This is interesting.
England changed their laws vis-à-vis anonymous sperm donors back in April USING THE SUBTERFUGE of ‘best interest of the child’. Although their real purpose was the ongoing attempts by western civilization to make it MORE difficult for single women (both gay and straight) to become mothers without a male overseer.
This, of course, is all part of men trying to get themselves in charge of everything again. AND even though they have no interest in marriage or children these days until WELL past our fertility limits, God forbid women should do something that men have no interest in anyway...even though women having children with an anonymous donor meets ALL the traditionally historic criteria for most women to have children: which is basically fine, go have them as long as neither you or the kids trouble, bother, make any noise, smells or mess (or cost) men anything whatsoever. Then it's fine, have a dozen if you can meet this criteria... AND against ALL ODDS women find a way to do this anyway. YET now, of course, it's no longer legal. Since about FIVE people, maybe, have complained that they didn't like being donor children because they never got to know their father...so of course the hundreds of thousands of mothers who benefit from this procedure shouldn't be able to use it anymore.
Well that sounds fair doesn't it. I mean using that criteria every pregnant woman whose husband dies (like in war for instance) BEFORE the birth of their child should immediately abort it...since what value is this child's life if they will never know their father? Obviously not much if you believe the thinking behind this law, they would be better off not having ever existed.
In fact this change in law was NOT about children's best interest at all but about the never-ending struggle of men to control women again. That's the SOLE reason for this change. It is a continuation of the age-old method of holding a mother’s children as hostages for her ‘good’ behavior and of men trying to get back in the Captain's seat again, which they gave up a generation or so ago when they all decided to be like Hugh Hefner and have sex with no commitment. Clearly, anything that can restore them to that position, such as interfering with a single women becoming a mother without the requisite male overseer in charge, is a plus.
Thus, this law painted as phony concern for children...and by the way, we can expect it HERE soon as well, just to let you know...
Regarding the article itself, the fact that they are now forced to advertise for SOME SPERM DONORS shows me two things.
One, the goal they wished to obtain has already been met; and, two, the right hand there must not know what the left hand is doing.
Since why advertise when you’ve successfully completed the mission????
Sigh...
Anyway story below:
"NEWS.telegraph
Every sperm donor recruited costs public $6,250 say critics
By Charlotte McDonald-Gibson
(Filed 03/07/2005)
Every sperm donor recruited by a new awareness campaign costs the Government £6,250, according to critics who say that the scheme has been wasteful.
Since the Government changed the law in April to allow children of sperm donation a right to information on their natural parents, ministers have spent £300,000 on a drive to counteract a drop in donor numbers. Sperm donors receive, by law, a maximum of £15 for their efforts.
“It has been like emptying petrol on the ground, not in the tank," said a spokesman at a fertility clinic in London. "The Department of Health, having decided to change the law against the advice of nearly all the practitioners in the industry, now need a commitment to continuous education on the need for donors."
From January to May, the campaign resulted in 486 calls to the donor information line, of which 237 have been potential sperm donors and the rest potential egg donors
Clinics have seen a steady decline in donor numbers since questions about anonymity were raised in the mid-1990s. The number of men donating sperm fell from 554 between 1991 and 1992 to 222 between 2002 and 2003.
People now can wait years for a suitable donor, prompting some to turn to unregulated websites or to go abroad.
The Department of Health pointed to the 486 calls as an indication of the campaign's success. But many factors prevent callers from donating. Some prove to be cranks, others too old, some have an unsuitable history, and others never call back. Those that make it to the clinic face tests to see whether their sperm is sufficiently fertile to withstand freezing.
Linda Sheahan, a laboratory manager at the London-based Louis Hughes fertility clinic, said that the money would be better spent on television and radio advertisements. "We got 237 responses over five months - that is not very successful," she said.
A Department of Health spokesman said that although calls to the helpline were one indicator of the campaign's success, media coverage also had to be considered, as did donors who went directly to the clinics.
"The campaign funds cannot be broken down into a cost per donor," he said. "It is about raising awareness."
Yeah, right...
Like after you explain to a man he can NO longer be anonymous when he donates sperm and the MAXIMUM AMOUNT he can get paid is about $15 lb, THEN he's going to want to donate sperm for some woman he doesn't even KNOW to have a child. With the spectre of 'child support' hanging over his head, since he's no longer anonymous.
Please.....
I mean heck a woman can barely convince a guy to do that when you're in a relationship with him FOR YEARS; sometimes even when you're MARRIED to them, men don't want children since they claim they are not ready yet...
Like David Letterman (51 years old) before his girlfriend finally just went ahead and got pregnant. She was in her late 30s - early 40s, they were together for years, YET David was still waiting for a good time to get married and have kids...and guess what, they have a kid alright but STILL aren't married...
David's probably not ready yet...
Of course, (women who generally wish to be mothers) could have our eggs hard boiled or be dead of old age by the time the men in our lives are ready to be parents.
AND I can guarantee you that MOST of those single women looking for anonymous donors are women WELL into their 30s who had a relationship with a man for YEARS, just hanging around, probably living with the guy at one time, waiting and waiting and then waiting some more for him to be READY for marriage and children.
Probably the women just finally gave up and it was too LATE to invest more time in someone else, so she just decided to take the anonymous donor route. Actually even the man could have instigated the breakup, as frequently women invest YEARS in these characters before they up and leave you in the middle of the night to take up with someone else...
These are the women Sylvia Hewlett documented in "Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children. "
The tragedy of MOST of those women is that they never even planned to NOT be mothers...it just happened and I bet MOST of it just happened waiting for some jerkoff to commit...
Well England just ensured that a LOT more of these women who would probably make perfectly fine and loving mothers, even being single, will NOW have another hoop to jump through...and many will probably not even bother now as it's not in the psychological makeup of most women to go running all around the place advertising that they are looking for an anonymous sperm donor.
I mean after all it probably takes a lot of courage for women to even call a local clinic and see what is possible, since a single woman even USING a service like that puts herself under a stigma. I mean let's face it, I read somewhere that little girls start planning their weddings when they are like 7 years old. Can you imagine if that's true, what a woman goes through to have to even CALL a clinic admitting to even NEEDING a service like an anonymous sperm donor???
Crikey...
Like what's wrong with her, she couldn't get a husband and have a kid the way everyone else does????Like why not put a big sign on herself "LOSER" and make up a smaller one for her kid as well..."BABY OF LOSER"...
Thus ANY obstacles put in the way of a single women looking to have a child via this route, ANY obstacles, probably means it won't happen...She'll just say thanks and head out the back door and the clinic will never hear from her again.
So I see another dip in England's population directly related to this new law...
Although to be honest, this was a selfish law passed to benefit men and disadvantage women (although it was postulated as being for the well-being of children, I don't believe it for a minute); and frankly, men this selfish probably should fall into extinction anyway as we have more then our share of selfish genes running amok in western civilization today...
13 comments:
By the way, having a main post up that says:
"So good riddance, England..."
As London is hit by terrorist attacks speaks volumes about your character.
AND as you know this post was done BEFORE those attacks...but I will erase that one line...
By the way James, two points:
1.. My name is NYMOM...Okay.
2. Anonymous sperm donors have been used (mainly by men who had low sperm count) for decades, DECADES...and NO ONE said a word against it...
NOBODY...
It was a non-invasive procedure, the men who participated got a small sum of money for a few minutes effort (many were college students looking to make some extra income) and the other men involved were able to have families, whereas before they wouldn't have been able to...
Nobody said a WORD against it then...not a WORD...
Suddenly now that IVF procedures have improved and even men with the lowest sperm count are able to have their own sperm used for inpregnanting their wives and don't NEED sperm donors anymore...NOW suddenly, it's being touted as something equivalent to
the Dr. Jekle and Mr. Hyde mad-scientist experiment...
The bottom line is that for the men looking to make a little extra money for the SMALL INVESTMENT MEN MAKE TO PRODUCE SEMEN this is a perfectly acceptable method to use. Same thing for women, who wish to be mothers but are facing a rapidly ticking down biologically time clock, THIS method is perfect acceptable as well...
There is NOTHING wrong with it for either party...
NOR is there anything wrong with it for children. This is nonsense that children are upset about this because they will never know their fathers. This is propaganda put out by men to stop women who wish to have children in this manner, from doing so...
Totally ridiculous.
Following the logic of that argument, it would be acceptable for EVERY WOMAN who husband died while she was pregnant to have an abortion...since the horror of life w/o a father would be unacceptable thus her child would be better off dead...
I mean heck if a pregnant woman has an accident and is in a coma, do they just let her child die because life w/o a mother would be so horrible for the child??? No...and btw, a mother invests a heck of a lot more in a child then a father does, yet STILL life itself is considered valuable enough ON ITS OWN with no trimmings such as a father or a mother, to justify a child's existence...
Okay...
A few points:
Fathers are just as important as mothers. Many studies have been done to prove this. It is not propaganda. Propaganda is pretending that the centuries old values of the nuclear family was a hoax to subjugate women. Propaganda is social engineering.
Do you have proof that men in general are uninterested in families and children? Or do you watch too much Lifetime TV?
No one had an issue when sperm donation was used to bring children into a two parent family, and no one does now. What they have a problem with is a woman alone choosing to get pregnant then expecting someone else to pay for it. Either fathers are not important and thus should be free of all responsibility, or fathers are necessary and will provide both financial and emotional support for the children. You cannot have it both ways.
The women who sue for child support after choosing to get pregnant through a sperm bank are breaking a contract. If they did not want to agree with the contract, they should have found another way to get pregnant.
I cound not fault anyone for being angry at having a contract broken and being forced to pay for 18 years, hundreds of thousands of dollars for something which was not my choice to begin with.
Those men signed up to give sperm in return for money. Nothing more, nothing less. Those women signed up to pay money for sperm, nothing more, nothing less. So who is at fault, who is instigating the problems here? I would say the women who break their contract and sue for support. I will go one further and say that you can thank these women in 10 years when sperm banks close.
"The women who sue for child support after choosing to get pregnant through a sperm bank are breaking a contract. If they did not want to agree with the contract, they should have found another way to get pregnant."
You have totally misunderstood the issue. Women are NOT allowed to sign up with an anonymous donor through a sperm bank and then sue for child support AFTER the fact. That has NEVER happened.
The cases you are talking about were either with a man and woman who DATED and/or made a contract themselves without going through a sperm bank. These PRIVATE contracts are not legal.
"Those men signed up to give sperm in return for money. Nothing more, nothing less. Those women signed up to pay money for sperm, nothing more, nothing less."
This in England is no longer legal. Women, both gay and straight, who wish to go to a sperm bank and get pregnant using an anonymous donor are no longer allowed to do so.
The most non-invasive procedure for BOTH men and women is no longer allowed (every sperm donor must be identified or its illegal) YET the far more invasive/dangerous procedure of using donor eggs from women or use of surrogate mothers (which is nothing more then actual baby selling) THAT is still okay to do...yet the relatively harmless donation of sperm is NOT...
I find this very odd.
Of course we must look at who benefits and who is harmed by these laws before we can judge their real target and it doesn't take too much imagination to see that women are the real targets here.
"YET the far more invasive/dangerous procedure of using donor eggs from women or use of surrogate mothers (which is nothing more then actual baby selling) THAT is still okay to do...yet the relatively harmless donation of sperm is NOT..."
Both of these procedures are for two parent families. Two parent families are the best way to raise a child, and the law is reflecting this. Surrogate mothers are incubating a baby for the parents, it is not baby selling. That is your opinion. I myself would be a surrogate mother if a family mamber was in need of it-I think it is using your body to provide a needed service, much like kidney donation, or blood banks, or skin grafts. The child would have two parents who love it and that is the best for the child. Adopted children bond with their parents too, and didn't need to spend 9 months in the mothers womb to prove it. A parent child bond is far more than spending time int he womb. It is what happens after the baby is born that counts the most. There are millions of children who have terrible relationships with their mothers who spent that time in her womb, and millions of children who have excellent relationships with fathers and adopted mothers who did not spend that time before birth. (the converse is also true.) Time spent in the womb is not a causal factor to a relationship, good or bad.
You are right, these are women who made contracts to have the man be simply a sperm donor then changed their minds. I thought I had read of such a case in a sperm bank but could not find it. However the effect is the same, breaking a contract to get more money. If you think it will not effect anonymous sperm donors then I am not sure what to tell you. Already there are people attempting to make laws for the sharing of genetic histories, which is one step away from making the donors known. Basically, if a woman chooses to have a child without the fathers help outside of sperm donation, she shoudl have zero right to sue later for support when it is convienent to her. He then could sue for back visitation? Time lost with his child? Would you agree to that?Seems fair to me. If you want the perks you get the responsibility too. You want the perk of raising a child without a marriage or father around, then you get the responsibility to pay for it alone. If you want the perk of getting child support, you have the responsibility to include the father in the child's life from the beginning.
Personally, I do not even think that single mothers or fathers should be able to create children. But that is my opinion.
No more double standards.
"Both of these procedures are for two parent families. Two parent families are the best way to raise a child, and the law is reflecting this. Surrogate mothers are incubating a baby for the parents, it is not baby selling. That is your opinion."
No. Many men use surrogate mothers to have families. Actually there is an article on my blog about a woman who was a surrogate mother and a number of her 'customers' were men. Additionally she did NOT do it for the noble motives you attribute to kidney donors and the like.
In fact, she clearly stated she was looking for some income and didn't wish to work outside of her home so she chose surrogate motherhood.
So yes, it is baby selling , nothing else. A way to make income for lazy women with no skills to speak of and nothing else but their bodies to offer as a way to make money. Similar to prositution but far WORSE as you are selling yourself PLUS another human being.
There was nothing noble or fine about her motives.
AND yes 2-parent families are the best vehicle for raising families. Unfortunately many men have chosen to selfishly either not get married at all or take so long to make up their mind that it's too late for their wives to have children by the time they decide.
Thus women who opt NOT to wait and just use an anonymous sperm donor should have that option available.
It's a question of the perfect versus the good and MOST women are good enough to be mothers on their own since men have so selfishly opted out of parenthood.
"Time spent in the womb is not a causal factor to a relationship, good or bad."
No...wrong again. The mother/child bond is the most powerful bond known. You make light of it because you are either a fathers/mens' rights advocate or one of their gender neutralized supporters trying to denigrate mothers and their bond with their children
You'll destroy our entire civilization with your stupidity but are too selfish to care.
"No more double standards."
Unfortunately nature itself, God, Buddha whatever has decreed a double standard by designating women as the bearers of the next generation...
If you don't like it, take it up with them.
It's just too bad for you.
What has made you so bitter. Geez. Most women are angels, most men scum?
Ok then.
You don't think that women use serrogate mothers too, more often then men? If men don't want children, why are men going to serrogate mothers.
So are the women who use serrogate mothers scum too, or are they exempt for not having a dick?
You are at best contradictory. How is buying sperm, or even donating sperm better than serrogate motherhood? They are selling half a baby, using their bodies to make money.
"The mother/child bond is the most powerful bond known."
Not always true. Ever tried Superglue? (sorry). You have no proof of this, other than wishful thinking. It IS a powerful bond in many, probably most cases. But no more of a bond than a priest to God, or a husband to a wife, or a father to his son or daughter. Again, not all of these are strong either, but many are.
This whole thing is sad, how can you hate 50% of the population without even knowing them?
"What has made you so bitter. Geez. Most women are angels, most men scum?"
NYMOM said: I never said this, just another lie to discredit my basic premise.
"You are at best contradictory. How is buying sperm, or even donating sperm better than serrogate motherhood? They are selling half a baby, using their bodies to make money."
NYMOM said: It's better, quite obviously because it's less invasive, just as taking a pill is better then having surgery.
Harvesting sperm is the most non-invasive procedure of all the reproductive services that exist to date. Men are paid for what is, at best, a 10 minute process which involves no one but themselves. The same goes for the procedure that is used to inseminate women with it. Many women can do it themselves actually w/o going to a doctor even.
It's probably less trouble then having regular sex to get pregnant.
Harvesting of donor eggs on the other hand is an extremely painful and dangerous procedure that can harm a woman permanently to the point that she might never be able to have children herself. Many of the women used to do this are young women who have never had children and are thus more vulnerable because they might not be able to have their own children later. Many are from countries that the per-capita income is far lower then the US; thus we are taking advantage of the poverty of other countries.
Although I would STILL not advocate making it illegal, just as I would not advocate making sperm donations illegal.
But I WOULD advocate surrogate motherhood being made illegal.
The reasoning being that a surrogate mother is the actual MOTHER of the child she births. However a sperm and egg united in her body whether by a doctor's procedure, under a table with the football team or by an Angel sneaking into her window in the middle of the night is immaterial.
SHE is the mother of said child by every definition as it is through her body that this infant breaths, thrives, eventually lives...
This whole donor egg/surrogate mother as incubator ONLY is nonsense put out by men trying to equate mothers' unique contribution with their own limited one.
It's just another attempt to try to degrade the mother/child bond by jealous men and their gender neutralized feminist allies.
"The mother/child bond is the most powerful bond known."
Not always true. Ever tried Superglue? (sorry)."
NYMOM said: As usual, another attempt to try to discredit my basic premise here.
"This whole thing is sad, how can you hate 50% of the population without even knowing them?"
NYMOM said: I do not hate anyone. I am simply stating the obvious here in an attempt to ensure that mothers do not have their rights or the rights of their children overlooked in the mad scramble for the creation of an androgynous society.
You forget that no woman has the "right" to receive sperm for free. In the first place, sperm is a fluid that doesn't belong to them, but to the man producing it. If he wants to give it, it's ok. If he doesn't want to give it, it's ok, too.
No matter how much you protest or shout, you can't use something that is not yours, nor compel anybody to give it to you, if he doesn't want to.
"You forget that no woman has the "right" to receive sperm for free. In the first place, sperm is a fluid that doesn't belong to them, but to the man producing it. If he wants to give it, it's ok. If he doesn't want to give it, it's ok, too.
No matter how much you protest or shout, you can't use something that is not yours, nor compel anybody to give it to you, if he doesn't want to."
Where on this blog did I say that women had to be given anything for FREE or compel anybody to do anything?
I never said that.
I said that donor sperm or eggs should be treated like medical procedures where the only ones involved should be the donor, person receiving and the doctor. What is paid is between them.
The ONLY procedure that should be banned is surrogate mothers as that is really baby selling...
Thought you would like to read this:
UK hit by sperm donor crisis
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/15/sp...donor_shortage/
By Lester Haines
Published Monday 15th August 2005 15:39 GMT
Get breaking Reg news straight to your desktop - click here to find out how
The UK government's plan to make fertility treatment increasingly available to single women and lesbian couples has hit a slight snag - there are not enough sperm donors coming forward and coming to provide 50 per cent of the raw materials.
The problem stems partly from changes in the law in April which mean that sperm donors are no longer guaranteed anonymity. Accordingly, any child produced from donor sperm can ask for his biological dad's details when he or she turns 18. Sheffield fertility clinic owner Professor Bill Ledger told the Guardian: "We are seeing longer and longer waiting lists because of the loss of anonymity. The situation has become so bad, that we are looking at importing anonymous sperm from abroad."
Yes, I read the article but a paragraph within it states the real purpose. It's not to assist single women (both gay and straight) the opportunity to have children if they wish. It's real purpose is to extend the restriction they put on anonymous sperm donors in clinics now to include the INTERNET SERVICES, WHICH ALLOW SINGLE WOMEN TO BYPASS THE NEW LAWS.
As they mention, when they first began regulating sperm donations back in the 90s (which was by stating doctors COULD assist women in doing it, but had to be AWARE that if it was best if a father was involved) which is the same as saying don't do it for single women. Obviously, but w/o coming right out and saying it. Well when they passed that advisement, they never envision women could do this w/o the assistance of a doctor.
Obviously they don't have much imagination in England.
Anyway, when that didn't work, they passed another law to make it ILLEGAL for an anonymous donor to remain anonymous, thus possibly making him liable for child support. So their second attack worked brillantly and now they have practically NO sperm donors at all in England.
Which was their plan to begin with in order to stop single women (both gay and straight) from having children w/o a male overseer.
AND it worked.
The next step is to EXTEND these restrictions to the internet services, which can just mail the stuff to single women in a refrigerated FedEx package.
So no, in spite of how they would like to paint this, in fact, it's an attempt to STOP single women from having children unless, as I said, a male overseer is involved. Not what you think an attempt to HELP them do this.
It's just more smoke and mirrors.
Sorry.
Post a Comment