Posted on 08/13/2008 5:14:22 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Mad Cow Rules Hit Sperm Banks' Patrons
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 13, 2008; Page A01
When Julie Peterson decided to have a baby on her own two years ago, she picked a tall, blond, blue-eyed Danish engineer as a sperm donor to match her own Scandinavian heritage. But when she went back to the sperm bank to use the same donor to have another child, she was stunned to discover that the federal government had made it impossible.
"I just cried," said Peterson, 43, who lives in North Carolina. "I was in complete shock. I hadn't thought about anything but having another baby with this donor. It was just so surprising and bewildering."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The issue is the woman's selfish desire for a human toy, not the fact that she wants sperm from a Nordic man. It would be just as selfish and disgusting for a man to purposefully get a woman pregnant with the intent of taking the child once it is born and raising it himself without a mother.
Is everyone who conceives via in vitro vile? Or just this woman? Helping the childless to have children that they want to bring into the world. Vile. Nope, sorry, can't quite get to the connection you are trying to make.
Hero? That's great!!
It's a bird! It's a plane! It's SUPERJOHN! SUPERJOHN has loads of expendable cash to support his morally vapid behaviour. Whereas most regular johns get by with run of the mill American streetwalkers, SUPERJOHN spends buckets of ducats to enjoy the company exotic Eastern European women!
Married, 50 year old male checking in ...
Don't forget to include the whole mail (I wrote male first - ha!) order bride thing. But, of course, being a 6'1" blue eyed blond guy, the women just flocked to me (in my dreams!)
An absurdly illogical statement. A single woman, who becomes pregnant and chooses to have the child instead of having an abortion, is not genuinely pro-life because she has no husband. I'm sorry, that's a complete crock.
See #39.
I saw #39, a post in which MEGoody (ping) expressed his/her opinion. I happen to think the opinion is overstated, so it is not something I'll hang my hat on.
Of course her decision not to abort is the only right one, but the kid then still needs a father. Such a single mom, due to circumstances (for example dumped by boyfriend/husband), of course is pro-life. But for the good of her child she should look for a father for the kid. I don't blame them at all.
However a single Mom (or Lesbian couples) who rejects the concept of fatherhood/male-female partnership and decides on purpose to have a child without a father is cruel and hampering to the development of the child. Of course she should not abort. But artificial insemnation should be only a option for couples unable to produce children in the first place. Not for single women/same-sex couples who reject the concept of a family.
OK. I think I see where you are going.
Are you suggesting that the state (I don’t know who else you would have enforce your ‘artificial insemnation should be only a option for couples unable to produce children in the first place’) determine who can and cannot have children via artificial insemination?
Do you really want the state involved in that?
“So, no, spending money and chasing around trying to get a human toy to fulfill selfish desires is NOT the ‘life’ position as you call it.”
A human toy? What one thinks about single women using a sperm bank to conceive is one thing, but reducing any woman’s desire for children to a desire for a human toy is a little bizarre. You don’t know her motives. And, any human who desires a child might also be wishing for a “human toy”, including married couples. There is no shortage of fathers or mothers who have their egos far too involved in their children’s lives: toddler beauty pageants, sports at all levels, the opportunities are endless for every sort of parent.;
So a woman trying to fulfill her basic instinct to conceive and raise a child by herself if necessary is being "selfish" if she uses today's technology? Whereas a single woman is being a "hero" if she volunteers to give birth to the hellspawn of a rapist? Yes, someone actually argued this in a thread just yesterday.
This is why I'm not a Lifer.
Actually I think most men here at FR are really pro-family.
But... there is a lot of loose talk celebrating sex outside of marriage and going to another country to find a big breasted, submissive wife. It's probably just talk.
"It's a huge commitment both financially and with my time.
I have to close my practice and go to a totally different
country. But I'm committed to having my daughter have
the same father if I can. But I don't know how many times I
can do this if a baby doesn't come with this one."
No wonder she doesn't have a man in her life. They take lots of work too.
Yes, it’s mostly boyish talk. At least in my case. I’m happily married, but that doesn’t mean I can’t make tongue-in-cheek comments on those “certain” threads. ;o)
Probably in some cases. But keep in mind, not every man on FR is a pro-family, pro-life social conservative. Of course, it's probably just talk with the 'nots' too. ;)
Yes, she is being selfish, because children do best in a two parent household. She's only wanting to fulfill her desires, she isn't thinking about the child's needs.
Whereas a single woman is being a "hero" if she volunteers to give birth to the hellspawn of a rapist?
Hellspawn? Good grief, the child is not the one who committed the crime - the child is innocent. Why do you think one of the innocent parties should be executed?
This is why I'm not a Lifer.
No, you aren't a 'lifer' because you think selfish behavior is perfectly acceptable. If it feels good, do it. No morals except those you make up for yourself at the time.
Pretty much like a child who never grew up to realize the universe doesn't revolved around him.
Not at all. She wanted a very specific physical type of child. She didn't take into account the child's needs, only her own desires.
Sorry, but this child would be nothing but a 'status symbol', a toy, a trophy to her. That doesn't mean she wouldn't feel some love toward it. But it would be a selfish kind of love. Where the interests of the child got in the way of what she wanted, what she wanted would win.
That's your choice, of course. Depending, of course, on what you mean by 'hang your hat on', I'd say it isn't wise to hang your hat on anyone's opinion, including your own.
Sorry, but if you saw yesterday's big Life thread, I still see a basic contradiction. It concerned a young girl who became pregnant after being gang raped. She decided to have the baby and raise it alone. Every Lifer on the thread praised her as a hero. If volunteering to bear a rape child made yesterday's single mother a hero, why does volunteering to conceive from a donor make today's single m other "evil" and "selfish"?
Hellspawn? Good grief, the child is not the one who committed the crime - the child is innocent. Why do you think one of the innocent parties should be executed?
Most conservatives believe that children inherit the physical and mental characteristics of their parents. Free choice of a partner, followed by conception with love, is nature's - or God's, if you prefer - plan for maximizing the probability that a couple will stay together to raise a child to maturity. Even though the woman in today's discussion decided to raise her child alone, she at least exercised free choice in picking a sperm donor representing the characteristics she wanted. Because rape denies a woman that opportunity, most rape victims choose not to have a child who may grow up as a "bad seed." Usually, this choice is made by taking a morning-after pill, so it isn't even an abortion. Conception does not take place at all.
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.