The decisions by this particular Italian city government are in line with the Vatican's stance on IVF and related practices as detailed on their website INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN...
The point is not to (directly) harm the children...
“There is no discrimination against children,” Family Minister Eugenia Roccella told parliament when she introduced the bill in June, explaining that the children of gay couples would have access to school and medical services just like those who only have one living parent.
It is to chastise the parent(s) for their sins
The effect of the move is to limit certain rights for the non-registered parent, and requires them to have permission to carry out everyday family tasks, such as picking the child up from school, or using public services on their behalf.
Of course, according to the article the other parent is just supposed to adopt the child and then everything is great again... or is it?
The relevant bit of the Vatican's thoughts on the matter is here:
A preliminary point for the moral evaluation of such technical procedures is constituted by the consideration of the circumstances and consequences which those procedures involve in relation to the respect due the human embryo. Development of the practice of in vitro fertilization has required innumerable fertilizations and destructions of human embryos. Even today, the usual practice presupposes a hyperovulation on the part of the woman: a number of ova are withdrawn, fertilized and then cultivated in vitro for some days. Usually not all are transferred into the genital tracts of the woman; some embryos, generally called "spare ", are destroyed or frozen. On occasion, some of the implanted embryos are sacrificed for various eugenic, economic or psychological reasons. Such deliberate destruction of human beings or their utilization for different purposes to the detriment of their integrity and life is contrary to the doctrine on procured abortion already recalled. The connection between in vitro fertilization and the voluntary destruction of human embryos occurs too often. This is significant: through these procedures, with apparently contrary purposes, life and death are subjected to the decision of man, who thus sets himself up as the giver of life and death by decree. This dynamic of violence and domination may remain unnoticed by those very individuals who, in wishing to utilize this procedure, become subject to it themselves. The facts recorded and the cold logic which links them must be taken into consideration for a moral judgment on IVF and ET (in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer): the abortion-mentality which has made this procedure possible thus leads, whether one wants it or not, to man's domination over the life and death of his fellow human beings and can lead to a system of radical eugenics.
So as you can see, lgbt+ and hetero couples suffering with fertility problems are together leading humanity down the darkest of paths. This is just speculation on my part, but I would not put it past that particular city government or any other like it to do more to inflict harm upon the lives of such people if they could.
Oh, look. It got worse: ‘The state says our kids don’t exist’ - how LGBT life is changing in Italy. What a terrible speculation I’d made, and how quickly it came through. From the article:
At the time of our interview they told us that the move had so far deprived their twins of Italian citizenship and means they would have difficulties having access to the country's free health care system and nursery schools.
I don't love surrogacy but I think it's hard to say that it's explicitly different from other "industries" that take advantage of young people and care little for the long term impacts on their...
I don't love surrogacy but I think it's hard to say that it's explicitly different from other "industries" that take advantage of young people and care little for the long term impacts on their health. I think there are ethical ways to do surrogacy that don't involve a surrogate being a victim, even if there may be other concerns - American women carrying Chinese infants who gain citizenship from their birth probably aren't victims but the kids arguably are.
At the same time, any adoption has trauma for the child. There may be a threshold under which that trauma is absolutely worth it, there almost certainly is. But we treat adoption sometimes as the best of solutions, not harm reduction, which I think is more accurate to describe what it is
It's not the similar from sex work and that I think it should probably be allowed because we sell our bodies in so many different ways all the time and we should have the freedom to do that. But the real solution to me is removing the financial desperation that would make somebody do so under duress. Which means making that so for everyone.
It's complicated - yes for some that money would be a huge deal, it's also not likely enough to quit working entirely and just have one job, pregnancy, unless they're getting additional payments....
It's complicated - yes for some that money would be a huge deal, it's also not likely enough to quit working entirely and just have one job, pregnancy, unless they're getting additional payments. (especially as successful pregnancy history is a common qualification). And if we (the government) take away that money, we're not really helping them either. There are some surrogates who seem to really enjoy being pregnant and helping others out.
