News

Published: 04 October 2018

1. Surrogacy constitutes a human rights violation of the women and children involved. It commodifies children and exploits women.
2. It creates demand for a ‘perfect baby’, and selective abortion of unwanted babies (the ‘products’) is eugenics in action.
3. Women carrying surrogate babies face high risk health risks i.e. cervical cancer and ovarian cancer hyper stimulation of eggs (see more information below).
4. It may result in an increased risk of pre-mature births or children with special needs.
5. Altruistic surrogacy heralds the “choice” of the donor mother, but the baby has no choice except to be separated from their birth mother.
6. Large scale studies by Dr Paul Sullins (2016) and Dr Mark Regnerus (2012) cast strong doubt on claims of no differences between same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents. ‘No difference’ studies are based on small, non-random samples, which generally ensure a no difference result.

7. Government data shows no single female has applied for surrogacy in WA since legalised in 2008.  Instead of allowing surrogacy for single men, surrogacy for single people should be removed.

8. Children need and deserve a mother and father.

You could remind MPs that a convicted child sex offender in WA ordered a child via surrogacy in Thailand. His sperm donation became twin children, a girl and ‘Baby Gammy’, a boy with Down syndrome who was abandoned by his father. Thanks to the bravery of his birthmother, Chanbua Pattharamon, Gammy is now living a happy life in Thailand, whereas his twin sister Pipah was ordered by an Australian judge to live with her ‘father’ and his wife in Western Australia. This 2014 case ended commercial surrogacy in Thailand, but the exchange of money was not material to the tragedy of the case.

Why Oppose Surrogacy?
Stop Surrogacy Now is a resounding ‘No!’  Whether for love or for money, the fact remains that surrogacy is the commissioning of a baby by affluent heterosexual or homosexual couples using a woman of usually lower economic standing as a baby incubator - a breeder.
 

Surrogacy is dangerous
The surrogate mother - often callously called a “gestational carrier” - is required to submit to a three to four week drug regimen in order to prepare her womb for pregnancy. These drugs can make her very sick, possibly with long-term effects.

In addition to the battery of prenatal tests she must undergo, there is also the risk of pregnancy complications - including ovarian torsion, ovarian cysts, chronic pelvic pain, premature menopause, loss of fertility, reproductive cancers, blood clots, kidney disease, stroke and, in some cases, death.

Women who become pregnant with eggs from another woman are at higher risk for pre-eclampsia and high blood pressure. The health risks are even worse for women who donate eggs, with the increased prevalence of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHSS) and ovarian cancer many years later. (I’d commend the eye-opening documentary Eggsploitation for stories of women hurt by egg donation.)

What is demanded of a surrogate mother is the manufacture of a perfect baby - this is eugenics in action. If the product is deemed flawed, she will be pressured to consent to an abortion, selective reduction or foetal surgery in the womb.

At birth, the baby is most often removed by caesarean section, with the birth mother frequently not given the chance to see her child. What is left is a woman with milk in her breasts but nothing in her arms. The attention that for nine months had been lavished on the woman - who is called a hero, an angel, a giver of life by the commissioning couple in an altruistic surrogacy arrangement - in the great majority of cases disappears very quickly. Once the job is done, and the baby handed over, the birth mother, in whose body remain cells of her child for decades, is left to her own devices.

Many surrogate mothers say it was their “choice.” What sort of choice is it when one cannot predict the effect of the drugs, the pregnancy and the birth on the woman? And what sort of choice is it for the baby? Did she or he really “choose” to be separated from their birth mother?

Surrogacy is reproductive slavery; a violation of the human rights of both the birth mother and her offspring.

Compared to the United States, India, Ukraine and Mexico, Australia is still in the fortunate position of prohibiting commercial surrogacy, and altruistic surrogacy is well regulated in all states except the Northern Territory which has no laws. Moreover, the actual number of babies born through altruistic surrogacy arrangements is negligible.

The National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit (NPESU) publishes yearly reports that include data supplied by 37 fertility centres in Australia and New Zealand. The latest available 2011 and 2012 reports state: “There were 177 gestational surrogacy cycles in 2011, including 131 gestational carrier cycles and 46 cycles undertaken by intended parents. Among the 131 gestational carrier cycles, 34 (26.0%) resulted in a clinical pregnancy and 21 (16.0%) resulted in a delivery. Of all 23 babies born to gestational carriers (21 singletons and one set of twins), 22 were liveborn and one singleton’s outcome was unknown.”

Would this change if Australia legalised commercial surrogacy in future? Perhaps unemployed women might think that $30-40,000 is worth the risk and discomfort of pregnancy; or that they could always resort to selling their eggs four, five, six times for $5,000 per batch. For the commissioning parents - euphemistically called “intended parents” - the price would be much higher because the surrogacy industry’s lawyers, counsellors, surrogacy brokers and, last but not least, the IVF clinics who delight in this new business opportunity, would all demand their share. The government too might be eager to collect taxes from the various players involved in commercial surrogacy - surrogates and egg donors included. A $100,000 price tag for a baby can easily be countenanced. And because of the high failure rates, repeat pregnancies make the procedure harder for the birth mother and more expensive for the buyers.

It was only in 2013 that then Prime Minister Julia Gillard delivered a heartfelt apology to mothers and their children who were forcibly removed for adoption in the 1960s and 70s. We would do well to remember the trauma and depth of feeling this apology elicited in discussions about surrogacy, which is the intentional removal of a child from his or her birth mother. Do we really want to find ourselves in the position forty years hence of having to deliver yet another apology to children who were harmed by surrogacy.

The first order of business would be to lower the demand for all forms of surrogacy, including so-called altruistic surrogacy. There is no right to a child. A deep desire for a child does not justify the narcissistic exploitation of another woman’s body and soul, as well as her health - two women, in fact, if an egg donor is also needed.

People who long for children should be encouraged to look to permanent care arrangements for the thousands of existing children in Australia who need a loving home. Having a baby with your own genes is not a prerequisite: it is love and dedication that counts.

Children are not commodities to be bought and sold, and women are not containers to be used as baby makers and then discarded. Let’s stop surrogacy now.
 

Published: 03 October 2018

"Mechanized pornography" - a direct consequence of the Darwinian belief that humans are "robot vehicles blindly programmed"

Nancy Pearcey wrote in her newly released book Love Thy Body: "The next step, some say, is robotic sex (with sex dolls). Futurists predict that in ten years sex robots will become more popular than porn. The first sex doll brothel has already opened in Barcelona, Spain. A materialist philosophy has been teaching people that they are merely complex mechanisms, and now we are seeing the logical outcome—the substitution of machines for real persons. The ultimate depersonalization."

London-based AI (artificial intelligence) researcher David Levy predicted in his 2007 book Love and Sex with Robots that humans would have sex, fall in love and even marry robots by 2050.

“I don’t see anything wrong in using a sex robot to provide sexual satisfaction to people who can’t achieve it in relationships with other humans. It’s much better for lonely and miserable people than no sex at all… Sex robots are just providing an alternative," Levy wrote.

Dr. Kathleen Richardson, Professor of Ethics and Culture of Robots and AI, wrote in response to Levy’s idea:

“…Levy also proposes that sex robots could help to reduce prostitution. However, studies have found that the introduction of new technology supports and contributes to the expansion of the sex industry. … Prostitution and pornography production also rises with the growth of the internet. In 1990, 5.6 percent of men reported paying for sex in their lifetime, by 2000, this had increased to 8.8 percent. 

What really happens is that girls and women increasingly feel pressured to be a real-life embodiment of what boys and men have learned from watching porn, “adopting exaggerated roles and behaviors and providing their bodies as mere sex aids. Growing up in today’s porn culture, girls quickly learn that they are service stations for male gratification and pleasure," according to Pearcey.

World leading athiest Richard Dawkins, argues on the basis of Darwinian, humanistic thought that humans are merely “survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed” to preserve their genes.

So if girls are already conditioned in this hyper sex-saturated culture to believe they are to be used for male sexual gratification by default, then a culture that lives on mechanized sex is just that one step further.

For years, ever since the introduction of Darwinian evolution being taught in schools and broadcast mediums, people of all ages have been programmed to believe that humans are nothing more than moist robots. The advent of robotised sex is thus a completely logical and non-surprising outcome.

