January 01, 2007
Frumming
David responds to a Washington Post Article on Sperm banks and the effect it has on ‘the children’.
This woman’s mother choose to have a child by herself using anonymous sperm. The author decries how this is allowed without any consideration of how the children will feel. Now, while this woman is free to feel whatever, what she accuses her mom of doing is no different than the millions of other people who choose to have kids.
How many kids are born to abusive parents, and would prefer not to have been? How many kids are born to poor parents, and prefer to have been born rich. This is the same tired argument used against gay parents: The situation is not the ‘ideal’, and thus should not be allowed. Which, of course, is silly. There are plenty of less than ideal families that nobody would think of questioning the right for the parent(s) to have children.
Frum, in his usual manner, leaps on this woman’s dissatisfaction to justify his views.
And please don't tell me that this is a matter of personal choice. The sperm donation industry exists only because the government agrees to enforce the contracts that make the whole thing possible. The man sells his paternal rights for $25 or $50; in exchange, the woman disclaims any right to support - and through this contract, the ensuing child is cut off from any rights to her father's care. This in a country where (as my AEI colleague Sally Satel points out) it is illegal to sell a kidney.
I find it so odd, that a conservative like Frum seems to be suggesting the Government should examine every planned birth, to make sure that the family will be ideal. Also, I’m not sure how he would distinguish his problems with ‘sperm donation’ from adoption. It’s the same issue – parents giving up their parental rights, and also being relieved of any support issues. The difference is merely that one occurs pre-conception, the other post.