During her testimony Georgulas stated she is not the biological mother of James or his twin brother Jude. She purchased eggs from a biological stranger. This illuminates a well-known truth in the world of family and parenthood: biological parents are the most connected to, invested in, and protective of their children.

That’s why parental rights are a thing, and why parents—not the government—should have authority over medical decisions and education. It’s one reason biological parents are the two people to whom children have a natural right.

If we were serious about preventing abuse and neglect, we would incentivize biological parents raising their children together in a life-long union. That was the historical function of marriage before it became just one more vehicle of adult fulfillment. Not only do these two adults grant children the biological identity that they crave, but they also maximize child thriving.

For non-biologically related caregivers, the statistics flip. This is why there’s extensive screening and vetting of adoptive parents. While a biological father is usually the safest man in a child’s life, statistically, an unrelated cohabiting male is the most dangerous figure in a child’s life. (Google the words “mother’s boyfriend” and you’ll know what I’m talking about.) It’s true that there are abusive biological fathers and sacrificial step fathers, but those are the exceptions, not the rule.

Unfortunately, it’s not just unrelated men who pose a threat to children. Studies on step-mothers reveal this type of disadvantage is an equal-opportunity occurrence. Three Princeton economists found that statistically, children who live with a stepmother have less health care, less education and less money spent on their food than children raised by their biological mothers. As angry as it makes our “love makes a family” culture, for parenthood, biology matters.

The Fertility Industry Increases Child Abuse Risks

Precisely because they recognize that biology matters to child safety, adoption professionals have established extensive measures to screen out unfit potential parents. I’ve written elsewhere on why adoption supports children’s rights while donor-conception violates children’s rights, but here’s the Spark Notes version: adoption functions as an institution to meet the needs of children, while third-party reproduction functions as a market to meet the desires of adults.

Adoptive parents rightly undergo significant screening and vetting prior to placement. There’s no screening for adults who are using donor egg or sperm. Interestingly, the only study to compare outcomes between donor-conceived children (missing one biological parent) and adopted children (missing both biological parents) found that adopted children fare better (although neither group did as well as those raised by both biological parents). Some of that disparity can be attributed to the screening of potential parents. <<

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/24/why-its-probably-not-a-coincidence-that-the-mother-transing-her-7-year-old-isnt-biologically-related/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4385482&forum_id=2#39150288)

also libs: SEPARATE ALL FAMILIES

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4385482&forum_id=2#39146298)

Libs and jews are just so cartoonishly evil it's like they are taunting us with their inhumanity. Like how can anyone read this and not feel physiological revulsion in their gut

This is what I was referring to in my poast the other day about how we need to frame libs evil in the context of their intentions for people's children. In the words of the great Sam Hyde - they want your children brainwashed, raped, and killed, and they think it's funny. And that you're Evil for resisting this

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4385482&forum_id=2#39146201)

Note 4. ...The main thrust of propaganda in our society is in favor of the stated values. The main reason why these values have become, so to speak, the official values of our society is that they are useful to the industrial system. Violence is discouraged because it disrupts the functioning of the system. Racism is discouraged because ethnic conflicts also disrupt the system, and discrimination wastes the talents of minority-group members who could be useful to the system. Poverty must be “cured” because the under-class causes problems for the system and contact with the underclass lowers the morale of the other classes. Women are encouraged to have careers because their talents are useful to the system and, more importantly, because by having regular jobs women become better integrated into the system and tied directly to it rather than to their families. This helps to weaken family solidarity. (The leaders of the system say they want to strengthen the family, but they really mean is that they want the family to serve as an effective tool for socializing children in accord with the needs of the system. We argue in paragraphs 51, 52 that the system cannot afford to let the family or other small-scale social groups be strong or autonomous.) <<

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4385482&forum_id=2#39146340)

"Women are encouraged to have careers because their talents are useful to the system and, more importantly, because by having regular jobs women become better integrated into the system and tied directly to it rather than to their families. This helps to weaken family solidarity. (The leaders of the system say they want to strengthen the family, but they really mean is that they want the family to serve as an effective tool for socializing children in accord with the needs of the system."

Strange how libs realize this, but still come to the conclusions that they do

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4385482&forum_id=2#39146378)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4385482&forum_id=2#39146371)

*blank stare*.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4385482&forum_id=2#39147240)

Teacher: "have you considered private school"

Me: lololololol

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4385482&forum_id=2#39150584)

====

You may argue that genetic bias is indelible in human nature. Social mixing would not only disturb the comfort of this fatalistic attitude, but also use genetic chauvinism for ends beyond mere economic equality, providing grounds for a compassion that goes beyond the wellbeing of our immediate families. Since any man might be your biological brother, any woman your biological sister, concern for them would have to be expressed by a concern for a common good.

A second effect of social mixing would be to generate a strong interest in the health and wellbeing of expectant mothers, which would ultimately translate into an interest in the social and biological welfare of everyone. Since any child might end up our own, we would provide the social and educational environments that would best enhance their development. Ghettos and slums would be an eyesore for us all. Poverty, drug, and alcohol addiction are already everyone’s problem, but this fact would be more meaningful than it is now. The child of that addict might be our biological child. Every victim of a drive-by shooting might be a member of our genetic family. Each of us would see the link between our fate and the fate of others.

Third, the superficial connection between colour and culture would be severed. Racism would be wiped out. Racial ghettos would disappear; children of all races would live in all neighbourhoods. Any white child could have black parents and any black child could have white parents. Imagine the US president flanked by his or her black, white, Asian and Hispanic children. Imagine if social mixing had been in effect 100 years ago in Germany, Bosnia, Palestine or the Congo. Racial, religious, and social genocide would not have happened.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4385482&forum_id=2#39150653)

Isn't this an argument for ethnic homogeneity in nations? Don't people see their ethnic groups as family and care for them more?

nyuug says this about S. Korea all the time -- they they feel like a big family all in it together.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4385482&forum_id=2#39150676)

Also, no thought that this is the kind of policy that could have normal, employed, productive members of society decide that it's time to stop working and go burn down some federal buildings.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4385482&forum_id=2#39150694)

link

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4385482&forum_id=2#39153033)

still, the fact that Snopes calls it "False" is an indication that it's probably true.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4385482&forum_id=2#39153187)

Oh, is it? I was under the impression that that was the type of diversity that libs constantly squawk about and demand to have at any cost.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4385482&forum_id=2#39153707)