Single Women making withdrawals at the sperm bank

Started by realman, Jul 22, 2005, 09:24 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

realman

Typical MSN pro-anything-female article here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8284173/

My favorite quote, on why some women prefer to be single mommies than be married and have a traditional family:

"But others who opt to go this route don't think they're missing much. "With a lot of the relationships I see with my friends, you have a couple of kids and a husband you need to manage -- it's a lot of work to have a great marriage," says Anne-Marie. "Am I working harder as a single mom than a married mom? I don't think so. In some ways, I'm working less hard because I don't have another adult to work around and manage. In some ways it's simpler.""

Husbands need to be managed? Ah yes, I love the thinly-veiled misandrism. I wish I had ovaries so I could get off every time someone subtly reassured me of how useless and helpless men are! Just feel that estrogen surge at the thought!

I also love the "I'd rather be a single mom than have to actually WORK (horror of horrors!!!!) at a marriage" attitude. Wouldn't wanna have to do any work in a relationship (I thought men were the ones who had to do the dirty work in relationships anyway? At least that's what women keep telling me...)

As usual, it's "I want it all, and with as little work as possible on my part, preferably none".

What I hate most about it is that it's pretty much selfishness... "I don't wanna have to expend any effort on a marriage, I don't want to be "held back" by a relationship, and my life will be meaningless if I never had children, so even though children should have two parents I'm gonna get some sperm from someone I've never met and have me a baby so I can feel good about myself and give my life meaning and maybe not die a lonely old woman with 23 cats who nobody talks to."

I also love the feminist doublespeak- women don't need to have husbands or children to lead fulfilling meaningful lives, have a menaingful career, and "live life to the fullest"; in fact marriage and motherhood holds women back from their fulfillment; but if a woman never has kids she will have lived a lonely, meaningless, empty life so if she needs to have children alone, "ou go girl"."

I know my brain hurts trying to understand how THAT makes sense! From what I can tell it only makes sense if one contorts their brain to beleive that "women should have whatever they want regardless of the consequences to themselves or others" is an absolute truth.

Hachu

Quote from: "realman"
Typical MSN pro-anything-female article here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8284173/

My favorite quote, on why some women prefer to be single mommies than be married and have a traditional family:

"But others who opt to go this route don't think they're missing much. "With a lot of the relationships I see with my friends, you have a couple of kids and a husband you need to manage -- it's a lot of work to have a great marriage," says Anne-Marie. "Am I working harder as a single mom than a married mom? I don't think so. In some ways, I'm working less hard because I don't have another adult to work around and manage. In some ways it's simpler.""

Husbands need to be managed? Ah yes, I love the thinly-veiled misandrism. I wish I had ovaries so I could get off every time someone subtly reassured me of how useless and helpless men are! Just feel that estrogen surge at the thought!

I also love the "I'd rather be a single mom than have to actually WORK (horror of horrors!!!!) at a marriage" attitude. Wouldn't wanna have to do any work in a relationship (I thought men were the ones who had to do the dirty work in relationships anyway? At least that's what women keep telling me...)

As usual, it's "I want it all, and with as little work as possible on my part, preferably none".

What I hate most about it is that it's pretty much selfishness... "I don't wanna have to expend any effort on a marriage, I don't want to be "held back" by a relationship, and my life will be meaningless if I never had children, so even though children should have two parents I'm gonna get some sperm from someone I've never met and have me a baby so I can feel good about myself and give my life meaning and maybe not die a lonely old woman with 23 cats who nobody talks to."

I also love the feminist doublespeak- women don't need to have husbands or children to lead fulfilling meaningful lives, have a menaingful career, and "live life to the fullest"; in fact marriage and motherhood holds women back from their fulfillment; but if a woman never has kids she will have lived a lonely, meaningless, empty life so if she needs to have children alone, "ou go girl"."

I know my brain hurts trying to understand how THAT makes sense! From what I can tell it only makes sense if one contorts their brain to beleive that "women should have whatever they want regardless of the consequences to themselves or others" is an absolute truth.


Maatkare thinks its disgusting and selfish to purposely purchase sperm and use it to  be a single parent.

A child needs two parents and a child needs a physical history.  not, " Well mommy was lonely and bored so she thought she'd go to the sperm bank and get herself a pet"

no2fembots

no2fembots wonders what kind of brave new world we are moving towards.  

