Monday

Depositing a Seed Into a Cup Is Not Parenting, So What About Depositing One into a Vagina?

UPDATED AGAIN!!

Previously, I have talked about gay families and how they break the mold of society's "requirement" of a mother and a father. To say that a biological mother and father are the only real families, or that they are what all kids need to succeed (lest they be pregnant teens, jailbirds, and druggies), is to deny gay families and the wonderful children that are raised within. Gay families are a threat to fathers' rights and "parents" rights movements. How many times have you heard of the father's movement being gay supportive?

And so now we have sperm owners demanding their rights as sperm donors? What is wrong with this picture?

I thought a donation meant you were to get nothing in return (except they do get compensated, as do blood donors, as do charity donors via taxes). I thought sperm donors were giving away stuff...to be specific, their sperm and their "rights." Otherwise, why are they going through a sperm bank anyway? Why not just insert dick in vagina, ejaculate, hope for ripe egg...and BAM!!! I mean, if you really cared about being half of someone's DNA, or a possible medical reference, then do it the old school way, right?

Is sperm donation the new hook up method?

In Ireland, a Supreme Court Justice wrote that:
"There is benefit to a child, in general, to have the society of his father.
If this isn't the most patriarchal BS...

What is this benefit, in general? And is this benefit guaranteed? Furthermore, if there is no benefit, then what?

And on the other hand, in another sperm donor's rights case, we have a United States judge who wrote:
"a declaration of paternity would be a statement that her family is other than what she knows it to be and needs it to be."
Here we have an understanding that mother plus father does not equal the necessary ingredients for a family. Is that so hard to understand? It is not the biological being that automatically grows a successful child...as Dr. King might say,
...it is the content of their character.
So can this apply to a who man inserts dick in vagina, ejaculates and fertilizes ripe egg? In this scenario, man doesn't assist in the pregnancy, man may not be present when the baby is born, man may not have even signed birth certificate, man may be haphazardly involved in buying the kid a pair of Nikes at age 6 months...man is virtually unavailable for most of the "tender years"...Oh shit, mother applies for financial assistance...government seeks out sperm donor...and BAM...sperm donor wants court ordered visitation, or joint, or FULL custody of the child.

The child doesn't "know" this man as "daddy"...the child's world consists of its mother and a host of other relatives and friends.

See Lisa's Story, We're All Just Trying to Trap Them

What do you think?

Keep in mind that, at least in Florida, for 31 years, gay families had been prohibited from adopting. I still don't think non-married persons can.

Check this out (from the article linked above):

Several organizations -- including the National Adoption Center, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics -- have said that having gay and lesbian parents does not negatively affect children.


Could this mean that not having a father does NOT negatively affect children??? Hmmm. This would blow a lot of fatherhood.org drivel out of the water