The Lesbian Couple and the Biracial Baby that Spurred a Lawsuit

The Lesbian Couple and the Biracial Baby that Spurred a Lawsuit

Two things happened this week that got me thinking.

1) After the neighbors who lived across the street from my house moved out, I met the family who will be moving in; and
2) A white lesbian couple sued their fertility clinic because they got the wrong color baby.

These may sound like totally unrelated events, and they are. But in my crazy reasoning they have woven together into an artful tapestry.

The mistake by the fertility clinic occurred when staff mixed up the test tubes containing the donated sperm. The woman whose egg was being fertilized had requested the sperm of a white man with blue eyes as the baby-daddy. She claims she wanted the baby to look like her lesbian partner. As if anyone would think that her female partner had fathered (mothered?) her child. Or is it really that their “white privilege” is showing?

The [court] filings paint a picture of a white couple’s discomfort with the admitted “steep learning curve” they have had to overcome in terms of understanding black people, black culture, black experiences and even how to do a black child’s hair.

cramblett and biracial child
The Ohio woman who gave birth, her biracial child, and her lesbian partner.

In this day and age, any time I hear someone selectively choosing one race over another sirens go off in my brain. I see an image of a marquee blazing the word “RACISM” in large neon letters. Why should a woman (women) be able to pick the color of a child? Why isn’t that a racist choice? The women say that because the child is biracial child she will suffer from discrimination in the locality in which they have chosen to live? But lest we think they are bad mothers, they assert that they love their biracial child. They just don’t like her color. They wish she was white like they are. At least the biological mother did not abort the child when she found out about the mix up in sperm.

If the Ohio court allows this case to go forward, isn’t this a form of state-sanctioned discrimination? Will Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton descend with their minions upon the Ohio town where this discrimination is being perpetrated? Can the argument that the woman had a contractual agreement with the fertility clinic trump the social justice issue: you know, the justice that should come with knowing that we area ALL created equal even though our skin is a different color and we have different genitalia and DNA and chromosomes and hair texture?

One might think that two “gayby boomers” who want to be treated equally in all matters would realize that choosing the color of their child’s skin is blatant discrimination, not to mention classic eugenics. Are we are supposed to feel sorry for THEM because the child one of them begot will grow up biracial in what they insist is a racist society? Is that not irony in its purest form? We didn’t want a biracial child because she will grow up in a racist society. Are we to believe that the small Ohio town that will sneer at their biracial child will lovingly embrace their lesbian lifestyle? I am only asking the questions that others are thinking.

What does it say about our society when these two women who demand equal treatment of their relationship can pick the color of their child and sue when the vendor fails to deliver? What does it say when these same two women would undoubtedly sue a vendor who would dare to say, “I want to make wedding cakes for people who adhere to the definition of marriage that I prefer.” Does the old adage the customer is always right govern here?  When a photographer wants to photograph marriages between men and women, why can s/he not be selective? Is money the reason that some people are not allowed to discriminate while others are?

Here is where meeting my new neighbors yesterday comes into the picture. When the former homeowners told us a month ago that they were moving out, my husband and I mentioned that we did not know their house was on the market. They informed us that they never listed it. Instead, they had gotten a letter from a company that solicited them to sell their house. The company has people who come to them to help them find a home to purchase in the D.C. area. It is almost like a headhunter situation where someone looking for a job is paired up with potential companies that are hiring. Very little is revealed about the buyer to the sellers, and vice-versa.

Could something like that work for business owners who want to conduct business in a manner that does not violate their religious beliefs? The situation that comes to mind, naturally, is same sex marriage. Could someone open a clearinghouse for vendors who want to select the clients or customers whom they will service? Potential purchasers could contact the clearinghouse to give their criteria for what they want in a vendor or a product, and a vendor who meets that criteria (having given their wills-and-won’ts to the clearinghouse) would be recommended by the clearinghouse. The clearinghouse would charge a fee for actual referrals and/for allowing a vendor to join the pool of vendors. The list would be kept secret and no one would necessarily know why a particular vendor was not recommended.

If houses can be brokered why not other services? If this already is being done in your neck of the woods, how does it seem to be working? Let us hear from you if you have thoughts on the practicality, legality, or morality of such a business prospect.

Written by

12 Comments
  • Dana says:

    Artificial inspermination (not a typo; a Picoism) clients frequently make such requests. Since most are heterosexual couples, the reason given is so that the child will more easily pass as being the natural child of the couple.

    The problem isn’t that couples make such requests; the problem is that we have artificial insemination in the first place. As well-off couples — and the costs involved mean that couples requesting the procedure have to have some money — choose to create babies that they cannot have naturally, plenty, plenty! of children who need adoptive parents can’t find them. I’d never make such procedures illegal, but the better alternative is adoption, not artificial insemination.

