Man Who Fathered Up to 600 Children Around The World is Ordered To Stop Donating Sperm By Dutch Court

👩‍⚖️ በዓለም ዙሪያ እስከ ፮፻/600 የሚደርሱ ልጆችን የወለደው ሰው የዘር ፍሬ መለገሱን እንዲያቆም በኔዘርላንድ ፍርድ ቤት ተወሰነ። እግዚኦ! 666ቱ በሁሉም መስክ!

👉 ገብርኤል 😇 ማርያም 👉 ኡራኤል 👉 ጊዮርጊስ 👉 ተክለ ሐይማኖት 👉 መርቆርዮስ 👉 ዮሴፍ 👉 መድኃኔ ዓለም

እግዚአብሔር ባልና ሚስት፣ ባለትዳሮች፣ በዚያ የጋብቻ የቃል ኪዳን ትስስር ውስጥ ልጆችን የሚወልዱ እንዲሆኑ ሾሟል። የዝሙት ሥጋዊ ድርጊት ተፈጽሟልም አልተፈጠረም የሌላ ወንድ የዘር ፍሬ ያላገባችውን ሴት አካል ውስጥ መግባቱን አያመካኝም። የሌላ ሰውን የወንድ የዘር ፍሬን የሚያካትት ሰው ሰራሽ ማዳቀል የእግዚአብሔርን የጾታ እና የመራባት ንድፍ ይጥሳል።

፩. የተለመደው የወንድ የዘር ፍሬ የመውጣት ዘዴ (በብልግና ሥዕላዊ መግለጫዎች፤ ማስተርቤሽን) የአሠርቱ ቃላት ስድስተኛውን ትእዛዝ መጣስ ያካትታል (ማቴዎስ ፭፥፳፰፤ ቆላስይስ ፫፥፭፤ ዘጸአት ፳፥፲፬)።

፪. ብዙ ሥነ-ምግባራዊ እና ተግባራዊ ጉዳዮች ከወላጅ አስተዳደግ ጋር የተያያዙ ናቸው። ምትክ የወላጅነት ዘርን መከለስ ተገቢ ይሆናል።

፫. ስፐርም ባንኮች ትክክለኛ የሆኑ ማህበራዊ እና ህጋዊ ጉዳዮችን ያነሳሉ፤ የአባት መብቶች፣ የህጻናት ወላጆቻቸውን የማወቅ መብት፣ የበሽታ መተላለፍ እና የተስተካከለ የአስተዳደር ብልሹነት በስህተት የዘር ፍሬ እንዲፈጠር አድርጓል።

🔥 የኖህ ዘመን መጥቷል – The Days of Noah Have Come 🔥

❖[የማቴዎስ ወንጌል ምዕራፍ ፳፬፥፴፯፡፴፱]❖

“የኖኅ ዘመን እንደ ነበረ የሰው ልጅ መምጣት እንዲሁ ይሆናልና። በዚያች ወራት ከጥፋት ውኃ በፊት፥ ኖኅ ወደ መርከብ እስከገባበት ቀን ድረስ፥ ሲበሉና ሲጠጡ ሲያገቡና ሲጋቡም እንደ ነበሩ፥ የጥፋት ውኃም መጥቶ ሁሉን እስከ ወሰደ ድረስ እንዳላወቁ፥ የሰው ልጅ መምጣት ደግሞ እንዲሁ ይሆናል።”

❖ [Matthew 24:37-39] ❖

“But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

👩‍⚖️ A Dutch court on Friday ordered a man who judges said had fathered between 500 and 600 children around the world to stop donating sperm.

The 41-year-old Dutchman, identified by de Telegraaf newspaper as Jonathan Meijer, was forbidden to donate more semen to clinics, the court ruling said. He could be fined 100,000 euros ($110,000) per infraction.

The court also ordered Meijer to write to clinics abroad asking them to destroy any of his semen they have in stock, except doses reserved for parents who already had children by him.

The decision came after a civil case started by a foundation representing the interests of donor children and Dutch parents who had used Meijer as a donor.

They argued that Meijer’s continued donations violated the right to a private life of his donor children, whose ability to form romantic relationships are hampered by fears of accidental incest and inbreeding.

Meijer’s mass donations first came to light in 2017 and he was banned from donating to Dutch fertility clinics, where he had already fathered over 100 children.

However, he continued to donate abroad, including to the Danish sperm bank Cryos which operates internationally. Meijer also continued to offer himself as a donor on sites matching prospective parents with sperm donors, sometimes using a different name, according to the Algemeen Dagblad daily.

What does the Bible say about artificial insemination?

Artificial insemination is the process whereby sperm is artificially placed within a woman so as to make her pregnant. Generally, this process is used when the sperm count is not sufficient to allow pregnancy or there is some physical or psychological problem involved in sexual intercourse. Even though this process is not explicitly described in scripture, we can still derive biblical principles that apply to this subject.

