Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    re.0
    
    I've re-read your note several times, and I am still at a loss as to
    what feedback you are seeking.
    
    Are you looking for a woman's perspective on the process? the
    bureaucracy? the concept?
    
      Annie

    re:-.1
    
    <Are you looking for a woman's perspective on the process. the
     bureaucracy? the concept?>
    
    Yes to all of the above. But mostly as to the concept. 
    
    This is my first time being involved in something like this and would 
    like to get varied perspectives from both sexes, separately, which is why
    I went to these notefiles and not to a conference on PARENTING.

    
    >>I have no qualms about being a donor per se, but I would like to hear
    >>from others who have participated in the program, either as a donor
                                                                    ^^^^^
    >>(which is why I put this in MENNOTES) or a recipient (which is why I'm 
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^
    >>putting this note here).
    
    I would ask that, if this sperm bank handles things anonymously, you
    consider the lifelong impact on the child that might be conceived.
    
    Going through life being totally ignorant of one genetics and origins
    can be a very painful experience.  
    
    Laura
    

    Alright.
    
    I have mixed feelings about the concept.
    
    Having been in a position where DI seemed the most 'humane' option
    available to me should I choose to conceive, I can honestly say that
    the concept of banking is at least expedient.
    
    I have troubles with the concept of actually meeting, face-to-face, a
    man whom I intend to use only for breeding purposes; hence, banking is
    more comfortable for me.  Although, when I peel the layers back, I am
    left wondering if a nameless, faceless man used in the same way is
    really any less of a denial of his humanity.  This is a question I have
    not yet answered to my own satisfaction.
    
    Those institutions and practices which I have investigated fully leave
    me with a fairly high comfort level as to such things as careful
    medical screening, quality control in storage [although most feel that
    rather than banking, having an available donor pool and not storing is
    preferrable], and sound medical practice.  But some of my concerns
    about long-term issues are not addressed to my satisfaction.
    
    When I get to the crux of the matter, I think of a child.  In the
    final analysis, any child I have will receive half of its genetic
    inheritence from another human being.  I find myself wondering how I
    would deal with that child's question as to who/where/what hir father
    is and I do not know.
    
    So, while I think that the concept is a boon to many; I have unresolved
    conflicts on a person level.
    
      Annie

    
    re .3, and .4 in part: how is that concern any different from
    that of the the adopted child?
    

    re. 5
    
    I can answer for myself [in .4].
    
    I think that the two cases are very similar.
    
    The only difference that I see is that if the child were mine, I would
    have half of the answers; in the case of an adopted child, I could
    easily have none.
    
    Laura can speak eloquently on the questions and concerns of the child,
    so I will not attempt that.
    
    However, I have explored several adoption alternatives and several DI
    scenarios.  Without getting into specifics, there are adoption
    alternatives that would offer me more information on my child's
    birth-parents than _any_ of the DI alternatives [except direct
    recruitment].
    
    From my writings, you may have gleaned that I treasure my own family
    and ethnic heritage -- family stories, old photos, letters and diaries
    that are priceless to me.  I can trace my smile back generations to a
    woman I do not otherwise resemble.  This feels special to me.  And it
    is a special I would want to give my child as well -- no matter who or
    what hir biological building blocks came from.  Sooner or later
    the child would ask.
    
      Annie
    

    >Going through life being totally ignorant of one genetics and origins
    >can be a very painful experience.  
    
    Well, in this case, being *half* ignorant of one's genetics and
    origins.  Or perhaps, being totally ignorant of half one's genetics and
    origins.
    
    D!

    RE: .5
    
    >>re .3, and .4 in part: how is that concern any different from
    >>that of the the adopted child?
    
    
There are, in my opinion, some significant differences between adoption and
AI (and other reproductive technologies).

In the case of adoption, there is a much better chance that the adoptee 
will be told by his/her parents that s/he is adopted.  And then, there are 
the exceptions to this...adoptees who were deceived for many years by their 
parents and who found out in the 30s and 40s that they had been adopted.  
One woman I know found out that she was adopted after both her parents had 
died.  Another man I know found out when he was in his mid-40s.  In both 
cases, these people were devastated...and not by their status as an 
adoptee, but because their parents had not been honest with them.  I am 
making an assumption that most parents teach their children to tell the 
truth, etc.  Withholding this information from an adoptee, pretending year 
after year that this child is their biological child, is quite 
hypocritical.  For the adult adoptee, it undermines the relationship with 
their parents.  "If my parents lied about this issue, what other untruths 
have I been told?"  

In the case of AI, there is nil chance that the child will be told that 
s/he was conceived through donor insemination.  I read an article (can't 
remember which magazine) where couples were expressing their views about 
having a child via AI.  All of them emphatically stated that they would 
never tell their child (or any family members or friends) that they had 
conceived their child/children through AI.  In the case of an AI birth, 
there is no amended birth certificate as in there is when a child is 
adopted.  If no one else knows, then there is little chance that a person 
conceived through AI will ever find this out.  Is this fair or right?  In 
my opinion, it is not.

And if there are parents who are willing to tell their child/children that 
they were conceived through donor insemination, and an anonymous donor 
sperm bank was used, there is nil chance that that person can find out 
about his/her origins as they relate to the 'donating' father.  There isn't 
really any adequate language to describe these complications and 
connections.

In the above cases, most of my comments refer to heterosexual couples who 
conceive via AI.  Then there is the issue of single women and women in same 
gender relationships that have children via AI.  I would think that there 
is less opportunity for them to conceal the details of the child's 
conception, although it is not beyond my imagination to create scenarios 
where lying could take place in these two cases to conceal information.

We live in a world where the existence of children is attributed to having 
a mom and a dad, even if mom and dad never were married, or if mom and dad 
got divorced.  Until this cultural value changes (and I don't know how to 
change it, nor can I predict if and when it will change) the children who 
are conceived via AI have a significant burden to bear.

What happens to the child in the playground when asked about his/her daddy? 
And kids are infinitely interested in these connections.  Who do I look 
like?  Who do I take after, etc.?   In the school systems, children are 
still asked to draw their family tree.  What about the child who was AI 
conceived and born to a single woman or a lesbian couple?  What does s/he 
say?  How does s/he explain things to his/her friends?  What are the 
parents telling these children?  How does a child explain that there is no 
father in the picture and then not be taunted by his/her playmates?  And 
the playmates will be hurtful...kids do these kinds of things, you can bank 
on it.

Children don't like to be different.  It was hard enough being different 
because of adoption.  I can't even begin to understand how it would feel to 
be different because I was conceived via AI.  My gut says it wouldn't feel 
very good to me.

Another difference in the case of adoption vs. anonymous donor insemination 
is that if the AI conceived person does find out that s/he was conceived in 
this way, there is almost no hope of tracking down information about the 
donor.  (As I mentioned above.)  Records are not kept indefinitely.  At 
least an adoptee can undertake a search, although searching can be an 
*expensive*  and arduous process.  And there are no guarantees that a 
searcher will find, especially in the case of private adoptions that have 
been arranged by lawyers.  They only have to keep records for 3 years.  

There is enough information now about adoptees for us to be able to draw 
some intelligent conclusions about what happens when a person is 
disconnected from one or both of his/her biological parents.

As an adoptee, I do not look at reproductive technology as something 
wonderful.  Reproductive technology, in my opinion, *never* has the best 
interests of the potential child in mind.  In "surrogate" law suits, it is 
always the legal rights of the "surrogate mother" and the biological father 
that are debated.  And this scenario is being taken to bizarre proportions, 
as in the case of the Crispen couple and Anna Johnson.

For those of you who are not familiar with this story of reproductive 
technology, Anna Johnson is an economically disadvantaged African American 
woman who agreed to having an embryo, that was made up of the Crispens 
Caucasian genetic material (egg and sperm), implanted in her womb.  The 
language to describe this case makes my hair stand on end as I type this!  
The Crispen embryo developed in Anna's womb and she carried the child to 
full term and gave birth to a Caucasian baby who did not carry any of her 
genetic material.  When the child was born, Anna wanted to keep the baby 
because she said she bonded with the child while it developed in her womb, 
and she felt it was her child.
    
It does not take a rocket scientist to guess that the judge in this case 
ruled against Anna.  It was determined that Anna had no parental rights to 
this child and that the Crispens were the legal parents.  This case was all 
over the newspapers and reported in Newsweek and Time, and probably other 
magazines too.  Is there anyone who would like to step forward and grow up 
in this child's shoes in our culture as it exists today?  

How many people remember MaryBeth Whitehead and the Sterns?  Is there 
anyone who would like to step forward and grow up in that child's shoes?

These kinds of stories make me feel that children are viewed as little more
than commodities.  
    
Most of the people I run into have had the luxury of growing up with their 
biological parents.  They may not have liked their parents, their parents 
may have been good parents, or they may have been abusive parents.  They 
might think their parents are the best.  Any person who has grown up with 
their biological parents, regardless of the experience being positive or 
negative, has no way of knowing what it is like to be genetically 
disconnected from one or both biological parents.

If you are good at playing pretend, then I suggest an exercise.  Stand in 
front of a mirror and look at yourself...really stare at yourself.  
Carefully observe your hair color, your eye color, the shape of your eyes, 
the angle of your hair line, the wrinkles (or lack of wrinkles) in your 
forehead, the shape of your nose, the height of your cheek bones, the color 
and shape of your lips, the color and positioning of your teeth, the 
thinness or thickness of your eyebrows, the shape of your ears, the 
freckles or moles on your face, your skin color.  Observe these things with 
excruciating detail.  Now imagine that *none* of these facial characteristics 
match your parents, or your grandparents, or your aunts, uncles, cousins 
and other siblings.  Imagine how you felt when you were 10 years old and 
you said to an adult, "I'm [the so and so's child]" and imagine the adult 
saying to you with shock, "How can that be!  You don't look anything like 
them!"  And imagine standing in front of that mirror, wondering what the 
people looked like who contributed to your looks.  Imagine trying to piece 
together their faces.  

This is a very common experience for adoptees.  We share our mirror stories.  
We share our stories about the myriad of insensitive comments that we have 
heard for as long as we can remember.

I'm not sure what the experience will be for the person born from 
reproductive high technology, but I'm willing to place big bets that 
his/her experience will be painful too.  

Laura

    re.8 'the chance is nil'
    
    I am amazed that couples would conceal that a child was conceived via
    DI.  Not that I doubt your research. It's just that I find it
    surprising that it contradicts my own experience [which I grant is
    quite limited].
    
    Of course it would contradict my experience, as the only children I
    _know_ were conceived in this manner were also told.
    
    In some cases the parents' families were completely in denial despite
    being told.
    
    For instance, a cousin of mine had a vasectomy when he was 26. Later he
    and his SE decided to raise children and she had DI, twice -- once and
    anonymous donor, once a known donor.  Both of these children know that
    their father, my cousin, is not genetically related to them [they are
    now 14 and 10].
    
    The elder child knows only that he is his mother's child. The younger
    knows that her biological father has agreed to full disclosure, should
    she desire it, once she is 16.  The difference between these children's
    outlooks is striking.  Which only give more fuel to my concerns.
    
      Annie

    
    Today, I think that AI is a good alternative for couples where
    the male is infertile or for lesbian couples and single women.
    
    I believe that ideally adoption is much preferable to AI, except
    for the stories I've heard (true?) that adoption agencies totally
    exclude anyone or any couple who doesn't fit the exact "standard"
    of a middle to upper middle white heterosexual couple.
    
    If couples or singles wish to adopt minority or disabled babies
    or older children, then some of these restrictions mysteriously
    vanish.  However, these are burdens (considered as such, anway)
    that most people are unable to take on.
    
    Therefore, AI, in today's world, is preferable for this set of
    people who desire to raise children.
    

    I can tell you a few things about AI.  In the case of couples who are
    infertile for unknown reasons, they actually do not know if the child
    is theirs or not.  By law, the legal husband is the father of any child
    born in wedlock here in Mass.  The way they would not know for sure is
    twofold: 1) The potential donor is matched against the husband for
    blood type and major physical characterisitics.  2) the couple is
    (encouraged, required?) to have sex on the same day as the fertility
    peak and insemination.  So, unless you have some very expensive tests
    done, the couple can never be sure the child was not really theirs
    together.
    
    In terms of all the other cases, where a possibly fertile male is not
    involved, I can see the potential conflicts and confusion.  The answers
    are not so simple.  The alternative in many of these cases  may be
    nothing.  No conception, no birth, no life.  In a case where
    procreation is a desire/need, I would not want to withhold such an
    option (if I could).
    
    I'm not even sure that was worth $0.02.
    jimc

    The elder child knows only that he is his mother's child. The younger
    knows that her biological father has agreed to full disclosure, should
    she desire it, once she is 16.  The difference between these children's
    outlooks is striking.  Which only give more fuel to my concerns.

Do tell.  What *is* the different between their outlooks?

D!

    re .11, if I were the husband in this situation I would rather know for
    certain that a child wasn't mind, than never know if it was or wasn't. 
    I couldn't imagine never knowing for certain if a child was really
    mine.  But, that's just me.  Obviously, it must not be a concern for
    some people.
    
    Lorna
    

    re.12
    
    [I'm sorry]
    
    Both children want to know as much as they can about their biological
    antecedents.
    
    The older one is going through some serious resentment and frustration
    as his bio-father is an anonymous donor, a dossier without a name, and
    there is practically no chance that the 'donor' will ever be a 'person'
    for him.  His take is that it's not so much a 'bad' thing that this man
    did as an uncaring one.  He feels a certain rejection and wonders why
    if the man cared enough to donate, he doesn't care to meet his
    offspring.
    
    The younger child is very impatient to turn 16.  Some days she
    worries that she won't like the man, or that he won't be pleased to see
    her, or any of a number of things; but he is already a person to her.
    She is living with separation, but also with hope/fear/anticipation.
    
      Annie

    I agree with you, Lorna. I would want to know if a child is mine or
    not.
    
    A question to the donors, maybe I should ask it in mennotes. Don't you
    want to know what happenned to your sperm? Whether there's a child with
    your genes somewhere and if there is how s/he is doing? I'm trying to
    imagine donating my eggs. I can't/won't do it. maybe I'm too possesive,
    but if there's a child born from my egg, then I want to know her.
    
    manisha

    
    My opinion.
    
    I think that the idea of having some stranger's sperm impregnate me
    is repulsive!  Sounds pretty much the same way that they overpopulate
    cows. Sounds very impersonal and too much like wierd science. 
    I agree that it's nice to know who your parents are and not that you
    and 5000 other kids in the world related.
    If there were less options, then more babies would be adopted and less 
    would be aborted.
    Just my opinion. 
    
    cathy
    

    re .16, I think I agree with you about the "stranger's sperm."  I
    couldn't imagine having a child by someone I had never even *seen*.  I
    mean, what if I didn't like what the guy looked like?  
    
    Lorna
    

    Hmmm. Well, *if* I reely, reely wanted to get pregnant, and *if* I (a)
    had no male partner or (b) had one who was not fertile, I _think_ I'd
    rather be impregnated by sperm from an anonymous donor rather than,
    say, from a volunteer. ;-) I mean, if the child were to be mine (a) or
    ours (b), I wouldn't want Mr. X to be known to me/us - seems like it
    would only confuse things. HOWEVER, there are so many unlikely "ifs" in
    this hypothesis that I don't think I can give a well-founded opinion; I
    just can't imagine circumstances under which I'd want to get pregnant
    that much.
    
    Re .16, and
    >>I agree that it's nice to know who your parents are and not that you
    >>and 5000 other kids in the world related.
    
    Nice in theory - but, human nature being what it has been for so long,
    I think the best most of us can do is to know who we think our parents
    are. ;-) (Besides, we're _all_ related, if you go back far enough!)
    
    >>If there were less options, then more babies would be adopted and less 
    >>would be aborted.
    
    Really? Seems to me that there's already a high demand for adoptable
    infants, and I don't see that it's had much effect on abortion rates. I
    mean, if I didn't want to carry a child to term, I don't think that any
    number of eager couples asking for the kid would change my mind. [Then
    again, if it was opened to bidding... The courts seem (understandably)
    reluctant to allow anything that smacks of cash-for-kids, but if
    someone really wants there to be a way to persuade someone to carry to
    term instead of aborting, I'd think it would have to involve money.]
    
    To change to a less potentially inflammatory subject: I was interested
    to read previous replies about the reactions of AI children to the lack
    of knowledge about one of their biological parents - that was something
    I hadn't thought of before. My family seems to have made me feel
    disgustingly secure, so when I try to imagine what it would be like if
    they suddenly said, "By the way, your bio-daddy was the third test-tube
    from the left," all I do is give a mental shrug; it would never have
    occurred to me that others might feel differently. Thanks for bringing
    it up - it might let me be a bit more sensitive in future.
    
    -b

    re.18
    
    I believe that you misconstrued something in what I wrote.
    
    My cousin's children are not insecure.  They know their parents love
    them very much. They love their parents very much [most days anyway:
    we're talking about a teen-ager and an independent-minded 10-year-old
    here, ;^) ! ]
    
    Wanting to know who you are and what you came from isn't insecure, it's
    just natural.  If their parents hadn't been honest with them, they
    probably wouldn't wonder -- both of them resemble their mother greatly.
    
      Annie

    Re .19: Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't meant to imply that the
    kids were insecure; I was just speculating that, since my background
    doesn't include any doubts [other than my caveat in .18!] about my
    biological parents, perhaps that was why I couldn't understand anyone
    else's Need to Know. On reflection, I think that a sense of family
    "security" may have little to do with one's ability to empathize - but
    it would be hard to prove that one way or the other...
    
    Anyway, I can imagine being _curious_ about a bio-parent, but I can't
    imagine feeling in any way rejected if I'd been sired by an anonymous
    donor. So I was glad to hear about your <second cousins? once removed?
    oh, bother> - about the kids' views on things; while I may not
    understand it, at least now I know that some people feel that way.
    
    Re sperm banks in general: are they regulated at all these days? Seems
    like there were some scandalous reports not too long ago about sperm
    banks mixing the samples or letting them go bad - at the time, it was
    reported that anybody could set up a sperm bank, as there weren't any
    regulations to ensure safety or quality... I suppose one's doctor ought
    to be able to recommend a reliable one (?), but I don't know how else
    one would find out. The Better Business Bureau? Consumer Reports? ;-)
    
    -b

>        .10           Sperm Banking/A Female's Perspective              10 of 
>
>    Today, I think that AI is a good alternative for couples where
>    the male is infertile or for lesbian couples and single women.
      I have some reservations, who gets this alternative and who does not.
      The only current limitation is the price. There are other groups which
      have an equal demand.
      What about male couples, If they found a willing body ($) I am sure that
      they might wish to have a little boy. (read .8 para 11).
      What about *beautiful* women who might not wish to risk their figure.
      What about career women who might not wish to lose their time.
      What about dare, I say it, *nice* old men who have lots money.
      What about old people who have a life expectancy of 10 years, and their
      dog has just died.
      What about papa, he is suffering from Parkinsons disease.. gaaaaah

      Ai, my emphasis is on the A, this reduces the human being to another
      commodity. Any of the above groups can purchase another human being for
      varing periods of time. Ai allows them to posess one.
      Dr. Josef Menegle, (who did much research in this area) is probably
      smiling and waiting till the price comes down.
      There is something wonderful about the non articificial way. I think
      that this is the least dignity that every human being deserves.
      Rgds,

    re .21:

    I don't see what most of your hypothetical scenarios have
    to do with AI.  Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I thought the
    idea was to implant a sperm in a fertile woman at the time
    of month she is ovulating?  How on earth does that relate to
    
>    What about papa, he is suffering from Parkinsons disease.. gaaaaah
    
    It seems you are confusing "surrogate motherhood" with AI.  They're
    not the same thing.  One might be an avenue to the other, but let's
    not confuse them.
    
>      There is something wonderful about the non articificial way. I think
>      that this is the least dignity that every human being deserves.
    
    That begs of the question of "what do couples where the male is
    infertile or lesbian couples do if they want a child?"  As I've
    pointed out, many times adoption is an unsatisfactory route
    - unless you don't mind waiting 8 years or more and you're the
    "perfect" couple.
    

re: .21
    
      >>What about male couples, If they found a willing body ($) I am sure that
      >>they might wish to have a little boy. (read .8 para 11).
    
    You bring up additional 'interesting,' if not troubling concepts.  In
    the case of MaryBeth Whitehead and the Sterns, it was Mrs. (I can't
    remember her first name) Stern who didn't want to run the risk of
    pregnancy because she was already dealing with a mild case of MS.
    
    As for male couples, I just recently heard of a male couple who are
    adopting a child via this avenue, with the exception that the woman
    wasn't paid, per se, to conceive and carry the child.  
    
    There are adoption agencies that don't discriminate against same gender
    couples regarding adoption.  And I don't mean that they 'allow' same
    gender couples to adopt only the mentally or physically challenged
    babies.
    
    There is also the other side of the coin to your comments about
    beautiful women not wanting to risk their figures, career women, etc.
    
    When the MaryBeth Whitehead case hit the press, several stories were
    run regarding surrogate births.  One woman was a divorced mother of two
    young children.  She didn't have a lot of money and she viewed
    surrogate birthing as a means of raising cash to send her children to
    private schools.  She could get $10,000 in pocket money, plus all her
    medical expenses paid for popping out white babies for white couples
    with money. 
    
    We abolished the buying and selling of African Americans by
    constitutional amendment, and yet this is the buying and selling of
    people of a different skin color for vastly different reasons. 
    If the former is wrong, how can the later be right?
    
    And yet, surrogacy is sadly consistent with this country's cultural
    views about children.  
    
    If an adult were walking down the street and a stranger came up to
    hir and slapped hir in the face, that person (technically) could
    have that stranger arrested for assault.
    
    When a child gets slapped across the face by hir parent, there is no
    recourse  for that child.  What gives parents the right to assault
    their child?  
    
    I have said it before (probably in version 2 of this file) that I do
    not believe that parenting a child is an inalienable right of every
    adult who wants to do parenting.  
    
    I get worried for the children who end up with parents who were
    obsessively driven to get a child at any cost.  I know of one couple
    who now have 3 mortgages on their house, but damn it, they're now
    pregnant.  What kinds of expectations will they have for that child?
    
    Adoptees have been told for years and years that their birth mothers
    loved them so much that they did the hard and right thing by giving
    them away to parents who could truly provide for them.  It's a nice
    line, in theory, but it doesn't wash.  In our culture, good mothers
    don't give away their babies.
    
    Now we have a new twist on this myth...we loved you so much that we
    paid a woman to give birth to you and give you to us.  And the child
    wonders, "how could my mother be bought?"  Good mothers don't give away
    their babies.  Good mothers don't sell their babies.
    
    I have been dealing with adoptees and birth mothers for 6 years now.  I
    am waiting for the AI adults to step forward (at least those that
    actually know about their history).  And someday the surrogate
    children, now adult, will be coming forward to.  There are so many
    wounded children on this planet.  We have the wounded children that
    live in the hearts of adult survivors of child sexual abuse, in the
    hearts of adults who grew up in alcoholic families, in the hearts of
    adults who were emotionally or physically abused as children, in the
    hearts of adoptees, and the list goes on and on.
    
    Cultural denial will not prevent the creation of more wounded children,
    living in the hearts of adults, courtesy of reproductive technologies.
    
    Laura
    
                                     

>        .22           Sperm Banking/A Female's Perspective              22 of 22
>>    What about papa, he is suffering from Parkinsons disease.. gaaaaah
      It relates in this way, One of the sure cures for Parkinsons disease is
      using the brain tissue from a feotus.
      You only need a vessel willing to carry the egg and the sperm till the
      decision is taken to reap for brain tissue.
		DOES PAPA HAVE A RIGHT TO BE CURED IN THIS WAY.
>    
>    It seems you are confusing "surrogate motherhood" with AI.  They're
>    not the same thing.  One might be an avenue to the other, but let's
>    not confuse them.
>
      I agree that they are not the same thing. Like a puzzle women have one
      piece and men have the other.
      o		Surrogacy is male without female
      o		Ai is female without male.
      You tell me what the difference is, please? They are both causing a
      human being in an unnatural way.
      
>    
>    That begs of the question of "what do couples where the male is
>    infertile or lesbian couples do if they want a child?"
      
      As the technology is there what rights do they have over and above the
      others.
      
>                                                       As I've
>    pointed out, many times adoption is an unsatisfactory route
>    - unless you don't mind waiting 8 years or more and you're the
>    "perfect" couple.
>
      Many single sex couples are capable parents, or are we saying that
      some are more capable than others.
      More important would be to remove the stigma from sterility and
      lesbianism, accept the fact that some couples cannot produce children,
      judge them on the primitive standards we have, let them have a child
      from the great pool of surplus kids. (random choice)
      
      We should perhaps shift the discussion to note + 1, the question in my
      mind is not what do they do but, Is child ownership� a privilige (which
      cannot be purchased) or a right for every person who has the necessary
      $5.00.

    In re causing a human being in an unnatural way...
    
    How do you define unnatural? At one extreme you could say that
    anything more sophisticated than how the great apes give birth
    is unnatural. Hosptials are unnatural, so is a sterile birth
    area (germs are natural, their absence is not). What on earth
    is wrong with being unnatural? You make it sound like their is
    something ugly about having a child with any assistance from
    a doctor at all. Is having blocked fallopian tubes cleared
    unnatural? Is treating a baby before birth for Rh incompatability
    or a blocked urethra unnatural? and if so, are these things wrong
    as well?
    
    It is not just the 'stigma' that is the problem with infertile
    couples/single women and lesbians. Even without a 'stigma' they would still
    have a great desire to have a baby. Adoption isn't always the answer
    for everyone (especially the doing it by 'lot' that you described).
    
    Bonnie

    If an adult were walking down the street and a stranger came up to
    hir and slapped hir in the face, that person (technically) could
    have that stranger arrested for assault.
    
    When a child gets slapped across the face by hir parent, there is no
    recourse  for that child.  What gives parents the right to assault
    their child?  

    I have said it before (probably in version 2 of this file) that I do
    not believe that parenting a child is an inalienable right of every
    adult who wants to do parenting.  

Thanks, Laura.

I have nothing particular to add to the above quote paragraphs, I just
wanted to extract them and repost them because I think they are such
important points, they bear reiteration.

D!

    
    Well, I have trouble with this part:
    
>    I have said it before (probably in version 2 of this file) that I do
>    not believe that parenting a child is an inalienable right of every
>    adult who wants to do parenting.
    
    So tell me - who decides who has the right or not?  You?
    The government?  "Nature" (i.e., just because a person is
    infertile)?
    
    I'm sure you'll agree that there are MANY parents out there
    who gave birth biologically who are totally unfit while there
    are very good potential parents who don't have children simply
    because of "nature".  Personally, I'd rather see the latter
    group be able and not want the former group to have the ability.
    But it doesn't work that way (now with AI and other options)
    and I am uncomfortable giving that say to *anyone* or *any* group 
    of people - even to "nature".
    

    re. 30
    
    Actually, _I_ would be happiest if no one decided, if all pregnancies
    were wanted pregnancies, and infertility were not a problem to overcome
    so much as a fact in certain instances.
    
    So yes, I guess 'nature' would decide.  But then nature gave me my
    short stature, my brown hair, my intelligence, my artistic gifts, and
    my Celtic temperment, so I cannot complain.
    
    It comes down to why? Why did I want a child?  The answer is simple. I
    love children and they love me.  I seem to do well with them.
    
    I had a child who died. I've nearly had two more since. Had any of my
    children survived to live with me, I would have been a good and loving
    mother to the best of my abilities.  But these children were not mine
    by right, they were mine by birth. In a world where there is justice,
    had I proved unfit these children would be taken from me and placed in
    a better environment.
    
    When circumstance intervened and my chances of conceiving by ordinary
    means within my current relationship, I began to explore the more
    'heroic' options offered.
    
    Then my inner searching began. Again, why did I want a child?  Because
    I love children and would like to have them as a daily part of my life.
    I began to focus more upon the needs of the child, and the more I
    thought of the child, the less attractive these alternative means of
    conception became to me.
    
    The more I put myself in that child's place, the less I enjoyed being
    that child.
    
    Sure, I would dearly love to have children; but unless I make some
    changes soon, I probably will not.
    
    In the end, we each decide 'who has the right or not'
    
      Annie

    
    
    re -1
    
    Maybe would be parents should be made to go before a board of
    parents who raised happy productive well adjusted kids?
    
    Seriously though I too have a problem with the fact that there
    are some folks who really are not fit to be parents who have kids.
    However, there really is nothing anyone can do to regulate this.
    If you have the ability to jointly conceive you are a parent (that
    is unless the fetus is aborted).
    
    Parenting IMO is the most important job in the world.  If done
    correctly no problem, if done incorrectly major problems not only
    for the kids,but society in general.  Seems funny that one would
    need to take a test to be allowed to drive a car, but anyone can
    become a parent.
    
    Re AI  I think any persons who want to go this route should be allowed
    to do so.  As for the effect it has on the the children, only those
    kids will know.
    
    Michele

    <So tell me - who decides who has the right or not?  You?
    <The government?  "Nature" (i.e., just because a person is
    <infertile)?
    
    You bring up a powerful 'freedom of choice' argument!
    I hope you nonetheless agree that many of the people who are parents
    are incompetent to BE parents even though there is likely no way for a
    reasonabl society to ACT on that knowledge if for no other reason than
    that reasonable people might disagree on who the putative incompetent
    parents are.

    People *do* have their "parenting rights" taken away from them by the
    government -- children can be removed from their parents' home.
    
    A few problems with it revolve around the fact that like all
    government, it's done beaurucratically -- they can't remove a child
    until *after* there's been abuse, they depend upon the abuse being
    reported and all the other mishagas...
    
    Strikes me that we have a very poor system to protect children from
    abusive parents...anyone have better details on how it works (or
    doesn't as the case seems to be)
    
    \D/

      .27
      Bonnie,
      You have me. I certainly do not suggest that we return to the trees to
      have babies. Somewhere in the great fuzzy mess between hanging from
      trees and giving birth and the purist veiw (eg. that one is too short -
      cull it) is a line. It is different for most people. In my case Ai and
      surrogecy is the line.
      Rgds,

    inre .35
    
    No problem, you might be amused/interested to know that the use of
    forcepts and ether was considered to have crossed the 'line' on
    the order of a hundred years ago. (It was considered by many to
    be unscriptural since Eve was supposed to bring forth her children
    in pain.)
    
    Bonnie

>        .28           Sperm Banking/A Female's Perspective              28 of 28
>                                                       or the bio-clock is
>    ticking, and/or she doesn't have a partner that can make her pregnant,
      in my eyes the child is not an after thought, something to be got as a
      compromise for the BMW. This is the point I am trying to make children
      are not posesions to be collected like paintings.
>                                                               
>    There will be children raised with problems (physical, emotional,
>    whatever) whether sperm banks exist or not.
>
      Disapointed to hear that excuse. The answers come in cans, It ranges
      from the I have no control over my environment to everyone is throwing
      out cans, the field will be dirty whether I throw my can or not. To
      translate, If we approach life with the thought that we cannot control
      what is going on around us we are passengers. Alternatively we can
      approach life with the thought that we can control our environment, that
      thought makes us drivers. Which would you rather be. As a passenger you
      cannot complain if you are put out before your stop.
      rgds,

    re .34 The system works very, very badly! (admitedly anecdotal stuff...
    I know of a case in a rather urban, quite liberal state, where school
    officials tried to get the state to intervene in a family where a 9 yr
    old boy had a STD; his young adult brother had the same disease, the 9
    yr old drew a picture of a huge dark,red penis, and labeled it 
    "I am going to get hurt when I go home"
    Neither the state social service agency nor the local police would
    intercede when informed by a school official.
    I have heard it said that children who come under the care of a social
    service agency have worse experiences AFTER custody than BEFORE
    custody
    Perhaps that isn't surprising if one considers the kind of societal
    detritus that is often found in DYS holding pens. Every conceivable
    crime is common there.
    and speaking of foster families...
    Willie Sutton a bank robber of another era was asked why he robs banks.
    His answer:    that's where the money is

>     957.30           Sperm Banking/A Female's Perspective              30 of 37
>    
>    
>    So tell me - who decides who has the right or not?  You?
>    The government?  "Nature" (i.e., just because a person is
>    infertile)?
>
      Well since time began we have used a process called natural selection,
      this has taken us from the apes to where we are. I am willing to give it
      a swing for a little while longer. If we give it over to the medics, you
      will either have to be rich (not many of those noting here) or it will
      be paid by your insurance. OK so far, now quantom leap, Like all
      organisations that we wish to be safe, the insurance companies are
      regulated by the government. I would take natural selection over the
      government any day.
      Rgds,

    in re .37 in re .28
    
    I don't think in these women's cases it is an after thought, or
    something to be got as a compromise for a BMW. I don't think you
    have any real understanding at all of how badly a woman can *want*
    a child especially as she moves into her mid thirties. Baby hunger
    (the biological clock running out) can be a very strong powerful
    need in some women.
    
    and in re .39
    
    I think that if parents really long for and want a child, and if
    it takes medical science to help them have that child, then they
    have every right to have that child and not just accept that
    it was 'biological destiny'.
    
    Had there not been modern medical science my biological son and
    I would have died some 22 years ago this October. He was a breech
    birth and I did not establish normal labor.
    
    If people want to have children I don't think we have the right to
    tell them that some ways ('normal' conception, adoption) are okay
    but others, AI, surgery, etc. are not.
    
    Bonnie

>        .36           Sperm Banking/A Female's Perspective              36 of 37
>    
>    No problem, you might be amused/interested
      Bonnie,
      you might be amused/interested to know that the world used to be flat.
      As I am older than you so it is easier for me to remember.
      
>    forcepts and ether was considered to have crossed the 'line' on
     >>>>>>>>     >>>>>
      And they were correct, how many times do you see ether in a midwifes
      office these days. That is off the point. back to the discussion in a
      few minutes.
      Rgds,

    oh, I see, natural selection.
    
    in foolishly choosing to remain in an infertile relationship, I have
    made a counter-survival adaptation.  my genes will be lost. my line
    will not continue. [this is fairly true]
    
    but it's not natural selection at all. the sort of selection process
    humans engage in is more akin to that used with domesticated animals
    than it is to the natural selection process.
    
    indeed, I can choose another mate.  but I have not. that is not
    natural.
    
      Annie

    re: .40
    
    >>If people want to have children I don't think we have the right to
    >>tell them that some ways ('normal' conception, adoption) are okay
    >>but others, AI, surgery, etc. are not.
    
    Well, I actually don't think that adoption should be viewed as a
    'solution' to infertility.  I have said this before too.  Adoption is a
    vehicle for finding homes for children who need a home.
    
    There is a difference in the focus, and upon whose needs the priority
    is based.
    
    We have a society that makes it next to impossible for a single woman
    to raise a child unless she is a) independently wealthy; b) has a
    fantastic job and access to fantastic child-care, be it a day care
    center, family member or friend.  We have created a structure whereby
    the mothers of children have severely limited choices.
    
    I don't think that it's a wonderful thing when babies get separated
    from their mothers.  Sometimes this is necessary, and sometimes (in
    very rare cases) it is *truly* the mothers choice, as opposed to the
    appearance of choice.
    
    I have talked with many, many birth mothers and most of them have
    stated that if they had any real options they *never* would have
    relinquished their child.  These women aren't running around, jumping
    up and down for joy because they were able to unload a child on someone
    else.  For many women, relinquishing a child has been a horror show. 
    And, relinquishment of a child is the leading cause of secondary
    infertility in women.
    
    Maybe there are some things in life that are better to just accept. 
    Why is o.k. to create more walking wounded?   In the case of genetic
    high-tech, this is something that will impact this person for the rest of 
    his/her life.
      

    Yeah, medical science has made "natural selection" a much smaller
    factor in humans...50 years ago I would have been dead before my first
    birthday.  From a purely evolutionary point of view, that was
    "supposed" to happen.  Infertile couples should be given a chance to
    have children through the same medicine..
    
    Just an interesting ponderable -- do couples who want AI from a sperm
    bank have to go through the same screening procedures that adopting
    parents have to?  We set such strict standards for adoptions...and are
    they fair considering how many "fertile" families are abusive. Is
    someone willing to go through all the red tape to
    have a child likely to be a good parent just on a self-selective basis?
    
    Just ponderables.... 

    in re .41
    
    Those methods I referred to were used extensively to save
    the lives of women and babies. They are now no longer used
    but that doesn't mean it was wrong to use them.
    
    Bonnie

Re: .42

> indeed, I can choose another mate.  but I have not. that is not
> natural.

Quite the contrary.  In all species except humankind, choosing another
mate -- or at least a sexual mate as distinguished from a familial
mate -- is the norm.  Birds, once thought to be paragons of monogamy,
have now been shown to be as unfaithful as any other animal.  Males
find other females, and females find other males.  As a point of
amusement, female chickadees always go for the BMW -- they invariably
sneak out with males having higher social standing.

Humankind has chosen for social reasons to make pariahs of those who
step outside their monagamous relationships.  But not all human
societies have the same rules; there are occasional exceptions.

-d

    re.46   "I have not. that is not natural." 
    
    I believe you misread me. 
    
    you tell me that I am mistaken and then write quite eloquently to
    support my contention.
    
    thank you, but why?

>        .40           Sperm Banking/A Female's Perspective              40 of 47

>    Had there not been modern medical science my biological son and
>    I would have died some 22 years ago this October. He was a breech
>    birth and I did not establish normal labor.
>
      I think that I understand where I could have miscommunicated. My line is
      not against the use of medical science and the saving of existing life.
      That is not the topic being discussed. You can use your forceps and
      ether. (joke:= I did not know that you were that old). Ai and surrogecy
      (NOT SURGERY) is what I am talking about.
           >>>>>>>
      Rgds,
            
>    If people want to have children I don't think we have the right to
>    tell them that some ways ('normal' conception, adoption) are okay
>    but others, AI, surgery, etc. are not.
>
      Bonnie,
      So if I understand you correctly, any pair/person who wants a child
      badly enough, who has the necessary finances to purchase *it*. The
      need for this 4kgs. can be emotional, physical, whatever. Society
      must mobilise whatever resources are available to produce this 4kg
      bundle.
      OK.       
      As I seem to hopelessly losing this argument :=), let me put it another
      way. Do you have any limits to the intrusion of science (which is
      eventually the government) into the human life cycle.

>        .42           Sperm Banking/A Female's Perspective              42 of 47
>    
>    in foolishly choosing to remain in an infertile relationship, I have
>    made a counter-survival adaptation.  my genes will be lost. my line
>    will not continue. [this is fairly true]
      If procreation was the only reason for chosing your current partner,
      then you have a problem. However this is how humans differ from animals
      (one of the few small differences)
>    
>    but it's not natural selection at all. the sort of selection process
>    humans engage in is more akin to that used with domesticated animals
>    than it is to the natural selection process.
      I think that we are nearing agreement here Annie, the Ai, surrogecy (I
      hate that word that must be why I spell it differently each time. From
      now on i will refer to Ai&S) system is the epitomy of the farmyard
      concept.      
      "farmer jones,,, Aaahh I think I will cross her with the black and white
      one over there, That way we get the size, the right colour and we can
      pass on the temprament and intelligence"
      ----same day-------
      Mrs Jones at the sperm bank
      Mr jones said that I must be crossed with one that:-
                         is less than 170cm, Black but the hair must not
      be crinkly, wide chest, large strong hands (needed for helping on the
      farm), IQ must not be more than 115 my husband and I would have trouble
      controlling a child that was too intelligent. Ohhh there must be a
      certificate that the doner was not using drugs, did not copulate for at
      least 2 years prior to donating, had had no contact with aids infected
      persons within that period. You see this would mean my death and also
      the death of the baby. then he would have to start over again.
>    
>    indeed, I can choose another mate.  but I have not. that is not
>    natural.
>
      Indeed it is not natural Annie, this is what differentiates us from the
      other animals. Humans can allow themselves to be governed by their
      intellect and not a blind mating instinct. Do not confuse my liking for
      natural things with the removal of human choice and intellect.
      Rgds,

    	Every human family on the planet has the capability of producing
    	"walking wounded" offspring (whether they conceive their children 
    	in the missionary position in the most traditional of marriages 
    	or whether they conceive in a doctor's office.)
    
    	There isn't a reason in the world to assume that people who are
    	unable to conceive without medical help will be worse parents
    	than those for whom conception is easy.
    
    	When I was expecting my son (and I asked a doctor I knew whether
    	or not I was wise to bring a child into the world when I had so
    	little education, no job skills, and zero prospects) - he asked
    	me if I wanted my child.  I said "YES!!!"
    
    	He said, "That's what we need more of in this world - children
    	who are wanted."
    
    	The education, job skills and prospects worked themselves out.

    I got pregnant from AI (with my husbands sperm). Becaues of
    infertility problems we had to use this procedure.  Unfortunatly
    I miscarried, but intend on using that method to get pregnant 
    again.  I don't concider it unnatural at all.  And I totaly
    disagree that just because we used AI that we will not
    be good parents.  How can you make a blanket statement 
    like that?  You don't even know me, or for that matter
    anyone else who has used AI to have a child.  
    
    Whether someone uses AI, Sarragosy, Adoption, IVF, GIFT or
    makes wild passionate love has no bearing on thier
    parenting ability.  I know lots of people who concieved
    thier children the "traditional" way who are not 
    Mom and Dad of the year.  You see parents in the news
    all the time who abuse, rape, and even murder thier
    own children...and because they made love to concieve
    them you think that gives them the right to have them.
    
    Bottom line is what -2 notes ago said.  If the child is
    wanted, no matter how they where concieved or brought into
    the parents life they are probably going to have a much 
    better life than a child who is concieved naturaly but
    unwanted.
    
    Deb - who "WANTS" a child!
    
    then a child who was concieved naturaly.  
    

re: .50

    	>>Every human family on the planet has the capability of producing
    	>>"walking wounded" offspring (whether they conceive their children 
    	>>in the missionary position in the most traditional of marriages 
    	>>or whether they conceive in a doctor's office.)
    
    	>>There isn't a reason in the world to assume that people who are
    	>>unable to conceive without medical help will be worse parents
    	>>than those for whom conception is easy.

I am not assuming that people who are unable to conceive without medical 
help will be worse parents.  I never said that.  What I have tried to point 
out is that the process itself and societal attitudes can create walking 
wounded.  Thus the example of the child in the playground who gets taunted 
by his/her playmates because hir father was a tube in sperm bank someplace. 
Or that same child who can never have the answers to half of hir genetics 
and origins.  This has nothing to do with parenting skills.
    
    	>>He said, "That's what we need more of in this world - children
    	>>who are wanted."

I have no doubts that my parents wanted me.  They were great parents.  But 
by virtue of being adopted, it has left a negative imprint on my inner 
child.  Every adoptee has faced a core rejection...that our mothers didn't 
keep us.  It doesn't matter that as an adult we can logically assess the 
circumstances and say, "well, of course she had little or no choice, no 
resources, etc."  Logic cannot change those imprints that have hit us as 
vulnerable infants.  These are the kinds of things I mean when I talk about 
the walking wounded.  
    
re: .52
 
    >>And I totaly
    >>disagree that just because we used AI that we will not
    >>be good parents.  How can you make a blanket statement 
    >>like that?  You don't even know me, or for that matter
    >>anyone else who has used AI to have a child.  

I haven't made a blanket statement that AI parents won't be good parents.  
It is also a very different issue when AI is done using your husband's 
sperm vs. a stranger's sperm.  If you were forced to use a stranger's 
sperm, what would you tell your child? 
    
    >>Whether someone uses AI, Sarragosy, Adoption, IVF, GIFT or
    >>makes wild passionate love has no bearing on thier
    >>parenting ability.  

I agree that these things don't necessarily impact a person's parenting 
ability.  But answer this...would you like to go through life as the child 
who was started in a dish with the Crispens genetic material, grown in the 
womb of an African American woman and then fought over in courts and in the 
media?  As I have asked before...who wants to volunteer for that tour of 
duty *in this society as it exists today with current attitudes* and not in 
the ideal and mythical society.  

Why is it that people are avoiding a discussion of that question, which I 
posed several notes back? 
    
    >>Bottom line is what -2 notes ago said.  If the child is
    >>wanted, no matter how they where concieved or brought into
    >>the parents life they are probably going to have a much 
    >>better life than a child who is concieved naturaly but
    >>unwanted.

You are making a general assumption that an untimely pregnancy 
automatically equates to an unwanted pregnancy.  That kind of a broad based 
comment is insulting to any women who has been faced with no support from 
family, friends, community and no reasonable financial resources during her 
pregnancy.  There was merely the appearance of choice for most birth 
mothers.  

Why does this society persist in its denial that knowing where we have come 
from is important?  There are long lines of adoptees and AI conceived adults 
knocking on the doors of the courts, the adoption agencies, the sperm 
banks, the doctors/attorneys offices asking the same question..."where did 
I come from?"  It appears that their experience, that the overwhelming 
evidence that these actions represent, means absolutely nothing in the 
minds of the majority of people who haven't been impacted by adoption, by 
surrogacy, by AI and by any of the other reproductive technologies being 
used.  

Laura

    Re: .46, .47
    
    Annie, what I heard in .42 was that your failure to choose another mate
    was due to its not being natural.  (Substitute "because" for the period
    after "I have not" to see what I read.)
    
    Ah, the joys of an ambiguous language -- and a natural one at that!
    
    -d

>But answer this...would you like to go through life as the child 
>who was started in a dish with the Crispens genetic material, grown in the 
>womb of an African American woman and then fought over in courts and in the 
>media? 

Laura, I think this is a non sequitur.

I (and probably most everyone) would not want to grow up as that child.  I
also would not like to be born without legs.  I wouldn't like to have been hit
by a bus. I wouldn't like have contracted polio and not be able to walk
I wouldn't like to have been born in Ethiopia.

There are a million things about my childhood I am glad *didn't* happen, 
and one of them is definitely to have my birth argued over in courts.

BUT you can bet the parents didn't *anticipate* that that is what would 
happen, or they wouldn't have done it. Who anticipates things going wrong?

yes, the potential is there.  So is the potential for lots of things to go
wrong.  It is an extremely painful experience for a child to live through a
custody battle between her parents - but should the fact that her
parents *might* someday get divorced have kept them from having a child?

Basically, i see the situation you are describing as an example of things
gone extremely awry, and therefore not relevent.  There *might* be a higher
chance of things going awry in AI or surrogacy or whatever, but it is
still just a chance, and probably fairly slim.  I don't think that because
it *can* go wrong makes it an inherently bad thing that no one should choose.

You have talked in this note like not knowing your genetic roots is the
worst possible thing that can happen to you, worse than not living at all.
perhaps for you that is true. However, I am sure that *some* adoptees and
*some* children concieved through AI disagree - it might pain them greatly
to not know their genetic roots, but their pain is not so great that they
wish they hadn't been conceived.

By your logic, no one whose life isn't perfect should have kids, because
whatever imperfections are in their lives their kids will share.  I inherited
my Dad's asthma and my mother's bad feet. Those things pain me, but not so 
much that I wish I wasn't born.  I was hurt by my parents divorce, but no so
badly that I wish I wasn't born.  Things went wrong, but I'm still happier
being here!!  My parents *knew* about some of the bad things ahead of time
(asthma and bad feet), and some things they knew the possibility of (divorce)
but chose to have me anyway.

So - a parent can know that they are creating a child with the problem of
unknown genetic anscestry, and they can realize the potential of something
going drastically wrong (such as the Whitehead or Crispen case), but I fail
to see why that means they *shouldn't* have kids!!  It is just one thing
among many to take into consideration when having kids.

D!

re:-1 and -2 - Suzanne is saying the same thing as I am.

D!

Suzanne,
    
    > It appears that their experience, that the overwhelming 
    > evidence that these actions represent, means absolutely nothing in the 
    > minds of the majority of people who haven't been impacted by adoption, 
    > by surrogacy, by AI and by any of the other reproductive technologies 
    > being used.  	
    
    ++No one said this - and I don't believe it's true (as a blanket statement.)
    
No one has to say it.  I feel that the actions indicate that we are living
with societal denial.  In all of the news and magazine articles I've read 
concerning repro-tech, the only things that get considered are the rights 
of the genetic material donors, the rights of the woman who rents a womb, 
the rights of the couple in a divorce case regarding who has custody over 
the frozen embryos.  I hear no mention of the rights of the potential 
child, or the *emotional quality* of life that this potential child will 
have.
    
    >>I just don't believe that adoptees, etc., lives are so inherently
    >>miserable that it warrants making sure that such children are never
    >>given the chance to exist AT ALL with parents who truly want them.
    
And not all adoptees end up with parents who truly want them.  I would hope 
that none of us will forgot the horror show of a short life lived by Lisa
Steinberg.  I know *plenty* of adoptees who were sexual, physically and 
emotionally abused.  Just because some adoptive parents, the ones who use 
adoption agencies, go through screening doesn't necessarily prove that they 
are fit or unfit parents.  There is even a higher risk for the child when 
an adoption is handled privately by doctors/lawyers.  And, I am not saying 
that all adoptees get abused.  I know *plenty* of adoptees who weren't.

I can't speak for all adoptees, but I do know that there are many of us who,
if given a choice, never would have chosen to be separated from our families
of origin.  I also think it's hard to lump the adoptee experience into with the
experience of the AI or repro-tech child.  I actually think that the experience
of the AI or repro-tech child will be far worse than that of the adopted child.
I think that there are cases that exist now where some AI or repro-tech
children might wish that they had never been born.  As an adoptee, I have not
felt that way, although, as I said, I wish I had stayed with my family of
origin.

    >>I know the problems seem terrible - but would you choose that all such
    >>children's existence be wiped off the face of the planet?
    
Do you mean exterminate all children/adults who currently exist because of 
adoption or repro-tech?  If so, I consider that a bizarre idea. 

Laura

    When the man is infertile or there is no man, a woman can go to a sperm
    bank and have a baby. That certainly sounds like a good solution. But
    what about the other case, when it's the woman who's infertile or a gay
    man who wants to have a child of his own. Should he then opt for
    surrogacy? I have lots of problems with that. I think I'm being unfair
    when I say okay to sperm donors but not okay to renting wombs.
    
    manisha
    who's really confused about this

    Manisha,
    
    Consider the relative levels of time/effort/risk/skill level required/
    cost of procedure/etc. involved, and you'll understand there are
    several rational bases for your `feelings'.
    
    						Ann B.

    RE: .25 and .30
    
    Flame on***
    
    Not all birth parents are some evil awful people who were glad to
    dump their kids and run.  As a birth mother I resent the picture
    you paint of *us*.  I gave up my son for adoption 10 years ago because
    at the time I thought it was the best thing that I could do.  And
    yes, I still believe it was the best thing I could've done at the
    time.  Unfortunately I wasn't given any choices around keeping contact
    with that child--the laws and government decided for me and that
    child that all records should be sealed and no information other
    than "pertinent medical facts" could be given.  I now have a two
    year old and feel like I am an excellent parent so I don't think
    the value judgement that people who give up their kids wouldn't
    be good parents anyway really applies.
    
    Flame off****
    
    pama
    

    RE: .54  Laura
    
    > It appears that their experience, that the overwhelming 
    > evidence that these actions represent, means absolutely nothing in the 
    > minds of the majority of people who haven't been impacted by adoption, 
    > by surrogacy, by AI and by any of the other reproductive technologies 
    > being used.  	
    
    No one said this - and I don't believe it's true (as a blanket statement.)
    
    I just don't believe that adoptees, etc., lives are so inherently
    miserable that it warrants making sure that such children are never
    given the chance to exist AT ALL with parents who truly want them.
    
    I know the problems seem terrible - but would you choose that all such
    children's existence be wiped off the face of the planet?
    
    I wouldn't.

    RE: .58  Laura
    
    No child is born with a guarantee that his/her life will be free from
    any kind of pain or sorrow.  Prince Charles and Princess Di's kids
    may have all sorts of problems when they grow up (from living in the
    limelight too much, and from all the servants, bodyguards and boarding
    schools.)
    
    Children are born because parents (Mothers) are willing to bring them
    into the world.  No one has any control over what happens next!
    
    The only way to prevent children from facing problems is to fix the
    human race so that we stop reproducing altogether (and let our species
    die out.)  Otherwise, we all live in a very uncertain world where we
    are often forced to cope with the cards life deals to us.
    
    (As for my comment about wiping out the existence of all adopted, etc.
    kids - I meant, would we want to go back in time to prevent their
    having been born?  I wouldn't.)

    	RE: .63
    
    	Not to speak for the authors of .25 and .30, but I read their
    	notes again and I think the meaning of what they said is far
    	different from the way you read it.
    
    	When .30 talked about how there are unfit people who give birth
    	biologically, she wasn't singling out those who give their
    	children up for adoption.  I gave birth to my son biologically,
    	for example (and raised him to 20 years old so far,) so I'm a
    	birth mother, too.
    
    	It seems to me that she was responding to Laura's statement about
    	parenting not being a right - she was asking who gets to decide
    	how the right is given (and noted that giving birth biologically
    	does not automatically make someone a good parent.)
    
    	In .25, when the author wrote that "good mothers don't give up
    	their babies" - it's my impression that she was talking about
    	cultural attitudes.  Children are told one thing about their
    	birth ("your Mother gave you up because she loved you so much")
    	but then they hear something else out in society ("good Mothers
    	don't give up their babies") which is a contradiction for the
    	children, and adds to some of the confusing feelings about their
    	origins.
    
    	I didn't get the impression they were talking about the quality
    	of birth mothers who chose adoption at all.
    
    	Just my take on it, anyway.

    It is irresponsible for a man to donate his sperm. This isn't like 
    donating a dozen donuts to the local church social. This is a potential
    human being. I put sperm donation in the same catagory as a man having
    sex with strangers without protection. The consequences are too risky.
    
    I do not believe the government should uphold surrogacy contracts. The
    whole idea of legitimatizing baby selling is like a type of slavery.
    The idea of making surrogacy and artificial insemination illegal goes
    against the principles of freedom of privacy.
    
    The only reason I can see for AI is when adoption is not possible. The
    parent who needs to make a genetic imprint on this world seems like the
    type of parent who shouldn't be. 
    
    
    Kate

    RE: .65 Kate
    
    Kate, I'm a bit confused by your response.
    
    What are the possible consequences (to the sperm donor) for AI?
    (And what is it that makes sperm donation irresponsible in your
    opinion?)
    
    > The only reason I can see for AI is when adoption is not possible. 
    
    In this case, isn't the sperm donor engaging in an act of kindness
    toward the people in this situation who choose AI?  (Is it still
    irresponsible to donate, in your opinion, even though you agree
    with AI in this case?)
    
    > The parent who needs to make a genetic imprint on this world seems 
    > like the type of parent who shouldn't be. 
    
    Isn't this attributing motives to those who donate sperm?  Perhaps
    they simply want to do something kind for others who are having
    difficulty conceiving a child (as the author of the basenote stated
    specifically.)

    Hi Suzanne,
    
    It's so nice to hear from you.
    
    I should have clarrified my reply. Giving sperm without knowing the
    recipient is irresponsible. I think a person can be well meaning yet
    irresponsible.
    
    There is only one valid reason to have a child. Because you have love
    to give to a child. Some people who just want to leave a bit of them-
    selves on this earth are not thinking of the child. As was stated 
    earlier- twice at least,"Children are not commodities."
    
    Kate
    P.S.
    Did I say already that it's nice to hear from you? Oh, yea. Sorry for
    repeating myyself. Sorry for repeating myself. 8^D.

    RE: .67  Kate
    
    Hi Kate - it's nice to see you, too!
    
    I'm still confused about your views on this, though.  Men who donate
    to a sperm bank don't know the recipients - why is this a problem?
    What is the risk to the donors?
    
    People who donate sperm don't "have a child" - they only make it
    possible for others to have one.  They're doing something nice for
    other people (including making it possible to give life to children
    who would otherwise not have the chance to be born at all.)
    
    I see it as giving love and/or life to other people (grownup and child)
    without ever getting anything back for it, which is selfless (the
    nicest kind of love.)  It's the only kind of love the fathers get to
    show in this situation, but I see it as something good.
    
    I'm still uncertain as to what you're saying, though.
    
    Suzanne

    
    P.S. I should qualify now that I don't know that all or most men
    donate sperm for selfless reasons, but they still provide help
    for others (including the child who is brought into the world)
    without getting anything back for it.
    
    It isn't risk free for the child, but no person comes into this
    world without risk anyway.
    
    Take care!
    
    Suzanne

        re .69,
        
>   without getting anything back for it.
        
        That's not clear.  Check out mennotes 633.5, in which one
        donor lists three benefits he felt he received.
        
        Dan

    	RE: .70  Dan
    
    	True - I read the note and the man does list some things he
    	regards as benefits.
    
    	But these benefits don't come directly from the people he
    	helped, of course.
    
    	By the way, the note was informative in terms of how the
    	particular facility handled the screening of donors, including
    	follow up blood work, etc. (for those concerned about the
    	chances of AI transmitting AIDS.)

    	By the way, even if the donor did so for his own reasons (and
    	not with the child's best interests at heart) - he never becomes
    	a "parent" through this method anyway, so there's no danger to
    	the child.  There's no contact at all, in fact.
    

    Actually, most of the donors (hardly a statistically significant sample
    to be sure, but still...) I have spoken with haven't been doing it
    either to leave their genetic imprint on the earth *or* as a selfless
    act to a childless person.
    
    They did it for the money.  The place my ex Andy used to go would pay
    him $40 to jack-off into a bottle once or twice a week.  As a starving
    college student, that money was enough to cover his incidental
    expenses.
    
    I asked him once if he ever thought about the fact that he might have a
    child, or many children, in the genetic sense - does he ever look at
    babies and wonder if they are his?  He says it occurs to him, but he
    doesn't consider his sperm a part of himself, bt rather a vehicle for a
    Y chromosome that he happens to have in his body.  He no more considers
    the babies he might engender as his child than he would consider
    someone who go a transfusion from a blood donation he gave to be his
    sibling.
    
    i agree with him, for the most part.
    
    D!

I'm confused. I don't see how donating sperm is inherently irresponsible. What
is the responsibility of the sperm donor? It doesn't seem to me to be the
same responsibility as that of a father. Now I believe the sperm bank has a
responsibility similar to that of an adoption agency to screen prospective
parents, but the donor? No.

As D! said, I would view it the same was as I view my blood donations. I don't
screen potential recipients of my blood to make sure that they are, in my view,
suitable recipients. It is a freely given gift.

I guess this is a tension between "every child loved" and "no child unloved."
I see sperm donation as a chance to have another loved child, and Kate sees
a potential for an unloved child that could be avoided.

	-- Charles

    I'm engaged, and I love my fiance very much. The way I see it, it would
    be a good (almost honourable) thing to do for him to give a woman the
    chance to have a child by donating to a sperm bank __IF__ he was single
    now.
    
    As it is, if he were to do that today, while he is not single (in the
    practical, not legal, sense), I would consider it a form of adultery.
    
    Anyone agree?
    
    Alice T.

    re.75 What's the difference ? I mean, single or not, he's only
    having sex with a _jar_ !

    The difference is that he is giving another woman a baby, whether he
    knows her or not, and he is doing that while he is engaged to me.
    
    I find this wrong, and (luckily!!) he agrees with me.
    
    Alice T.

>    re.75 What's the difference ? I mean, single or not, he's only
>    having sex with a _jar_ !

      And what about the little jam jars that come along.. 8-)...
      
      But seriously though,
      If he donated before he met you then what would you then say when the
      litte jam jars came along in 17 years time and demanded his time. We
      could put together all kinds of scenarios.  The bottom line is you open
      the door to the tinkle of little glasses.

      In the UK they use medical students as first choice.  (availability) In
      the 60ies the procedure was to go behind a curtain, make the delivery
      and collect �5.00, down to pub.

      Shaggy dog story (but give it some thought), One student listened
      to an interview of a potential vessel (second hand from a doctor)
      was somewhat incensed by the racial overtones and needs. On his next
      visit he carried a donation from another student, which he substituted
      for his. His idea of fun was to add a random factor into the creation
      scenario.
      Rgds,

    
    Wow, I wouldn't have a problem with that.  In fact, if he's a hale,
    hearty, genetically great person (like Buck Rogers, right? - eat your
    heart out Princess Ardala), I think I'd encourage him to do it if he
    wanted to.  I kind of look at it like I look at donating blood - if
    you've got it and you're very healthy and able to share, please do.
    
    I've thought in the past (not sure how I feel about it now) that I'd
    think twice before donating my genetic code to a child.  Allergies are
    the pits - particularly life-threatening ones.  If there was an ovum
    bank, I might think of taking out a withdrawal if I wanted a child.
    
    In this world, kids deserve the best possible chance they can get.
    
    -Jody
    

>Note 957.10           Sperm Banking/A Female's Perspective              10 of 78
>BLUMON::GUGEL "Adrenaline: my drug of choice"        17 lines   7-AUG-1991 12:02
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                              -< IMO, of course >-
>
>    
>    Today, I think that AI is a good alternative for couples where
>    the male is infertile or for lesbian couples and single women.
      This question is for >BLUMON::GUGEL, what about Homosexual couples,
      single men, older couples who do not fit the adoption selection
      criteria. I am refering to Ai&S.
      Rgds,

    Steve,
    
    Ironically, the only sperm donor I ever met *is* part of a homosexual
    couple.  The only reason he donated was because he found himself in
    the `medical environment' (His lover is a doctor.) and he was
    solicited to do so.
    
    A small child once asked him how many children he had, and he went
    mentally cross-eyed.  You see, since he had never found women
    attractive, he considered himself childless -- which suited him fine --
    but he was this donor and ... it suddenly dawned on him that he
    probably had children, even lots of children.
    
    I wish you would stop lumping artificial insemination in with
    surrogacy.  The two are so mind-bogglingly different that it is like
    comparing pineapples and blueberries.  Not only are the requisite
    skills entirely different, not only are the levels of pain entirely
    different�, but the mental attitudes are, as demonstrated, entirely
    different also.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    � I presume no one ever told you that `harvesting' ripe ova is
    exquisitely painful to the donor.  Am I right?

    
    re .80:
    
    Maybe I'm ignorant, but I fail to see how AI could help
    people/couples in those cases.  Just what exactly do
    you want me to answer anyway?
    

    Maybe I'm ignorant, but I fail to see how AI could help
    people/couples in those cases.  Just what exactly do
    you want me to answer anyway?

Ellen, he is referring to surrogate mothers, in re: homosexual male couples.
(Ai&S = artificial insemination and surrogacy.)

I agree with Ann - the two are so vastly different that classifying them
together makes discussing at best useless and at worst impossible.

D!

>Note 957.71           Sperm Banking/A Female's Perspective              71 of 78
>    
>        But these benefits don't come directly from the people he
>        helped, of course.
>
      He was not specific, but who paid the $34.

