DIANA writes:

I’d like to draw attention to the journalistic license taken in this New York Times article about a sperm donor who has fathered more than 150 children. The whole thing is sickening. The principle is sickening. But also, the mealymouthed journalistic weasel-words. I quote:

“Cynthia Daily and her partner used a sperm donor to conceive a baby seven years ago, and they hoped that one day their son….”

The child is NOT “their” son. He is the product of a sperm and an egg. He is the son of the sperm donor and the mother.

“As more women choose to have babies on their own…”

No woman has a baby on her own. She can only have a baby with a father or a sperm donor, and in the case of the latter, she is much less “on her own” than any woman who is impregnated via intercourse, whether married or not, because artificially inseminated women need the assistance of an entire profit-making industry.

This part is simply horrifying:

““My daughter knows her donor’s number for this very reason,” said the mother of a teenager conceived via sperm donation in California who asked that her name be withheld to protect her daughter’s privacy. “She’s been in school with numerous kids who were born through donors. She’s had crushes on boys who are donor children. It’s become part of sex education” for her.”

Note that the only reason the liberals quoted in the article oppose this is because they reflexively favor regulation – not because there is anything wrong with it! One of them wrote a report entitled, ““Test Tube Families: Why the Fertility Markets Need Legal Regulation.” You see? In a moral country, the name of the report would be, ““Test Tube Families: Why
the Fertility Markets Need To Be Outlawed.”

Finally, the only doctor quoted in the article, Dr. Robert G. Brzyski, chairman of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine ethics committee, yet, proves himself to be either a blithering idiot or (as I suspect) a monster. “He had been skeptical that there could be donors with more than 100 children. But now, he said, it is time to take another look at donor limits.”

Excuse me, but why would he have been skeptical? It occurred to me at the age of 15 that a male could, with one ejaculation, theoretically impregnate thousands of females. Has the good doctor never heard of Oriental despots who sired thousands of babies by concubines? If such knowledge occurred to me, why not to a doctor of reproductive medicine?

That is the reason I think he’s a monster and not an idiot. Because he knew perfectly well this could happen, he just went along with the program because it meant money to his colleagues, and now he is covering his sorry posterior.

                                                                   — Comments —

Diana adds:

A surprising number of commenters at the Times are disgusted.

Please follow and like us: