18 Year Old Katrina Clark had this to say on being the offspring of an anonymous sperm donor:
“I was angry at the idea that where donor conception is concerned, everyone focuses on
the “parents” – the adults who can make choices about their own lives….The children
born of these transactions are people too…..
“I'm here to tell you that emotionally, many of us are not keeping up. We didn't ask to be
born into this situation, with its limitations and confusion….
“We offspring are recognizing the right that was stripped from us at birth -- the right to
know who both our parents are.”
(You can read her entire statement here)
This statement is yet another result that was forecast many years ago when medical science decided to hop into bed with bleeding heart liberalism. When these very types of reactions by the "offspring" were predicted by the more conservative crowd (How dare they actually consider how it might affect the child???) they were, in the typical self righteous liberal mindset, disimissed by the enlightened (smirk) "Elite" as being too radically and fundementally challenged to open their minds to new possibilities for evryone to have children.
That was never the point with the conservative view. The question that has always been ignored (and this includes the redefinition of marriage) is WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN, DAMMIT?
Until next time...
13 comments:
Welcome back TIO, i thought my google reader had gone weird when i saw this pop up in it.
Anway...this is one of those catch 22 situations where nobody is going to be satisfied. Yes, the children should have rights but then that opens up a whole host of possible paternity cases and recriminations which in turn will lead to drasticly less 'donations'.
I really cannot see a solution where both parties are satisfied.
Might I suggest one solution? Maybe it should have been left alone in the first place? Why not resort back to "no such thing as a sperm donor".
Problem solved :)
There's definitely a huge emphasis placed on "parents' rights". And if we want to think more about "Children's Rights" it seems reasonable to think more about it for born children as well. Maybe spanking and such ought to be banned...
My philosophy on the subject is "parents' rights" over "governments" and "children's rights" over "parents' rights".
Nog,
Your painting with a broad brush. While there are certain "Rights" children should most certainly be entitled to one cannot say (overall) that their "Rights" should simply trump Parental rights.
Each area needs to be addressed accordingly otherwise the danger in all that(as is evident in our society today)is essentially usurping the role of the parent.
If parent's have no role except to pro create then they are not exactly parents.
Parent's also reqire "Rights" over children's in order to be effective in raising them. Interference from Government has no place such as "spanking".
Abuse on, the other hand, is an entirely different matter.
However, in this particular case, Katrina has the "Right" to know who her parent's are. This method of conception appears to be rather cruel.
How does one look up their biologocal father with no records? In their mind, the only image of a a father is a donated jar of semen.
I think sperm donor children -and all adopted children-should have the right to know their parentage. Elsewise, they could very well end up dating their own parents or siblings without knowing it.
It is also quite cruel to put blue print on black background. It's quite difficult for old eyes to read. ;)
Karen,
You make a very good point that so far has been overlooked in all of this.
Yikes! Imagine finding out you married your sibling. Or a young woman dating an older man only to find out it was her sperm donor!
And the blue print was chosen just for you ;)
TIO
And the blue print was chosen just for you ;)
Oooh! Are we role-playing?! You're being the sadist to my masochist?
(What's the safe word again? Cos if you keep using that blue print, I'm gonna need it.) Really, I'd much rather you dug around in the drawer and found the leather whip instead. ;)
Back OT, thanks for applauding my point. At the time I responded it was the only thing I could think of. It seems only right to me that everyone should have the right to know their parentage. Medical history is important, too, now that I think further.
I guess what the donors are afraid of is their offspring looking them up and wanting something from them later in life that they are not prepared to give. The donors have provided a service and signed away all parental rights and responsibilities. I don't know the legal ramifications, but I suppose they can expect to be protected from having to have parenthood coerced upon them when it was part of the agreement that such would not be the case.
I do think that information should be available to the children, however. Spreading one's sperm around comes with a responsibility, whether the dispensing comes in the natural way or in a plastic cup.
My argument about spanking earlier, was rhetorical. But it is one that "progressives" will surely make. If you let them dip their hands into unborn children, they won't resist helping themselves to born children as well.
And of this "right to know one's parentage", I don't quite get where it's coming from, there seem several reasons one would want such a thing. So, to be the devil's advocate, I'll say "ya'll are jumping on this as a back door excuse to legislatively ban, through some means other than forced abortion of course, all non-heterosexual-marriage children."
There are, I think, good people, single, who would make better parents than many couples with children. It is certainly incontrovertible that couples "on aggregate" make better parents than singles, but you can tailor your parenting demographic other ways.
If only the best could have kids, you might get such proposals as:
straight, white, married, Southern (if you're in the States), >$100,000 household income, protestant, etc...
If we're limiting the prerogative/right (and we might debate which) to have children to specific demographics, where to we stop?
The question that has always been ignored (and this includes the redefinition of marriage) is WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN, DAMMIT?
How does same sex marriage hurt children?
Alright Arthur, this is a bunny trail, but I will induldge...a little.
My reference to that is the children, who are always the last consideration, who would have two parents of the same sex.
For children with hetrosexual parents, it does not affect so much emotionally as it does mentally with regards to simple and plain confusion.
In referencing "redefining marriage" that was a direct statement to the reality that children now and future tense were never considered in the decision of societal implications that will, and are even begining to, come to pass. That being the utter meltdown of the marriage unit altogether.
Result, more kid's and no parents, one parent, two moms no dads (or vice versa), three dads and four moms and no marriages because we can all live common law happily ever after.
Except polygamists because that would be illegal ;)
All rights (at least for Americans) are listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Where does it say "children have a right to know their parents".
The things you propose that affect children conceived via "donors" have happened throughout humankind without "donors". Or, maybe I should say that there have always been men that would offer a donation and women that would accept donations knowing they would never interact again...
Rare liberalish moment for the Grump
Grump,
It doesn't state that kids have the "right" to steal cars either, but they do it anyway.
The "rights" in this case could easily be argued in the courts. My hunch is that if enough children of "donors" came forward they would eventually set a foundation and win their "Rights" case.
I think we can both agree that in todays era, whether it is the American Bill of Rights or the Canadian Charter of human rights and freedoms, they are fast becoming irrelvant documents when judges hold the power to overide/influence public and social policy by "reading in" what they deem should be someone's/group's inherent right.
TIO,
I'd say a right is something that is inherently ours, without taking away from someone else. Ex - Your right to speech doesn't take away from me, because I don't have to listen to you.
In this context, your sentence about stealing cars doesn't make sense.
Lots of things can be argued and decided in court. My dad was a lawyer and he often said "Only a foolish lawyer goes to trial because you lose too many cases that you should win."
I'm not worried about people getting "new" rights, as long as they are "true" rights - which means you don't get something at my expense and vice versa.
Grumpy
Post a Comment