This report grazes the obvious question that even Salon has ignored: what are the ethics of sperm donation? As usual, there is much focus on the women's end of the equation- people debate whether women who impregnante via sperm donation are selfish or good mothers, etc. But the motives of sperm donors always go unexamined. Who are these men who father scores of children they never support, never see- and get paid for it to boot? Why doesn't everyone pretend that what they do is no more significant than donating blood or plasma? They are either given a pass or treated as a dirty joke. These men are FATHERING children, and call the mothers what you may, but noone's accusing them of bringing children into the world they won't love.

The genetic problems some of them pass on may finally call attention to this odious practice. If you are a person who spays or neuters your pet because it would be unethical to bring dogs and cats into the world that you can't care for, then you should denounce sperm donation.

I will respond to this post about my contention that sperm donation is unethical:

"I do object, however, to your tone because you are implying that there is something odious about these young men's motives. You're implying that this is like having casual sex and leaving some poor woman with the aftermath. Nothing could be further from the truth. Women who seek out sperm banks do so willingly. "

I do indeed think sperm donation is mostly odious. Whether or not women seek out the sperm willingly ( and all women who get knocked up by cads the natural way don't?), you are focusing again on the women's behavior, and on the relationship (commercial in this case) between her and the father. You are not focusing on the man's behavior and his fatherhood. Similarly, the argument that sperm donation is ethical while ova donation is not because ova donation can affect the donor's fertility only considers the effect on the parents, and not on the offspring or on the "silver string" of bio-parenthood.

Again, we treat "donated" (sold) sperm as something equivalent to some donated body tissue or fluid, instead of the means to fatherhood. We don't have to denigrate adoption by acknowlwedging that bio- parenthood is a serious matter not to be taken lightly. The fact that some young men and women see bioparenthood as a way to easy money is reprehensible. Bio-parenthood donation, so to speak, should be treated with the seriousness it deserves for people who seek it and the resulting offspring, whether the donors be men or women.

I had a dog years ago, a purebred. I never mated her, because I couldn't bear to bring puppies into the world when I had no control over their welfare. Because I and many other people can make this ethical decision for our pets, I can't see why a twenty something college student (male or female) can't make the same ethical decision for their own offspring. Because anyway you slice it, the children that result ARE their offspring.

The father should bow out, because the harm here isn't circumcision- whether it's necesary or not, it's harmless, and sometimes beneficial- the harm here is two parents fighting publicly and litigiously over their poor son's penis. It's hard to imagine a parent not backing down before things went this far.

There is nothing wrong with the book. Nothing wrong with boys making arrows and playing spies, or with girls playing with ponies and dolls.

What irritates is this assumption that something won't interest you. Something fun, like playing with a dog or baking a cake. If you were once a girl, you probably got this type of thing a lot: once a priest asked my CCD class: any boys here like to climb trees? I imagine boys got another sort of thing, like when they were very little they weren't allowed to wear shiny shoes. Whatever. So cut a gal some slack if she's irked by a book like this; it may be bring up bad memories.

I have watched the new chocolate connosiuers with annoyance and amusement, when I'm not ignoring them. Yes, it's good to appreciate quality, and NOBODY can love good chocolate more than I do. But these hapless victims of marketing are only the moneyed counterparts of WalMart shopping reeses pieces eaters, except they have a very apparent desire to make others feel stupid and unworthy. These are the people who will ruin reading and wine drinking and music if you let them, because for them it becomes all about status and cool. Why can't a person like fine wine, chocolate and music and also enjoy a Stephen King novel, a bag of peanut M and M's and a bottle of 3 buck chuck? Does everything a person consumes have to have some sort of "authenticity" to it? I defy anyone to read the excerpts of the chocolate experts's comments in the article and not want to laugh.

Maybe they'll chew on vanilla beans and cinnamon sticks next.