Gay Adoption and Surrogacy w/ Trent Horn
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- 📺 Full Episode: • Reviewing Trent's ABOR...
Trent talks about other lesser considered right that a child has prior to birth.
🟣 Join Us on Locals (before we get banned on YT): mattfradd.loca...
🖥️ Website: pintswithaquin...
🟢 Rumble: rumble.com/c/p...
👕 Merch: shop.pintswith...
🚫 FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔵 Facebook: / mattfradd
📸 Instagram: / mattfradd
We get a small kick back from affiliate links.
Surrogacy is the real Handmaid's Tale scenario.
Yes 🙌🏼
Yet it was the Christians who have tried to ban it...
Yes totally - commodifying women’s wombs it’s so sad
Have you actually read the novel? The society is extremely Christian and directly base their impregnation ceremony on Abraham's impregnation of Sarah's handmaid. They had the technology to perform this insemination artificially but reject that because of their religion. Seems like they align fairly well with your philosophy.
Such an accurate comment!
I'm with you Trent! Babies need that bond with mother's while developing ❤️🙏
source: mah feelings
It’s up to the surrogate if she wants to bond the baby she gave birth.
This is fascinating. How amazing it is to see what a liberal mindset would see as nit-picking and sex-hating now show itself as consistent and rational in Catholicism's philosophical and theological light.
A child has a right to a father and a mother.
I would go further and say the child has a right not to be given to two you know what.
@@mrtee3988 …to two conservative Christian’s who will shun it in case it stops believing or turn out to be gay…?! I couldn’t agree more.
@@maxmaximus2608 repent
@@mrtee3988as a Hindu, a child has a right not be given to bigots.
…or no family at all if that family makeup doesn’t fit your ideology?
Would you deny a child happiness if two men or two women wanted to adopt it?
there's only one answer to this: babies have a RIGHT to one mother and one father. this right trumps all other rights of adults.
Congratulations, this is the stupidest thing I've read today
That’s doesn’t address ivf. Pretty sure denying ivf is same as deny all the people conceived through ivf the right to exist.
@@newjerseylion4804 ivf wrong. no one claims the people conceived via ivf do not have the right to life any more than anyone claims children conceived through rape don't have the right to life!
I'm a Catholic with SSA and I hope to one day adopt kids in need of adopting. It is part of being pro-life to ensure children have a stable home and a family and are able to flourish and know God. It is certainly more pro-life than denying people with SSA and keeping kids homeless because I am attracted to the same sex, as if that would impede my ability to be a father.
While I understand and empathize with your desire to be a father, when you adopt a child you necessarily remove the possibility of a man and woman adopting that child. Foster care is a frequently overlooked option and unlike adoption agencies, these kids are in crisis. Consider also giving your time and talents to youth programs.
@BuggyrcobraAya I think you are doing the right thing, but I don't think you'll find much support in a Catholic comment section.
Good on you!
I remember having a conversation about surrogacy with my girlfriend, an Eastern Catholic RCIA. I was unsure about whether it was fully immoral, and was trying to reason whether it was wrong for a woman to get pregnant, with their husband, in a desire to give an infertile couple a Child. I was thinking "it's a great act of Charity! You give your own body so that someone else may have a child." She rightly quoted the Eastern Catechism on the subject at me and pointed out, even in a charitable situation, it commodities the child as some object to give.
On the GIFT system mentioned: even if it fulfills and functions in the same manner as the standard marital act, it still is a perversion of the act: you are still trying and alter the act contrary to its natural process. It is imitating that process yes, but so is two male "family" raising a child.
I agree with the arguments here for the most part. But how can you argue that no one has the right to another human being when it comes to surrogacy while at the same time saying that babies have the right to their mothers?
because babies need an agency from which they can be born, ie. their mothers? while with adults, you have a range of options to "create" a baby. clearly they're not apples to apples comparison
@@thegreyskymorning That's a really interesting response! If we could use a synthetic womb instead of a mother would that remove the baby's need for it's mother and thus remove that right?
Matt, please interview Trent Horn again. Your conversations with him are so interesting.
I hope this book gets written.
I was raised by my biological gay Father. I do not advocate for gay adoption.
Ah, yes, all the non-religious, pro-gay people have showed up in the comment box. Typical when clips like these on such topics appear.
8:06 😮 never saw it that way. Difficult topic.
3:05 I feel like this is similar to and interaction with Aquinas and Bonaventure before the Immaculate Conception became officially declared. Who's who will be up to future historians I guess. 😂
Infertile couples need to simply accept their condition. It’s absolutely devastating, but the extreme measures that so many take to have a baby I will never understand and agree with. I’m sympathetic, but a child is a gift, a blessing. Not a commodity that you should have by all means. I hate that we can’t even say these things because then we are considered the most evil people for having a common sense opinion
I agree. They can also adopt a child if they choose to.
@@sophiajohnson8608 yes of course! Adoption is an amazing thing people can do, especially infertile couples that are desiring to be parents.
Well, as sperm count continues to drop like an anvil because of the chemical soup we’re being forced to swim in, we might eventually be forced to have less choice in the matter, although superior ethics about the process MUST improve first. EVERY frozen baby must be rescued.
Or they could just make their own decision and not listen to religious nuts trying to prevent the creation of a loving family :)
How about I come break your leg and then tell you to just accept your condition
So babies should be with their mother but we are advocating for dads to be stay at home dads sometimes? Isn’t that contradictory to what everyone else was just saying on the other video? 😅
I agree with everything Trent has said.
I don't, I think it's dumb and cruel
Surrogacy in order to adopt an abandoned embryo immoral?
Faced with embryos stuck in freezers, it seems we have three options: leave them frozen, give them an artificial womb or a real one...
They are both perversions.
Saying that in person at a party/friendly gathering is a mood killer, even at NO parish events.
Remember Mother Teresa "if u want to change the world love your children." So no matter how the child was formed the main point is to LOVE that child. Children grow strong and confident with knowing they are loved. God wants us to love each other including children no matter where they came from. ❤
Trent: We try to replicate the lost mother and father as best as we can
This is an interesting argument. Would this also discourage couples from adopting outside of their own ethnicity as well?
I also think GIFT is two separate acts. I think it’s a stretch to say it’s the marital act.
As someone who is currently almost at the end of pregnancy and preparing to deliver my fifth child, the idea of surrogacy makes me sick. The idea of feeling, nurturing and loving this new human being. Learning that new person’s rhythms and personality. Feeling them move. Knowing that your heartbeat is the most comforting and familiar sound that they know. That they know your voice, have heard your cry and know that they are safe with you. To have all of that stripped away from both mother and child is evil. No child deserves that kind of trauma period but to do it for money/the gratification of other people is abominable!
A gay couple is fare better than a kid having no parents at all. Kids don’t really care what gender raises them, they just want loving parents who are willing to pay for them, spend time with them, feed them, clothe them and get them through school so as long as the 2 people adopting can afford and love them. I wonder if Trent at the end there would have been willing to say we should force biological parents to look after their kids and not give them up for adoption.
GIFT, gamete inter fallipian transfer, is not the insemination of the husband's sperm into the womb, it is rather a transfer of an embryo that has implanted in the fallopian tube , out of the fallopian tube to the fertile lining of the uterus. If the embryo stays in the fallopian tube, it will grow and rupture the tube, causing possible grave medical complications for mom and death for he embryo . Transferring the gamet to the safety of moms womb, where he can grow, is a true 'gift'!
With GIFT, sperm and eggs (the gametes) are put in the fallopian tube. With Zygote IFT (what you described), the sperm and egg are first combined (zygote) in a lab. Then a fertilized egg is put into the fallopian tube. In GIFT, fertilization occurs in the woman’s body, but not so with ZIFT.
Gays should adopt child. At least better than surrogacy.
I was confused by this video. Did trent horn say that children have the right to not come into life through fornication and prostitution? Isn't that pro abortion?
He says children have the right to not be conceived by rape or prostitution, not that they can be denied the right to life in such cases. Rape and prostitution are against human dignity and are sexual acts outside of love driven by degeneracy. So the life of children are not meant to be made that way, thus they have the right to not be concieved. But if they are conceived in such a case, then they were already denied a right, so denying them the right to life is another violation. That's the pro life stance.
