Men Not Included!

[Guest Mark_irl]

I was reading the paper last week and came across an article about the first woman in Ireland to conceive a child using sperm provided by a group responsible for the website http://www.mannotincluded.com

 

This group informs us that they provide "a non-discriminatory, confidential and totally anonymous sperm donation service available to any woman wishing to conceive, regardless of sexual orientation or marital status".

 

What struck me was that the Donor has been given absolute assurance that his identity would remain undisclosed, and that he would never be contacted by either the Recipient or by the child.

 

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but does anyone else find this a little disturbing? Doesn't everyone have a right to know who their biological parents are? Some believe that the lack of a father figure during the early years can be responsible for a number of problems later on including anti-social behaviour. A child should have a father and a mother in their lives-what right do we have to deny them this most basic need?

 

 

Thoughts?

[MolecularMan14]

agreed, it seems a little odd. But if the mother has the resources to care for the child properly, without a husband, then I dont see any (non-moral) problem.

Morally, I would say that it's very odd. I would think that a child should have know who its father is! Then again, I can see why some want it, so I dont mind it that much.

[Guest Sezzybaby]

I was reading the paper last week and came across an article about the first woman in Ireland to conceive a child using sperm provided by a group responsible for the website http://www.mannotincluded.com

 

This group informs us that they provide "a non-discriminatory' date=' confidential and totally anonymous sperm donation service available to any woman wishing to conceive, regardless of sexual orientation or marital status".

 

What struck me was that the Donor has been given absolute assurance that his identity would remain undisclosed, and that he would never be contacted by either the Recipient or by the child.

 

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but does anyone else find this a little disturbing? Doesn't everyone have a right to know who their biological parents are? Some believe that the lack of a father figure during the early years can be responsible for a number of problems later on including anti-social behaviour. A child should have a father and a mother in their lives-what right do we have to deny them this most basic need?

 

 

Thoughts?[/quote'] It is a little disturbing I suppose but I've been looking into this myself as a 28 yr old woman who has been so jaded by men in the last 10 yrs. I have raised a son who is nine now and I (and he) would love a sister or brother for him. I'm worried that this so called Mr Right won't appear and I'll be too old to conceive. I have friends that have been dragged throught the courts by mentally abusive men trying to get custody of their kids just to 'win'. This scares me to death and as I know I too am being selfish in wanting this baby by a donor, I feel it could be the safest bet as far as the child's well being is concerned. Altough I'm aware of the issues of identity etc. the child will probably have at some point. With just about everyone splitting up these days, the one thing this gets rid of is that tug of war (love?) between the child and it's Mum and dad. Thought I'd just give you some insight into how us women think (well some of us). It's not just for Lesbians. It's just a pity I have been so jaded I think. Take care. Sarah

[timo]

Thoughts?

yes' date=' those:

 

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but does anyone else find this a little disturbing? Doesn't everyone have a right to know who their biological parents are?

Do you know for sure who your biological father is? You cannot. As for "everyone should have a right to know their biological parents": Sounds nice, but seems inobtainable to me regardless of that service. In the end I don´t think that knowledge is too important (I haven´t done a gene-test to find out if my father is really my biological father, for example - it just isn´t that important to me).

 

Some believe that the lack of a father figure during the early years can be responsible for a number of problems later on including anti-social behaviour.

Being a natural scientist I have problems with the term "can be responsible". Problem one is that I wouldn´t know how to define responsibility in a system as complex as a human life. Second problem is that the word "can" to me reads as "i want to make that claim and relativize it so that noone can refuse it". Having no father figure can as well be responsible for being awarded the nobel prize in literature.

The statement probably is a loose interpretation of a statistical correlation of "antisocial behavior" (however that´s measured) and "having no father figure" (easier to measure but also not trivial). While this correlation might exist, applying statistics to individuals is discrimination.

 

A child should have a father and a mother in their lives-what right do we have to deny them this most basic need?

- There are much more basic needs than having father and mother.

- Who tells you those children won´t have father and mother (didn´t read the link so hit me if "this service is only for single women having no boyfriend or husband" is written there - I doubt it)? What about couples who can´t have children otherwise? Is a father less of a father if he isn´t the biological one?

- What about couples who have children breaking up? Would you prefer a child having arguing parents who don´t like each other over the child living with only one of it´s parents?

[Aardvark]

yes' date=' those:

 

 

Do you know for sure who your biological father is? You cannot. As for "everyone should have a right to know their biological parents": Sounds nice, but seems inobtainable to me regardless of that service. In the end I don´t think that knowledge is too important (I haven´t done a gene-test to find out if my father is really my biological father, for example - it just isn´t that important to me).

 

[/quote']

 

I think you are too lightly brushing aside the matter of parenthood. It is important to people to know who they are related to and the degree of relation. You call yourself a 'natural scientist', in which case you must be aware how this relates to very fundamental, genetically hardwired behaviour and emotions.

 

For instance it has been shown that men are more likely to abuse adopted children than children they have fathered.

 

I agree that we must be careful of generalisations, some single parent families do well and some nuclear families do badly. It is generally recognised that single parents have a harder job which can make things more difficult for both parent and child. I don't see that as a moral judgement.

 

Applying statisitics to an individual isn't discrimination (whatever that odd word is supposed to mean). For instance statistics show that old people are more at risk from influenza, so old people get priority for innoculations.

 

Anonymous sperm donation does raise questions of identity which are important, some people who have been born as a result of IVF go to quite some lengths to discover who their father is.

 

I think the matters of identity and the additional problems of single parenthood shold be openly acknowledged. They do exist and are important. That does not mean that anonymous sperm donation is wrong, in many circumstances it is clearly the right thing, simply that they should be fully understood by the people deciding whether they wish to make this choice.

[timo]

Good post Aardvark and there is not much in it I could refuse in general. Just a few remarks:

 

- If I come to the doctor with bad general health I´ll certainly be given priority over an older person being in better shape unless the doc is a complete idiot. Not much point in debating over this point, however. I know what you mean and I think you also know what I mean.

 

- I simply feel like the importance of "one should know his roots" is generally overrated. I certainly do not deny that some people have a strong interest in knowing. Maybe you don´t know your biological parents and know what you´re talking of. But the point that practically noone takes a gene-test on his parents if he´s told that they are his biological ones seems as a hint to me that it just isn´t of fundamental importance for one´s life (and honestly: Who would like to find out his parent´s actually aren´t the biological ones?). Perhaps I´m biased in this matter as I personally know someone who doesn´t know her biological parents and has not raised any interest in them so far although meeting them -at least the mother- would be possible.

 

One last thing: I would expect that people who are considering using the mennotincluded-service think about the point that their children will never meet their father more than both of us do (more than me at least).

[Guest Mark_irl]

Hello again,

 

Thanks for the replies certainly some interesting points. Atheist i agree that you cannot obviously know who your biological parents are without a DNA test. But i'm pretty sure the guy who brought me up is my biological father nevertheless! I dont need a DNA test to prove it. For me, having a stable family unit would be something i consider to be a most basic need, i think a lot of people feel the same way.

 

I would have to agree with Aardvark about the statistics point also. I can't see how applying statistics to people is really discriminating. But there you go, different strokes for different folks i guess. Thanks again.

[Skye]

It's more like prejudice.

[john5746]

The only problem I see is the ability of the women to care for the child. They should have the same requirements as adoption - whatever they are.

 

It would be nice if people would adopt instead of doing this, but that is not for me to decide.

[Guest Neverending]

Thoughts?

I was concieved through anonymous sperm donation because of my father of childhood's genetic defects. I do not know who my genetic father is and I do not think that I will ever know. It is sometimes disturbing, like when I wonder what traits I inherited, I cannot know because I do not know half of my family line. However, it does not really make that big of a difference in the end

[Kleptin]

I think the only person that should be able to get that information is the child after reaching a certain age.

[logicBomb]

as a 28 yr old woman who has been so jaded by men in the last 10 yrs.

 

yeah i kno just what you mean. as a 45 yr old man, who has become so jaded by women that i dispair of evr having children, ive thought about renting a woman for a few months & having a kid. i wld feel uncomfortable taking the kid away from its lactating mammaries, but hey.

 

i can't believe people cld be so selfish as to specifically exclude their child from ever knowing its biological father.

[logicBomb]

i just wanted to add an apology to Sezzybaby if she's still about. im sorry men have been such a disappointment.

 

i think this is probably an aspect of this thread that is overlooked: that reproductive technology as a solution to infertility is one thing, while reproductive technology as a solution to social problems is another.

 

i dont think women necessarily need to be able to cohabit with men if they want to have children, but i do think they need to be able to coexist. ...if only becos they may have a male child.

[Coral Rhedd]

The only problem I see is the ability of the women to care for the child. They should have the same requirements as adoption - whatever they are.

 

It would be nice if people would adopt instead of doing this' date=' but that is not for me to decide.[/quote']

 

Requirements for adoption seem to vary depending upon whether one wants to adopt a healthy newborn of one's own race or whether one is willing to adopt an older child who is disabled, disordered or has other high maintenance needs and possibly of another race. It is much harder to adopt the newborn. How's that for society's jaded response to the needs of children?

 

Adopting the newborn may be quite expensive. Adopt the high needs child and one gets a government subsidy.

 

However the issue at hand is really sperm. Women who can afford these "sperm banks" are rarely economically needy so that we can presume the child should have his physical needs met. These women are spending more time thinking about the conception of their child than most women who become pregnant the usual way spend. Therefore, we can presume that they can think. They are obviously willing to go to a bit of expense and trouble to become pregnant by this means, so one can presume most of them are hoping for an emotional connection with the resulting child.

 

Altogether, I would bet that the children who result from the union of sperm bank and woman will be more likely to have a good life than children who are conceived by two eighteen year olds who have suddenly decided that they are in love.

 

All that seems to be missing is the father's presence. To know what that is worth we would have to quantify the average value of a father's presence in a child's life.

 

Some fathers negatively impact their children. Some fathers are a positive influence.

 

But beyond obtaining medical history, what would be the value of knowing a father who contributed only his sperm sold for money? I think if I had been conceived in such away, I would assume that I had little to gain from knowing my "father." Once one gets past the practicality of trying to figure out whether high blood pressure, etc. runs in the family, there is no family history with which to connect. In this case, I would say that no emotion equals no meaning.

 

This is one situation where anonymity benefits all.

 

If we don't require people to meet good parenthood qualifications before they have sex, I don't see how we can make parental qualifications mandatory for women who conceive by sperm donation.

 

To me, such requirements seem like an unnecessary burden on a woman's freedom and an invasion of her privacy.

[blackout]

All that seems to be missing is the father's presence. To know what that is worth we would have to quantify the average value of a father's presence in a child's life.

 

Yes! even if its a boy or a girl, a father is as important as a mother.

 

lesbians, maybe, but the child would not have a father.

I'm 15 years old, and I would not have two mothers or two fathers, I (and every childs, teen...) should have the right equilibrium, a mother and a father, that whats I have also.

For me, having not the right equilibrium, I would call that, as in chemistry, an energetic material, unstable, as nitro or even more like nitrogen triiodide...

 

Alex

[Coral Rhedd]

lesbians' date=' maybe, but the child would not have a father.

 

Alex[/quote']

 

You seem to have made a great leap here to lesbians. Would you care to explain why? I am puzzled.

[Guest gwilymrj]

The London Gazette

Publication Date: Wednesday, 22 December 2004

Notice Code: 2441

 

MANNOTINCLUDED.COM LIMITED

 

At an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Members of the above-named Company, duly convened, and held at the offices of UHY Hacker Young, St Alphage House, 2 Fore Street, London EC2Y 5DH, on 16 December 2004, the following Resolutions were duly passed, as an Extraordinary Resolution and as an Ordinary Resolution respectively:

“That it has been proved to the satisfaction of this Meeting that the Company cannot, by reason of its liabilities, continue its business, and that it is advisable to wind up the same, and accordingly that the Company be wound up voluntarily, and that Andrew Andronikou and Ladislav Hornan, be and they are hereby appointed Joint Liquidators for the purposes of such winding-up.”

At a subsequent Meeting of Creditors held on 16 December 2004 at 11.00 am at the same place, the Creditors confirmed the appointment of Andrew Andronikou and Ladislav Hornan as Joint Liquidators.

 

J E Gonzalez, Chairman

 

*******************************************

 

 

THE 2005 ROBERT MAXWELL AWARD FOR CORPORATE ACHIEVEMENT

 

JOHN EMILIO GONZALEZ

 

MANNOTINCLUDED.COM LIMITED

(IN VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION)

 

Mannotincluded.com Ltd. was incorporated in May 2002 with capital of £100 and placed into Voluntary Liquidation by JOHN GONZALEZ in December 2004.

According to the Liquidators’ Estimated Statement of Affairs the total assets of the company amount to an unimpressive £5,000 and creditors are owed a grand total of £272,780.00 with little hope of any of the unsecured creditors receiving anything.

 

Trade & Expense creditors £220,558.08

Bank overdraft 19,000.00

PAYE/NI & VAT 14,000.00

Debtors Loan Account 19,222.00

 

John Gonzalez’ track record of unsurpassed excellence is exemplified by his involvement in one insolvent company, five dissolved companies and seven resigned directorships.

 

Cap’n Bob would be proud to know that his legacy lives on. It is appropriate that John Gonzalez’ business success is based on masturbating activities! How else can you sum him up?

 

Gwilym Rhys-Jones

Director General

Mannotincluded (Spain) Ltd.

[Guest gwilymrj]

MAIL ON SUNDAY ARTICLE

Morals Not Included

By Matt Nixson and Jo Knowsley

The Mail on Sunday June 20, 2004

A CONTROVERSIAL business that sells sperm to lesbians over the internet is today accused of cruelly misleading its gullible customers - and perhaps exposing them to the risk of AIDS.

Man Not Included, Britain's first online fertility clinic, has routinely flouted the crucial guarantees it makes to clients about both the quality of the sperm it supplies and the background of its donors.

The fast-growing website has already helped dozens of gay couples and desperate single women conceive a child. Grateful clients pay up to £2,000 in return for 'top quality' sperm donated, according to the firm, by men subjected to a rigorous screening process.

But two ex-employees of the website have revealed to The Mail on Sunday that women were consistently supplied with sperm from donors who had few ? or none ? of the physical, social and intellectual characteristics they had specified.

This meant a client who thought she was getting sperm from a fairhaired donor from a professional background might in fact be given sperm from a man who was neither of those things.

Man Not Included also reneged on a guarantee that once a man's sperm had been supplied to a customer, he would be removed from the firm's books during the pregnancy, the former employees claim. And several women received samples from the same man.

This raises the disturbing prospect that people born as a result of the website's 'service' could unwittingly form incestuous sexual relationships with half-brothers or sisters ? a concern intensified by the fact that donors and clients usually lived in the same area.

Most alarmingly, it is claimed that clients were exposed to the risk of AIDS because donors were not given effective health screening for the disease.

When contacted by The Mail on Sunday, the firm denied that it had misled its clients - but admitted there might have been some minor teething troubles. However, last night MPs raised serious concerns about the controversial agency and trading standards officers announced an inquiry.

Former Man Not Included salesman Mike Black told The Mail on Sunday: 'I am sorry I ever got involved. Our customers were desperate to have babies and we exploited them. There is a good chance some will have babies that are different from what they wanted. And several might even be in danger.' Man Not Included was set up in June 2002 by former City headhunter John Gonzalez and is run from a first-floor office in Harley Street, London. He spotted a loophole in the law that bans clinics from dealing in frozen sperm without a licence, yet allows the supply of fresh sperm.

