Remember the lesbian throuple Brynn, Kitten and Doll who are expecting their first baby? Well, call me a prophet if you want, but I predict that something very similar to the lawsuit described below is in their future as well. And if I’m right, they better buckle their seat belts — it’s going to be a very rough ride. When people create a tangled web of sexual deviancy, unethical biological manipulations, a corrupt legal system, emotional fallout, child trafficking and moral turpitude, things are bound to get ugly. Extremely ugly.
Three unnamed lesbians in the United Kingdom have selfishly placed an innocent set of five-year-old twin girls in the middle of a fierce custody tug-of-war.
It gets a bit confusing, but here are the four key players in this depraved drama:
1.) A birth mother with whom the twins currently reside.
Trending: How Long O Lord?
2.) A biological mother who donated her eggs to her ex-partner (the birth mother). The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 2008 states that the egg donor has no legal status as a parent, but she’s fighting for part-time custody as a third legal guardian.
3.) An adoptive mother who is the current partner of the birth mother.
4.) An anonymous father who the children are not permitted to have contact with until they reach the age of 18.
The birth mother and genetic mother shared an “intimate relationship” after meeting in the 1990s, and the two continued to live together even after their relationship became simply platonic. When one of them experienced difficulty trying to conceive, the other agreed to donate her eggs, which were fertilized by an anonymous sperm donor in 2007. When their relationship eventually soured in 2012, the biological mother moved out and discovered that she had no legal standing as the twins’ parent.
Are you with me so far?
If it’s awfully confusing for you, just image what it’s like for two little five-year-old twins.
“This is a disturbing harbinger of things to come,” warns Philippa Taylor of the Christian Medical Fellowship, “These kinds of cases will continue to rise as the number of people seeking egg and sperm donation increases.”
The Daily Mail reports:
The number of single women opting to use IVF has more than doubled in five years, from 259 to 632 in 2012. Use of donor sperm has also become popular, with 468 women choosing that route to motherhood in 2012, according to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
But family solicitor Marcus Malin said people were often not aware of the complex legal issues surrounding surrogacy and egg and sperm donation.
In this situation, the current unethical legal climate has enabled these mothers — and future individuals like them — to create a malleable and unhealthy “family” structure, and it’s only getting worse with the custody battle.
“Too many of these kinds of egg and sperm donor arrangements are done informally, with no concrete decisions made about what role the different parents will play,” Taylor stated. So, we can expect more of this harmful nonsense. With the rise of the homosexual agenda, marriage and civil unions have become centered upon adult desires, resulting in parenting deficiencies. For the “gay” or lesbian couple (or throuple or whatever) children are purchased to accessorize their “family” fantasy. And when the relationship goes south, the children become pawns just like the house, the car or the bank account — property to be fought over. Obviously, heterosexual couples often behave according to the same uncivil ways, but we are recklessly inviting more of these convoluted difficulties as sexual immorality leads to familial anarchy. The children of such relationships are confused enough, but now they’re becoming the unwitting victims of much worse, mean-spirited legal struggles too.
In the custody case’s first hearing last August, Judge Helen Black ruled in favor of the birth mother, stating that the egg donor was “not a parent of the children and that her status should not be elevated in that way.” But the biological mother challenged that decision in the Court of Appeal, arguing that she had raised the girls for the first few years of their lives when she was still living with the birth mother. In March, three judges upheld the appeal, claiming that the primary judgment was based upon “wobbly” foundations and the full evidence had not been heard. Therefore, the case has now been sent back to the county court for a new hearing.
Justice Jill Black, sitting at the Court of Appeal, said: “Childhood is over all too quickly and, whilst I appreciate that both sides think they are motivated only by concern for the children, it is still very sad to see it being allowed to slip away whilst energy is devoted to adult wrangles and to litigation.”
The case has been further complicated by the fact that the genetic mother also impregnated herself with some of the same embryos that were used to conceive the twins. That means her toddler daughter is a full sibling to the twins.
Before we rush headlong over the homosexual cliff in our country, maybe we should start thinking about the best interests of the children. As Philippa Taylor of the Christian Medical Fellowship noted, “The focus seems to be what rights the parents have rather than the children’s rights to their biological heritage.”
A child’s right to one mother and one father is undeniable. Or at least it should be.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.