I would say the argument being put forth would be that while we should protect children conceived in bad scenarios, we should ALSO be trying to reduce the case in which that is the result of your conception. For example, It doesn't reduce your worth as a human being and an image bearer of God if you are conceived in rape or outside of marriage or through IVF, but we also should see those things for the problems they are and reduce it if we able.
@@bijogeojose7209 Beautiful reply! Very well put.
Just seems like he states the only way is his way. Lol Which is really off kilter. I was born out of wedlock. I have to say grew up very moral. My grandma always loved me ,yet told my fate was in the hell fire due to how I came into the world. Pro lifers save children like me all the time. Now your saying only “ some” babies deserve to live? That’s just plain stupid.
@@NanersCornerPodnot at all what he said.
The look in Trent's eyes when he had to admit a gay couple is better than zombies. Sad, but delicious.
The woman has a right to control what happens in and to her uterus. She’s not an AirBnB for babies.
I think I'm really confused about what Trent means by "right" in this context. "A child has the right to come into existence by an act of love"
What does that even mean?
He’s essentially echoing the Catechism. The Catechism links "rights talk" not only to human dignity but also to the commandments and to natural law as well: The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. So, in the case of the right of a child to his mother’s womb; it is appealing to natural law and human dignity.
I presume, for example, that a rape would be a violation of the rights of the conceived child to be created in an act of love.
Oh, BTW, I didn't forget that at least one other person's rights were violated in such a case.
Men and women have different rights as well. A woman has the natural right to demand to stay at home to raise the kids
A right is something they should get and if they don't, it's because someone has wronged them.
@@ozymandias5257 that's why both surrogacy and rape are sins. Still doesn't justify killing the innocent child.
I find it odd that he says child has a right not to be conceived through fornication, prostitution or artificial insemination but he never mentioned rape nor incest. I feel his reasoning comes from more of a male perspective rather than a gender neutral one.
He's talking about the issues in the modern world. Incest and rape are already universally condemned and not up for debate in most social circles, but fornication, prostitution and artificial insemination are all touted as good things today by most of the world. That's why he's singling them out.
@@js96111ok. But I do have disagree with his staunch artificial insemination. Given that couples who already try artificial insemination only try it because they are facing ferltiy problems.
@@newjerseylion4804 the Church itself is staunchly opposed to artificial insemination. Trent is just echoing the teaching of the church.
@@js96111Not everyone is catholic. Or belongs to a church that disapproves medically assisted reproduction.
@@js96111As a non catholic, I don’t think the church has the right to create law within secular countries.
Playing devils advocate, *upon what basis* is Trent saying that children have *a right* to come into existence from their biological parents? And that no one has a right to a child? And, whatever that basis is, is it a basis that the pro-surrogacy advocate could see?
I agree with Trent, but he has left these claims unsubstantiated
On the basis of Christian ontological realism and Natural Law. It can be summed like this: There is such a thing as objective reality, and we can know it through natural reason and sacred revelation. As such, we can recognize a certain order in nature and synthesize its imperatives into something called the Natural Law, which establishes the bounds of the moral life in such a way as to order it to the Real, the common good, and to the fulfillment of one's life in accordance with Providence. Further, it is possible to come to a reasonable understanding and acceptance of Natural Law solely by the light of natural reason.
That being said, the fact is that children deserve to be born and raised by their biological parents. Of course, not by their own merit due to achievement, but by the merits of the created natural order, which comes from God. This is easily understood when you consider that the natural (that is, not artificially tampered with) process for the generation of children is constituted by the union of two biological persons (man and woman), and so an interference with that process constitutes an offense against the natural order. The disorder caused by this is also easily noticeable in the lives of all those involved, and such interference is never without serious consequences.
A useful analogy to consider: "A man deserves to have his arms. This is due to the fact that he is a man, and the nature of men is to have arms."
But this does not follow. If the biological parents are killed, and a same sex couple of present and willing. You're saying no? You are denying the child potentially a very good future because ??? natural law?
