Posted on 12/14/2003 7:38:56 PM PST by Aliska
Italy bans donor sperm and eggs
Italy's Senate has overwhelmingly approved a law which bans the use of donor sperm, eggs or surrogate mothers. It also limits the right to artificial fertilisation to "heterosexual couples in stable relationships", excluding gay couples and single women.
The bill, one of the most restrictive in Europe, has drawn support and criticism from across the party lines.
BBC Rome correspondent Frances Kennedy says that the bill has pitted Catholics against liberals and men against women.
The legislation, passed in the Senate by 169 votes to 90 on Thursday, will now be sent back to the lower house of the parliament for minor adjustments.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Salvation: Catholics might find this of interest if you want to ping them. It is more general news, but I could have posted it in the religion forum.
I don't like sperm!
I don't know what it is with us and why we insist on certain rights that aren't good for everyone.
What? No more green eggs and sperm?
You are aware that this would mean that infertile couples would be prohibited from having children, aren't you?
Exactly how does that promote family values?
And as to the restriction of fertility treatments to married couples, do you understand that unmarried fertile people can have all the children they want by having sex?
Do you want to make unmarried sex illegal?
I bet you'd like make birth control illegal too, wouldn't you?
Perish the thought!
Now, let me get this straight: this law will prohibit donor eggs and surrogacy, but notabortion? Apparently, the artificial creation of life in Italy is a greater crime than its artificial destruction.
Exactly how does that promote family values?
You have to draw the line somewhere. Childless marriages are not the end of the world.
do you understand that unmarried fertile people can have all the children they want by having sex?
I have six illegitimate grandchildren to prove it. I would have wanted better for them.
Do you want to make unmarried sex illegal?
Frankly, I think it would make for a more healthy, stable society. You think it is a good thing what we have now? I think fornication used to be illegal in some places. I think it ought to be illegal for someone like Strom Thurmond to fornicate with his parents' 16-year-old domestic servant.
I bet you'd like make birth control illegal too, wouldn't you?
Personally, I'd make sperm illegal.
I don't know if I'd want birth control completely illegal, but I think it is the cause of a lot of problems in our modern society that were far, far less 50 years ago.
I used different forms of birth control. Some of it was not a good thing at all. There were negative consequences, such as infection from IUD, other things. I think we are too obsessed with sex in our society today. There is more to life than sex and birth control so we can have more sex without babies.
Frankly, I think it would make for a more healthy, stable society. You think it is a good thing what we have now? I think fornication used to be illegal in some places. I think it ought to be illegal for someone like Strom Thurmond to fornicate with his parents' 16-year-old domestic servant.
I bet you'd like make birth control illegal too, wouldn't you?
Personally, I'd make sperm illegal.
That someone with your ideas would support this law only reinforces my opinion of it.
By the way,Strom's affair with the black maid was illegal; it was a violation of the miscegenation law.Those laws were struck down as unconstitutional insults to human dignity and freedom. I guess you'd like to reinstate them, too
I don't know either. It always amazes me how many people who are "pro-choice" about death are not also pro-choice about creating life.
But what about adoption then?
No they don't
A young woman who has given a child up for adoption should not have to worry that the child will suddenly pop up years later, disrupting her life and making who knows what claims on her
What if she is now married, and her husband had no idea she had previously had a child?
What if she had told him she was a virgin when they married?
Why should her children have to deal with an unexpected sibling?
What if the child was the product of rape or incest?
The potential problems caused by that scenario are explosive
If a person does not wish their identity to be ever revealed to a child given up for adoption, they should have that right.
If your concern is potential genetic diseases, I have no problem requiring the bio parents to give a genetic sample at the time of the adoption , to be preserved if it should be needed in the future.
Thier children are "donated."
Interesting thought, isn't it?
Not quite... there are different cases, and this is only true if both man and woman are infertile. Italy bans the following procedures:
1. Sperm donation. Here, the woman would be the biological mother of the child (the egg is still hers).
2. Egg donation. Conversely, the man would be the biological father of the child. Also, the woman may (and by "may" I mean "probably will") feel more attached since she gave birth to the child.
3. Surrogate mothers. Here, the child could be biologically both the man's and the woman's. Just because the woman can not carry the child to term doesn't mean she doesn't have eggs. The child could also be just the father's.
Persons deserve to know the identity of their biological parents (and other biological relatives).
The crux of your argument is "The biological parents have no legal rights," however, the issue at stake is the rights of a child. Does a child deserve to find his/her biological parents? Furthermore, does a child deserve to be told it is adopted? My guess as to your opinion on the issue is "no" to both points, however, I will leave you to respond.
From your post 23, it seems you side with the Italian government on this issue. I don't understand why. If you look at my post 29, you will find a few ways in which sperm/egg donation and surrogate mother benefit straight couples by providing a biological link for at least one of the parents to the child. True, adoption provides a legal link to the children; nobody disputed that and it was quite an obvious point. However, this doesn't change the fact that people much prefer to have a child that is theirs biologically, rather than a child that is theirs solely in name.
The only argument I can see is that allowing single woman to undergo some of these treatments is bad for society. In addition, I would think that a single woman who goes through artificial insemination would be more responsible a woman who is promiscuous and has an illegitimate child. Unless we crack down on promiscuity, it seems unfair to me to leave out lonely woman who can't get a man. Also, going back to the beginning of the argument, I am opposed to any means the government goes through to engineer society. This, in my opinion, will only lead to eugenics and segregation.
But don't expect them to have any effect on those who support this crazy and backward law for religious reasons
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.