Posted on 12/22/2006 12:22:14 PM PST by NYer
In a remarkable op-ed appearing in the Washington Post, a young woman named Katrina Clark explains what it's like to know that you are the child of an anonymous sperm donor.
It's not fun. The essay could be Exhibit A in any argument about the morality of artificially assisted human reproduction. The child of a loveless, sterile union between gametes speaks with authority when she reminds us that nobody asked for her opinion on the circumstances of her birth. Her mother (whom she still admires) got the baby she wanted. But the baby didn't get a father she could know.
Through childhood and into adolescence, the absence ate at her:
As a coping mechanism, I used to think that he was dead. That made it easier.
Eventually she dedicated her time to research, and with a lot of persistence and good fortune, located the man who donated the sperm. Now they chat by email. It's an odd, distant, but friendly relationship.
If I can't be too attached to him as my father, I'll still always be attached to the feeling I now have of having a father.
Clark observes that her mother won plaudits and support from her friends for her brave decision to become a single mother, while her biological father walked away from the sperm bank with an untroubled mind.
As long as these adults are happy, then donor conception is a success, right?
Eighteen years later, the child is still paying the cost.
How's this any different than a one night stand? Or put up for adoption? Or a child of a broken relationship where one or both adults don't want her or don't want her enough to pay support or visit?
Oh, I know. She has one parent who dearly loves her. She needs to get over herself and be thankful what what she has.
That's the stupidest reaction that could have been anticipated.
A child deserves a father and a mother.
A child of a one night stand, or a child who is abandoned by her father or a child who is put up for adoption have similar problems.
The need for a father and a mother is a real and legitimate human need and it is immoral for someone to deliberately deprive someone of a whole home.
Well, there is a certain man from Illinois who wrote a whole book about it, became their U.S. Senator and is now running for president.
This girl's sad story is a testament to the selfishness of the modern "Progressive" mindset.
Not to condone his actions, but I believe he did this to pay for college. I doubt highly that he thought he would ever meet any of them. I don't know how I feel about this. I don't recall what the Catholic Church says on this subject. The good news with this is that many women w/husbands who cannot procreate are able to become parents. I think in that case it is a good thing. Otherwise, we would have more childless married people. Should we deprive them of the chance to be parents? I am not sure if that is the best answer.
No one said a child didn't deserve two parents. At least she's wanted by one parent. That's more than many kids have, so yes she does need to grow and get over herself.
That's okay, he ain't your paw anyway.
Here's the problem in a nutshell: of course people are going to show up and say, "My dad left our family and I was raised by my mom, and I turned out o.k. She should get over it." Or (my personal favorite in the irrelevancy department), "My dad died while mom was pregnant with me, should she have aborted me?"
But this situation is different. This is not an ACCIDENT - imposed by death, or desertion, or divorce, or illness. This woman conceived this child without a father on purpose. That's the difference.
We do not judge moral issues by the lowest common denominator. Of course some kids only have one parent, but that is not the ideal. And any person who sets out deliberately to deprive a child of one parent is doing something evil.
THAT's what this girl is talking about -- moral relativism says, "As long as the woman and the man consent, it's o.k." and forgot all about the children. She is reminding those who would deliberately deprive a child of a parent that there is a price, and the price is paid by the child.
Dear napscoordinator,
"I don't recall what the Catholic Church says on this subject."
The Catholic Church regards all efforts to separate the procreative and unitive aspects of sex from each other as gravely immoral.
Artificial insemination using anonymous donor sperm is considered morally unacceptable, always wrong, and the matter of mortal sin.
sitetest
It's gravely wrong whether or not the sperm came from an anonymous donor, because it's an offense against human dignity for children to be conceived through a means other than the loving union of their parents in the marital act.
Morally, it isn't. Those are wrong, too. That's the point.
So, don't blame the child because she was taught to be this way by her myopic self centered mother. But then again should we expect anything different from these circumstances except self centered I want it and I want it now and I want it my way children?
You are completely correct.
If you are Catholic, then you should be aware of the teachings of the Church with regard to all aspects of reproductive health. In the case of 'donor insemination', the Church says,
Because the ultimate personal expression of conjugal love in the marital act is viewed as the only fitting context for the human sharing of the divine act of creation, donor insemination and insemination that is totally artificial are morally objectionable. However, help may be given to a normally performed conjugal act to attain its purpose. The use of the sex faculty outside the legitimate use by married partners is never permitted even for medical or other laudable purpose, e.g., masturbation as a means of obtaining seminal specimens.
The official teaching is contained in the encyclical Humanae Vitae
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
Otherwise, we would have more childless married people.
You begin by mentioning 'childless married people'. That is not the case in either of the two stories above. Donor insemination is a popular procedure for women who choose not to marry and for lesbians who lack the ability to reproduce. In both situations, the procedure was used to satisfy personal greed.
Should we deprive them of the chance to be parents? I am not sure if that is the best answer.
There are literally millions of abandoned children in the world. Giving birth does not make a parent. Opening one's heart and home to a homeless child is an excellent way to form a family. These children also deserve parents. Adoption is the best answer. I can assure you of that from personal experience. I am both adopted and an adoptive parent.
I believe you are missing the point here. The one parent arranged to be inseminated by a donor to gratify a personal desire. She gave no consideration to the needs or wants of the child that might result from her selfish desires. It's all about personal gratification.
That's more than many kids have ..
Once again, the comparison does not fit the story. And you're right .. many kids today are unwanted. However, nothing justifies the creation of life through artificial means when there are so many 'unwanted' children who also deserve homes. Why didn't this woman simply adopt one of those children? No need to respond ... the answer is obvious.
so yes she does need to grow and get over herself.
Do you have a father? Children born from these procedures lack that familiar figure in their lives. I've been there! I know how it feels to 'want' a father! It's an indescribable 'hole' in one's heart. Two parents provide balance in a child's life. The absence of one, leaves the other attempting to fulfill both roles.
Freeper 'wideawake' is absolutely correct. Children deserve two parents - a mother and a father.
I feel more whole now than I ever have. I love our conversations, even the most trivial ones. I don't love him, and I don't know if I ever will, but I care about him a lot.
Now that he knows I exist, I'm okay if he doesn't care for me in the same way. But I hope he at least thinks of me sometimes.
From the article. Sad.
Mrs VS
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.