Also, everything humans do perverts the natural order. Artificial limbs and organs, or even certain treatments all change what "nature" intended, and you don't have a problem with them
Saying we observe the natural law by god presupposes god and any kind of purpose. And you haven't named any serious "consequences" about same sex couples adopting?
This is all just your thoughts and feelings.
@@capcaptainmycaptain4771 What doesn't follow is the assumption that there's a potential net benefit to children by placing them in an objectively disordered living situation, under the guard of people who are openly claiming to have no control over their sexual faculties, and claiming to be proud of it.
Prudence and natural law would dictate that children be not placed under the care of convicted murderers, even if they claimed to be able to support them materially, for example. The same idea applies to same-sex pairs. It is also known that the children unfortunately placed in this situation are under increased risk of sexual abuse and mistreatment.
@@AluminiumT6 Ok so first off, claiming homosexuals have "no control over their sexual faculties and ars proud of it" is honestly such a bullshit and shitty thing to say, with no evidence to back it up. It's just your awful feelings.
Second, the potential net benefit is a child getting a future outside of being stuck in an adoption centre or orphanage. You would deny this! Your world view denies children's love when they wouldn't otherwise have it. And it's clearly because, you are a bigot against homosexuals.
Comparing same sex couples to convicted murders... Ok. I suppose we could say then that having children be adopted by Catholic priests is bad then since they over represent pedophiles statistics? Makes sense, I'll take your lead then.
Also, one more thing, does it make you feel bad that religiousness amongst Americans is dropping dramatically? Do you know why? It's probably because of your logic on this. No one likes a bigot.
Ok, so gay adoption during zombie apocalypse is ok, because it's the best option.
Why aren't gay couples adopting teens, why isn't that reasonable? Unlike adopting new borns, there IS a shortage of couples wanting to adopt teens. The argument used seems to be in favor of gay adoption in some pretty normal cases.
Because Christians have gone down the rabbit hole and now equate gay with paedophilia. Btw gay people do foster care but not in states that have some Iron Age conception of sin.
The answer is obvious but I can't actually post it here.
@@Corey1994P cancelation is not the concern, the comment will just get hidden.
Also, why bring up my channel? This is my personal profile, I don't want viewers on the three and a half terrible videos I've posted over the years.
@@Corey1994P you already know that what RUclips considers "hateful and derogatory" and decides to censor, hide, or ban, is entirely arbitrary.
Well, gay couples aren't adopting teens. They're also not applying for sick children. Because they aren't thinking of giving a home to the children in need of parents, they're thinking of satisfying their own desire to have offspring and/or to prove that their relationship is just "as good" or the same as a marriage. They want babies to roleplay as a family, not difficult, problematic teens with their own minds and unmissable needs to take care of. Statistically speaking.
As to why it would still not be the best to entrust teens to intrinsically disordered couples, well, the exact same arguments apply as to little children - they deserve better, they deserve full, healthy families. They also deserve to have their wishes respected, and to be protected from predators, which has to be considered as well and not swept under the rug of political correctness.
It would be a worthwhile conversation to have whether the crisis is severe enough that it's better for a teen to at least experience a home provided by a loving, thoroughly vetted gay couple than never experience a home at all - if there was actual interest, which, there isn't.
I get it, you can get in the weeds with this stuff and start finding justification one way or another within Church doctrine etc. But sometimes, for me at least, it's just a question of right and wrong. Kind of like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who said "I know it when I see it" when he was asked about pornography. What Dave Rubin and his friend did was wrong. I don't need to dig much beyond the surface to come to that conclusion. Is this just a judgment call on my part? I suppose. But I didn't need anyone to tell me a lot of stuff was wrong.
And I won't get behind people who get behind that. I was a Blaze TV subscriber, a legacy viewer since I started out with CRTV and when Blaze bought it my account migrated over. Anyway, I left Blaze because I didn't watch most of their commentators and their customer support treated me like a second-class citizen. I was thinking of going back because I like Steve Deace and a few others over there but then Glenn Beck shouted out best wishes to Rubin and his friend after they paid to rent some woman's womb. Sorry, when the leader of your platform shouts out kudos to a sinful act, well, that is a deal breaker.
Just like I stopped listening to Rubin when he said he didn't have a problem using someone's preferred pronoun and that Clay Travis character when he said he didn't have a problem with transgenderism as a thing. Sorry again, but I have a problem with people who don't have a problem with that stuff. It's a free country, but I can't behind anyone who advocates for that one, including a certain republican presidential candidate who shall remain nameless because I'm just worn out. Anyway, great discussion Matt. It's why I like yer show buddy. Keep it up.
I’m glad these religious fanatics have zero influence in saying what’s right or wrong where I live.
Their morals are completely misaligned with society’s morals.
Kind gay couple...
OR
Abusive catholic couple...
According to your worldview, which one is better for a child?
Any Catholic couples here have any tips for not having a ton of babies in marriage? If you can’t use BC or condoms, what are you guys doing? Fertility tracking ?
Natural family planning
Natural family planning methods are ideal. Many traditional and faithful Catholic couples use it to avoid (not prevent) pregnancy.
NFP is very accurate in predicting your fertile days and effective. There’s a multitude of apps now too tracking your cycle and giving advice on figuring out your fertility. God has already designed us with ways to sort of control our fertility.
There are many great natural family planning methods. NOT the rhythm method.
Of course ideally two gay dads is not ideal but neither is being an orphan...
This is the "two wrongs don't make a right" type of situation. A moral wrong isn't solved with another moral wrong. It is a morally wrong thing to raise a child parentless. It is also morally wrong to raise a child in a heterodox household dynamic, as it leaves the child with improper development of learning intersexual social norms for the child (talk to any kids of situation like this, and they usually have some issues dating or are just asexual). Thus, particularly when heterosexual adoption is still pretty common, this is not a morally acceptable option.
Donum vitae is the reference
The courts screwed up with the 1988 case of Baby M. Even ABC aired a docudrama about it.
*Remember:* all children are intended and predestined, and must be accepted. What we cannot accept are the imperfect circumstances that right away do a disservice to the children.
That stated, the adults' sins and shortcomings ought to be forgiven with contrition. And they lovingly can be admonished and reconciled.
With regards to that GIFT "assistance", highly doubtful it's very successful as Creighton NFP or Billings. The Church probably hasn't addressed it yet because it was such a novel rumbling that barely registered the seismic scale for heresy.
Predestination is not a Dogma, and to suggest that there's a planned existence of every human being, in some manner, sounds a lot like Origen's Heresy of the Pre-existence of the Soul. Augustine and Aquinas aren't Dogma, and don't hold a majoritive view in terms of the Church Fathers, or Theological Schools. To assert that we should 'remember' a theological Opinion is like me saying "Remember: Babies who aren't baptised go to hell."
Surely the only procreative act is the marital act? (Consider the indissoluble union that HV speaks of between the two meanings i.e. procreation and union)
Please please please consult with Sister Renee Mirkes about GIFT and ZIFT.
Set aside the morality question for a moment (until Sr. Renee is consulted:)
Where does conception take place? Inside the body of course; when any part of that is taken outside the body, there are biological consequences for the child-body, mind and soul as well as for the Mother.
Im curious which religious people would say is LESS immoral: having frequent gay anal sex that cannot create a child, or having frequent straight sex knowing that if they get pregnant they will abort?
I guess the latter, but it’s a waste of time to compare sins of this nature. They are sinful acts that’s all that matters.
I don't know. Would you rather never have existed, or been murdered shortly after being brought into existence.
I would say both are wrong from a religious view. And probably even more so in the straight case if one was to be so hedonistic and wanting in just self pleasure to consciously kill a human being to continue their lifestyle. Take that woman not long ago who killed her unborn baby so she could fit back into her jeans. That's such a callous and cold thing to do to that unborn child.
"Would you rather be shot in the heart or in the head?"
Straight anal sex is the best. Catholics need to live a little.
“Porous condom” 😂.
The cognitive dissonance it must take to hold the view around contraceptives is impressive.