The website, clearly targeted at lesbians and defiantly politically correct, claims to have already enabled 60 women to have babies. The firm arranges for sperm to be delivered by courier for artificial insemination by the clients themselves. But because it is fresh sperm it cannot be screened for HIV which has a three-month incubation period during which it will not show up in health tests. Former staff also insist that the firm broke a promise to regularly test each donor for disease.

Mr Black, who quit the company last year after becoming increasingly concerned at its practices, said his job was to encourage women to sign up to packages costing £800 and upwards.

'I was telling people on John Gonzalez's orders that once a donor was chosen by a client, he was removed from the website's database to prevent other women selecting him.

'In practice, once Man Not Included had a donor signed up, and successfully screened for fertility and disease, they would try to use him as much as possible to save money by avoiding extra testing costs. 'We had something like 3,000 potential donors on the site but only around 80 were regularly used to supply more than 250 women.

Repeat testing simply didn't take place as an official policy.

'We were concerned we might be sending infected sperm out and on one occasion, before I left, we paid for some retesting to take place without John's knowledge.

'Clients had three choices of donor - if their first didn't come back clear from health testing, we were supposed to test the second donor then their third choice to see if they were capable of donating.

But in practice, we were ordered to simply tell the client their original choice was OK then substitute him for another who'd already passed the health tests.' He added: 'You could easily have the nightmare scenario that one prolific donor could be fathering multiple children in the same area.

'Donors had to live within an hour of clients, otherwise the sperm dies in transit so you could have children going to the same schools as half-brothers and sisters without ever knowing it.

'Providing donors were of the right ethnic background which was the one characteristic John would never mess with and lived within an hour's drive, they would be asked to donate there and then.' The Mail on Sunday can also reveal that Man Not Included deceived women who paid for their donor's sperm to be cryogenically frozen in case they wanted more children with the same genetic father in the future.

Mr Black said: 'One of the packages offered included the freezing of sperm. The donor was supposed to visit a cryobank every couple of weeks to build up a sperm bank for the client's future use.

'But there was no cryobank and when I left a number of women were demanding their frozen sperm so they could start their insemination procedures - but it didn't exist.' Other failings include shoddy deliveries of sperm samples.

Sperm samples -which must be used within an hour - often arrived late, cold and, in one astonishing lapse, delivered in a flask containing dregs of coffee.

The company also failed to keep the identity of donors secret from clients. On a number of occasions, their names and addresses were accidentally left on flasks used to deliver the sperm samples to customers. Nor was there proper vetting of potential donors.

Stella Murphy, 23, who worked as Gonzalez's personal assistant before quitting with Mike Black last year, said last night: 'We had constant complaints of botched deliveries and problems with donors. 'It was always a case of getting the cash into the bank as fast as possible. Clients were looking for donors with good qualifications, good health and the right background. 'But in reality, donors could claim they had 12 GCSEs, five A-Levels, three degrees and looked like Brad Pitt and no one would know otherwise. We never checked and most never even came into the office. It was the same with their medical history which they were asked about. These couldn't be checked. How could we? Patient records are confidential-We had to take everything at face value.

'More worryingly, there was never any way of proving the person donating the sperm was the person actually chosen to donate. It could have been anyone: flatmates, friends, family.' The company is now facing a growing number of complaints from unhappy customers. Sarah, a 25-year-old from York, said: 'When we first chose our donor we were adamant he should not be a redhead. 'I just didn't want a child with ginger hair. We chose a 27-year-old website designer with brown hair and living in Leeds and were given a reference number to identify him.

'Later when we asked Man Not Included for the results of our donor's health check they sent us details of a completely different man - he was from Manchester and had ginger hair. 'We were devastated. And when one sample arrived it was inside a tub in a flask and there was coffee in the flask.' Another couple have agreed an out-of-court settlement with John Gonzalez after taking Man Not Included to the small claims court following a series of disastrous attempts to get pregnant.

They said: 'We paid something like £900 and we were told sperm would be frozen for our future use but we have no evidence this happened.' Another customer, Carla, 21, an administrator from Essex, said: 'The costs kept going up. We spent something like £1,500 and had no luck getting pregnant. 'They just kept trying to sell us new packages but the ones we paid for turned up late, cold and on the wrong days.'

Midwife Gail Graham, 47, worked as a volunteer for Man Not Included before quitting in disgust. She told The Mail on Sunday: 'It was just a moneymaking machine, pure and simple. John sold it as a crusade on behalf of lesbians but he seemed to be just interested in the cash. On one occasion I even heard John refer disparagingly to clients as dykes.' In February Mr Gonzalez provoked fresh controversy by launching a second internet venture - Woman Not Included, which offers infertile women, including single women and lesbians, the chance to buy eggs from anonymous overseas donors at a potential cost of thousands of pounds.

In a detailed response to his former employees' allegations, Mr Gonzalez denied individual donors had been used to supply sperm to many different women. He said: 'We have a policy that any donor will only be allowed three live births which is seven less than is allowed through the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

'We can produce a paper trail for every donor we have used. When someone selects a donor and that donor is not available, then they are given the opportunity to select another donor.' When pressed further on whether sperm from one donor had been supplied to many different women, Mr Gonzalez said: 'If that has happened, it has been done without my knowledge and against company policy.' He also claimed donors were repeatedly retested for HIV, adding: 'Every single one is tested and retested every ten weeks to the day. We do have a full paper trail so if you publish anything to do with that I will sue your arse.' Mr Gonzalez initially denied offering the frozen sperm service until confronted with evidence from his website. Then he claimed: 'We were in discussions to try and freeze our donors' sperm but unfortunately the person we were working with tragically died of a heart attack.' He added: 'We are a brand new organisation and rely on third party services which is why we provide cost-effective services. 'If a delivery is 20 minutes late, that's because the courier company has been stuck in traffic. We take medical advice and the fact that we have almost 60 conceptions and babies delivered shows it does work.' Mr Gonzalez also claimed not to run Man Not Included, although he conceded he was the founder, owner and brainchild of the company. And he insisted: 'We are the only organisation that demands two forms of identification, not only for our donors but also for our recipients.' The website includes a lengthy legal disclaimer advising potential customers that the firm is an introduction service only, and cannot guarantee that donor sperm is free of infection.

Lisa Saffron, of the lesbian, gay and bisexual parenting group PinkParents, said last night: 'We strongly advise lesbians not to use Man Not Included. It is an irresponsible, unregulated service offering fresh sperm from anonymous donors. 'There is no way that Man Not Included can guarantee the donors are who they say they are, nor can they guarantee sperm safety. A man may become infected with HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases the day after screening.'

Josephine Quintavalle, director of the fertility watchdog Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: 'The chances of siblings meeting in small communities must be reasonably high. The worst case would be these children meeting, falling in love and having their own kids and the ethical and medical complications that might result.' Last night Liberal Democrat health spokesman Paul Burstow said: 'The Mail on Sunday's research has raised some very disturbing questions which need answering.

'It is clear this business is both risky to the health of the women who are buying sperm and raises serious ethical issues. The Government needs to urgently consider an inquiry.' Conservative shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said: 'I shall be asking Ministers to establish an inquiry into whether these activities should be regulated.' And the head of Westminster Council's trading standards team, Sue Jones, promised to investigate the allegations against Man Not Included and urged dissatisfied clients to contact them on 020 7641 1111.

HAVE you been a donor or client of Man Not Included? Please email Matt.Nixson@mailonsunday.co.uk in confidence or write to Matt Nixson, The Mail on Sunday, Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TS.

[Tigerbeam]

as long as the child has a father figure for the first 16 years or so of their life, they'll be alright. the only reason for that father figure to be the biological one would be because of societal pressures, and i don't think there is any basic need for knowing who your true parents are.

[Rebiu]

Everyone’s childhood is less than ideal.

 

This is because the concept of ideal is artificial. I hardly thing that because no father figure is a less than ideal child rearing environment is a reason to deny anyone a child.

[padren]

That Mail on Sunday article seems to describe the worst case senario pretty well.

 

 

If done right, I have no problem with it morally.