Artificial insemination: A Biblical view

God intended that pregnancy occur within the bond of marriage between a man and a woman — who are married to each other. God commissioned the human race in Genesis by the proclamation that Adam and Eve were to multiply and replenish the earth. Furthermore, according to the Bible, pregnancy is to occur between the man and a woman who are married to each other. Sexual relations outside of the marriage relationship are either rape, adultery, or fornication. God condemns these as being morally wrong and thereby sinful. So, how does artificial insemination fit into this?

If the married couple is having a problem getting pregnant and artificial insemination is recommended by a doctor, then it is acceptable under the following conditions.

1. Only the sperm and egg of the married couple are involved.
2. Fertilized eggs are not intentionally lost or destroyed.

As long as both the egg and the sperm are from the same married couple, then I can see no problem with this process. After all, both the egg and the sperm belong to the married couple, and there is no intrusion of seed from outside that marriage bond. If the married couple accepts the sperm from another man (a man outside of the marriage bond with that woman), then she is inviting the intrusion of another man’s seed into herself. The artificial insemination in this case involves an adulterous occurrence.

In addition, if the process of artificial insemination involves the fertilization of many eggs with only one being implanted in the womb of the mother, this is not acceptable since the other fertilized eggs must then be discarded. This is not an acceptable option for a Christian couple since it risks destroying human life.

Christian marriage is a covenant between the husband and wife before God with people as witnesses. This covenant is taken seriously by the Lord. It should also be taken seriously by the couple. God knows all situations and circumstances and is in complete control. If a Christian couple cannot get pregnant and if the only way the wife can get pregnant is through the donation of sperm from a man outside of the marriage bond, then it is best to avoid that pregnancy. Otherwise, the couple is inviting into the woman’s body the seed of another man — which is adultery. If the couple desires to have children, they should adopt. This prevention of pregnancy could be a means by which the Lord arranges for couples to adopt, thereby, taking care of other children.

Objections answered

Some claim that using another man’s sperm to impregnate a woman is not morally wrong because there is no physical act of adultery involved and there is no intention of adultery. Also, if the husband agrees, then how could the impregnation be adulterous?

We must be very careful to not let situational ethics govern biblical principles. God has ordained that husband and wife, a married couple, be the bearers of children within that covenantal bond of marriage. Whether or not the physical act of adultery has occurred or not does not excuse the fact that the sperm of another man has entered the body of a woman to whom he is not married. Artificial insemination involving another man’s sperm violates God’s design for sex and reproduction.

1. A common method of sperm retrieval (masturbation with the assistance of pornography) involves a violation of the sixth commandment (Matthew 5:28; Colossians 3:5; Exodus 20:14).
2. Many ethical and practical issues are the same here as with surrogate parenting. A review of surrogate parenting material would be appropriate.
3. Sperm banks raise valid social and legal concerns re: paternal rights, the rights of children to know their parents, transmission of diseases, and a checkered past of mismanagement resulting in mistaken insemination of sperm.

______________

New Zealand: Parents Who Refused Vaccinated Blood For Baby’s Surgery Appear in Court

💭 An urgent hearing has been set down to seek a resolution between Te Whatu Ora Health NZ and parents who have refused to allow blood from vaccinated people to be used in a life-saving operation for their baby boy’s surgery.

Justice Layne Harvey said today’s hearing at the High Court in Auckland was purely administrative to set the date for an urgent hearing.

Representing Te Whatu Ora, lawyer Paul White flagged the urgency of the case saying medical professionals have said the child with such a condition would have been treated several weeks ago in normal circumstances.

The parents’ lawyer, Sue Grey, said the case was unusual and different from other medical guardianship cases where parents are refusing medical care. For this one, she said, the parents want better care than what the state is offering.

There was no legal or other reason why Te Whatu Ora is refusing to consider the parents’ proposal as a solution, Grey said.

“Because they label my clients as conspiracy theorists, [their position] is that anything my clients say can be ignored,” she told the court.

White said Te Whatu Ora’s application to the court is ultimately based on the best interests of the child and what they view as medically safe.

The reason why this case has come to court is because the two parties have reached what he called an impasse, White added.

Justice Harvey set down an urgent hearing for next Tuesday, and encouraged the two parties to continue discussions in the meantime.

Rallies outside court

The baby’s mother told reporters she was doing this because it was her responsibility to do the best for her child.

She said having to deal with a court case was “massive” on top of having to feed twins, she said outside the courtroom.

But she came in person because it was important. “I wanted to see the judge as well, and for the judge to see my baby.”

She said many people have shown support for their case.

“Kiwis are amazing, so many people I don’t know are showing so much love,” she said.

About 100 people gathered in support of the baby’s parents outside the front of the court’s entrance, holding placards and loud-hailers. Some recorded the ongoing scenes on their devices.

This morning’s show of support came as court documents were filed at the Auckland High Court yesterday, with Health New Zealand/Te Whatu Ora listed as the applicant for proceedings set down for this morning.

The baby’s parents and their supporters filled the small courtroom after waiting over an hour for their case to be called.

The four-month-old at the centre of the case sat in his father’s arms next to his mother.

More supporters were turned away by security officers after the public gallery was filled up and waited outside.

The NZ Herald understands Te Whatu Ora is seeking the guardianship of the four-month-old be shifted from his parents to the courts so consent to use donated blood in the required open-heart surgery can be given.

The New Zealand Blood Service’s website said blood was not divided by whether donors were vaccinated or unvaccinated. It also stated there was no evidence there was any risk in using blood from a vaccinated person.

It was understood an urgent hearing would be sought soon after today’s initial appearance in the High Court.

A supporter of the parents named Kelly said she believed the case shouldn’t be heard.

”It’s appalling, it’s stressful on the parents and on the baby.”

Te Whatu Ora Auckland interim director Dr Mike Shepherd acknowledged it could be worrying when parents had to make decisions about their children’s care.

“The decision to make an application to the court is always made with the best interests of the child in mind and following extensive conversations with whānau,” he said.

He wouldn’t comment further with the matter before the court.

The Herald has sent questions to the baby’s parents through a representative.

Auckland University’s Immunisation Advisory Centre medical director Professor Nikki Turner told Newstalk ZB Covid-19 was widespread in New Zealand and that would be reflected in the nation’s blood.

“Almost all blood in New Zealand will have Covid antibodies in it so unless you’re going to refuse all blood, I can’t imagine how you’ll get round this,” she said.

“The next thing is that Covid antibodies per se are not in any way going to be a problem for the person receiving them, they’re just going to offer the person extra protection against Covid disease.”

Turner couldn’t recall an instance when blood had been deemed ill-suited to be donated because the person had been vaccinated.

“From a scientific point of view, no I can’t think of anything that would make sense at all.

“I think it may be that people confuse the fact that the product in a vaccine is being injected into somebody but it’s not the product in the vaccine that is the response, the response is the body’s response to that [vaccine] that creates the immune response.”

New Zealand Blood Service (NZBS) chose not to comment citing the impending court action.

Associate Health Minister Peeni Henare, also the responsible minister for the NZBS, said in a statement that the “health matter” was between Te Whatu Ora and the child’s whānau, and he said it was inappropriate to comment further as it was before the court.

Requests for comment from Health Minister Andrew Little were referred to Henare’s office. Covid-19 Response Minister Dr Ayesha Verrall could not be contacted for comment.

In an online video, the parents claim they are concerned blood containing a vaccine would be used during the operation needed by the four-month-old, despite their fears reportedly being dismissed by medical professionals and information published by the New Zealand Blood Service.

In the video, the parents were interviewed by former TV newsreader Liz Gunn, who has repeatedly voiced Covid-19 mistruths and was seen earlier this year confronting a news reporter about claims of fainting children at an Auckland vaccination centre – a claim that was rubbished by health officials.

The parents say the child needs open-heart surgery after being diagnosed with “severe pulmonary valve stenosis”.

The New Zealand Heart Foundation described stenosis as when one of the heart’s valves didn’t open properly, meaning pressure and blood could back up and cause strain on the heart.

However, the parents said they didn’t want the surgery to use blood that came from a person vaccinated for Covid-19.

The pair claimed they had more than 20 unvaccinated people who were willing to donate blood, but this had not been approved by the New Zealand Blood Service (NZBS).

The parents, alongside Gunn, reportedly had a meeting with a doctor and a surgeon on the matter and their concerns were dismissed, according to the video.

The video, uploaded on Monday, stated Gunn’s interview was occurring on a Friday and the surgery was supposed to take place on a Tuesday.

The New Zealand Blood Service website featured frequently asked questions relating to blood donation and Covid-19 vaccination that included whether the vaccine was passed on through donation among other points.

The website confirmed any Covid-19 vaccine was “broken down” in the blood soon after injection and would not be transferred to recipients of donations.

“All donated blood also gets filtered during processing, so any trace amounts that may still be present poses no risk to recipients,” it said.

Concerning Covid-19′s spike protein, NZBS said it was present in “vanishingly small quantities” in the blood of some people for the first two weeks after vaccination.

“It is not found in the blood after this time period has passed. There is no evidence that this represents any risk to recipients.”

People who have been vaccinated with certain vaccines were required to delay donations until 28 days after vaccination. However, there was no stand-down period for those who had received the Pfizer vaccine, which had been widely used in New Zealand.

The NZBS website confirmed donated blood was not separated into vaccinated and unvaccinated sources because blood was filtered during processing.

Source

______________