Posted on 05/21/2006 11:55:33 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
(CBS) CHICAGO It's a trend that some fear may have long-term consequences. More unmarried women over the age of 25 are not waiting for Mr. Right.
As CBS 2's Alita Guillen reports, these ladies are having children on their own.
The fantasy father at their fingertips is a sperm donor with all the right stuff.
Katherine Gehl and April Lashbrook had successful careers and dated, but they didn't have husbands. They heard their biological clocks ticking loudly.
"It was like a time bomb," April said.
"I need to go and have a baby and be a mother, and so I did," Katherine said.
Women used to depend on chemistry in the bedroom to conceive a child. Now, more and more women are turning to the lab and depending more on science than sex.
This twist on the mating game begins at a sperm bank, where donors can earn up to $900 a month.
"These guys are college students. This is a form of income," said California Cryobank Medical Director Dr. Cappy Rothman.
The sperm undergoes testing for diseases, genetic defects and blood type.
"Donor sperm, in many ways, is guaranteed good sperm," said Dr. Lauren Streicher, a gynecologist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital.
When April chose her donor in 2003, she got a long profile including a medical history and even written answers to questions.
"I knew immediately that was who I was going to choose," she said.
Now, many banks offer much more, including childhood photos and the donors' voices on CD.
Once chosen, the sperm remains frozen and stored until needed. Then it can be shipped anywhere.
While women can inseminate themselves at home, both April and Katherine used fertility specialists.
Many of these donors have already proven their fertility.
"It's an excellent way of getting pregnant because you usually have men who have confirmed pregnancy," said Dr. Brian Kaplan, a fertility specialist with Fertility Clinics of Illinois.
"We are creating a real potential disaster here," said Elizabeth Marquardt with New York City's Affiliate Scholar Institute for American Values.
Some critics are concerned that as this practice becomes more popular, and that with an unknown number of children from the same donor, that two of them might unknowingly hook up.
"In the future, we will have to have a DNA test with anyone we want to have sex with just to make sure we're not related to them," Marquardt said.
Many sperm banks say they try to limit pregnancies based on geographic area to reduce that risk. However, in a transient society, it may be hard to do.
Critics also worry how this might change the definition of family.
"As a society, we're saying fathers don't matter," Marquardt said.
Thirteen-year-old Liz Herzog, whose father is donor number 1002 from Virginia's Fairfax Cryobank, says she's happy with her life.
"I can't even say that once in a while I wish I had a father, because I don't," she said.
Through the Donor Sibling Registry Web site, she has discovered at least 10 half-sibling and has met seven, including Callie from Pennsylvania.
Liz's mother, Diana, thinks these newly forged relationships will last a lifetime.
"You can only hope that your child will be well-adjusted and happy enough when they grow up that they won't feel that they're missing too much," Diana Herzog said.
April's daughter, Julia, is now almost three years old.
"When she was born, it was just amazing," April said.
Katherine's daughter, Alexandra, is eight months old.
Both are enjoying every moment motherhood has to offer.
"It is so much greater than I had any idea," Katherine said.
April, Julia's mom, knows of six half-siblings so far.
All of the single moms we spoke with think the possibility of meeting and dating a half-sibling is very remote because they are very open or plan to be open with their children.
It is interesting to note that back when sperm banks first opened in the 1970s, it was all married couples seeking sperm donors. Doctors say those couples were more likely to keep it secret.
Let me ask you the same question I asked another person; if these women chose to sleep around and get pregnant, would that be a more satisfactory situation?
phone numbers, please?
I am opposing that stance altogether.
You have already asked me that once, and I've answered it. Is that your big arguing point?
I'll repeat myself. I'd rather have the one who just got pregnant, because at least that child has a shot at having a daddy.
Your female role models that want to have babies without men should buy a dog instead.
They already have a dog, and treat them better than many *married* people treat their children. I don't agree with you, nor you with me. Let's leave it alone.
Restricted by whom?
I'll continue posting as is appropriate.
But you're leaving it alone is a good idea. You're way off base on this one. I suspect you've not raised a family, as have those of us here who speak with the authority of parents.
>Shades of "Brave New World". <
Indeed, my friend, indeed:
"Still leaning against the incubators he gave them, while the pencils scurried illegibly across the pages, a brief description of the modern fertilizing process; spoke first, of course, of its surgical introduction--"the operation undergone voluntarily for the good of Society, not to mention the fact that it carries a bonus amounting to six months' salary"; continued with some account of the technique for preserving the excised ovary alive and actively developing; passed on to a consideration of optimum temperature, salinity, viscosity; referred to the liquor in which the detached and ripened eggs were kept; and, leading his charges to the work tables, actually showed them how this liquor was drawn off from the test-tubes; how it was let out drop by drop onto the specially warmed slides of the microscopes; how the eggs which it contained were inspected for abnormalities, counted and transferred to a porous receptacle; how (and he now took them to watch the operation) this receptacle was immersed in a warm bouillon containing free-swimming spermatozoa -- at a minimum concentration of one hundred thousand per cubic centimetre, he insisted; and how, after ten minutes, the container was lifted out of the liquor and its contents re-examined; how, if any of the eggs remained unfertilized, it was again immersed, and, if necessary, yet again; how the fertilized ova went back to the incubators; where the Alphas and Betas remained until definitely bottled; while the Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons were brought out again, after only thirty-six hours, to undergo Bokanovsky's Process."
Just because you have children does not make you an authority. It makes you parent, and that is all. You continue posting all you want. You won't win me over, nor I you. I think you are wrong. There you have it.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I focused on your inaccurate numeric analysis. That calls into question the rest of your analysis, both its numeric underpinnings and its "sociological" conclusions. Give it a rest. If you have to explain your original post in a significantly longer follow-up post I will take that as a concession that the original analysis was problematic. Give it a rest.
Feminists are stupid that way about a number of things. A lot of feminist arguments about sex and sexuality usually mention "taking control of their sexuality" or some such BS. But they really are devaluing themselves and making themselves more into hedonist male fantasy girls. These people probably vote, too. Scary.
I look at these feminists and all I have is contempt.
I said that as best I could tell, you think abortion should remain legal. Is that incorrect? (And there's no need for a drawn-out explanation, just a simple YES or NO.)
No, you didn't. You said I was "pro-abortion". Read your own posts. I am not, even if I think making it illegal is a long shot.
I hope that's simple enough for you, since you indicated that "simple" was what you needed.
I define "pro abortion" as thinking that it should be legal. Do you think it should be legal? YES or NO.
Eugenics, at least for half the equation. We just need to restrict the quality of mother matched with the sperm
I don't accept your definition, it's far too simplistic. However, I have a pretty good idea why.
The truth is, that is true for almost every man if he is willing to exercise choice. There is always a variety of women available for any man who is appealing to women. Joe Schmoe isn't chronically rejected because he is willing to commit. He is rejected because women value him less as an appealing male. If he makes some adjustments, he can be valued more. Until then, he will be passed up by attractive women.
And that's a good thing - I say many times on FR that people tend to be rejected as companions for substantive grounds, and not shallow grounds. This is a bitter pill for many to swallow, but it is true.
I think what he is saying is that a child that comes from a fatherless household is more likely to act up. It's a fact that a majority of people in prison come from fatherless homes. I don't think it's a slam against women to say that fathers are important. It's hard for a women to do it all and then can never give a child a man's perspective/influence. Children need that. Too much female only perspective (they get this in school as well as most teachers are female) is part of the reason we've got so many cockamamy, liberal social programs in this country. Look at how messed up the schools are. Look at the "million" moms march. Look at Cindy Sheehan. Look at Oprah fans. Now those are bad examples of femaleness but even a good conservative example of femaleness isn't sufficient. Men are needed to balance things out.
lifelong singlehood would be better than being married to one of these harpies.
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.