Without reading the article, what's wrong with surrogacy? As a man, if I wanted children, this would definitely a way that I would consider going about it. Pay a woman to have my child, likely conceived through in-vitro fertilization, and have her renounce all claims to parentage for it. And then potentially find a long-term girlfriend or wife, now that they would have no claim whatsoever over the child and wouldn't be able to threaten me with taking them away from me for cash and prizes.
I don't care much for Christiano Ronaldo, but I will always respect him for going about it this way. He knew that as a millionaire (or is he a billionaire?), women would try to parasitize him for his money through any means necessary, so he took steps ahead of time to avoid the worst case scenario.
A child is always a gift and never the basis of a commercial contract.
This sounds like a rather clear condemnation of abortion and alimony/child support. I wonder why he didn't bother to specify that he was against those practices.
Moreover, acknowledging the dignity of the human person also entails recognizing every dimension of the dignity of the conjugal union and of human procreation.
As long as no-fault divorce exists and there remains no penalties for breaking your holy sworn vows of loyalty and support until death, as long as the union can be freely broken for cash and prizes, there exists no "dignity" in the "conjugal union". It's nothing more than a thin façade, easily ignored when convenient.
Although I tend to have a somewhat dim view of homosexual couples, I don't really have anything against allowing them to make use of a surrogate mother or a sperm donor, in the case of lesbians. I strongly condemn paedophilia, and hope that any "parents" of children who catch monkey pox are flayed and hung in the town square, and I recognize that children raised by homosexual parents will very likely have a far less balanced upbringing than those raised by both a mother and a father, but I still don't overly mind them hiring the services of someone from the opposite sex to enable them to have children who are related by blood. Their children will not necessarily turn into degenerates, as long as the parents aren't too far gone themselves.
And as far as I'm concerned, surrogacy contracts are a legitimate agreement between consenting adults, and a good option for women to earn money when they are not actively working a full-time job. It is up to them to decide whether they are willing to carry a child that they will have no part in raising, along with the restrictions that they will have to impose upon themselves during the duration of the pregnancy, such as no smoking, no alcohol, no drugs, and having a balanced diet. Since the concept of a "holy matrimony" has been extinct from the Western world for so many decades, I disagree with him that surrogacy is a practice that should be banned.
Without reading the article, what's wrong with surrogacy? As a man, if I wanted children, this would definitely a way that I would consider going about it. Pay a woman to have my child, likely conceived through in-vitro fertilization, and have her renounce all claims to parentage for it. And then potentially find a long-term girlfriend or wife, now that they would have no claim whatsoever over the child and wouldn't be able to threaten me with taking them away from me for cash and prizes.
I don't care much for Christiano Ronaldo, but I will always respect him for going about it this way. He knew that as a millionaire (or is he a billionaire?), women would try to parasitize him for his money through any means necessary, so he took steps ahead of time to avoid the worst case scenario.
This sounds like a rather clear condemnation of abortion and alimony/child support. I wonder why he didn't bother to specify that he was against those practices.
As long as no-fault divorce exists and there remains no penalties for breaking your holy sworn vows of loyalty and support until death, as long as the union can be freely broken for cash and prizes, there exists no "dignity" in the "conjugal union". It's nothing more than a thin façade, easily ignored when convenient.
Although I tend to have a somewhat dim view of homosexual couples, I don't really have anything against allowing them to make use of a surrogate mother or a sperm donor, in the case of lesbians. I strongly condemn paedophilia, and hope that any "parents" of children who catch monkey pox are flayed and hung in the town square, and I recognize that children raised by homosexual parents will very likely have a far less balanced upbringing than those raised by both a mother and a father, but I still don't overly mind them hiring the services of someone from the opposite sex to enable them to have children who are related by blood. Their children will not necessarily turn into degenerates, as long as the parents aren't too far gone themselves.
And as far as I'm concerned, surrogacy contracts are a legitimate agreement between consenting adults, and a good option for women to earn money when they are not actively working a full-time job. It is up to them to decide whether they are willing to carry a child that they will have no part in raising, along with the restrictions that they will have to impose upon themselves during the duration of the pregnancy, such as no smoking, no alcohol, no drugs, and having a balanced diet. Since the concept of a "holy matrimony" has been extinct from the Western world for so many decades, I disagree with him that surrogacy is a practice that should be banned.
Nitpick, but since alimony is spousal support (not child support) it's not related to children or that proclamation one way or the other.
Pretty sure the Church has always condemned abortion.
Well, it's pope Francis. I forget if he was actually against abortion or not. I wouldn't be surprised if he supported it.
To play the advocate most infernal ...
I have issue with the point as stated in paragraph 48. Was not Mary, in fact, the surrogate of God, the Father?
Is not St. Joseph venerated as the "Holy Stepfather"?