"Donor-conceived Alana Sveta tells her story....She describes how she often tells people that her father is dead so she will not have to tell them the truth about being conceived by a sperm donor, a fact that she considers “creepy” and “disgusting.”
“It embarrasses me,” she said.
My heartfelt sympathies, beautiful sister.
This is the unfortunate result of the "Me, myself and I" generation that "can do whatever they want" in their "private" lives. You see, it's "their" business.
Ping.
They would prefer not to be here? Geez.
So! How is this any different from a quick hookup with a person you have never met before and may never see again?
Kick it up a few notches. How many “people of means” are now totally “creating” designer babies, using only a check book?
Michael Jackson did it that we know of. He bought the sperm, the egg, the surrogate mom. Then he took these kids home. All he put into it was money. Yet he got to keep the resulting human beings, virtually as his property.
And I’m sure he’s not the only one. And some of these checkbook “parents” might be creating designer children for some very dark purposes.
Taking no comfort in this study - but from the first test tube baby’s birth in 1978 (Louise Brown) IVF seemed intuitively, unnatural and wrong.
Having been flamed on many threads for not understanding the *desire* of the birth mother - and the discarding of embryos - perhaps we will better understand the wisdom of the biblical rules for sexual mores, marriage and parenting.
This is different from adoptions in what way?
Now I thought it was “The more babies the better?”
Many sperm doner kids not only have no father but also have two mommies. People are selfish. If a woman can not develop a normal relationship with a man then they shouldn’t have a child. We already no Kids in singleparent family kids regardless of conception are born with a disadvantage.
A guy who donates his sperm is likely to be weird.
A woman who receives a sperm donation is likely to be weird.
The offspring of two likely weird people is likely weird.
Seems to support Darwin.
“It’s just that we, the children, haven’t been empowered to vocalize our issues yet. The needs and concerns of our mothers and their partners have trumped and stifled our own,” she said.
When I read a phrase such as, “...been empowered to vocalize...” I get deeply suspicious of the true authorship of what I am reading.
Too often these young people have others who give them the diologue to recite or the writer of the piece wants to take over and rewrite as he types.
I feel bad for them but OTOH how many men would donate if they knew in 18 years someone migth show up on their doorstep?
I don't know what I'd do.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Both lists, since homosexuals often use unnatural methods to "have" children, other than adoption, or from previous relationships. I thought the article would be about physical or health problems, of which I have also read in connection with IVF. But this is a different issue. This is not knowing your father at all other than an anonymous masturbator, who often did the job for money.
Nature knows best, and that means children should be born the normal, natural way. God has designed how children are conceived and born, and this issue is another example of how peoples' intellects can create things that are dangerous and wrong. Science if not guided by natural moral law can and does create evil.
It is often said that "well, this woman wants a baby and has no husband" or "this woman wants a baby and her husband has a low sperm count".
My reply is - this world is not designed or created so that every single want, whim and desire a person has MUST be satisfied. That is a self-centered, infantile and dangerous mentality. If a husband and wife want children and cannot produce any themselves, there are children to adopt; and there would be more, if they were not aborted.
One demoniac act generates many more. Kill the babies, then there are none to adopt, so people who cannot for some reason produce ones of their own will go to unnatural and dangerous lengths to have them. All wrong.
It’s called the “who’s your daddy now” syndrome.
Sorry...
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
This NYT author is putting his own agenda into the article. If you read the study he’s talking about, the children whose parents used donors are FAR more happy about it that he makes you think. http://familyscholars.org/assets/Donor_FINAL.pdf_
This is not surprising. How sad for them..
It doesn't matter whether the baby was due to an oopsie in the back seat, a violent rape, sex in the marital bed, sex in the office coffee room with your married boss, or IVF with donor sperm.
Who is going to slam a loving, married couple who have tried everything to have a baby and end up using a donor sperm or egg and finally becoming parents? With all the evil and abuse in the world, you are really going to condemn people who want more than anything in the world to be parents?
Those of you who think being infertile means you should never use technology to have a child should yourselves walk or ride a pony to your next cross-country business trip. "G-d would NEVER have wanted" you to use a jet airplane.