ok, will try to sy everyting that think about this.
1) it would NOT be ok to have anyone that donated sperm to a sperm bank to be expected to pay for support, if the ONLY arrangement "deal" that is made is that the person donates the sperm and that is IT.. no contact, no 'anything' afther the donation.
2) would be extremely suprised to find that was the situation, and if it was, wouldbe extremely suprised that the courts would rule on the side of the women asking for support.
3) obviously the support must be paid BY one of the women who had been in the relationship, since it is them who had this child together, and just as in a heterosexual relationship the 'couple' is responsible to raise the child.
4) am also questioning the thigns that lorelie questions... that this sounds like a case where it makes good 'journalist' exposure, and 'twists' public opinion regarding either lesbian couples having children, or sperm donor ways of having children, or generally the non-traditional methods of child-bearing and rearing.
would be very suprised to hear that this was a case where the donor was not someone who had wanted/agreed to be known, (because how is it even possible for the two women to try to sue him for suport, if this was done according to the generally accepted manner of sperm donors.. they are to remain anonomous, just like adoptive parents.... that has been one of those 'ethical' issues that hve read about in sperm donor situations, because in adoption, the child can register with the adoption disclosure registry, and if the birht parent also does, then they could eventually meet/find out about each other.. but in sperm donor situations this apparently had not been considered... and in this way, it coudl be quite impossible for the child seeking his/her 'original' genetic parent to actually find him/her (egg donor maybe different had not read about that)
5) IF the child was conceived from sperm where the man had agreed to be a part of the life of the child, or if the man had agreed his identity to be known, (why would he unless he was willing ot become a part of the childs life at some point or another, there seems to be no other reason to really allow his name to be known) then can understand that it woud lbe argued that he cannot have the 'benefits' of being a donor parent, without also the 'risks' of being a supportive parent to the child... it is a serious undertaking to have a child, to be a part of the 'picture' of bringing a child to this world... it is a very serious undertaking, and much responsibility to accept being responsible for the well being of anohter life.... therefore, if this man did do it with the acceptance that he is known to the child (via being known to the women) then obviously he IS responsible for the care as well if things go in such a way that the child is in need of support. it is like in the case of dogs, if a responsible person operates a kennel, they are accepting to take the pup back, if the people who bought it do not want it for some reason.. have seen that in adds.. that they would rather take the pup back then have someone send it to the SPCA or abondon it or kill it... that is being responsible... donating sperm is not the same as donating blood... it is a much more serious undertaking...
as for the women having chidren... am completely accepting, and encouraging lesbian/gay couples to having families, and am saddened to hear that many lesbian/gay couples often end up in situations where they are 'forced' (because of economic restrains, 'buying' donated sperm can be very expensive) to make arangements for children that they want to have from their own genetic material (own egg or own sperm) which may not be the 'safest' arrangements.. there are cases where people have had donor sperm, or surrogate mothers (in the case of gay male couples) come and want to have more contact, more rights in teh lives of the children then had been originally planned for... not saying that the 'genetic' parent does not have the "right" to have contact, or rights, but that sometimes it is not the way thigns have been planned, and then end up being that way... these are the difficult issues of raising families, of having infertility problems, of being 'physically' incapeable of being 'biological' parents to children and choosing to not adopt but find alternate means of having children to raise....
PERSONALLY would not care so much if the children that was having were of mine own genetic material, or not.. so personally, if was unable to have children then woudl want to adopt... BUT even to that there are issues which come to play... the incredible amount of time it takes to adopt.. the CAS women at this meeting that we had with mine counsellor (who by the way is a lesbian woman) told her (because she said that she hasd been thinking about adopting) that she sould start teh process soon, if she planned on it, because it takes a very long time to be finalized for adoption... and sometimes a person is allready "old enough" by the time they feel that they are ready to have children to be responsible for, taht they woudl like those chldren soon, unless they get to be old enough that they feel they will not be 'energetic' enough to be caring for the child... know some people who have had (biological) children allready well into their 40's and do not feel that caring for the child is not difficult, tha they hve the energy for the job.. and some people at that age say they are 'too old' to have energy for a child...
so, yes, some people, even if they would be accepting to adopt, woudl prefer to try sperm donor because that is a faster way to start with a family....
as for these two women, am sorry to hear that their 'marital troubles' have become a national issue regarding donor sperm and parental rights/responsibilites... wonder if it makes for better 'media coverage' because it is lesbian couple.. rather then a heterosexual couple... just like here in canada, a few years back there was a case where a a single woman was pregnant and wanted to have an abortion. she had not told her ex-boyfriend (the father of the child) about her plans, since she had seperated from that man prior to the birht of that child,,(infact think it went that he didnt even know she had been pregnant)... in this case, it was a large media issue... the issue of his parental rights-responsibilites, her rights-responsibilities (re;having had to tell him he was the father-to-be)... this case was very interesting because the courts did rule that he did have a right, and think it went so that she had gone to another province, (or the states) to have that abortion against the court order in her province... it became a messy issue....
am glad that these issues are being addressed.. are given up for public opinion.... it is an huge ethical dilemma... in this case the womans rights, the mans rights, then it can be spoken about the childs rights (the anti-abortion perspective will speak to that)... think these issues will not be resolved very quickly and consistently... because there are so many different people, with different views on what is 'right'....
think am diverting here again...
basically point was,
think that there must be more to this case then what is first presented.. and if it came through a 'advertisement for news' scrolling along, often they may only give a little part of the story, to get people to go the news providers website, give them so 'hits' and perhaps finding that story will get the person interested in reading other stories...
kind of like the 'sensationalist' way to get readership.. CNN (is that who it was? sorry forgot) is not above doing that... they too want readership just like anyone else...
waiting to hear more on tis one....
lilghostie
|