It's the sex work argument all over again. It can and maybe nearly always is exploitative but it's hard for me to say it's fundamentally different than a large number of other jobs that exploit young, physically healthy people into using their body for the benefit of others. Or maybe it's the organ donation argument - but it seems to be worse to ask someone to surrogate for free.
I don't particularly like surrogacy but I'd rather see it regulated - requirements to cover quality health insurance for a period of time, right to abortion, etc. - than banned outright at this point. If we had less income inequality and less necessity for exploitation for survival, I'd be more willing to ban paid surrogacy.
(We're not far off each other here, and I really appreciate the convos)
A slight note that lottery winners, while more likely to file bankruptcy than non-winners, mostly do not lose all their money and friends and the like. There's a misattributed and apparently fully...
A slight note that lottery winners, while more likely to file bankruptcy than non-winners, mostly do not lose all their money and friends and the like. There's a misattributed and apparently fully false 70% go bankrupt stat going around and seems to have stuck in most people's minds.
I would love a post to lose my temper about religion, because this absolutely makes my blood boil. My closest friends, another lesbian couple, just gave birth after years of IFV. The thought of...
I would love a post to lose my temper about religion, because this absolutely makes my blood boil.
My closest friends, another lesbian couple, just gave birth after years of IFV. The thought of one of them losing parental rights like this is so painful.
Someone I used to know committed a heinous crime, for which he received a nearly three-decade sentence in prison. A year or so into his sentence, he sent me a very happy letter about how he had...
Someone I used to know committed a heinous crime, for which he received a nearly three-decade sentence in prison. A year or so into his sentence, he sent me a very happy letter about how he had found God in prison and had been saved. He knows I'm a second-generation atheist.
So that is what I'd like to have a big atheist rant about some day: This idea that people who commit horrific crimes become captive audiences to missionaries and end up in heaven, while nonreligious people who never commit horrific acts and therefore never find religion will be tortured in hell for eternity. Obviously, I don't believe it is the case, but it still makes me sick to think how many people think this is true and just.
Right there with ya, I'm going straight to hell with my trans wife for existing, but genocidal leaders that pray are A-okay. Cool. Cool cool cool cool.
Right there with ya, I'm going straight to hell with my trans wife for existing, but genocidal leaders that pray are A-okay.
I am angry as I fear what if Padua also has hospital visitation policies of 'family only'. E.g., one of my concerns is back when gay people couldn't marry, and in Canada, if one were to be in a...
I am angry as I fear what if Padua also has hospital visitation policies of 'family only'.
E.g., one of my concerns is back when gay people couldn't marry, and in Canada, if one were to be in a hospital their partner wouldn't be allowed to visit as they 'weren't family' e.g., married.
So now in Padua and probably soon to come other cities, when a child is in a hospital suffering or even dying, will their 2nd mother not be allowed to visit? And if that is the case, how is this 'not harming children'?
And of course how is it not harming children to have them indoctrinated to believe they were born from sin?
That's good point. And likewise if both parents were to die, the grandparents on that one side of the family wouldn't legally be considered family as well. Or if the parents separated...visitation...
That's good point. And likewise if both parents were to die, the grandparents on that one side of the family wouldn't legally be considered family as well. Or if the parents separated...visitation rights... So many repercussions.
I really hope that it's overturned and that someone who isn't willing to impose their religious beliefs onto others is elected.
It's really sad that Italian's catholic heritage has been used to discriminate against same-sex couples. Spain has gone the opposite direction and has some of the best LGBTQ+ legal protections in...
It's really sad that Italian's catholic heritage has been used to discriminate against same-sex couples. Spain has gone the opposite direction and has some of the best LGBTQ+ legal protections in the world. I guess this is just the backlash to queer people becoming increasingly mainstream. At least younger generations are still generally more queer friendly.
