Cool.Quote by: ??!
Dawkins wrote an essay attacking the whole notion of "Christian children".
TC
Cool.
Dawkins wrote an essay attacking the whole notion of "Christian children".
TC
As far as sperm donors go. There perhaps should be a clause in a contract for them to sign. Perhaps a box to tick asking if they want the right to say where their sperm goes. I see no harm in that. However giving a sperm donor any more say in what happens then the donor should also be asked to accept some responsibility for that such as money donation. As for parents who adopt their children out, do they not already have that right? I thought adoption agencies bring the couples together for an interview first.ironeagleOk so it's legal for lesbians and single mothers to be artificailly insemenated and for gays to adopt, but do you think in light of that that sperm donors and parents who adopt out their children should get to have a choice restricting who gets to utilize their sperm and who gets to adopt their children?
Depends on how you donate or give up your kid. If it's a state-funded adoption agency or sperm bank (though the latter shouldn't even exist), then you should be dealing within whatever framework that particular society and therefore government sets.
If you want to donate your sperm via a private company or transaction, any conditions agreed upon by the company and the donor are fine with me.
What about children who where adopted against the parent's will? Fathers who fail to be on an elicit and illegal putative father registry have lost their children, children whom they did not know existed. Also what if a teen puts her child up for adoption because the father wouldn't help, what message does that send to the child or society if the adoptive parents are both women? Also how is it more acceptable for a woman to discriminate against a sperm donor based on hair color any less offensive than discriminating against sexuality and moral beliefs?
Saving the empovershed by empoverishing their counterparts will empoverish the whole.
For the fathers against there will, they abandoned the child, they don't get a say. Sorry. It's similar to someone donating clothes and then turning around and saying, wait, no I want them back now. They might be able to adopt them back, but they can't just go "Oh i changed my mind, give me my kid."
As for a child being adopted by a same sex child, why are you so against it? Until there is enough statistical proof that shows children raised by a same sex couple can cause problems in the children, you can't say no.
Also, if you donate it, you don't get a say. If the women want to be picky, that's there own choice, you don't get to dictate to which person your donations go. You can't donate an organ and say "Only Someone who is a straight Christian can get this." Sorry, once you donate it, it's gone.
Knowledge is power, use it well.
Don't fear the unknown, seek to understand it
What do you mean fathers against there will don't get a say and abandoned their children? The sentence doesn't make sense at all. Fathers who's children were hidden or stolen did not abandon their child, fathers who contest the stealing of their children do not abandon their children, and they should have a say. I can say no gay couples shouldn't be able to adopt anytime I want to say it, and why should an adoptive parent or sperm acceptor, be able to discriminate against the child or the child's donor parent but the donor shouldn't get to discriminate. If the issues shouldn't matter then why allow sperm acceptors to decide based on the attributes of the sperms creator?
Saving the empovershed by empoverishing their counterparts will empoverish the whole.
Well thats odd, hm, typo i guess. It was meant to say "For the fathers against their will, they were deemed unfit to raise the child, and therefore do not get a say. Really, when they put their child up for adoption, they abandoned the child, they don't get a say."
I'm glad you caught that, wonder how it happened. Hm, well, anyway, that's been corrected.
As for the adoptive parent or person accepting the sperm, i guess it's their choice of what they take on if they desire. And once again, the donor or genetic parents don't get a say when they give it up. If you donate clothes, you can't tell them to not give it to people who aren't christian. You can't say you want your organs donated but say that only people with the white ethnicity can have them. Sorry if that bothers you, but once you donate it or give it up, you no longer get a say over it.
Knowledge is power, use it well.
Don't fear the unknown, seek to understand it
I'm sorry but I work as a full-time non custodial parental right's activist, and you a wrong, none of the fathers in these scenarios were deemed unfit by any court. Their children were stolen by the mothers in these cases, and the adoption agencies.
You might say the sperm donors don't get a say, but what if they demand they get a say and pass legislature so they get a say in it? Then they'll have a say, right?
Saving the empovershed by empoverishing their counterparts will empoverish the whole.
really? Provide evidence. I want stories of this with evidence and accurate links. Also, provide evidence that most children in the adoption system were "stolen" from their parent. Otherwise the argument is extremely weak.
Then what if people who donated clothes rose up and said "We don't want (insert group here) to get the clothes we donate!!!". Sorry, once you give it up, you don't get a say on what the qualifications for that person may be. You probably can say "I want my sister in law to get this because my brother is infertile" but you can't give something up and then turn around and say "No, THEY can't get it, i don't agree with what they think/do/are" If someone tried to take it to court, i can practically guarantee that it'd be thrown out.
Knowledge is power, use it well.
Don't fear the unknown, seek to understand it
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks