Should sperm donors and adoptees get to choose child's parent?

[ironeagle]

Ok 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?

I do. sperm donors should be allowed to restrict who gets their sperm, to ensure their child lives in an atmosphere with a mother and father or in a religion he approves of, and so should a parent who adopts out a child. Imean just because you have the legal right to insemenate or adopt shouldn't mean the providers should have to allow just anybody to be their child's parent. What do you think?

[ShadowFox]

I say neither.

Sperm donors shouldn't have a say, they donated it. It's like saying "I' donating liver when i die, but i don't want anyone who is a muslim to get it" or "I'm donating clothes to the less fortunate but i only want the clothes to be dispersed to people in my county" If your donating it, your donating it. Deal.

I say no to adoption because when they give up the child for adoption they basically lose all legal rights over the child. If they didn't want to run the risk of the child being adopted by someone they don't agree with, they shouldn't of put it up for adoption. Seriously, you gave the child up, you don't get to go back and dictate who gets it.

[Thanatos]

You're assuming no responsibilities like child support or driving your kid to soccer practice.

[ironeagle]

You make a valid point about adoptees, which is why they should be required to care for their own children, but you are not including children who's parents are dead. I mean what if in their will they wanted the children to go to the father's responsible hederosexual sister and brother in law, but the sister and brother in law didn't want them or died too. Then the children go to an orphanage and the children get adopted by a lesbian couple instead. Why is it ok for people who want sperm to choose which sperm donor they pick, if it's all about not complaining why complian you if you can't get the sperm of one man but you could get the sperm of a man who is ok with his child being raised by homsexuals. Either way you are missing the child's right to a father and mother and first and foremost to their biological parents. There are also many fathers losing their children to adoption against their will because of lesbian feminist (who have gone overboard to matriarchy) the least the courts could do is grant the child a normal man-woman relationship to the child after stealing another man's child.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: ironeagle You make a valid point about adoptees, which is why they should be required to care for their own children, but you are not including children who's parents are dead. I mean what if in their will they wanted the children to go to the father's responsible hederosexual sister and brother in law, but the sister and brother in law didn't want them or died too. Then the children go to an orphanage and the children get adopted by a lesbian couple instead. Why is it ok for people who want sperm to choose which sperm donor they pick, if it's all about not complaining why complian you if you can't get the sperm of one man but you could get the sperm of a man who is ok with his child being raised by homsexuals. Either way you are missing the child's right to a father and mother and first and foremost to their biological parents. There are also many fathers losing their children to adoption against their will because of lesbian feminist (who have gone overboard to matriarchy) the least the courts could do is grant the child a normal man-woman relationship to the child after stealing another man's child.

If they die, then yes, the children will likely go to any living family members. As for the choosing the sperm they want, it's probably a matter of people wanting certain traits for their children. As for fathers or mothers who lose their children, it's because they are judged to be unfit to raise the child. This could be because of abuse, neglect, insanity, etc.

Also, until there is actual evidence to say that homosexual couples cannot raise a child as well as a heterosexual couple, you have no right to deny homosexual couples the ability to adopt.

[Tycoon]

This whole thread is ridiculous! If a person wants to have their child raised under specific beliefs or certain household values then they should raise their child themselves.

[Tycoon]

As for orphans, if they're young they won't be strongly biased against gays and won't care. If they're older, they'll be lucky to get adopted parents at all.

[??!]

Quote by: ironeagle I do. sperm donors should be allowed to restrict who gets their sperm, to ensure their child lives in an atmosphere with a mother and father or in a religion he approves of, and so should a parent who adopts out a child. Imean just because you have the legal right to insemenate or adopt shouldn't mean the providers should have to allow just anybody to be their child's parent. What do you think?

If sperm donors don't want a certain person to use their sperm, then don't donate it. It's not rocket science.

[??!]

double post.

[gela]

I don't think parents who are putting their child up for adoption have a right to be picky.

If they want control over their child, then keep it.

If they don't want responsibility for their child, then give it up for adoption.

As for sperm donors, I think ??! covered it

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Tycoon This whole thread is ridiculous! If a person wants to have their child raised under specific beliefs or certain household values then they should raise their child themselves.

I find this offensive. Why should parents have an absolute right to decide how to indoctrinate "their" children?

TC

[??!]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal I find this offensive. Why should parents have an absolute right to decide how to indoctrinate "their" children? TC

Wow, I was thinking the exact same thing.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: ??! Wow, I was thinking the exact same thing.

Cool.

Dawkins wrote an essay attacking the whole notion of "Christian children".

TC

[SoylentGreen]

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?

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.

[The Bacon Guy]

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.

[ironeagle]

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?

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: ironeagle 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?

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.

[ironeagle]

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?

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: ironeagle 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?

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.

[ironeagle]

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?