 

If you would ban a service like this, then would you have to arrest a women who has a one-night stand to get pregnant?

 

IMO, a bad father can be far worse than no father, and there are far greater disadvantages you can impart on a child.

Statistically, poverty is far more likely to be deleterious than being raised by a wealthy single mother. Should we ban the poor, ban alcoholics, or no good dirty liberals from having and messing up kids?

 

The only way any society can survive is if stability is emergent, not designed. Social engineering schemes always give me chills. (side note rant: I find ulta-conservatives who hate liberals like me are always the ones that seem to think we should encourage marriage to provide type-A family units etc, ban gay marriage due to its lack of such a contribution etc, and are the largest closet socialists I've ever run across. /rant)

 

Personally, I do think it would be worth government oversight to ensure such businesses do keep full medical records, and have a donor ID number that can allow the child not to track the parent, but ensure the person they may marry does not have the same donor ID number.

 

It would be fair too to keep the ID number so that if the donor later in life gets various genetic illnesses that could not be detected earlier, that without the identity, that the child could be informed of the medical history which can strongly influence what medical plans will be willing to pay to test for routinely in the child.

 

Regulations though would limit the financial options for people, but it is a medical situation with long term health implications for both the buying party and a third party not-yet-concieved individual, so I definately think the health angle needs to be covered.

[tejaswini]

i think it is so damn necessary to know who ur parents are. and this having a child without a man thing is so stupid . what is the fun....... all that impatient waiting of the man u love outside the labour room ,the first kiss of the father or the guy on the fore head of the baby are certain things which are necessary. they bring beauty to life.and the love comes automatically if the guy is the true father.

[gcol]

The time-wasting rigmarole of pre-mating rituals, the inconvenience of the responsibility of being responsible for ones own children, the dilemma of the poor souls who can't decide whether they are AC or DC or something inbetween, my heart bleeds.

 

But fear not, there is an answer! Let's all go HERMAPHRODITE.

 

What does it matter that evolution of all higher species (possibly including us) has lead to two sexes. It is so awkward and inconvenient, evolution must have got it wrong. It is so er...yes, sexist. Ought to be a law against it.

 

Hermaphrodites of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your sexuality. (With apologies to Karl Marx.)

[mattbimbo]

i remember reading this article last year. it explains part of the situation in the UK, including the removal of anonymity of sperm donors, which has lead to a massive shortfall in sperm donors.

 

it seems men are willing to give sperm, but not their names.

[pink_trike]

hm...this whole idea of a child needing to know who its bio father is a fairly new idea when we look at human civilization as a whole. Even the idea of a mother/father unit raising a child together is a quite modern concept. There are many examples of premodern societies institutionalizing anonymous breeding. The Northern Europeans had the ritual of blessing the fields which involved the women of the village going out into the fields on a selected night, laying down in the freshly plowed soil, lifing their skirts up over their heads to conceal their identity and waiting for the "God" or "Stag" (young village men) to plant the seed in order to insure that the crops would grow (and presumably to insure random selection). Various African and South American tribes had designated times of the year when women and men of a tribe (who frequently lived in separate villages or separate "big houses" year round) would ritually copulated under the influence of powerful drugs. Some tribes would have arrangements with other tribes allowing pre-arranged "attacks" on the village that would result in the "rape" (or rape, depending on what kind of cultural assumptions are applied) of women of child bearing age. Many societies would raise children in the women's village, with male children joining the male's village upon puberty. Before the age of high-speed travel, countless children barely knew their father. Countless wars have produced countless children who would never know their father. And on a more modern note, psychological studies have shown repeatedly that children of both gender raised by Lesbian parents are as psychologically well-adjusted as children raised with male/female parents, and even more psychologically well-adjusted in some areas of development.

 

I find the idea that a women can't raise a psychologically healthy child without the father being present to be rather chauvinist and dismissive of women in general. I also dislike the idea of pathologizing children that are raised solely by a woman. I think a child is only traumatized by not knowing who their father is if the culture within which the child lives dictates they they will be traumatized. This would have been a good thread to indicate the gender of the poster. (m)