>        By the way, the note was informative in terms of how the
>        particular facility handled the screening of donors, including
>        follow up blood work, etc. (for those concerned about the
>        chances of AI transmitting AIDS.)
>
      So far as I know there is no way "with insemination within days" of
      donation that there is any protection against AIDS. I know little
      about this nasty disease.
      NOTHING TO DO WIT Ai&S, BUT
      I read (herald tribune) about 6 months there was a case where one young
      man donated heart, lungs and large quantities of bone marrow. He was
      tested before they switched off the machine and had a clean bill. There
      are some 50 people, recipiants of the bone marrow etc who now have AIDS.
      There is no way of detecting this disease within days of contacting it.
      Ity appears that this young man caught it just before his accident.
      Rgds,

    Steve,
    
    Do you know what happens to donated sperm?  It is frozen.  Do you
    know what destroys viruses?  Freezing does.  Do you know what the cause
    of AIDS is?  It is HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus.  Can you
    figure out from these facts that even a man with a full-blown case
    of AIDS could donate sperm without any risk to the recipient?
    
    						Ann B.

Seems to me that a lot of the current laws/"moral codes" around AI,
surrogacy, and adoption are inherently sexist.

Example: man donates sperm, gets about $40 a shot.  Profit: about $40.
	 Time required: under an hour (including travel time).
         woman donates egg and 9 months gestation time, puts baby up
         for adoption, *maybe* gets medical costs paid in return.  
	 Profit: $0 (or considerably less).  Time required (including
	 recovery and assuming no persistent problems): 10-11 months.

Example 2: woman is willing to donate ovum (only) anonymously, can't find 
	 a taker.

I think -- and this is a considered a "radical" viewpoint in many circles --
that if men are allowed to sell sperm (a.k.a "raw materials"), then women 
should be allowed to sell babies (a.k.a. "results of final production"),
and at a price which compensates them equivalently for their genetic
contributions, time, risk, and other production outlays (medical costs,
extra food, etc).  I have no problem with the idea that this would enable
the rich to "buy" children -- especially since they probably are better able
to support them financially (note I am NOT saying that they'll make better
parents).  If the same screening procedures are applied as with adoptions,
I find this system morally acceptable.

Some people would equate the above paragraph with "slavery", since it is
the buying and selling of another human being.  They seem to forget the
other essential (and more relevant, in my view) component of slavery -
forcing others to work without compensation.  It is now the case in this
country that some women are forced (for legal, moral, or financial reasons) 
to have babies, at which point they may feel compelled to give them up for
adoption.  Free.  I find this a lot closer to slavery.

(One might point out that in the above case, the man doesn't get his $40,
either.  Yes, I think if he's willing to come forward at that point and
admit his identity, he should be paid -- and preferably forced to provide
a medical history, as well.)

What does this have to do with the ethics of sperm donation?  Although I 
don't find it unethical in and of itself, I find it unethical that it 
translates to male college students (which is what many sperm donors are)
having resources and opportunities ("money can't buy happiness, but it can 
buy opportunity") not open to their female peers.

    Sharon 

    
    re .84:
    
    In version 2 of this file, there was a discussion of surrogacy
    when the Mary Beth Whitehead case came around.  If you want to
    know what my opinions on surrogacy are, they can be found there.
    I went into it at great length.
    
    However, D! and Ann have both summed it up for me - AI and surrogacy
    are different.
    
    Perhaps Jody could (or already has?) provide a pointer for you.
    

    if it's not in the "two-legged incubator" topic, I don't know where it
    is.  I scanned for "whitehead" "surroga" "mary" "mother" "news"
    "rights" and couldn't find anything specific.
    
    stumbled across more pointers thought
    
    Womannotes-V1
    406 - fetal rights vs. maternal rights
    
    Womannotes-V2
    1053 - fetal rights
    
    -Jody
    

>Note 957.81           Sperm Banking/A Female's Perspective
      
>    I wish you would stop lumping artificial insemination in with
>    surrogacy.
      Ann,
      I lump them together because Ai for me is for the ladies what S is for
      the men. The issue differs only by the mechanism.
      It sounds rather grand to say "for the good of mankind", but if we lift
      our heads from the daily turmoil the question still remains. Is the good
      of mankind best served by investing our resources in producing more
      people.
      I will grant your wish in the next note strings, we could have one on Ai
      and the other on S. 
            
>               The two are so mind-bogglingly different that it is like
>    comparing pineapples and blueberries.
>
      My argument is that the means are diferent but the end product is the
      same. A CHILD. 

>
>    
>    � I presume no one ever told you that `harvesting' ripe ova is
>    exquisitely painful to the donor.  Am I right?
>                                       >>>>>>>>>>
      I don't know, but if I take Bonnies note to heart (joke) all we need is
      a little bit of ether, some small forceps. joke, bad taste over.

I feel that if a guy isn't donating for the money, he is probably
donating because he thinks he's good enough stock that the world just
can't go on without some of his get running around.  How hubristic
can a man be?

-d

    Ann B.
    
    Freezing DOES NOT kill viruses in general and to the best of my
    knowledge, it does not hurt HIV either.  And, although semen for AI is
    sometimes frozen, it appears that 633.5 (mennotes) was talking about
    providing specimens on the day they were to be used.
    
    I'm not sure that was even $0.02 worth.
    8-)
    jimc

    Steve,
    
    You prefer to refuse to distinguish between artificial insemination
    and maternal surrogacy because, "The issue differs only by the
    mechanism." and "[T]he means are diferent but the end product is the
    same. A CHILD."
    
    Well, the only difference between natural childbirth and surrogacy is
    the mechanism.
    
    So, do you disapprove of all methods of bringing children into the
    world?  Or are you just being irrational?
    
    From your last comment, which was inexpressibly ignorant as well as
    in bad taste, it is very clear that you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA about
    what is involved in starting a surrogate pregnancy.  Despite this,
    you have the unmitigated gall to compare it to a `procedure' that
    works surprisingly well even when the only artificial item used is a
    turkey baster.
    
    						Ann B.

    re: .81
    
    "comparing pineapples and blueberries.  The requisite skills are
    different.."
    
    hey, what *are* the requisite skills for pineapples and blueberries?
    
    ;-)

>Note    .85           Sperm Banking/A Female's Perspective              85 of
      
>    Do you know what happens to donated sperm?  It is frozen.
      Only if you are verrrrrrryyyy rich Ann. The fresher the better with this
      stuff. 
>      
>                                                                    Do you
>    know what destroys viruses?  Freezing does.
      Switch mode to "what happened to the serious conversation we were having
      two notes ago". 
      As the Doctor said to the man who claimed to have caught Veneral disease
      from the lavatory seat. "that is a funny place to be making love" Please
      do not try to propogate dangerous myths.
>      
>                                             Do you know what the cause
>    of AIDS is?  It is HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus.
      Nope, if I did I would be working for Wakerchemi, I would also be a very
      verrrrryyy rich man.
>                                                                Can you
>    figure out from these facts that even a man with a full-blown case
>    of AIDS could donate sperm without any risk to the recipient?
>
      These comments of yours Ann are not facts. Sperm is probably the most
      efficient way or transmitting AIDS. The quicker the education program
      spreads around the world the easier it will be to control nasty diseases
      like AIDS.
      Rgds,

<                      <<< Note 957.0 by ASPII::BALDWIN >>>

I would like to answer the *basenoter*.

My spouse and I used AI from an anonymous donor to conceive our son, Evan.
I am very appreciative of any healthy man who donates sperm.  *THANK* you
for even considering it!

There is one point of advice I would like to give you.  If you are at all
interested in meeting the child when the child is an adult (when you would
have no risk of having to provide child support), then see if the bank would
allow you to put your name and address in your records for the child/adult
when s/he turns 18 (or so).  Then, *if* s/he wishes it, s/he will have the
option of looking you up.  This is the only change that I wish we had had
for our son.

God bless you.

      Carol

My concern is with the very real possibility that the child from such an
impregnation might need to know something about his/her genetic past in order
to deal with a life-threatening disease.  As we learn more about genetic basis
for diseases and organ failures, knowing about your genetic heritage will
become the key to survival in situations where survival is impossible now...
I would hope that potential parents would fully consider this fact before
going ahead with AI.

<              <<< Note 957.54 by 32FAR::LERVIN "Roots & Wings" >>>

<What I have tried to point 
<out is that the process itself and societal attitudes can create walking 
<wounded.  Thus the example of the child in the playground who gets taunted 
<by his/her playmates because hir father was a tube in sperm bank someplace. 
<Or that same child who can never have the answers to half of hir genetics 
<and origins.  
    
Really, Laura. what *is* your point?  I *understand* that there may be extra
pain that Evan experiences because he will never know his biological father.
Are you asking that lesbians/single women/women married to infertile men
not use AI with an anonymous donor?  You have never made it clear what you
want.  Is this it?

Children of parents of different races may have extra pain because of their
backgrounds, too.  Do you believe that their mothers should not give birth? 

I really think that you could be more constructive in what you say here.
I have learned *so much* from you, and have *tried* to learn, so that I could
be more sensitive to any extra pain my child(ren) might have.  Because of what
I learned from *you*, if I knew the name of a sperm bank that allowed the
biological father to meet the adult child, then we would be getting our sperm
from there.  However, we don't know the name of such a place, and we didn't
know of one when we conceived Evan, either.

I am angry and hurt, because you sound so judgmental over what I, and others
like me, have done.  Instead of adding pain to us because of our choices,
I would like it if you would focus your energies on enlightening us
on ways that we can best help our children, so they have to go through as
little pain as possible.  Will you please consider this?

       Carol

    re : .96
    
    I double the thanks for a possitive note!!
    
    My husband and I have spent the last year in a RESOLVE support
    group for infertile couples.  Through this support group we
    had the pleasure of meeting a very nice couple who chose
    DI (it realy is Donor Insimination not AI which is just
    Artificial Insimination with your spouses sperm).  I learnt
    so much about life and love while in this support group
    and going through this whole ordeal with this couple.
    
    I particularly remember one meeting in which the husband
    of this couple was stating his feeling about what they
    were doing.  I sat there and listened to him say that
    sometimes he feels like less of a man because they had
    to use a donor.  At that point I realized how much more
    of a man and a better father he was/would be.  Hell,
    anyone who had healthy sperm can father a child.  But,
    what this man was doing took far more guts and strength
    and love.
    
    The ending to this story is that last week this couple
    had a beautiful baby girl....thanks to a donor who
    gave them a gift.  
    
    So to answer the base note.  I know a couple who was blessed
    with a child because of someone like you.  They are truely
    greatful and they are truely great parents!
    