  • Dana says:

    Of course, it also needs to be mentioned that the state gets in the way of adoption far, far too much. In the states’ efforts to make certain that only perfect parents can adopt, they make it very expensive and bureaucratically difficult to adopt a child. That needs to be fixed.

    • Optimizer says:

      It’s a tragedy. I presume it’s because the state looks REALLY bad if they place a kid in a bad home, so they’re overcautious, but there’s also the usual effect of bureaucracies always expanding with money-sucking phoney baloney government jobs.

    • Optimizer says:

      Legally, this is simple breach of contract.

      As to “state-sanctioned discrimination”, that’s kind of like saying Separation of Church and State is “state-sanctioned atheism”. Both are completely the opposite. “Discrimination”, “racism”, or whatever you want to call it is a political opinion, and therefore should be protected by the First Amendment. With the rampant abuses of governmental authority these days, it’s easy to lose track of the fact that the government is not allowed to tell you what to THINK. People who don’t want to be a part of providing services to people based on various types of discrimination should be punished by virtue of their turning away potential business or besmirching their reputation, not by state-sanctioned political activism.

      The “blazing” marquee you expect is because race-baiting liberals have programmed everybody to think that racism is the worst possible thing a person can do. Think about it. The media and pop culture types can might (sometimes!) complain SOMEWHAT about a guy who knocks out his fiance with a punch, or commits some other crime, but if Paula Deen admits she used a racial slur twenty years ago she MUST BE RUINED! They’ve been successful at really hyping up anti-racism sentiment (at least racism against non-whites – they actually PREACH anti-white racism), and they do that to get people like Obama in power. There are all kinds of discrimination, it’s often unfair, and it’s hurts all the parties involved. Racism isn’t so special.

      As to wanting the baby to “look like her lesbian partner”, well that’s just a natural extension of the fantasy they already have going on, now isn’t it? Don’t look for liberals to complain about it – as a lesbian couple, they are part of the victimhood constituency they depend on, and therefore must not be criticized in any way.

      In general, should parents seek to adopt (or “order”) children that will more closely resemble themselves? Nobody can really answer that – in a free society you get to call the shots in your own life, gaining the benefits if it works out, or suffering the consequences if it doesn’t.

  • Claire Stevens says:

    Is it just me or do these two women look like they could be sisters? They’re an excellent trial couple for the next step in the homosexual lobby’s agenda for enforced acceptance of the deviant: legalized incest.

    • Merle says:

      I went back & enlarged the photo – and they sure do look like sisters. Maybe even a bit like twins???

      Merle

      • Claire Stevens says:

        Frightening, isn’t it? The more I think about it the more I am convinced that the reason this lesbian couple is all over the news is even more insidious than the story that they officially represent. Just wait. Incest is on its way to being mainstreamed.

  • One wonders how the couple would have reacted if their child had been born with Downs syndrome, or autism, or a serious medical condition. Would they be making the same blood libel against their community while suing the fertility clinic for not providing them with a physically “perfect” child?

    Probably. Modern liberalism seems to be a cult, where non-liberals are the unwashed heathen, unworthy of basic human decency. Everyone who disagrees with modern liberalism is Hitler reincarnated, or so liberals seem to believe (thus the seemingly endless Hitler comparisons).

  • Jen says:

    I agree that in this case, legally they have a case against the clinic for breach of contract and the clinic didn’t perform up to standards(misreading identifying codes on the semen?). So, yes, they’ll get their money back and then some.
    Which is what this is about.
    Meanwhile, we have a biracial baby being raised by a couple who didn’t want a biracial baby and are both lesbians.
    Which is more outrageous, the couple not wanting a biracial baby or the couple deliberately making a baby(like buying a pet) and raising it without it’s father and by two females?

  • GWB says:

    Look, it’s an easy mistake to make. After all, in the syringe, we’re all white.

    Kudos to everyone commenting on the narcissism inherent in made-to-order babies. No, I wouldn’t (as Dana said) make them illegal, but I certainly would like to see parents adopt instead of going this route.

    (Oh, and, no, I don’t think a homosexual couple should be “having children” either way. You want to form a non-viable union [by its very nature, not due to medical issues] then you live with the consequences of that act.)

  • Chris in N.Va. says:

    Another failure from the allure offered by the LGBTXYZ crowd who often will attempt to pretzel-twist Scripture to suit the fancy du jour:

    Be fruits and multiply.

    It just doesn’t add up. Biologically (where are all of those “we only believe in natural science” folks?) it never will.

    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Nothing new under the sun there at all. Another sadly predictable outcome of a soul-less, utilitarian view of human life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead