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...
