Ricky Martin's third child, who was abducted by a surrogate mother, attracted attention - not only because the celebrity has a child, but also because the child has a same-sex couple. Markéta Šichtařová she likened the whole situation to human trafficking, animal breeding and the purchase of fashion accessories. On the contrary, it is a completely noble act. Controversy with Markéta Šichtařová.
Ricky Martin he announced to the world that his daughter had been born. However, this beautiful event is controversial in light of that Ricky Martin lives with her husband Jwan Yosef and she took the child away from them surrogate mother based on the egg of a foreign - third - female.
This is the voice of some people who condemn the move as immoral and incorrect. In the Czech Republic, it reacted to this report from this point of view Markéta Šichtařová on her Facebook and blog.
I respect Markéta Šichtařová, Markéta Šichtařová I respect and respect as an economist, I respect her as a mother of five (wow!) and a successful author. All honor to put this together.
However, I have a different opinion on this issue, which is why I dare to argue with Šichtařová's reaction - with all due respect.
Markéta Šichtařová claims:
"They bought it for money, like buying a kitten, a parrot or an aquarium fish. They made it impossible for him to know his own mother. That child actually became a commodity. "
At the moment when we start talking about "family support", for example among politicians or "professionals", we get the following views:
Socialist it wants to increase various benefits for families with children, build "social" flats, secure state "loans for newlyweds", strengthen "maternity / parental" support and many other steps where the "state will arrange". It's an approach as if potential parents are making decisions whether to have a child depending on how well they are secured, how much "money" they have in various forms, just like when you buy a kitten, for example, and decide on a price tag.
Conservative in the sense of, for example, today's opinion anchoring of the KDU or part of the ODS, it wants to reduce taxes for families, favor parents within the pension system and the like. It is as if potential parents are deciding whether to have a child based on how well they are detained, how much "money" do they have in various forms, just like when you buy a kitten, for example, and decide on a price tag.
Neither approach in my opinion it is not correct. The state has nothing to do with "pro-family" politics, even people without families are full citizens and who is the state to allow itself to be judged; respectively - the best pro-family policy is let people be so that they can seek their happiness - both for themselves and for their loved ones.
However, this does not change the fact that the moment someone decides that they would like to have a child, they always start thinking about its financial and material provision. Thoughts like "we will have a place to live, we will have money to meet the needs of the child" are completely natural, normal and desirable, people calculate in the same way as when thinking about buying an apartment, a new television or a pet. Historically, economic data can be used to trace lower birth rates in periods with a worse economic outlook.
The argument that they "got a baby like a cat" is so odd, because it's a description of something which is a common part of thinking about starting a family throughout the population. It may seem "disgusting" to us from a moral point of view, but then it is more about hypocritical attitudebecause it is a completely rational decision. A little populist and tabloid, we could say that "everyone takes a child like a cat."
I have no doubt that Ricky Martin and his husband have decided really emotionally about having and raising a child together, just as other future parents make emotional decisions.
Non-heterosexual citizens, they calculate and decide in the same waylike most of her. To look for something else in their intentions and to humiliate them that "children buy like a cat" is them undignified discussion and argumentative delusion, by secretly declaring that people other than majority sexual orientations are "subhuman" or "irrational." It is a claim that people with a different sexual orientation are also automatically irresponsible, which is nonsense.
Did anyone think of children here?
Šichtařová further writes:
"… A child who is rejected by his own biological mother should not have been born optimally at all, he should not have been conceived. Today, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that even prenatal development fundamentally affects the child. Today, you will no longer find a psychologist who dares to claim that the emotions or stress of the mother during pregnancy will not affect the child, his own emotions and health. What can a child who is already the subject of a business contract in the womb get into the ring? ”
Getting a baby is not like getting a "fashion accessory". If someone approaches it differently, the fact that the child must "condemn", it won't change anything and given the complexity of both the financial and the procedural process of the whole process of surrogate parenting, the probability that the future parents in question will acquire the child as a "fashion accessory" is lower than with the birth of a classical - Everyone can really fuck.
It is then also in the interest of the companies that provide surrogate mothers what the "profile" of the people who participate in the whole process has, and so it is approached. The choice is challenging, from demanding psychotests through various challenging tests, so it can even be said that is more likely, that the biological mother will be "mentally more mature for the child".
Then Šichtařová writes:
"If they stood on their heads, if they loved her the most (which they certainly will be), they would never give her a female pattern of behavior. They will never advise her how to pack the first boy, they will never advise her how to buy the first bra, they will never breastfeed her. "
That's it how to pack first boy would - I assume - both dads advise managed, and so-called. The "missing female role model" that Šichtařová encounters here can be replaced by other family members, and this happens so often and usually, for example, in broken families. That is the least problem.
Furthermore, Šichtařová states:
"It was made in advance with the intention that it would not be given the best the child could have - a functioning pair of mother and father. And in that sense, it's different. "
What is most challenging about "family life" and parenthood is not the "birth" of a child (which everyone can really do), but his upbringing. The bestwhat a child can have, they are loving and caring parents, which can easily be (and still are) same - sex couples. I suppose Ricky Martin and his boyfriend went into that with the intention, with the intention of the best for their child.
And finally - the child never decides on his conception because he does not exist. He cannot have rights before conception because he is not. That is why we cannot blame anyone for its origins, congenital "defects" and others, talking about the fact that "a child has the right to XYZ before his conception" is so nonsense. What rights do we grant to a child before conception, who will defend them, and if so, by what right does a stranger dare to speak to someone in the family?
The need for choice
One of human natures - as every economist knows - is that one has unlimited desires in a world of limited resourceswhen the "market mechanisms" this help balance. One way to "balance" is progress - research and science.
This is the solution, where historically man had to choose between living naturally, fully as he was created with his sexual orientation, or having a family. As progress progresses, this need for choice disappears - and that's great; we thus make it possible to live the full life of a much larger part of the human population without suffering.
What, for example, is the impact of a secretly homosexual father from a family who secretly goes after a lover, or not, and for example, with his aggression he unleashes his anger over an unfulfilled life, on his "natural" children?
I really admire Mrs. Šichtařová for the fact that she manages to be a great mother of her 5 children, a valued professional and author, and it was certainly not always easy and in addition to happy moments, it also brought a lot of both physical and mentally demanding moments.
The fact that someone "had to choose and suffer" - however respectable - did does not establish a right to demand the same from others.
Giving a new life is the most noble and respectable act I know.
I do not know a more noble use of my money, resources, time, love than to help them create a new life. And the fact that science makes this nobility accessible to more people today is great.
Nature and nature
In discussions (not from Mrs. Šichtařová) around the matter, an argument often emerged that it was an "unnatural" process "against nature" is not true. Man originated as part of nature, our reason is the result of evolution, and the fact that we are able to understand the world around us and work with this information is our natural quality.
Man, like other animals, affects his surroundings and changes the world around him. We don't really create anything "new" - we just take what already exists in nature in various forms - and we transform it into another form by knowing natural mechanisms. In fact, there is nothing "artificial", one just constantly creates new forms of the same. Man is a part of nature, as is what he creates himself.
The fact that we have learned - among other things - to control the process of creation is thus a natural result of the functioning of our natural properties, and so this is also natural and natural.