There's no shot they win a majority, but they will likely ally with PP in order to govern jointly, but the bigger party should hopefully keep them in check, but we will see.
There's no shot they win a majority, but they will likely ally with PP in order to govern jointly, but the bigger party should hopefully keep them in check, but we will see.
Not sure what to say except that this is such a hateful policy that the Italian govt is using to distract from other problems (such as the economy and widespread corruption, especially in the...
Not sure what to say except that this is such a hateful policy that the Italian govt is using to distract from other problems (such as the economy and widespread corruption, especially in the south).
I hope that the EU makes the 200bn Euro in recovery funds for Italy conditional on the protection and preservation of existing LGBT+ rights.
Man, reading this makes me appreciate the fact that I'm from the US - an enlightened society where we value science and social rights, and would never use religion/superstition to influence a...
Man, reading this makes me appreciate the fact that I'm from the US - an enlightened society where we value science and social rights, and would never use religion/superstition to influence a person's human rights or impact legislation...whoops.
I really do wonder for how many more years/generations humanity will let religions and those that truly believe in them hold back the rest of the world's population from moving forward... I truly find it bananas that it's still a thing in this day and age, and sadly feel like it will take something huge and terrible to finally make a lasting impact. Does it really have to get to the point where atheists/agnostics have to go full-on militant to fight this battle?
I'm actually about to post a different article about the impact of these policies. It's tragic. The religious fundamentalists need to be stopped in their quest for power. They are seeking to rule...
I'm actually about to post a different article about the impact of these policies. It's tragic.
The religious fundamentalists need to be stopped in their quest for power. They are seeking to rule society and if they succeed, we will recreate the experience of the Puritans running Massachusetts or the former religious governments in Europe. Atheists, LGTBQ people, other minorities will suffer a lot. Women will be oppresseed. Leopards will eat faces for the the minority religion members of that political coalition such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons who will also be persecuted. After that, Catholics and Fundamentalist Protestants will turn on each other.
I would encourage atheists and agnostics not to ignore the existence of progressive adherents of religions, including sects like the Quakers who have always been at the forefront of struggles for inclusion of minorities and the disadvantaged. It is not necessary to like or approve or agree with them, but speaking politically, there are a significant number of members of progressive churches and Reformed Synagogues/Temples who are politically active and would support your project if they didn't feel excluded. They are also already fighting fundamentalist political success in their own ways and for their own reasons. To the Fundamentalists they are apostate and the enemy as much as atheists are.
In that case, I look forward to reading the article. I will say it's gotten a bit better in my lifetime in at least one aspect. When I was growing up in the '90s, it was fairly dodgy to admit to...
In that case, I look forward to reading the article.
I will say it's gotten a bit better in my lifetime in at least one aspect. When I was growing up in the '90s, it was fairly dodgy to admit to anyone that you were atheist/agnostic. I feel like it's far more commonplace now, and people would probably not even blink at that confession. So there's that.
Of course what we have now, as with any of the big issues that split society, are plenty of echo chambers on either side, but with very little positive real life tangible effects. From the atheist/agnostic pov that is (and, only speaking from my personal opinion, in the US, from what I personally see and foresee... naturally, YMMV)
Italy definitely has progress to make in terms of LGBT rights, but it doesn't seem too crazy to only want the biological parents on the birth certificate. Though, ultimately it's wrong to use this...
Italy definitely has progress to make in terms of LGBT rights, but it doesn't seem too crazy to only want the biological parents on the birth certificate. Though, ultimately it's wrong to use this to deprive the non-biological parent of full rights over the child; it should be viewed as adoption where the rights over the child are transferred to the adoptive parents (though here it would be one biological and one adoptive).
Let me give you my specific example. My mothers were lesbians. In the early 80's sperm banks existed, but were only accessible to married heterosexual couples. The one of my moms who wanted to...
