|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:26 PM June 19th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
First off, I don't want to be one of those people that get angry at those who trivialize Father's Day. It's just not worth it to me personally, and I will leave it to others who feel they have the voice to defend themselves.
I don't think the content of this article was disrespectful--the way it was written, the story. Lots of normal people have to rely on different methods to have children. Even women donate their eggs the way men do their sperm, so it's not just a one way street in terms of this anonymity-inducing parenting technique.
The only problem I see perhaps, is printing this article on Father's Day. Its questionable, but I don't think it was meant to trivialize the holiday, although ultimately in a different context, it does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:27 PM June 19th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
If I believed in conspiracies, I'd wonder why the Chicago Tribune ran a similar front page story about another guy who donated his sperm under a legally binding contract ensuring anonymity and then gets "the call" from one of his offspring seeking to "understand her identity."
We've all known for a couple decades now that contracts with females (i.e. "the marriage contract") are not worth the ink used to print them.
Now we have to assume that any man foolish enough to donate his sperm, believing he has a legally binding agreement ensuring his anonymity, has been deceived and set up for an extortion scheme.
Notice that in both of these prominent articles "celebrating" Father's Day, there is the usual not-so-subtle feminist argument to deny men's legal rights for "what's good for the child...."
Also note that the sperm donor market has shifted in the past twenty years from serving primarily married infertile women to providing remote-control fatherhood for lesbian couples and single women.
Do you smell a set-up here?
Like, just maybe a huge pay-day for the child support industry?
The Trib piece is at --
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi -0506190276jun19,1,5848772.story?coll=chi-news-hed &ctrack=2&cset=true
"Sperm donors' offspring reach out into past:
But those searching for roots can run into rules and dead ends."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:50 PM June 19th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
" Lots of normal people have to rely on different methods to have children. Even women donate their eggs the way men do their sperm, so it's not just a one way street in terms of this anonymity-inducing parenting technique."
OK, I am a single guy and I would like two children, without the encumbrance of a wife or mother, does Equality mean I can claim same ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:39 PM June 19th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"Also note that the sperm donor market has shifted in the past twenty years from serving primarily married infertile women to providing remote-control fatherhood for lesbian couples and single women."
Crap. I meant to say "married infertile couples."
Obviously the women were fertile, assuming their babies logically proved that.
Though I was wondering, how would a faithful lesbian woman know if she is fertile?
She has regular periods, of course. But she's never tested her female reproductive system by introducing it to sperm.
So, if she uses a sperm bank and it doesn't result in pregnancy, does she have liability to test herself?
What obligations does the sperm bank assume for determining her fertility or its lack?
I'm thinking about law school... sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:29 PM June 19th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
... will see a state of affairs where "donor" is used as often as "father" was 50 years ago in routine conversation.
Heck in a hand-basket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Masculiste on 06:05 AM June 20th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I heard of another story along these lines, only it was the state contacting the donor over child-support...and they got it!
Read it at...
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05140/507736.stm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:20 AM June 20th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
In the case you cite, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05140/507736.stm the sperm donor was once the lover of the woman, and winds up on the hook for child support even though they had a "valid contract" absolving him of all responsibility, and he was not in the children's lives.
Now if a woman who did not have a lover as in the original linked story, established contact with the Father, visits, etc. Just wait until she loses her job, applies for gov't aid of any kind. Watch the hooks come out and the poor dope is on the hook for child support. Suddenly, "Mr. Enlightened" has full non custodial child support payments to make, so he has to work harder and harder at his business to have the same quality life style, while the little woman discovers the joys of leasure at the expense of "Dad."
I agree that this us just antoher gender feminist sob piece to show how "sperm donors" are needed to be visited (on rare ocassions) by children for the best interest of the child. Any male who can't see the child support set-up coming out of this "friend of the feminist" news media, needs to pull his head back out into the bright sunlight of reality. "Danger," "Danger," "Danger!" I wonder how the courts would go about assigning child support for scores of children so benevoltenly concieved by Mr. Beautiful?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The child's best interest . . is 'used' to get men to accept most discriminatory actions, therefore one wonders why . . the State encourages so many children to be born - who may never know a half of their own history.
With the current vogue for tracing Ancestry and the known psychological damage that could result from the need to know ones parentage . . it seems wilfull cruelty to promote such widespread conception . . certainly it does not appear in the best interests of the child.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Can't wait to read comments on