It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New reasons why homosexuals should not be able to use sperm donors

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:31 PM

Originally posted by ghaleon12
reply to post by russ212

I read the whole article and they only mention homosexuality once, and it was a brief mention about a new film - homosexuality had nothing to do with the article. The female activist wasn't even affected by anyone that was homosexual, it says that she was a single mom. So you take an article that wasn't written about homosexuality, and add your own bigotry to make it suit you. Fantastic.

You should have named the thread "People shouldn't be able to use anonymous sperm donors" since that is what the article, and activist, are talking about. Not homosexuals. So whole lotta stupid right there.

I have not seen the OP reply to this post. If it is in the thread then I have overlooked it. Can someone please point out where the OP replied; or can the OP please reply if you have not done so already?

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:31 PM
reply to post by GovtFlu

Explanation: You earned a St*r!

The article doesn't much mention homosexuals but for a brief comment about 2 teenagers with "lesbian moms" having drama.. I'm pretty sure teen drama runs rampant in all family configurations.

I completely agree!

Here is why it came across so dramatically! It was designed and written to evoke exactly the response it got/is getting/will continue to get!

A new film, "The Kids Are All Right," depicts two teenage siblings who track down their sperm-donor father and introduce him to their lesbian moms. Complications ensue, but the teens' yearning to meet their dad is portrayed empathetically.

The film opened just weeks after the release of a provocative study by the Commission on Parenthood's Future, titled "My Daddy's Name is Donor." It surveyed 485 donor offspring, concluded they were more troubled and depression-prone than other young adults in comparison groups, and recommended an end to anonymous sperm donation.

The study's authors said they sought to ignite a debate, and they succeeded — reaction included swirls of pro-and-con blogosphere commentary and op-eds in several major newspapers.

"The adult voices of donor offspring are a welcome counterbalance to an array of cultural forces aimed at further marginalizing fathers," wrote Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker. "At the very least, as this study implores, it is time for a serious debate on the ethics, meaning and practice of donor conception."

So a fictional but somewhat likely [if also somewhat hyped, spun etc!] film being used to promote a not as yet peer reviewed study* that set out to provoke a reactionary response by inflaming certain sensitivites in the social patchwork quilt fabric of America etc!

Personal Disclosure: Having researched the "study" a bit, OL has found a dissenting POV, which is somewhat credible [at a glance] and which you might find amusing!

Please investigate it for oneself at you own risk/pleasure!

RE: * ...

'My Daddy's Name is Donor': Read with caution! (09 July 2010 by Eric Blyth and Wendy Kramer) []

From source linked directly above...

Representativeness apart, the first thing to be said about this report is that it eschews all deference to modesty. In a single sentence, its claim to be 'the first effort to learn about the identity, kinship, wellbeing, and social justice experiences of young adults who were conceived through sperm donation' (p. 5 - our emphasis) discounts every previous research study in this field, and may well explain the absence of reference to any existing studies (except for a cursory end-note [pp. 123-124]). It also probably explains why there is no evidence that the specific questions posed in the study are grounded in existing research involving donor-conceived people. What is less easily explained is why ethical review for this study was not obtained - an essential pre-requisite for all serious research involving human participants. Dissemination of the report via IAV, rather than through an academically credentialed institution, also suggests a lack of competent peer review at any stage.

Somewhat incongruously, the authors intersperse their own findings with comments from other people totally unconnected with the study, but known to be opposed one way or another to donor conception. Whilst we are not claiming that there is a one-size-fits-all approach to reporting research, this unorthodox approach serves to obfuscate rather than illuminate.

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Nofoolishness
I think sperm donation should be banned altogether. Its a barbaric practice IMHO. So you cant have kids or your partner cant have kids you go and get a sperm donation from another person? Why? just adopt. There are alot of children just waiting for loving homes you know.

If gay people want to adopt? let them. But i dont agree with sperm donation...PERIOD.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

[edit on 16-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

I'm in favor of adoption as over sperm donors for the same reason. MANY needy children that need good parents, most will never get the chance.

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:43 PM
reply to post by russ212

The purpose of sperm donors should be to improve the entire human race not just for lesbians. Sperm donors should be the men in the top few percent of the population Iq,Talent,etc wise.

Taking away their anonymity is a way to control them and put a stop to donations.

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:48 PM
reply to post by zerbot565

I'm sorry, but what?

I have been around 3 and 4 year olds, and there is no way they are competent enough to raise themselves without the guidance and supervision of someone else. They might be able to feed themselves, but only if you put the food on the table. It doesn't suddenly become "okay" to leave children by themselves once they reach a certain age. Parents exist for a reason.

And I don't know what journals or reports you've read that said children are mature enough by that age, but it is a commonly accepted fact (and if you look at how the world functions) that human children TAKE FOREVER to mature into adults. This not only includes the formation of the fetus and birth of the child, but to raise them to where they will be capable reproducers of the species.

That's at least 16 years of nurturing required to not only be biologically ready, but at the minimum ready to be part of society.

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:56 PM

[edit on 16-8-2010 by SerialLurker]

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:11 PM
So you think love is enough to raise a well adjusted child?

Lots of conjecture here.

How about do some research and get your info on the effect of being raised by homos straight from those who know first hand?

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:16 PM
reply to post by Dilligaf28

I have not been on here for a while, and that is why I have not responded to this post.

In regards to this, the thread is about the part of the article that home with me the most, and what I believe is the largest issue with this type of inception. While you may disagree, and I respect that, this is where I find the biggest concern. It is also where I see the most women utilizing this service other than women married tom men that are unable to produce a child.

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:23 PM
Who's your daddy?

Why bring this kind of shame on a child?

[edit on 16-8-2010 by Unknown Origin]

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:03 PM
Don't worry, folks. This will not be an issue when these Transhumanist scientists get their way.

From the Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies:

Postgenderism: Beyond the Gender Binary

Abstract: Postgenderism is an extrapolation of ways that technology is eroding the biological, psychological and social role of gender, and an argument for why the erosion of binary gender will be liberatory. Postgenderists argue that gender is an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation on human potential, and foresee the elimination of involuntary biological and psychological gendering in the human species through the application of neurotechnology, biotechnology and reproductive technologies. Postgenderists contend that dyadic gender roles and sexual dimorphisms are generally to the detriment of individuals and society. Assisted reproduction will make it possible for individuals of any sex to reproduce in any combinations they choose, with or without “mothers” and “fathers,” and artificial wombs will make biological wombs unnecessary for reproduction. Greater biological fluidity and psychological androgyny will allow future persons to explore both masculine and feminine aspects of personality. Postgenderists do not call for the end of all gender traits, or universal androgyny, but rather that those traits become a matter of choice. Bodies and personalities in our postgender future will no longer be constrained and circumscribed by gendered traits, but enriched by their use in the palette of diverse self-expression.

And here is a thread I made to discuss it quite a while ago.

[edit on 8/16/2010 by eMachine]

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:47 AM
reply to post by russ212

Since when is homosexuality a choice?Obviously you have no idea what you are saying.I am gay and it wasn't my choice but I learnt to accept it and I am ok with it now!

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:49 AM
Simple solution. If you want a child, make one yourself.
If two homosexuals want a child blame nature for the inability to have them, not the church, or the state, or any other patheic excuse.

Being a homosexual and emanding the right to a child is like jumping off a cliff and demanding the right to live. Nature says otherwise.

I'll say it again, if you want to be sexually abnormal yet want all the benefits that normal people have its not the rest that have the problem.

Accept your chosen limitation and get on with life OR deny the lifestyle you so obviously feel awkward in.

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:52 AM
People should be allowed to make their own decisions and have respected by others of their respective society. If Americans supported each other more America wouldnt be in the crisis but America is divided because of bias brought by ignorance and lack of tolerance. Any form of protest will have to involve everyone gays included. Homosexuals are a large group and they do have lots of money. All they want is to be accepted and respected for their choice. If God disagrees let him deal with it but as far God's followers go, you are not supposed to judge or take away God's greatest gift to anyone which is choice. Tolerance, forgiveness and understanding is required to be one of God's cherished.

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:58 AM
reply to post by russ212

I have one response to this, BALLS! I know many gays and lesbians, and some have used sperm donor's to have children and no-one could say they are bad parents or that the children are disadvantaged in anyway. If you really are interested in this topic you should make the effort to meet some of these family's, they have the same issue's that any family have wether it's with two dad's or two mom's or mom and dad, Love is love no matter who is giving it. You should ask yourself who either wrote or paid for that article and what their agenda is before believing what is written.
And there are many children severely disadvantaged mistreated etc in the so called 'nuclear family' set up.
if the child is loved and happy, whats the problem, let it be

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:11 AM

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by russ212


As long as there are still children dying from starvation, being used as child soldiers or prostitutes I will be the last to comment on two men or two women trying to raise a child....