Let me give you my specific example. My mothers were lesbians. In the early 80's sperm banks existed, but were only accessible to married heterosexual couples. The one of my moms who wanted to bear me herself found a willing gay guy who would provide a small jam jar of sperm to make this happen. They never had sex. It was never part of any social or legal contract that he would be part of my life. My birth certificate says "unknown father", as my non-bio mom's name couldn't be put on there. She's still not legally my mom, since even in California, that wouldn't be allowed until the late 90's, by which point I was nearing adulthood and the legal rights were less of a concern.
Should that anonymous gay guy be on my birth certificate? I've never met him and no one wanted him to have legal rights or responsibilities regarding me. What is a birth certificate for, that he should be on it?
Honestly we should probably just include biological AND legal parents on the certificate. Medical reasons, ancestry reasons, and more I'm probably unaware of. You wouldn't want a couple getting...
Honestly we should probably just include biological AND legal parents on the certificate. Medical reasons, ancestry reasons, and more I'm probably unaware of. You wouldn't want a couple getting together and having kids, only to find out later that one of the biological parents of one spouse is the same person as the biological parent of the other spouse, and they just didn't know because the information was lost as "unknown father" or something. It's of course not likely, but possible.
Forgive me of there's some other system that has this information readily available to the public, and I'm just blissfully unaware.
I feel like "The government should have a legally certified and tracked genetic lineage of all of its citizens." is a slightly more extreme stance than many people would agree with? It's...
I feel like "The government should have a legally certified and tracked genetic lineage of all of its citizens." is a slightly more extreme stance than many people would agree with? It's definitely not what's currently happening, as many couples who opt for using sperm banks report the man who's going to be a parent to the child as the father on the birth certificate. And I'm not going to go into the topic of children of infidelity, though it's certainly another way that the person on the birth certificate as "father" may not be the person who contributed half the genes to the creation of the child.
Sperm donor anonymity has led to some major issues as well! See that doctor who used his own sperm for who even knows how many children. I don't know the right answer to balance the rights of the...
Sperm donor anonymity has led to some major issues as well! See that doctor who used his own sperm for who even knows how many children.
I don't know the right answer to balance the rights of the child to know their medical history and the rights of adoptive parents (of whatever sort)
The decisions by this particular Italian city government are in line with the Vatican's stance on IVF and related practices as detailed on their website INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION REPLIES TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF THE DAY. (tl;dr below)
The point is not to (directly) harm the children...
It is to chastise the parent(s) for their sins
Of course, according to the article the other parent is just supposed to adopt the child and then everything is great again... or is it?
The relevant bit of the Vatican's thoughts on the matter is here:
So as you can see, lgbt+ and hetero couples suffering with fertility problems are together leading humanity down the darkest of paths. This is just speculation on my part, but I would not put it past that particular city government or any other like it to do more to inflict harm upon the lives of such people if they could.
Oh, look. It got worse: ‘The state says our kids don’t exist’ - how LGBT life is changing in Italy. What a terrible speculation I’d made, and how quickly it came through.
From the article:
I don't love surrogacy but I think it's hard to say that it's explicitly different from other "industries" that take advantage of young people and care little for the long term impacts on their health. I think there are ethical ways to do surrogacy that don't involve a surrogate being a victim, even if there may be other concerns - American women carrying Chinese infants who gain citizenship from their birth probably aren't victims but the kids arguably are.
At the same time, any adoption has trauma for the child. There may be a threshold under which that trauma is absolutely worth it, there almost certainly is. But we treat adoption sometimes as the best of solutions, not harm reduction, which I think is more accurate to describe what it is
It's not the similar from sex work and that I think it should probably be allowed because we sell our bodies in so many different ways all the time and we should have the freedom to do that. But the real solution to me is removing the financial desperation that would make somebody do so under duress. Which means making that so for everyone.
It's complicated - yes for some that money would be a huge deal, it's also not likely enough to quit working entirely and just have one job, pregnancy, unless they're getting additional payments. (especially as successful pregnancy history is a common qualification). And if we (the government) take away that money, we're not really helping them either. There are some surrogates who seem to really enjoy being pregnant and helping others out.
It's the sex work argument all over again. It can and maybe nearly always is exploitative but it's hard for me to say it's fundamentally different than a large number of other jobs that exploit young, physically healthy people into using their body for the benefit of others. Or maybe it's the organ donation argument - but it seems to be worse to ask someone to surrogate for free.
I don't particularly like surrogacy but I'd rather see it regulated - requirements to cover quality health insurance for a period of time, right to abortion, etc. - than banned outright at this point. If we had less income inequality and less necessity for exploitation for survival, I'd be more willing to ban paid surrogacy.
(We're not far off each other here, and I really appreciate the convos)
A slight note that lottery winners, while more likely to file bankruptcy than non-winners, mostly do not lose all their money and friends and the like. There's a misattributed and apparently fully false 70% go bankrupt stat going around and seems to have stuck in most people's minds.
I would love a post to lose my temper about religion, because this absolutely makes my blood boil.
My closest friends, another lesbian couple, just gave birth after years of IFV. The thought of one of them losing parental rights like this is so painful.
And for what? So sky daddy doesn't get mad?
Infuriating. Sickening.
Someone I used to know committed a heinous crime, for which he received a nearly three-decade sentence in prison. A year or so into his sentence, he sent me a very happy letter about how he had found God in prison and had been saved. He knows I'm a second-generation atheist.
So that is what I'd like to have a big atheist rant about some day: This idea that people who commit horrific crimes become captive audiences to missionaries and end up in heaven, while nonreligious people who never commit horrific acts and therefore never find religion will be tortured in hell for eternity. Obviously, I don't believe it is the case, but it still makes me sick to think how many people think this is true and just.
Right there with ya, I'm going straight to hell with my trans wife for existing, but genocidal leaders that pray are A-okay.
Cool. Cool cool cool cool.
I am angry as I fear what if Padua also has hospital visitation policies of 'family only'.
E.g., one of my concerns is back when gay people couldn't marry, and in Canada, if one were to be in a hospital their partner wouldn't be allowed to visit as they 'weren't family' e.g., married.
So now in Padua and probably soon to come other cities, when a child is in a hospital suffering or even dying, will their 2nd mother not be allowed to visit? And if that is the case, how is this 'not harming children'?
And of course how is it not harming children to have them indoctrinated to believe they were born from sin?
Or if the 'official' parent dies, will the only remaining parent lose custody? It's horrible and it's bound to happen
That's good point. And likewise if both parents were to die, the grandparents on that one side of the family wouldn't legally be considered family as well. Or if the parents separated...visitation rights... So many repercussions.
I really hope that it's overturned and that someone who isn't willing to impose their religious beliefs onto others is elected.
It's really sad that Italian's catholic heritage has been used to discriminate against same-sex couples. Spain has gone the opposite direction and has some of the best LGBTQ+ legal protections in the world. I guess this is just the backlash to queer people becoming increasingly mainstream. At least younger generations are still generally more queer friendly.
I wouldn't hold my breath on that one... considering a far-right party is poised to win big in the Spanish election today and possibly win a majority.
There's no shot they win a majority, but they will likely ally with PP in order to govern jointly, but the bigger party should hopefully keep them in check, but we will see.
Not sure what to say except that this is such a hateful policy that the Italian govt is using to distract from other problems (such as the economy and widespread corruption, especially in the south).
I hope that the EU makes the 200bn Euro in recovery funds for Italy conditional on the protection and preservation of existing LGBT+ rights.
This just seems like such a weird thing to do. Who are you protecting by doing this?
The Catholic Church.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/23/europe/italian-lesbian-births-scli-intl/index.html
Man, reading this makes me appreciate the fact that I'm from the US - an enlightened society where we value science and social rights, and would never use religion/superstition to influence a person's human rights or impact legislation...whoops.