When artifical "wombs" are created - and they will be made! - will men line up to do the same as women do with their sperm bank withdrawals?

Picture this:  Men and their children on one side of the city and wimin and their children on the other.  Sort of like Vancouver BC and it's homosexual population with homosexual men living in the West End and homosexual wimin living in the East End, especially around what used to be a beautiful ethnic neighbourhood now called the "Drive".

Blech!
"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give."  - Winston Churchill
                                                                                   
"Get Angry...Get Loud... GET UP off your KNEES!"

Awakened

Quote
and a husband you need to manage





:blahblah:  :blahblah:  :sm12:  :jerk:


Quote
With no Mr. Right in sight, time for plan B


Nevermind that you (ms. plan B woman) are Ms. WRONG! Couldn't possibly be that could it?

realman

Awakened speaketh the truth..... again, gotta love how it's ALWAYS a case of "no decent men left", never a case of "none of them want me" or "my standards are on Venus"....it's always the fault of a man/men for being "commitmentphobic", "not good enough", "no good men left", etc. Certainly in some cases the girls are right... but methinks it's at best 50-50. I've yet to hear a woman admit that though... :lol:

Russ2d

Brave new world indeed no2fembot,

It will be a most horrible existence with both the common working man and woman leading depressing and pathological lives while an elite ruling class sits high above and away from it all.


Advanced incubators will replace women and the following generations will be even more dehumanized then we already are.

My hope is things will get so bad that an extremely devoted and powerful revolution will rise up to destroy it all.

scarbo

"Mr. Right" = a guy who she can walk all over, who will always let her have her way.

"Husband to manage" = person who she'd have to compromise with from time to time, like in any good marriage. Can't have that, now, can we?

Conclusion: society now fully enables and encourages women's selfishness.

Scarbo says: Fine. Who cares? Let 'em find out the hard way that that isn't how life is meant to be lived. IF they can admit to themselves that they're mistaken, which, if they're anything like my ex-wife, hell will freeze over and my Cubs will win the World Series first.

Shades of Pale

Quote
"With a lot of the relationships I see with my friends, you have a couple of kids and a husband you need to manage -- it's a lot of work to have a great marriage," says Anne-Marie. "Am I working harder as a single mom than a married mom? I don't think so. In some ways, I'm working less hard because I don't have another adult to work around and manage. In some ways it's simpler.""


In other words, she doesn't want another adult around who's accountable for and cares about the kids.  She doesn't want to have to answer to anyone or be accountable to with regards to how she raises them.   A MANNNNNN's input would cramp her "parenting" style.

Disgusting.   Children need two parents if at all possible.

Pernicious

Don't worry in a few years, I see the government forcing unmarried men to support these women.
 do what I need to do to protect my loved ones, friends, and family. This is what men do.

Shades of Pale

Pernicious, you are already right.

Have you taken a look at the NOW resolutions that someone else put up?  One of them is about "mothers and caregivers" and NOW is advocating exactly that.  They don't CALL it that, since it's "the government" which would be paying out the moms, and apparently NOW just thinks the money is "there" for the government to "give."   They don't realize that it is forcibly taken from those who earn it.

The 'universal daycare' is apparently already in force in the UK and they're trying to get it here.   Single men are already paying for these irresponsible women and it will only get worse.

Stallywood

Quote from: "Pernicious"
Don't worry in a few years, I see the government forcing unmarried men to support these women.


Heres one example of a good ending...But its only one sate.  And I think the ruling is over a year ago.
Stally


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001922232_spermdonor07.html

Friday, May 07, 2004 - Page updated at 09:34 A.M.
Court rules sperm donor is not liable for children

By Jonathan Martin
Seattle Times staff reporter

An appeals court ruled yesterday that sperm donors don't have the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood without a specific contract saying so, clarifying a law critical to many adoptive parents, gay couples and fertility clinics.
The ruling, which comes in a tangled Pierce County case, raises an unusual scenario: A man who fathers a child through a sexual relationship can be made to pay support. But if the same child is born in a test tube, the father can walk away.

According to the appeals court, Michael Kepl agreed to give his long-term girlfriend, Teresa Brock, a sperm donation through a University of Washington fertility clinic. Kepl was married and shielded the affair and his donation from his wife.

When a boy was born to Brock in 1998 through in vitro fertilization, Kepl took out a life insurance policy benefiting the baby, stayed in regular contact, paid up to $650 a month in unofficial child support and signed a sworn statement of paternity.

But the couple didn't sign a contract saying Kepl accepted legal responsibility for the child. Under state law, sperm donors are shielded from the legal duty of fatherhood, except where couples sign a contract welcoming the donor into his child's life.

Other court rulings


Washington appeals courts have decided other complicated cases involving artificial insemination:
In 2002, the Washington Supreme Court ordered the destruction of two frozen embryos during a custody dispute between David and Becky Litowitz. The ruling was a narrow interpretation of the contract the couple signed with a California embryo bank and didn't address the ethics of custody of the embryos, which contained David Litowitz's sperm and a donated egg.

Last week, the state Division I Court of Appeals granted Mian Carvin the right to ask for shared parenting of an 8-year-old daughter born of her ex-partner's egg and donated sperm. Carvin was granted that right because of psychological bonds formed while she raised the girl.

As the affair was crumbling in 2001, Brock had a second child with Kepl's sperm. They give differing versions about Kepl's approval for the second pregnancy. He said he didn't; Brock said it was his idea.

Kepl stopped paying the support in early 2002, when his wife learned of the affair. Again, Kepl and Brock differ: He said she told his wife, while Brock said she didn't blow the whistle.

In 2002, Brock won nearly $900 a month in child support, plus her attorneys' fees, when she took Kepl to Pierce County Superior Court. The trial court focused on their consensual affair, dismissing Kepl's arguments as a sperm donor shielded by state law.

Yesterday's Appeals Court ruling reversed the award for monthly support and the attorneys' fees, saying the law is unambiguous: Donors can't be forced to accept the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood without signing a contract.

The concise, four-page ruling is believed to be the first in the state to address the rights of sperm donors when they're asked for child support.

Kepl said yesterday he made a mistake in having the affair, but said he and Brock agreed he would play little role in their child's life. He said he signed the paternity affidavit and gave the unofficial child support to prevent Brock from talking to his wife.

"I would try to do anything I could to prevent her from finding out," Kepl said. "The girlfriend knew it."

Brock, reached yesterday while she was feeding dinner to the two children, said the ruling was as financially devastating as it was baffling. She said she wasn't told by her fertility doctor that a contract was required to make Kepl the legal father, or she would have insisted on one.

"This is a huge ruling, and not just for me," she said. "There's a lot of children out there where the father could walk away now."

Brock's attorney, Daniel Smith of Puyallup, said the ruling trumps paternity statutes in favor of the sperm donor shield, and should force the Legislature to reconsider the donor law.

"The frustrating thing is the court didn't look at the best interest of the child," Smith said.

Lisa Stone, executive director of the Northwest Women's Law Center, said she followed the case because of its potential effect on adoptive couples, particularly gay couples who rely on sperm donors. "It's just a weird case," she said.

Though the ruling hurt Brock, it could also shield women who get artificially inseminated from donors who later want to intervene in their child's life, said Stone.

"For infertile people or women who want to have a child, this protects them," she said. "It also protects the sperm donor. If you provide sperm, you're not the father unless there's a separate piece of paper that says this person will be the father and donor."

Kepl said he is now getting a divorce because his wife is so angry about the affair, and said he has yet to tell their teenage daughter the whole story.

"It's been hugely traumatic," he said.
Gentleman is a man who consciously serves women. I prefer the golden rule.

Behind every great man, is a
parasite.

Women who say men won't commit, usually aren't worth committing to.

Stallywood

But heres one that will probably have worse implications and a wider reach. This can set an important precedent.
Stally


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157553,00.html

Case Could Freeze Sperm Donation

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

By Wendy McElroy

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court (search) is currently considering a legal appeal that could set a wide-reaching precedent for both child support policy and fertility clinics in the United States.

As one report states, "sperm donors who thought they were getting $50 for their genetic material" -- a standard clinic fee -- and nothing more may be in for a real shock.

The case involves sperm donor Joel L. McKiernan (search) and his former lover Ivonne V. Ferguson (search). Ten years ago, they entered a verbal contract that a three-judge panel of the Superior Court said was valid "on its face." In exchange for McKiernan donating sperm that led to the birth of twins through in vitro fertilization, Ferguson released him from any obligation toward the offspring.

(IVF involves fertilizing a woman's eggs with sperm in a lab dish and then placing the fertilized eggs back in the aspiring mother's uterus.)

Ferguson denies that an agreement to release McKiernan from responsibility ever existed. Nevertheless, she named her ex-husband as "father" on the birth certificate. Five years after the twins' birth, she filed against McKiernan for child support.

The tangled personal circumstances of this situation constitute a legal nightmare and the sort of "hard" case that makes bad law. And bad law is exactly what may result.

Both the trial court and the Superior Court called Ferguson's actions "despicable" and expressed sympathy toward McKiernan. Yet both found him liable to pay over $1,500 a month in child support plus arrearages to the now-divorced Ferguson. (McKiernan has married, moved, and now has two other children he is raising.)

Why was McKiernan considered liable? The original contract was deemed unenforceable due to "legal, equitable and moral principles." The main abrogating principle: Biological parents cannot waive the interests of a child -- a third party -- who has an independent "right" to support from each one of them.

It does not matter that a third party did not exist when the contract was forged and probably would have never existed without the contract. Nor does it matter that the law generally presumes a husband to be the father of any child born during the marriage. The donation of sperm alone makes McKiernan financially liable for the twins until they reach adulthood.

Or it will, if he loses the Supreme Court appeal, which weighs the extent of a sperm donor's liability. Presumably, the ruling would equally impact women who donate eggs for another's fertility treatment.

Pennsylvania, like most states, has not adopted a version of the Uniform Parentage Act, which protects sperm or egg donors from the responsibilities of parenthood. Many -- if not most -- donors merely presume that anonymity provides such protection.

In the case of Ferguson v. McKiernan, the identity of the sperm donor was always known. But the principle sustained by the courts could apply with equal force to anonymous donors.

Ferguson's attorney argued that her case did not threaten sperm banks or fertility clinics because such facilities had not been involved. McKiernan's attorney noted that the contract in question was virtually identical to the ones they offer: namely, anonymity or non-involvement in exchange for a donation. If a mother or father cannot waive the "right" of a potential child to support, then it is not clear how a fertility clinic could do so in its capacity as a broker for profit between the two "parents."

The danger this precedent would pose was expressed by Arthur Caplan, a professor and medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania. Caplan explained that anyone who donates genetic material on the basis of anonymity "ought to understand that their identity could be made known to any child that's produced and they could be seen by the courts as the best place to go to make sure the child has adequate financial support." The prospect becomes more likely if one parent is requesting support from a government agency.

Sperm banks are legally required to maintain a record of each donor's identity, often indefinitely.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Judge Ronald D. Castille was more blunt than Caplan in his assessment of the risk that donations would cease. "What man in their right mind would agree to that [sperm donation] if we decide this case in your favor? Nobody." What woman in her right mind would donate eggs?

Estimates on infertility in the United States vary but the rate is often placed at about 15 percent, even without including gay and lesbian couples. That is, 15 percent of couples fail to conceive after one year of regular, unprotected intercourse. If miscarriages are factored in, the rate increases.

According to Dr. Cappy Rothman of the California Cryobank, an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 artificial inseminations occur every year in the U.S. And that is only one form of infertility treatment. Though these procedures are usually performed using the sperm and eggs of the couple hoping to conceive, the use of donated sperm and eggs is a common solution to infertility.

If the Pennsylvania Supreme Court finds the sperm donor to be liable for child support, then many forms of infertility treatment in most states could become less available and more expensive. Those donors who step forward will want to be compensated for their increased legal risk.

The courts have pitted a child's "best interests" against the rights of biological parents to contract with each other on the terms of reproduction. They may have also opened a Pandora's box of complications involving a child's claim on a sperm donor's data and wealth.

But the worst consequence may be the denial of life itself to children who are desperately wanted by infertile couples. The law should not obstruct their chances of conceiving.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

Respond to the Writer
Gentleman is a man who consciously serves women. I prefer the golden rule.

Behind every great man, is a
parasite.

Women who say men won't commit, usually aren't worth committing to.

Go Up