Because of one's desire to become a parent, this woman paid a man to merely be a donor and never desire to love his own child. Is this the right message we want to send to men?Melissa Singer always knew she didn't want to get married. It wasn't that she didn't like men, or relationships; she just never felt the desire for constant partnership. What she did want, however, was a child.
"Motherhood was the thing I wanted to do most in the world," said Singer, who lives in New York City. "I wanted to have a child. And what if the child wanted a father? I wanted to be able to pass along the traditions that my family had. And what if the child wanted to know the other half of her family traditions? I wanted to be able to give my parents a grandchild. Parents, as in plural, having two parents! Real nice that Ms. Singer has the joy of a complete kinship chart."
So, in her mid-30s, Singer went to her doctor and said she wanted to start a family. The doctor gave her the phone number of a local sperm bank. After nine months of trying to conceive, Singer became pregnant with her daughter, Jacqueline, now 14.
"For a woman, the man is her sperm donor," Kramer said. "For a child, it's that child's biological father."And don't forget not to mess around with mother nature here...
Kramer argues that donor anonymity benefits sperm banks instead of families, allowing the banks to sell sperm without tracking how many children are born as a result. About 1,200 donors are registered at her site, she said. One found out he'd fathered 125 children.And people complain about the Duggars.
Renee: Because of one's desire to become a parent, this woman paid a man to merely be a donor and never desire to love his own child.
ReplyDelete"Donor" is clearly the wrong word since the man was paid for his participation. Further, "donor" implies someone motivated by a higher sense of humanity. Being paid to abandon one's offspring is the opposite of that.
Going to the sperm bank is a lot cheaper than going to an adoption agency. Takes less time, too.
ReplyDeleteThis is not in any way to be construed as a justification of this practice. It's just another example of the triumph of the consumer mentality.
Pete: Going to the sperm bank is a lot cheaper than going to an adoption agency.
ReplyDeleteEspecially when insurance will cover the pregnancy and delivery but not the adoption. You may be on to something. Some insurances will even cover the anonymous insemination.
These backward incentives work together to ignore the needs of an existing child in favor of creating a new child destined to a less-than-optimal setting.
Here's another point of mine that infuriates some people, but they don't debunk my actual argument:
ReplyDeleteIf you don't have the time, energy, patience, or interpersonal skills to deal with a partner, or at least attract a partner long enough to have sex - a consenting person, why do you feel entitled to have a child - someone who does not consent to sharing a life with you?
= = =
There is such thing as asexual reproduction found in nature. Nature, God, or what-have-you has not given that to us. We have sexual reproduction. Maybe there is a reason for that.
For much of the animal species, the male side of the species would rather have nothing to do with his off spring. Even with human beings it takes quite an effort to get a man to commit. It takes patience and a good judgment of chracter if you want a man to be a good husband.
ReplyDeleteMarriage had evolved a a way to involve a man in the complete involvement in his off spring, only today to have the false notion an individual is better off WITHOUT its own father as a positive influence in his/her life.
I'm not doubting the ability of marriage to be abused to control women, but if marriage was simply akin to slavery why did does it have a different name that included a ceremony?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete