Family Ties That Bind
Adoption is often touted as the great alternative to abortion since a woman can give up a baby, no muss, no fuss and be done with him or her. Reality is, adoption is a messy, long process expensive for adoptive parents and can be an embarassing situation for the mother to be as well. Some people decide that the best way to have kids on their own is to get the other necessary zygote from a willing donor. No, wait, that's a lie. Guys, on a practical and social level, can't just get an egg, fertilize it and have a kid. Bias against single fathers will be adressed later. Single women can go out, get some donated sperm and impregnate themselves. No, wait, that's a lie. Men don't usually don't donate sperm, they sell their sperm. Men will sell their sperm to be anonymously donated and they have nothing do with it again. No, wait, that's a lie, now, too.
A mother and son team have developed the Donor Sibling Registry for children of sperm donors to get together and form senses of family. Yes, take a minute to bask in the irony that. A woman who chose to raise a child on her own, eschewing the family format, helped form a site for others like her to form familial connections. They claim that thousands of people have come together from this site, sibilings have been discovered and women who used the same donor's sperm are forming bonds. While it is part of the human condition to want to know where you come from, might this be the step too far? After all, isn't anonymity part of the deal of sperm donation? Not for the men, but for the women. Wasn't the idea that the child was to be entirely theirs the idea? If these women wanted fathers and siblings for their children, they would have married, or at least found a male with whom they could keep up some kind of relationship with for the children. But for, whatever reason, right or wrong, these women decided many years ago they didn't need all that hassle to raise a child.
On the flip side, the men who donated sperm needed some quick cash and many saw it as little more than giving blood. Someone was willing to pay for bodily fluids and people need cash. There are any number of assurances that are given to these men that this is anonymous, nothing will come back to them and everything is legally confidential. And, oh yeah, they will in now ay be responsible for the child in any event. The problem is this isn't true anymore. While this was a private, non-standard sperm donation, he went through all the normal things associated with usual sperm donation. He and the woman made an agreement he would not be responsible. She changed her mind and is taking him to court. And thanks to draconian child support laws, she's winning and he's gonna have to pay child support. And oh yeah, he'll be in arrearages because he didn't pay from the day the kid was born.
Why, yes, this is unfair, why do you ask? How did it get this way? Well, these are the results of when one side in an argument gets to make all the rules. Fathers' rights are all but a joke in this country and most child support laws were written in the wave of feminism and law changing in the 60s and 70s. There were a lot of laws that needed changing and a lot of societal ideas that had to be re-thought so men and and women could be considered more equal in the eyes of the law. Fathers and children is an area that needs to be looked at harder. It's an unfortunate truism than in terms of children, mothers get all the call. From moment one when sperm hits egg, the child is hers. (Yes, I'm going with the simple biological defintion of life and entityhood in this case. If offended, please move on.) It's unviable tissue mass that can be sucked out like so much fat, then it is a child, which can, in almost every state, be removed like so much pus. Then, if she decides to carry to term, she can give the child away unless mother and father are legally married whenever or however she wants.
At no point before birth does any father have any say in any of this. None. But, even if he goes through all legal avenues possibly available, he STILL has to pay for that child. He can't have a woman carry to term and he takes over all responsibility of the child. There is no way for a man, on his own, to have a children without total consent of a woman. This does not work in reverse. This is biologically balanced but legally oppressive. It encourages men to feel like cash and sperm machines, ready at the push of a button. When, legally, you create such inequity between two groups of people, it will lead to trouble.
After all, women didn't like the idea of working property they had no say over.
So it is written, so do I see it.
A mother and son team have developed the Donor Sibling Registry for children of sperm donors to get together and form senses of family. Yes, take a minute to bask in the irony that. A woman who chose to raise a child on her own, eschewing the family format, helped form a site for others like her to form familial connections. They claim that thousands of people have come together from this site, sibilings have been discovered and women who used the same donor's sperm are forming bonds. While it is part of the human condition to want to know where you come from, might this be the step too far? After all, isn't anonymity part of the deal of sperm donation? Not for the men, but for the women. Wasn't the idea that the child was to be entirely theirs the idea? If these women wanted fathers and siblings for their children, they would have married, or at least found a male with whom they could keep up some kind of relationship with for the children. But for, whatever reason, right or wrong, these women decided many years ago they didn't need all that hassle to raise a child.
On the flip side, the men who donated sperm needed some quick cash and many saw it as little more than giving blood. Someone was willing to pay for bodily fluids and people need cash. There are any number of assurances that are given to these men that this is anonymous, nothing will come back to them and everything is legally confidential. And, oh yeah, they will in now ay be responsible for the child in any event. The problem is this isn't true anymore. While this was a private, non-standard sperm donation, he went through all the normal things associated with usual sperm donation. He and the woman made an agreement he would not be responsible. She changed her mind and is taking him to court. And thanks to draconian child support laws, she's winning and he's gonna have to pay child support. And oh yeah, he'll be in arrearages because he didn't pay from the day the kid was born.
Why, yes, this is unfair, why do you ask? How did it get this way? Well, these are the results of when one side in an argument gets to make all the rules. Fathers' rights are all but a joke in this country and most child support laws were written in the wave of feminism and law changing in the 60s and 70s. There were a lot of laws that needed changing and a lot of societal ideas that had to be re-thought so men and and women could be considered more equal in the eyes of the law. Fathers and children is an area that needs to be looked at harder. It's an unfortunate truism than in terms of children, mothers get all the call. From moment one when sperm hits egg, the child is hers. (Yes, I'm going with the simple biological defintion of life and entityhood in this case. If offended, please move on.) It's unviable tissue mass that can be sucked out like so much fat, then it is a child, which can, in almost every state, be removed like so much pus. Then, if she decides to carry to term, she can give the child away unless mother and father are legally married whenever or however she wants.
At no point before birth does any father have any say in any of this. None. But, even if he goes through all legal avenues possibly available, he STILL has to pay for that child. He can't have a woman carry to term and he takes over all responsibility of the child. There is no way for a man, on his own, to have a children without total consent of a woman. This does not work in reverse. This is biologically balanced but legally oppressive. It encourages men to feel like cash and sperm machines, ready at the push of a button. When, legally, you create such inequity between two groups of people, it will lead to trouble.
After all, women didn't like the idea of working property they had no say over.
So it is written, so do I see it.