaguya’s mode of creation were to be extrapolated to humans, the very basis of our society would be shattered—opening nearly endless possibilities for overcoming the normal reproductive barriers for mammals that requires both male and female genetic contributions.

Recently, the President’s Council on Bioethics published a report entitled Reproduction and Responsibility: The Regulation of New Biotechnologies.* Several of the report’s recommendations are especially apropos given the Japanese experiment. Among these are prohibitions against “attempts to conceive a child by any means other than the union of egg and sperm” and prohibitions against “attempts to conceive a child by using gametes obtained from a human fetus or derived from human embryonic stem cells.”* While the relevance of the first prohibition is self-explanatory, the second is also germane because if the product of two eggs is to be viable, one of the eggs must be “immature”—which suggests the human fetus as a potential source....

Christians and those concerned about the dignity of human life and the sacredness of human procreation must urge Congress to address reprogenetic issues now! Currently our culture is struggling with what constitutes marriage…but soon the question will be expanded to what constitutes human procreation. We must stay ahead of the technology and be proactive in outlawing any form of human procreation that deviates from the combination of a single sperm and a single egg.

The Pain of Not Knowing Your Biological Parent

After we wrote yesterday's post, we saw David Frum's blog in National Review (12-17-06). He links to this intriguing article in the Washington Post, by a young woman whose "father an was anonymous sperm donor."

Read it and weep. And think of all the children coming into the world this way to single women, or women with lesbian partners, or homosexual male couples paying for donor eggs and surrogate mother services.

There really should be a rethinking of the whole reproductive technology "industry". So much evil is rising to the surface now, including the abortion side of this coin: The embryonic stem cell debate has recently focused attention on all the "leftover" embryos. And "selective reduction" of multiple pregnancies resulting from IVF is another way of killing the smallest babies.

Excerpts from the Washington Post article:
...I was angry at the idea that where donor conception is concerned, everyone focuses on the "parents" -- the adults who can make choices about their own lives. The recipient gets sympathy for wanting to have a child. The donor gets a guarantee of anonymity and absolution from any responsibility for the offspring of his "donation." As long as these adults are happy, then donor conception is a success, right?

Not so. The children born of these transactions are people, too. Those of us in the first documented generation of donor babies -- conceived in the late 1980s and early '90s, when sperm banks became more common and donor insemination began to flourish -- are coming of age, and we have something to say.

I'm here to tell you that emotionally, many of us are not keeping up. We didn't ask to be born into this situation, with its limitations and confusion. It's hypocritical of parents and medical professionals to assume that biological roots won't matter to the "products" of the cryobanks' service, when the longing for a biological relationship is what brings customers to the banks in the first place.

... when I was small, I would daydream about a tall, lean man picking me up and swinging me around in the front yard, a manly man melting at a touch from his little girl. ... My daydreams always ended abruptly; I knew I would never have a dad. As a coping mechanism, I used to think that he was dead. That made it easier. . . .

My heart went out to those others [donor children], especially after I participated in a couple of online groups. When I read some of the mothers' thoughts about their choice for conception, it made me feel degraded to nothing more than a vial of frozen sperm. It seemed to me that most of the mothers and donors give little thought to the feelings of the children who would result from their actions. It's not so much that they're coldhearted as that they don't consider what the children might think once they grow up.

Those of us created with donated sperm won't stay bubbly babies forever. We're all going to grow into adults and form opinions about the decision to bring us into the world in a way that deprives us of the basic right to know where we came from, what our history is and who both our parents are. . . .

Mary Cheney's Baby

Regarding Mary Cheney's baby ... Most conservative commentators, including James Dobson ("Two Mommies Is One Too Many," Time Magazine, 12-12-06), continue to focus on "every child needing both a father and a mother."

Speaking as a parent of both biological and adopted children, I have something else to add. I agree that ideally a child should have parents of both sexes. But beyond that, same-sex parenting burdens the child's life in other ways.

Through conscious, selfish action on the part of these parents -- in some cases, a biological parent, and in some cases not -- he or she deliberately uses modern reproductive technology to help give birth to a child who will not know one (or both) biological parent(s). It is unconscionable for an adult to knowingly inflict such pain on an innocent child.

An adopted child who does not know anything (or even much) of his or her biological parent(s) is haunted by those unknowable facts every day, from the time he or she is old enough to understand what "adoption" means. Even if the child knows just a little about one bio parent, it is still a terribly painful loss, knowing they'll likely never meet her. If the child knows nothing, there is an even greater void. It becomes an unhealing sore affecting the child in myriad, unpredictable, unverbalized ways.

Who knows who the biological father is in the case of Mary Cheney's child? It may not bother her or her "partner" if they've decided to anonymously inseminate. But it will bother the child. And if they do know who the father is, how will this man be a part of the child's life in any way that's not terribly sad for the child? Will they have some sort of "poly" household? How will they explain to their child who his/her father is?

For most adopted children, their adoption is the "happier ending" that keeps them from orphanage or a sequence of foster homes. In the case of children born to parents who give them up, adoption (without the child's knowledge of the biological parents) is a still a positive outcome. But for a child born to same-sex "parents" through modern reproductive technologies, the child is beset with another burden -- her/she is not the outcome of a natural biological process, but is an engineered product two adults who had plenty of time to reflect. How selfish on the part of these two women. Their child will soon instinctively know that something's amiss in his/her little world, and will be pained by it every day. Does this matter to the two mommies?

No one's advocating removing the child from this household. But I will say that modern reproductive technologies are not a good thing. It's hard enough for the adopted child who's already in existence. It's worse for a child whose unnatural existence was carefully planned by two (or more) people lacking the excuse that they were caught up in the passion of the moment.

(P.S.: I have a real problem with IVF for married heterosexual couples too.)

Dobson wrote: "No-fault divorce reflected our selfish determination to do what was convenient for adults, and it has been, on balance, a disaster. We should not enter into yet another untested and far-reaching social experiment, this one driven by the desires of same-sex couples to bear and raise children."