I really do wonder for how many more years/generations humanity will let religions and those that truly believe in them hold back the rest of the world's population from moving forward... I truly find it bananas that it's still a thing in this day and age, and sadly feel like it will take something huge and terrible to finally make a lasting impact. Does it really have to get to the point where atheists/agnostics have to go full-on militant to fight this battle?
I'm actually about to post a different article about the impact of these policies. It's tragic.
The religious fundamentalists need to be stopped in their quest for power. They are seeking to rule society and if they succeed, we will recreate the experience of the Puritans running Massachusetts or the former religious governments in Europe. Atheists, LGTBQ people, other minorities will suffer a lot. Women will be oppresseed. Leopards will eat faces for the the minority religion members of that political coalition such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons who will also be persecuted. After that, Catholics and Fundamentalist Protestants will turn on each other.
I would encourage atheists and agnostics not to ignore the existence of progressive adherents of religions, including sects like the Quakers who have always been at the forefront of struggles for inclusion of minorities and the disadvantaged. It is not necessary to like or approve or agree with them, but speaking politically, there are a significant number of members of progressive churches and Reformed Synagogues/Temples who are politically active and would support your project if they didn't feel excluded. They are also already fighting fundamentalist political success in their own ways and for their own reasons. To the Fundamentalists they are apostate and the enemy as much as atheists are.
In that case, I look forward to reading the article.
I will say it's gotten a bit better in my lifetime in at least one aspect. When I was growing up in the '90s, it was fairly dodgy to admit to anyone that you were atheist/agnostic. I feel like it's far more commonplace now, and people would probably not even blink at that confession. So there's that.
Of course what we have now, as with any of the big issues that split society, are plenty of echo chambers on either side, but with very little positive real life tangible effects. From the atheist/agnostic pov that is (and, only speaking from my personal opinion, in the US, from what I personally see and foresee... naturally, YMMV)
Italy definitely has progress to make in terms of LGBT rights, but it doesn't seem too crazy to only want the biological parents on the birth certificate. Though, ultimately it's wrong to use this to deprive the non-biological parent of full rights over the child; it should be viewed as adoption where the rights over the child are transferred to the adoptive parents (though here it would be one biological and one adoptive).
Let me give you my specific example. My mothers were lesbians. In the early 80's sperm banks existed, but were only accessible to married heterosexual couples. The one of my moms who wanted to bear me herself found a willing gay guy who would provide a small jam jar of sperm to make this happen. They never had sex. It was never part of any social or legal contract that he would be part of my life. My birth certificate says "unknown father", as my non-bio mom's name couldn't be put on there. She's still not legally my mom, since even in California, that wouldn't be allowed until the late 90's, by which point I was nearing adulthood and the legal rights were less of a concern.
Should that anonymous gay guy be on my birth certificate? I've never met him and no one wanted him to have legal rights or responsibilities regarding me. What is a birth certificate for, that he should be on it?
Honestly we should probably just include biological AND legal parents on the certificate. Medical reasons, ancestry reasons, and more I'm probably unaware of. You wouldn't want a couple getting together and having kids, only to find out later that one of the biological parents of one spouse is the same person as the biological parent of the other spouse, and they just didn't know because the information was lost as "unknown father" or something. It's of course not likely, but possible.
Forgive me of there's some other system that has this information readily available to the public, and I'm just blissfully unaware.
I feel like "The government should have a legally certified and tracked genetic lineage of all of its citizens." is a slightly more extreme stance than many people would agree with? It's definitely not what's currently happening, as many couples who opt for using sperm banks report the man who's going to be a parent to the child as the father on the birth certificate. And I'm not going to go into the topic of children of infidelity, though it's certainly another way that the person on the birth certificate as "father" may not be the person who contributed half the genes to the creation of the child.
Sperm donor anonymity has led to some major issues as well! See that doctor who used his own sperm for who even knows how many children.
I don't know the right answer to balance the rights of the child to know their medical history and the rights of adoptive parents (of whatever sort)