Letters to the Editor
-
Sperm River, wider than a mile
Carol thus eructs: “There are a total of 208 sperm donors in the U.K.” If she’d barked that about renta-wombs or vaginates-for-hire, folks would have protested. But since it's only marginalized men who are at issue, who cares? Guys are but impregnators of feminist eggs. It’s only when we construe females as ovens for baking male beans that folks care.
What will the brave new world be like, 50 years hence, when man-hating womyn face off against guys who have birth control and artificial wombs?
Who’ll give a damn what Gloria Frankensteinem’s spawn “feels” then?
A man needing a woman will be like a submarine with a screen door.
Males might be deemed insensate brutes for doing what feminists have done forever, but they won't care.
The author notes that “a single donor's sperm can be distributed to as many as 10 families and those families can spawn multiple children from the same vial.” True enough. It is, though, the same VILE sperm from creatures feminists have wanted nothing to do with (save extract money from).
What happens when males, experienced in attacking actual enemy machine-gun emplacements, decide to re-assert their paternal rights? Are fembots ready for THAT clash? As much as they claim men are beasts, they count on gentleman-ness to prevail. That status, of course, always entailed women acting as ladies...something that's not occurred for decades. Are intellectuloid fembots ready for the real conflict that's coming?
It’s not “offspring looking for emotional...support” that bothers men. It’s the MONEY spermubators expect for being vaginates (while, of course, keeping the men at bay).
How long do wimmin really think this can go on? Sooner or later men, facing death abroad to protect females' right to vote, will start kicking righteous arse at home.
Now this: “A 15-year-old boy found his biological father in 10 days using a DNA test.” But why would he search in the first place, men being useless beasts? To get money? Then eff the little batard!
But what if he felt, as a male, that dads could offer things les momsters can’t?
Another: “One young woman who wrote about finding her donors via one of these sites asserts that the donor transaction doesn't end in a Dixie cup”.
Lovingly put. She sounds like a toilet tissue herself. Why not talk about things resulting when turkey-baster exit bearded clams? Let's women in equally dim lights. So....
Do feminists REALLY want war with men who’ve faced real war?
Do they think they can provoke men without impunity forever?
Do gals think guys can't mock them or their sex bits, too?
One fembot dixie-cup resultoid opined: "We didn't ask to be born into this situation…”
True enough. But so what? Feminists are forever focused on themselves.
More: “ It's hypocritical of parents and medical professionals to assume that biological roots won't matter...”
Really? Who knew? That's not what harridans have hurrah'd for 40 years.
In sum: How much "unknown-ness" is due to fembotulists deeming men no good ( or only good for "one thing": money)?
Payback is a byotch. It's rapidly approaching. I'd not be too prissily satisfied if I were a typical fembotulism.
-
There are MORE UK donors since the ending of anonymity
That was a simply dreadful article by the BBC. There are more sperm donors since anonymity ended.
"the first full-year figures from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) since the change show a 6% rise in the number of men registering as donors."
http://tinyurl.com/yrtza7
The UK were quite right to end anonymity. Donor-conceived people have a fundamental right to know where their genes came from.
Mark (former UK sperm donor)
-
Well you can say goodbye then to willing sperm donors...
Neither sperm donors, nor egg donors, nor parents who give up their children up for adoption should have the right to remain anonymous....
Your rights end where another person's rights begin. If sperm and egg donors have no right to remain anonymous, you can pretty much say goodbye to willing donors. What will all those infertile prospective parents do then?
Oh yes, of course, adopt. Adopt who? I think it is a great thing that more people who give their children up for adoption and more people who adopt are opting for open adoptions-- but to make it *mandatory*? For a lot of people who would otehrwise consider adoption, that's just going to mean "Hello abortion clinic...."
And for a lot of women who live in countries where there actually is a serious stigma on illegitimate birth, perhaps they will think twice about giving their children up to American adoption agencies. Who wants that nightmare down the road?
Come on guys, thinks about something else besides yourself.
-
I don't know what incentive there was in the first place
To be a donor. I guess this will change things. Maybe I don't care either. Let them fight it out with hammers if they like. The men can complain they're being taken advantage of and the women can complain....about something or other. Whatever. Blame is more important than results.
-
Clark is right about the hypocrisy but . . .
it sounds like the alternative for her would have been not being born in the first place.
-
There is No Right to Know Your Genetic History
I disagree strongly with those who feel that people are guaranteed the right to know their genetic history. They are not, and no amount of knowledged is going to preclude certain medical considerations or give someone a family they feel they do not have. All this ruling does is create a disincentive for people to donate.
-
sperm donation is not fatherhood
The sperm bank pays the donor for the "donation" and in many cases a full medical and personality history.
The woman or couple requiring the service pays the sperm bank a lot of money for the "donation" so that she or they can conceive a child.
Please note here that no contract or agreement of any kind has been made between the woman and the donor. In fact, the sperm bank agrees to keep the identity of the donor confidential. The donor is providing a service for cash. He isn't agreeing to be a parent or accepting any of the financial or emotional responsibilities inherent therein. He is instead providing the ability for single women and infertile couples to conceive a child with full knowledge that they are taking on this responsibility themselves. This isn't a case of "dead-beat dads" trying to skate on their parental responsibilities after a night of fun with some co-ed, such as some of your more reactionary, man-hating readership has characterized. Such characterizations indicate that much of your readership doesn't have a clue.
Now, if the banks can no longer keep this promise, I'd say that sperm banks will largely go out of business. No donor wants to take the chance that they'll meet some unknown kid with their hand out 15 years from now just because they were hard-up for some beer money in college. And that's sad for those single women and infertile couples who need this service to conceive.