On sperm donation ...
Andrew Usher
I think this article is right for the wrong reasons. Seriously, he
doesn't seem to articulate a case against this, except for appealing
to the readers' vague sense of "men's rights are bad!". The reason we
should be concerned is that it will be another excuse to try to get
child support from men that thought they would never have to pay. Yes,
they could have just not given sperm - and that is what I would urge
men to do - but injustice to some men for these reasons in injustice
to all.
Now, also, I think there are reason to prefer reproduction be done the
natural way other than just religious bigotry - though I know that's
what the fascists of the left, despairing at the idea that people
might think for themselves, want everyone to believe. It does reduce
the extent of irregular families and I think we should all be able to
agree that, if all other things are equal, that's a good thing (It's
different to me if we have to seriously infringe freedom to do it,
because that's a higher value.) And it is true, even if we don't talk
about it, that human beings are disposed generally to associate sex
and intimacy.
Andrew Usher
Society
"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:594b2db2-478d-45e9...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/revenge-of-the-sperm-dono_b_404479.html
>
> I think this article is right for the wrong reasons.
> doesn't seem to articulate a case against this,
> except for appealing to the readers' vague sense
> of "men's rights are bad!".
I agree that Jacob Appel's article is built around
too many hinted innuendos. Because Appel's case
is full of word fog, I wish you had stated what you
believe is "right" in this article, Andrew Usher.
In the concluding paragraph, Appel wrote,
"A generation of progressives -- women's rights
advocates, gay rights advocates, supporters of
artificial reproductive technologies -- have fought
to transform the definition of 'family' from one
based solely upon molecular biology to one based
upon love and mutual respect." If this is Appel's
'case,' then it's a weak one because "love and
mutual respect" cannot define 'family' - the same
criteria applies to many other non-family relation-
ships, eg. an affair, a friendship, or "a favored 'uncle,'"
the latter being the very sort of relationship Appel
insists may be disrespected at the whim of the sperm
soliciting baby-hungry female. (Duh. Appel shows
us that consistency is never a virtue for the "women's
rights advocate" like himself. Whatever the woman
wants is the sole guiding maxim for feminists, male
or female, and Appel fits the profile. Sheesh.)
> The reason we should be concerned is that it will be
> another excuse to try to get child support from men
> that thought they would never have to pay.
Unfortunately, _that_ is already explicitly the case in some
jurisdictions and as the demands of feminists continue to
play out in the operations of government, court rulings,
and legislation, the insistence that some individual man
somewhere must be made to pay for any given woman's
baby-breeding whims will keep spreading and growing.
> Yes, they could have just not given sperm - and that is
> what I would urge men to do - but injustice to some men
> for these reasons in injustice to all.
Injustice to men is not a concern of either feminists or
a Welfare State that seeks to be the polygynous husband-
substitute to millions of females.
As for the "they could have just not given sperm" argument -
an argument feminists have already attempted to use in
order to switch the blame onto the man (victim) and off
of the female (victimizer) - it is really an argument that
females and the State that sucks up to them cannot be trusted.
> Now, also, I think there are reason to prefer reproduction
> be done the natural way other than just religious bigotry -
> though I know that's what the fascists of the left, despairing
> at the idea that people might think for themselves,
> want everyone to believe.
Yes, the catch phrase "religious bigotry" is the lazy leftist's
attempt to dismiss what the leftists can't refute by simply
hand-waving it away. Labeling inconvenient truths "bigotry"
only signals that the leftist's argument is weak and therefore
the leftist must distract attention from that weakness by
shouting or name-calling.
> It does reduce the extent of irregular families and I think
> we should all be able to agree that, if all other things
> are equal, that's a good thing.
Hey, I've said it before and I'm sure I'll have many other
occasions to say it again, as time passes the wisdom in
_Humanae Vitae_ by Pope Paul VI becomes more and
more obviously correct.
> (It's different to me if we have to seriously infringe freedom
> to do it, because that's a higher value.) And it is true, even
> if we don't talk about it, that human beings are disposed
> generally to associate sex and intimacy.
Well, Andrew Usher, what Appel's argument (such as it is)
rests upon is some confused notion of protecting the "freedom"
of women, homosexuals, and supporters of artificial
reproductive technologies from having their whims "infringe(d)"
upon.
Also, take note of the fact that the original motive for refusing
to link the man from whom the wannabee breeding female
took sperm to any legal right to be considered part of any
resulting child's family was not any association of "sex and
intimacy" but the association of "sex and reproduction" plus
the association of marriage and the legitimacy of any child born
of that marriage. As soon as some females were indulged
in their wish to bear a child outside of marriage and to have
the rest of us pretend that this female's behavior was ok,
the original reasons for separating the biological father from
his biological offspring were discarded. Appel, like so
many other "women's rights advocates" (hey, when do _men_
get to have _their_ rights advocated? - just asking), wants
to have every principle operate only in the female's favor,
no matter what her whim may be. Today she wants to be
married and have a baby, tomorrow she wants to be divorced
and to throw the baby's father out, and the day after she
wants to retain the married female's privilege of demanding
that the man to whom she made vows of marital faithfulness
(vows that _she_ chose to break) must keep paying for her
wish to play mommy and doll-house with a real live baby.
(Sheesh.)
Appel is wrong when he tries to assign blame to "the sperm
donors' rights movement" for having "undermined the rights
of those donors... who do not want any contact with their
biological spawn." The earliest attempts to breach the
separation of donor and spawn were the efforts of adoptees
to find the biological parent who donated them to the
adoptive couples who raised them as one of their own.
Those attempts and the sympathy they garnered set the
pattern that Appel disparages as "based solely upon
molecular biology."
The next step in breaking the age-old pattern was the
imposition of unilateral divorce (often misrepresented
by the name 'no-fault divorce') by the State. Feminists
celebrated this as "a victory for women" but as soon as
hordes of females foolish enough to torpedo their
marriages for frivolous, immature reasons flooded the
dole, there arose a demand that the Welfare State's
polygynous habit of playing substitute-husband to
irresponsibly breeding (and divorcing) females be funded
by finding some man somewhere to be dunned for the
expenses incurred by such Welfare State stupidity.
That demand is based primarily on the same "molecular
biology" that Appel disparages. Soon the foolish breeding
outside of wedlock by females would also be a lifestyle
financed by a man linked to her spawn by "molecular
biology." However, I doubt that Appel is aware of
what a consistent application of his insistence that
"molecular biology" be ignored would require. (As
I wrote earlier, consistency is not a feminist virtue; thus
I'm not surprised that Appel ignores all that a consistent
application of the rule he proposes would require.)
--
Repeatedly, the prerogatives and responsibilities
that used to be limited to marriage have spilled over
into nonmarital relationships, whether it is the rights
and responsibilities of the unmarried father, medical
coverage for same-sex partners, or palimony cases.
Once the law says, "Well, in a legal sense, living together
_is_ the same," what is the point of getting married?
....
Our policy prescription in this instance is to return marriage
to its formerly unique legal status. If you are married,
you take on obligations. If you are not married, you don't.
In particular, we urge that marriage once again become
the sole legal institution through which rights and
responsibilities regarding children are exercised. If you
are an unmarried mother, you have no legal basis for
demanding that the father of the child provide support.
If you are an unmarried father, you have no legal standing
regarding the child -- not even a right to see the child,
let alone any basis honored by society for claiming he
or she is "yours" or that you are a "father."
Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray,
_The Bell Curve_, New York: The Free Press, 1994,
page 545. [emphasis in original]
Andrew Usher
> "Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:594b2db2-478d-45e9...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/revenge-of-the-sperm-dono_b_404479.html
> >
> > I think this article is right for the wrong reasons.
> > Seriously, he [article author Jacob M. Appel]
> > doesn't seem to articulate a case against this,
> > except for appealing to the readers' vague sense
> > of "men's rights are bad!".
>
> I agree that Jacob Appel's article is built around
> too many hinted innuendos. Because Appel's case
> is full of word fog, I wish you had stated what you
> believe is "right" in this article, Andrew Usher.
That this idea of sperm donor's rights should be resisted.
> In the concluding paragraph, Appel wrote,
> "A generation of progressives -- women's rights
> advocates, gay rights advocates, supporters of
> artificial reproductive technologies -- have fought
> to transform the definition of 'family' from one
> based solely upon molecular biology to one based
> upon love and mutual respect." If this is Appel's
> 'case,' then it's a weak one because "love and
> mutual respect" cannot define 'family'
There are several possible definitions of 'family' but I think the one
he is talking about is self-defined, which is probably what he means.
But it's misleading to say that 'family' was ever legally 'solely
based on biology'.
> - the same
> criteria applies to many other non-family relation-
> ships, eg. an affair, a friendship, or "a favored 'uncle,'"
> the latter being the very sort of relationship Appel
> insists may be disrespected at the whim of the sperm
> soliciting baby-hungry female. (Duh. Appel shows
> us that consistency is never a virtue for the "women's
> rights advocate" like himself. Whatever the woman
> wants is the sole guiding maxim for feminists, male
> or female, and Appel fits the profile. Sheesh.)
You're right that this is inconsistent; it implies the existence of
some firm definition of 'family' beyond just 'love and mutual
respect', although he doesn't spell out precisely what he has in mind
- which, of course, has the practical outcome of leaving it up to the
women.
> > The reason we should be concerned is that it will be
> > another excuse to try to get child support from men
> > that thought they would never have to pay.
>
> Unfortunately, _that_ is already explicitly the case in some
> jurisdictions and as the demands of feminists continue to
> play out in the operations of government, court rulings,
> and legislation, the insistence that some individual man
> somewhere must be made to pay for any given woman's
> baby-breeding whims will keep spreading and growing.
I have always thought that, given that most men caught for child
support (outside marriage) never wanted to be a father, that it is
fairer for the cost to fall on society as a whole than on one
particular man; hence the guaranteed income (which also limits
society's liability to the least possible). Nonetheless to do any
useful reform would require getting rid of the domination by feminist
ideas. That's precisely why I started my thread about language -
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/572a7afcb0e17e61#
; to really fight feminist ideas, we need to fight the distortion of
the language, the feminist 'newspeak', if you will (though some of
it's very old).
> As for the "they could have just not given sperm" argument -
> an argument feminists have already attempted to use in
> order to switch the blame onto the man (victim) and off
> of the female (victimizer) - it is really an argument that
> females and the State that sucks up to them cannot be trusted.
Evidently not.
> > (It's different to me if we have to seriously infringe freedom
> > to do it, because that's a higher value.) And it is true, even
> > if we don't talk about it, that human beings are disposed
> > generally to associate sex and intimacy.
>
> Well, Andrew Usher, what Appel's argument (such as it is)
> rests upon is some confused notion of protecting the "freedom"
> of women, homosexuals, and supporters of artificial
> reproductive technologies from having their whims "infringe(d)"
> upon.
I suppose it's a matter of how serious is 'seriously'. My position
seems to be somewhere between yours and Appel's.
<snip exceeding verbosity>
You really should learn the virtue of brevity. I'll summarise:
- You're correct that assisted reproduction was not too long ago only
offered to married couples. That probably should be restored, save
that, of course, it is always possible to do artificial insemination
without medical intervention - but that requires a convenient source
of sperm.
- You're also correct as to what is responsible for the biological-
determinist view. If there is a 'sperm donor's rights movement', it
would certainly not want parenthood to be _imposed_ on unwilling
donors.
- It is indeed the inconsistency of feminists that's responsible for
the confused situation today. When it helps them - i.e. child support
- biology is the only relevant thing. When it doesn't, the woman's
view of what constitutes family is.
Finally:
> Repeatedly, the prerogatives and responsibilities
> that used to be limited to marriage have spilled over
> into nonmarital relationships, whether it is the rights
> and responsibilities of the unmarried father, medical
> coverage for same-sex partners, or palimony cases.
> Once the law says, "Well, in a legal sense, living together
> _is_ the same," what is the point of getting married?
> ....
> Our policy prescription in this instance is to return marriage
> to its formerly unique legal status. If you are married,
> you take on obligations. If you are not married, you don't.
> In particular, we urge that marriage once again become
> the sole legal institution through which rights and
> responsibilities regarding children are exercised. If you
> are an unmarried mother, you have no legal basis for
> demanding that the father of the child provide support.
> If you are an unmarried father, you have no legal standing
> regarding the child -- not even a right to see the child,
> let alone any basis honored by society for claiming he
> or she is "yours" or that you are a "father."
>
> Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray,
> _The Bell Curve_, New York: The Free Press, 1994,
> page 545. [emphasis in original]
I would not resist this prescription, provided it be carried out in
full.
Andrew Usher
Society
>
> Society wrote:
>>
>> Andrew Usher wrote...
>> >
>> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/revenge-of-the-sperm-dono_b_404479.html
>> >
>> > I think this article is right for the wrong reasons.
>> > Seriously, he [article author Jacob M. Appel]
>> > doesn't seem to articulate a case against this,
>> > except for appealing to the readers' vague sense
>> > of "men's rights are bad!".
>>
>> I agree that Jacob Appel's article is built around
>> too many hinted innuendos. Because Appel's case
>> is full of word fog, I wish you had stated what you
>> believe is "right" in this article, Andrew Usher.
>
> That this idea of sperm donor's rights should be resisted.
Ok. Yes, I certainly agree with you, Andrew Usher, that
Jacob Appel is correct there _and,_ as you wrote earlier,
reached that conclusion "for the wrong reasons."
>> In the concluding paragraph, Appel wrote,
>> "A generation of progressives -- women's rights
>> advocates, gay rights advocates, supporters of
>> artificial reproductive technologies -- have fought
>> to transform the definition of 'family' from one
>> based solely upon molecular biology to one based
>> upon love and mutual respect." If this is Appel's
>> 'case,' then it's a weak one because "love and
>> mutual respect" cannot define 'family'
>
> There are several possible definitions of 'family'
> but I think the one he is talking about is self-defined,
> which is probably what he means. But it's misleading
> to say that 'family' was ever legally 'solely based
> on biology'.
Yeah, Appel was beating up on a straw man there.
>> - the same criteria ["love and mutual respect"]
>> applies to many other non-family relationships,
>> eg. an affair, a friendship, or "a favored 'uncle,'"
>> the latter being the very sort of relationship Appel
>> insists may be disrespected at the whim of the sperm
>> soliciting baby-hungry female. (Duh. Appel shows
>> us that consistency is never a virtue for the "women's
>> rights advocate" like himself. Whatever the woman
>> wants is the sole guiding maxim for feminists, male
>> or female, and Appel fits the profile. Sheesh.)
>
> You're right that this is inconsistent; it implies the
> existence of some firm definition of 'family' beyond
> just 'love and mutual respect', although he doesn't
> spell out precisely what he has in mind - which,
> of course, has the practical outcome of leaving it up
> to the women.
"The practical outcome..." Good point, Andrew Usher.
>> > The reason we should be concerned is that it will be
>> > another excuse to try to get child support from men
>> > that thought they would never have to pay.
>
> I have always thought that, given that most men caught for child
> support (outside marriage) never wanted to be a father, that it is
> fairer for the cost to fall on society as a whole than on one
> particular man; hence the guaranteed income (which also limits
> society's liability to the least possible).
Uh, the "least possible" is zero. Goodbye "guaranteed income."
Watch out; any argument for sticking the bill for someone's
stupid choices onto Society will be resented by Society. ;-)
Socializing the costs of individual stupid behavior will only
give rise to millions more people behaving stupidly. The
rise of unwed motherhood during the 20th century in the
Welfare States of the industrialized nations demonstrated that.
> Nonetheless to do any useful reform would require
> getting rid of the domination by feminist ideas.
> That's precisely why I started my thread about language -
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/572a7afcb0e17e61#
> ; to really fight feminist ideas, we need to fight the distortion of
> the language, the feminist 'newspeak', if you will (though some of
> it's very old).
You made some good points in your lead post to that thread.
Too bad the thread was hijacked. (Hint: one need not respond
to every buzzing mosquito-wannabee that lands on your posts.
Most times, silence to _all_ the mosquitoes is the best course.
Trust that the people whose opinions are worth respecting
can see the difference between attempts to lay out a reasonable
argument and attempts at childish mockery.)
--
Women really are callous creatures -- mainly
because it is to their disadvantage to feel deeply.
...
A woman with feelings would have to think
and work, to take on responsibilities, and to
learn to do without all the things which mean
so much to her. Because she does not want
this, she decides to remain callous, but she
knows, at the same time, that it is necessary
for a woman to enact the role of a sensitive
being or man would become aware of her
essentially cold, calculating nature.
Esther Vilar, "Women Have No Feelings"
in _The Manipulated Man_ (original title,
_Der dressierte Mann_, English translation
by Eva Borneman and Ursula Bender)
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, publishers (1972)
page 74.
Andrew Usher
wrote:
> >> > The reason we should be concerned is that it will be
> >> > another excuse to try to get child support from men
> >> > that thought they would never have to pay.
>
> > I have always thought that, given that most men caught for child
> > support (outside marriage) never wanted to be a father, that it is
> > fairer for the cost to fall on society as a whole than on one
> > particular man; hence the guaranteed income (which also limits
> > society's liability to the least possible).
>
> Uh, the "least possible" is zero. Goodbye "guaranteed income."
No, as you know, I argue that society will pay the bill some way or
other. There is no way to eliminate it without morally objectionable
methods.
> Watch out; any argument for sticking the bill for someone's
> stupid choices onto Society will be resented by Society. ;-)
But that happens all the time. No one can be self-sufficient;
therefore any private decisions that do not maximise economic output
hurt society. I do not think you'd want a totalitarian system where we
attempt to get everyone to maximise their economic output, therefore
it is contradictory for you to talk about 'stupid choices' only in
this context.
> Socializing the costs of individual stupid behavior will only
> give rise to millions more people behaving stupidly. The
> rise of unwed motherhood during the 20th century in the
> Welfare States of the industrialized nations demonstrated that.
But I question that unwed motherhood is _necessarily_ stupid -
although it perhaps most often is. The rise of childbearing out of
wedlock, I think, was basically due to the removal of previous social
constraints, and not to any _new_ type of problem.
> > Nonetheless to do any useful reform would require
> > getting rid of the domination by feminist ideas.
> > That's precisely why I started my thread about language -
> >http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/572a7afcb...
> > ; to really fight feminist ideas, we need to fight the distortion of
> > the language, the feminist 'newspeak', if you will (though some of
> > it's very old).
>
> You made some good points in your lead post to that thread.
> Too bad the thread was hijacked.
I responded in that thread.
Andrew Usher