    Deb

    in re .89

    ether and forceps were used to ease the *birth* of a baby...

    it is altogether different from harvesting unfertilized ova.

    BJ

    When I first saw the title of this string, I thought it said
    "Spanking"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Alice T.

    Here's a little twist on the AI debate...I was wondering what people
    thought...
    
    Oddly enough, in some states you have to *adopt* a child conceived from
    AI in order to make the family arrangements legally official.  This is
    done mostly, I suppose, for inheritence purposes -- to legally protect
    the child in case other children or relatives try to prevent s/he from
    inheriting.
    
    Now here is the twist:  In New Hampshire (amd many other states I
    suspect) it is not legal for gay or lesbian couples to adopt children. 
    So if a lesbian in New Hampshire decides she wants a child and does it
    through AI, she cannot be the legal mother of a child she has carried
    through nine months of pregnancy!
    
    I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
    
    The immediate question that come to mind are 1) why is it so damn hard
    for people to realize that lesbians and gays can be wonderful parents
    and 2) is it really necessary to *adopt* your own child just because
    the kid was conceived AI?
    
    Daniel

    re .103, I can see where it might make sense for a father to adopt a
    child that was conceived through AI, since he's probably not the
    biological father.  But, I can't see why a woman should have to adopt a
    child that's conceived through AI since she's still, obviously, the
    biological mother.
    
    Lorna
    

    neither can I...the law sort of boggles me...

    In Mass, the husband of the birth mother is the father of record by
    law.
    
    jimc

re: laws, I think the law only applies to the father of the child, not to
the mother.  (and in Colorado, if the woman is married, her husband is the
legal father no matter what)

<>    Do you know what happens to donated sperm?  It is frozen.
<      Only if you are verrrrrrryyyy rich Ann. The fresher the better with this
<      stuff. 

Actually, it is far more common for the sperm to be frozen.  Rich has nothing
to do with it.  The doctor makes the choice of the cost if the sperm is fresh.
Some doctors charge more than others.  Different sperm banks (frozen sperm)
also sell sperm at varying rates. 

Fresh is better in that it gives a higher chance of conception, as many of
the sperm die when frozen.  However, fresh has more risks of AIDS being passed,
so most places have turned exclusively or almost exclusively to frozen now.

>    Do you know what destroys viruses?  Freezing does.

This makes sense for AIDS, since the virus cannot last but a few minutes
outside of a human body.  However, they will not use the sperm if the man did
have AIDS. The donor is typically checked for the AIDS antibodies both upon
first donating and then 6 months later.  This way the doctors can feel more
comfortable that the man didn't have AIDS in the first place.  They do not
want to take any chances.
 
      Carol

>>>    Do you know what destroys viruses?  Freezing does.
>>
>>This makes sense for AIDS, since the virus cannot last but a few minutes
>>outside of a human body.
      Nor does sperm, the processes used to keep the sperm alive is that which
      keeps the virus kicking.
      I could get my words rammed down my keyboard, let me explain how I
      arrived at my belief that freezing does not kill the virus. There is an
      ongoing argument between a French and an American Scientist as to who
      discovered the AIDS virus. In one of the articles writen up there was
      mention made of frozen samples being transfered between the two
      scientists. The French claims that his sample contaminated the American
      sample, due to poor storage control in the freezer. The American claims
      the other way round. Some 3rd parties claim that both discovered
      different strains of the same virus, etc etc, etc..
      In another reference to the history of AIDS there is a British doctor
      trying to get into the act, he has resurected some specemins from a
      sailor who died in the 50ies from unexplained (to him, which is why he
      froze and kept the samples) causes.
      Now blood and body tissue could be different to sperm, I do not believe
      that the AIDS virus knows the diference, or cares.
      
>                       However, they will not use the sperm if the man did
>have AIDS. The donor is typically� checked for the AIDS antibodies both upon
>first donating and then 6 months later.  This way the doctors can feel more
>comfortable� that the man didn't have AIDS in the first place.  They do not
>want to take any chances.
>
      I take this paragraph as one. Even in your certaintity you were only
      able say �typically. The bank is like any other business run for profit.
      The chance they take is that the donor does not have the virus. Should
      the Donor (sperm) have the virus, then baby, woman, and strong chance
      husband will get the virus. They obviously take precautions but when
      they are running out of Brown hair, blue eyes and Michael Jackson smile
      stuff and the donor has not returned for the 6 month check. You have to
      trust them that it is thrown away, not mislabeled etc etc.
      
      By the time that the woman gets the sperm (with the virus), the egg has
      the virus, the woman will in all certainty have the virus, the husband
      will also have the virus. Now the onus will be for the threesome to
      prove that the virus came from the donation and not from an indescretion
      from the man or woman.
      I think that you also can be comfortable� taking donated sperm, my only
      comment is that you should at least use correct information to make the
      decision.
      Rgds,

    Steve,
    
    A virus doesn't evaporate when it dies; it leaves its little corpse
    around.  (You have heard of "killed virus" vaccines, haven't you?)
    Scientists find these very useful to work with, and you will kill
    viruses anyway when you start to analyze their DNA structure.  The
    HIV is a fragile virus:  There was a fear that in (warm, humid)
    Florida it would be possible for mosquitoes to transport the virus
    from one person to another.  `They' were able to demonstrate that
    the virus would not survive for transmission by this vector.
    
    Now, since you've spoken out against sperm as a method of tranmitting
    AIDS, and since you object to artificial insemination and surrogacy
    equally because they produce babies, I must conclude that you object
    to all human procreation.  Am I right?
    
    						Ann B.

      Ann,
      I think Turkey brushes are a little different than mosquitoes.

      On the second para,
      I did? I must check my earlier replies. I will try to find the Sci
      American article this weekend. I (if I find it) am willing to copy and
      send it to you.
      Rgds,
      Have a nice weekend

    What has fear of AIDS to do with AI through spearm banks?  
    
    They are different issues.  Taking any body (part/fluid) as a donation
    puts a person at some risk, *IF* the donor has AIDS or is HIV positive. 
    Same goes for blood, liver, heart, lungs. So, can we talk about AI?  
    
    RE: 109: There is far from a 100% chance that a women who gets AI with
    HIV-infected sperm will pass the virus to her husband; woman to man
    transmission is less likely than man to woman.  Further, through gene
    testing, it is possible to trace the transmission vector (direction)
    of any virus.  This is because the virus mutates ever so slightly.

    Why, no, Steve, you did not *say* that.  You did, however, say
    that you considered artificial insemination and maternal surrogacy
    to be equivalent because each produced a child.
                     ^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^ ^^^^^
    For consistancy, you should feel the same way about all other
    methods of producing a child.
    
    You also seemed to place some independant objection to artificial
    insemination on the grounds that it may transmit AIDS.
    
    For consistancy, you should feel the same way about the direct, sexual
    transmission of AIDS from men to women.
    
    Of course, if you wish to be arbitrary, inconsistant, and illogical,
    then you do not have to hold those beliefs.
    
    							Ann B.
    

<>>This makes sense for AIDS, since the virus cannot last but a few minutes
<>>outside of a human body.
<      Nor does sperm, the processes used to keep the sperm alive is that which
<      keeps the virus kicking.

You are wrong.  Sperm can last more than an hour outside of the body.
The AIDS virus cannot.

<      I take this paragraph as one. Even in your certaintity you were only
<      able say �typically. 

That's right.  All of the banks that I have dealt with test the donor at 
least the way I described.  You assume that by "typically" I meant that some
do *less*.  I did not mean that.  I believe that some do *more*.  Hence,
"typically".

< The bank is like any other business run for profit.

All the more reason that they have to be very, very careful.  If they slip
just *once* with the AIDS virus, they will be out of business.

Anyway, your argument seems invalid if you are trying in any way to respond
to the basenoter.  If the basenoter is not HIV positive, then what does AIDS
have to do with whether or not he should donate????

   Carol

>Note 957.113          Sperm Banking/A Female's Perspective            113 of 113
>The AIDS virus cannot.
>
      My question is therefore, how do scientists keep samples of AIDS virus
      for long periods of time. If scientific American is wrong and they do
      not use freezing, I would be interested to know how it is done.I suggest
      that you answer this question before you make statements like Freezing
      kills viruses. You may be confusing a number facts here. , e.g. a virus
      on its own cannot exist outside the body. This was made clear to prevent
      people shunning the breath of the aids infected. If the AIDS virus is in
      the sperm then it is not outside the body (that it needs). It is still
      in the host, the cell. When the spern dies so does the virus, the sperm
      is safe but useless.
>
>That's right.  All of the banks that I have dealt with test the donor at 
>least the way I described.  You assume that by "typically" I meant that some
>do *less*.  I did not mean that.  I believe that some do *more*.  Hence,
>"typically".
>
      I thought that by typically you were refering to the story in the Weekly
      Guardian, Quote without permission,
      A white woman from NY accepted $400,000 compensation after giving birth
      to a black baby. The damages were paid by the doctor and a sperm bank.
      They accepted that there had been a mixup between the sperm of her
      terminally ill husband and a black man.
      End quote,
      Think of the people involved in this mixup,
      The husband (Legal-papa).. terminally ill and his last drop lost. The
      woman (Bio-mama), as she walks out with the baby, she may have convinced
      the courts. You need a good lawyer for that. How does she convince the
      row of friends  at the checkout counter that she was not tempted and
      accessed the warm stuf.
      The KID (bio-accident), this is my real concern. what happens to IT. The
      bio-papa was finished when he left the cubicle. I do not know if you
      have ever walked into a room where your presence was not wanted. This
      kid has that sensation from the moment that he pops his head out
      until... 
>
>All the more reason that they have to be very, very careful.  If they slip
>just *once* with the AIDS virus, they will be out of business.
>
      They insure themself against this kind of accident, You insure youself
      against death, the insurance company makes a deal, but you are still
      dead.
      If you thought women did not have rights, then you should check on
      how corpses go about exercising their rights. I will be the first to
      accept that the chances are small, my note title said one in a million.

>Anyway, your argument seems invalid if you are trying in any way to respond
>to the basenoter.  If the basenoter is not HIV positive, then what does AIDS
>have to do with whether or not he should donate????
>
      I have strayed off the topic I will get back on again in a minute, 8-).
      or would you like me to start another topic?
      Rgds,

    Perhaps the basenoter would like to reply as to what decision he
    made.
    
    BJ

    Well, hopefully this won't stir up more controversy, but I did make the
    decision a while ago to do it, but it was refreshing to read some of
    the more positive responses behind the whole "concept" (pardon the pun).
    
    I guess only time will tell from here on in what will happen. I'll
    let history decide whether I was right or wrong, but I thank those
    in here for their input, on *all* the many sides of this issue.