"But how did it become possible that some people would prefer a mechanized doll to a real person?" Pearcey asks the question all of us want the answer to.

"The answer is that sex has been steadily de-personalized.  Start with the hookup culture: It rests on the assumption that sex can be purely physical -- cut off from the whole person, without any hint of love or commitment.

"Young people know the script all too well.  In my new book Love Thy Body, I include several heart-wrenching quotes from college students -- like Alicia, who says, “Hookups are very scripted.... You learn to turn everything off except your body and make yourself emotionally invulnerable.

"Another student told Rolling Stone magazine the mistake people make is they “assume there are two very distinct elements in a relationship, one emotional and one sexual, and they pretend like there are clean lines between them.”  In other words, they treat sex as a strictly physical act isolated from the rich inner life of the whole person.

"Critics of the hookup scene often claim it gives sex too much importance, but in reality it gives sex too little importance.  It treats the body as nothing but a physical organism driven by physical urge and instincts.

"No wonder it is creating a trail of wounded people.  They are trying to live out a view of sexuality that does not fit who they really are."

Melissa Farley, founder of San Francisco based Prostitution Research and Education, says robots function as “mechanized pornography.” Everything we know about the harms of pornography—how it teaches men to dehumanise and degrade women—“applies ten times more to these mechanised females.”

In the U.S., Yuval Gavriel, founder of “Kinky S Dolls,” is trying to skirt legal regulations by claiming his company is not a robot brothel (which currently exist in Europe and Japan) but a “showroom.” Customers can rent the dolls, test them on the premises, and decide whether to buy one. Half hour in a private room with a sex robot costs $60.

Customers may also purchase a robot, but for most people the cost is prohibitive: from $2,500 to $10,000 for a high-end doll with artificial intelligence that can talk and respond to touch. Realistically, most customers will “rent” the dolls.

Some argue that sex robots will reduce crime (such as human trafficking), as potential offenders take out their fantasies on dolls instead of real people. But such opinions are “not borne out by evidence,” writes Dr Richardson.

"There are numerous sexual artificial substitutes already available, RealDolls, vibrators, blow-up dolls etc., If an artificial substitute reduced the need to buy sex, there would be a reduction in prostitution but no such correlation is found."

In 2017 the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4655 named the CREEPER Act outlawing the transportation, owning or selling of child sex dolls in the U.S. The bill is founded on the notion that child-like sex dolls do not deter abusers from harming children. These dolls normalize the acts of pedophilia and legitimize the urge to sexualize children.

H.R. 4655 states, “The dolls and robots are intrinsically related to abuse of minors, and they cause the exploitation, objectification, abuse, and rape of minors.”

Not only will the robots fail to subdue the demand for consumerized humans, but they are also a place of rehearsal for horrifically extreme fantasies of rape, abuse, torture, pedophilia, and other deviant harm.

"Once an abuser tires of practicing on a doll, it's a small step to move on to a child," bill sponsor Rep. Dan Donovan said, while fellow House Republican Bob Goodlatte noted the child sex dolls "desensitize the user, causing him to engage in sicker and sicker behavior."

A release from Donovan's office reported the UK seized 128 of the dolls, and 85% of the men who imported them were found to have child porn. Goodlatte noted the dolls not only can be made to look like a specific child, they can also be given certain facial expressions, like fear or sadness.

Published: 03 October 2018

On 9 October 2018, the High Court of Australia will consider the constitutionality of Victorian and Tasmanian laws prohibiting protesting, offers of assistance and other types of communication around abortion clinics.

Those supporting the laws claim that they are needed considering the significant harm that may be caused by this conduct. There are, however, substantial problems with the medical evidence provided to the High Court in support of such claims.

This article by Dr Joseph Turner, Debbie Garratt and Dr Simon McCaffrey critiques this evidence and highlights key questions that remain unaddressed by the expert medical opinion.

This article concludes that the evidence has "substantial limitations" and that it may be difficult for the Court to rely on this evidence in assessing the extent to which individuals communicating outside abortion clinics may harm, or even help, women and others accessing the premises.

Here are some quotes from the paper:

"Failing to take account of the possible differences in the impact of such various types of conduct may lead to the conclusion that the presence of all individuals outside abortion premises is equally likely to cause harm to patients or employees of the premises.

"Such a conclusion is likely to be false considering that conduct such as respectful offers of assistance may not produce any harm and may even help women considering abortions to avoid harm.

"For example, some women may experience adverse mental health consequences from abortions that they may have avoided if they had been provided with support that would have allowed them to continue with their pregnancy.[v] More precise studies that account for the variability of conduct outside abortion clinics may indicate that broadly operating laws such as those that exist in Victoria and Tasmania may harm some persons, especially women considering abortion, and that more nuanced laws are required to ensure that at least respectful offers of assistance remain lawful.

"A further problem is that any medical procedure can be an adverse emotional experience for patients due to a range of factors such as the pain experienced from the medical condition, the health risks involved in the procedure, patient perception of vulnerability and the loss of privacy. Abortion may be a particularly emotional experience for patients or employees of clinics when compared to other procedures due to the nature of the procedure, the patient’s perception of the significance of the procedure, the possibility that the patient is being coerced to undergo the abortion by third parties, and the substantial community disagreement regarding the ethics of abortion.[vi] Dr Goldstone, Dr Allanson and the studies relied upon by them do not address whether and, if so, to what extent, the adverse emotional states identified by them could be due to the stressful nature of any medical procedure nor to the possibility that participation in abortion as a patient or employee may be particularly stressful."

View the entire paper here: https://walta.net.au/2018/10/01/the-high-court-abortion-clinic-speech-restrictions-and-the-assessment-of-harm/

Published: 03 October 2018

David Robertson, a Christian minister in Scotland, has reported Scotland Police and the Scottish Government for committing a hate crime against Christians.

This comes after the Scottish Government in partnership with the Scottish Police has launched a new campaign deliberately targeting Christians in an effort to tackle the seemingly growing problem of “hate crime” in the country.

The ‘Letters from Scotland’ campaign (which is taxpayer funded) include letters printed on posters to bigots, transphobes, and homophobes. The posters urge citizens to report any “religious hate” they may see or hear.

One poster reads:

"Dear bigots, division seems to be what you believe in. We don’t want your religious hate on our buses, on our streets and in our communities. We don’t want you spreading your intolerance. Or making people’s lives a misery because of their religious dress. You may not have faith in respect and love, but we do. That’s why if we see or hear your hate, we’re reporting you. End of sermon. Yours, Scotland."

This message reveals a tyrranical sentiment towards anyone who opposes the status quo or so much as even dares to hold differing opinions. This is further reflected in a statement by Chief Superintendent John McKenzie:

“Police Scotland treats all hate-related crimes and incidents as a priority," he announced.

“It is recognised that hate-related crimes and incidents pose a significant threat to victims, their friends, families and wider communities, and the potential impact of such crimes cannot be underestimated.

“We continue to work tirelessly to ensure we respond to all reports of hate crime and I would encourage anyone who has been a victim of, or witnessed, a hate crime to report it.”

As Robertson, who is also the author of theweeflea.com, rightly points out:

They are selective – Its only certain groups that are mentioned.  Look at what they leave out.   What about those of us who are Christians who are regularly mocked and abused in the media, in our schools and on the streets?  What about English people in Scotland?  What about the disabled?  Or many, many other groups?  Why do they only pick on these select groups?

They are intimidatory – It is not the job of the police to police our thoughts and hearts.  They can have no idea what we do or do not hate or love.  Their responsibility is to deal with crimes that are committed. They do not have the time, money or ability to deal with our thoughts. But it seems they are going to try.  The new State morality is going to be imposed through education and enforced by the State police – welcome to modern Scotland – the Saudi Arabia of Secularism.

They are self-contradictory – A poster which is designed to combat hate – spreads hate.  Imagine a poster which said – Dear bigots, you can’t spread your homosexual hatred here!” .  You would be arrested immediately for putting that up.  But now the police and the Scottish government are putting up a poster which incites hatred – by implying that it is religion that is to blame.  I get enough hatred in schools, Universities, the media and online, without the government and police encouraging it!

Furthermore, it must be noted that campaigns such as this one set a dangerous precedent concerning free speech and the right to express one's views without harassment or penalty.