Porous condoms are allowed for collecting sperm samples like for screening male fertility. The idea is that it would still allow some of the sperm to travel to the woman's body.
What if the child (past age of reason) would rather have gay parents than be an orphan for the rest of their childhood? The lyrics of "Maybe" from Annie come to mind.
Is it just intrinsically wrong for a gay couple to adopt a child?
PS, I love the line "no one has a right to a child," but here it's the child's right to good guardians or parents.
A gay couple could make good parents/guardians. The problem is that some people just don't want to admit this.
I think you’d be harder pressed to find a kid who’d rather stay in foster care.
Human trafficking. 😢
Adoptio naturam imitatur. Sapienti sat.
It's demonic.
The Child needs a father and a mother. To intentionally deny that is evil because it denies the child a part of what they need to flourish.
I’m sure they’d rather get out of a system that neglects their needs despite their efforts than care about gender
Abomination
"The marital act" is probably my least favorite Catholic phrase.
Sex is an act preserved for marriage, hence marital act.
Why?
What about lesbian adoption?
So what Trent is saying is,
A child waiting for adoption wants love and parental guidance,
A same sex couplw wants to love and nurture a child that needs parents and have the means to support that child.
Trent says "No, its icky"
Can you timestamp where he said that?
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 I'm being reductive of course, but the biblical argument isn't much better.
Unless... You have any substantial reason that same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt?
@@capcaptainmycaptain4771 Trent's argument is that children should be raised in a home that is as free from moral disorder as possible. Homosexuality is disordered. Therefore it is best that children are NOT raised by homosexual couples. Trent does recognize that in certain cases it may be better to give them to a homosexual couple but ideally that shouldn't happen. Children should be raise by their mother and father or as close to them as possible.
@@skyfox4072 "Moral disorder" is basically just a term you've made up to sound serious with not actually evidence behind it.
And at best, it's your side just being overly pedantic at the expense of a particular minority.
I think the child needs a father and a mother it upsets me when these two gay people adopt that's so sad for the child now the nowadays the agency agency picks the gay people over the straight people
“Pro-life” haha
Two Catholic Answers guys arguing over ethics. Awesome.
As opposed to what, you and some other person?
@@TickleMeElmo55 Two people who are educated in the fine arts of ethics and the faith debating hard topics is better than half the debates on RUclips which usually has one dullard and one derelict yelling at each other.
@@bkeevers6719 Ah, I misunderstood you. My bad.
Rubbish conversation. Totally unsubstantiated claims. This talk about rights and morality is totally removed from day to day experiences. Is there any evidence that children born from surrogacy have fatal moral wounds compared to those born from commited intimate "marital acts" from a husband and wife? Totally laughable that they are pretending this is an intellectual or thoughtful conversation.
Yeah it's almost as if they are bigoted towards gay people and are cloaking it with sophistry.
It is substantiated if you research the topic further.
@@SuperKripke Sophistry is used by people who try to defend the abominable unnatural sin, not the opposite. The reason is that they are the ones trying to justify an evil and perverse act, whereas sophistry is not required to justify good acts, because they can be simply shown to be good, and will be recognized as good on their own merit, but it isn't so with evil and degenerate behavior.
@@AluminiumT6 Your position that non-heterosexual sex is evil and perverse is based on the misinterpretation of an iron age text and subsequent prejudices using this interpretation. Similar interpretations have been used to justify Anti-semitism. If you see all humans as worthy of dignity and can pursue their path to happiness, then no sophistry is required to protect the rights of lgbt folks.
@@SuperKripke It's the position of all normal people. All Christians, all Muslims, as well as many other groups which form a majority in the world population. It's based on correct religious instruction, but also on empirical observation. The people who propose, and defend that perversion, are visibly degenerate, further confirming the truth of the Sacred Scriptures.
"Fruit of the love of a husband and wife..." what a joke. Love is not real, there is no love between a husband and wife. There is only self-serving interest where the most wicked of the two wishes to dominate and exploit the weaker/dumber partner. Love does not exist between spouses. The only true love that is clean exists is between a mother and her child which is devoid of anything carnal or self-serving. Anything else is dirty.