As long as they love the little one I couldn't care less....


couldnt have said it any better...
now for sentence 2 to avoid being!

[edit on 17-8-2010 by ahmonrarh]

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:13 AM
reply to post by daggyz

Does that logic also apply to men or woman who are heterosexual but naturally infertile? Should they not be allowed to have any children either in your opinion?

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Solomons]

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:36 AM

Originally posted by russ212

I found this article very interesting. It demonstrates how painful it can be for these children to grow up with so many questions. It also demonstrates how little thought people put into using these services.

To me, sperm implantation should only be used for a married man and woman that are not able to have a child. This eliminates the question of who is my daddy as the child has grown up with a father. If the question ever does arise it can be answered fairly easily. But, in a homosexual home, the child grows up with two mommies knowing something is not as it should be the moment the meet other children.

People make the argument that this type of home is just as loving, and I agree, but it apparently does not provide everything a child needs to be well adjusted and happy. It also confuses the child especially in youth. This type of selfishness shows that people today put themselves above the people that they bring into the world.

People make choices in life that keep them from having children all of the time, homosexuality is just another one of those choices and should remain so. Just because we have the science to do something, does not mean that we should. This is just another reason marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

I didn't read through the entire thread because of its ridiculous premise, but I just wanted to reiterate, as I'm sure it's been posted before, that the article linked in the OP has NOTHING TO DO with the poster's personal conclusions regarding homosexual partners.

If you read through the article it talks about children having a tremendously difficult time dealing with the fact that they were the product of artificial insemination - it had nothing to do with the parents they grew up with, the actual father donor, or the sexual preference of either. The kids were concerned that they were unnaturally created. It's a highly personal thing, the article never once even mentions gay/lesbian couples.

Extremely misleading OP title - precisely what I'd expect from the kind of person who hates gay people.

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:11 AM
reply to post by russ212

While I personally don't agree with the lifestyle, that is my own personal moral standing. I do however feel that everyone is entitled to be treated equally and granted the same opportunities regardless of sexual orientation. This is a hard thing to think about over all for me even. I do worry for the well being of young being brought up in such an out of norm environment and means of being brought to this planet but then again, that's my norm and has nothing to do with some other person's lifestyle and moral compass.

In the grand scheme of things though, who am I to say what others can and cannot do in order to have a happy healthy family and home. I grew up in the normal and natural family dynamic and it was a terrible experience. Parents are parents though and if people love and nurture there children and do the best they can and are wonderful and caring then they deserve as much a chance as any heterosexual sexual family dynamic does. I understand and have compassion for both sides of this argument though. It's about the effects it has on children. Identity is everything to us in the end.

Just my 2 cents though. To each there own I say.

[edit on 8-17-2010 by PJAmerica]

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 07:16 AM
reply to post by russ212

People make the argument that this type of home is just as loving, and I agree, but it apparently does not provide everything a child needs to be well adjusted and happy. It also confuses the child especially in youth

Doesn't this also make a good case for denying women the right to have a child without being married ?

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:14 AM

Originally posted by russ212
reply to post by ghaleon12

I am not a bigot, thank you very much. I do however have strong, beliefs, just as you do. I am voicing an opinion of concern for children that grow up in these types of enviroment, not hatred for homosexuality. I see how you could misconstrude it as that.

Ever heard the saying that "A village rears a child"? For the child it is not so much an issue if he has 2 moms or 2 dads or the old mom/dad family. What matters is his entire surrounding and the character of the people. How much support and love he get outside his home. However in the last few decades TBTB have worked hard to make anyone believe that the moment any "non-parent" shows any interest and care and love for a child s/he must be a pedophile.
However throughout history we have plenty of evidence that children raised in abusive family environments have often achieved the impossible mostly due to "Mentors". Teachers, neighbors and so forth who took interest in the child and mentored his talents. We would do our children a great service if we just let them be loved and chose the people they want to be loved from.

That being said, I also believe that single women should not be allowed to use this type of fertilzation. But, I have noticed a growing number of lesbian women using it. I believe that it out numbers the single women using sperm donors, and I am concerned for the children, and the home they grow up in.

So for everything we need a law! Strange how we evolved from the "naked Ape" who had no laws and writings to people who need to be on a leash with 10,000 laws.


new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in