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.
Just snipping the relevant portion of the declaration, here is the statement:
Surrogacy
The Church also takes a stand against the practice of surrogacy, through which the immensely worthy child becomes a mere object. On this point, Pope Francis’s words have a singular clarity: “The path to peace calls for respect for life, for every human life, starting with the life of the unborn child in the mother’s womb, which cannot be suppressed or turned into an object of trafficking. In this regard, I deem deplorable the practice of so-called surrogate motherhood, which represents a grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child, based on the exploitation of situations of the mother’s material needs. A child is always a gift and never the basis of a commercial contract. Consequently, I express my hope for an effort by the international community to prohibit this practice universally.”[92]
First and foremost, the practice of surrogacy violates the dignity of the child. Indeed, every child possesses an intangible dignity that is clearly expressed—albeit in a unique and differentiated way—at every stage of his or her life: from the moment of conception, at birth, growing up as a boy or girl, and becoming an adult. Because of this unalienable dignity, the child has the right to have a fully human (and not artificially induced) origin and to receive the gift of a life that manifests both the dignity of the giver and that of the receiver. Moreover, acknowledging the dignity of the human person also entails recognizing every dimension of the dignity of the conjugal union and of human procreation. Considering this, the legitimate desire to have a child cannot be transformed into a “right to a child” that fails to respect the dignity of that child as the recipient of the gift of life.[93]
Surrogacy also violates the dignity of the woman, whether she is coerced into it or chooses to subject herself to it freely. For, in this practice, the woman is detached from the child growing in her and becomes a mere means subservient to the arbitrary gain or desire of others. This contrasts in every way with the fundamental dignity of every human being and with each person’s right to be recognized always individually and never as an instrument for another.
Edit: While their statement doesn't mention it directly, and would also condemn the case you have brought up, it should probably be noted that what has brought surrogacy as a controversial topic into the public consciousness lately is specifically high profile gay male couples purchasing baby boys through surrogacy.
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.
Just snipping the relevant portion of the declaration, here is the statement:
Edit: While their statement doesn't mention it directly, and would also condemn the case you have brought up, it should probably be noted that what has brought surrogacy as a controversial topic into the public consciousness lately is specifically high profile gay male couples purchasing baby boys through surrogacy.
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.