I thought of that story when reading this news brief:
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Things are about to get crowded in Cat Cora's kitchen.
The "Iron Chef America" star says on her MySpace page that she and her partner, Jennifer, are each expecting sons.
"(Jennifer) carried my embryo and I carried hers," Cora told OK Magazine. "It's like surrogating, but obviously all of our kids are equal."
The same anonymous sperm donor fathered all four children.
The 41-year-old Food Network chef says she and her 37-year-old partner will deliver their babies about three months apart. The couple already has two sons: Zoran, 5 and Caje, 22 months.
Are you my mother? How do children in this sort of "arrangement" ever answer this question? How do the women answer? "Well, I'm your genetic mother, but to make things fair she's your birth mother--we didn't want there to be any messy custody fights over you if our relationship doesn't work out. So we were willing to take the chance of creating you outside either of our wombs; if you didn't survive implantation we had some leftovers in the freezer--so don't worry! We'd have gotten to experience the wonderfulness of parenthood even if you, personally, didn't end up making it. Your father? Some guy, we never found out his name. Why do you ask? Aren't two mommies enough for you?"
And this, in our brave new world, is called love. We're supposed to applaud "parents" like these for their progressive and enlightened choices, for cooking up babies in a lab and serving up a heaping dose of "family" where family is defined as any two or more individuals who find each other temporarily satisfying and who create children to give the whole thing a sort of cachet. When they get tired of each other they'll go find someone else to act as surrogate to their future embryos; after all, studies show that it's much, much more important for children to be surrounded by happy, fulfilled adults than to have anything remotely resembling stability in their lives, right?
Meanwhile, little boys cry themselves to sleep at night because their friends have daddies and they don't; little girls wonder why other little girls have mommies, but they have dad and his newest "friend," while the woman who gave them birth got paid for carrying the embryos dad made with the eggs from his old "friend's" second cousin, who needed the cash. Even their little friends who have divorced parents have two of them--maybe Susie lives with Mom and only sees Dad on the weekend, and maybe Charlie lives with Dad and spends his summers with Mom, but they have one of each. As for their friends who have a mom and a dad who are married to each other and who live together and stay together and love their children together--well, such a thing is completely outside of the experience of the child who was created in a lab so his lesbian "moms" could extend their illusion of normalcy as far as possible.
Children are pawns in these selfish, self-centered games. It's bad enough when a man and a woman seek divorce and make their children pawns, too (except for abuse, when protecting the children may require some kind of separation) but at least the married heterosexual parents didn't start out seeking children as pawns, objects, props--but as the living sign of their parents' love for each other, the natural and expected result of the marital relationship between two people whose marital activity together is naturally capable of participation in bringing a third person into being. This cannot be said for the children manufactured by homosexual couples, who must always use a third person in the creation of the children they plan to raise--the mother the child will never know, or isn't allowed to call "mother" if she does know her; the father the child will never meet, though the child shares his father's love for butterscotch ice cream topping, his interest in history, or his great fast pitch.
Are you my mother? Are you my father? These poor little genetic orphans, made part of a political statement by their very existence, created with reckless disregard for their own well-being and safety (since there's always leftover embryos in the freezer if something goes wrong), left to wonder what life would be like in a family like the ones in books and movies and most of their classmates' lives, always missing, in a very important place inside of them, the knowledge of the parent whose genetic material was arranged for or purchased but who then walked away with no concern for these sons or daughters of their own flesh and blood.
The Catholic Church has been trying to tell us this; though this quote mentions children adopted by gay couples, the damage is the same, or even worse, when talking about children "manufactured to order" by same-sex couples:
Even though science clearly supports her position, the Catholic Church was vilified last summer when it issued a similar opinion in the document, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons." In it, the Church clearly stated its concern for the effects of gay marriage on society in general, and children in particular.
"The absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development." The Church cites the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as asserting that the best interests of the child should be put first in these situations.
Are you my mother? Are you my father? The Church says that children have the right to know, from their earliest infancy, who these people are, and to see them and interact with them daily. While tragic circumstances may deprive a child of his mother or his father, that's vastly different from having two men or two women "create" him in such a way that he will never know one of these parents, and may, given the "option" the women in the article chose, be deeply confused and conflicted about the identity of the other. I can't imagine placing such a terrible burden on a child, who deserves to know and to love his actual, biological parents, not be forced to pretend that he doesn't really need a father, or that he doesn't really need to know which of the two women he calls "mom" is actually his mother.