NationStates Jolt Archive

Say you're invited to your favourite lesbian friends over the holidays. You have a nice enough time at the smörgåsbord and find their holiday traditions to be quite entertaining. Then they take you aside and have something to ask you. They've been thinking about their ticking clocks and whatnot, and have come to the conclusion that they want to have children. To get said children, they have decided to go with a donor they know, a swell and wonderful person they really like - you. Would you fill a cup for them? Would you like to be part of the children's lives? Not be part? What would be your conditions, if any?

And of course, there is a typo in the poll. I meant to do that. Yeah...

given the legal problems posed by informal donation, i (supposing i were a man) would force them to find a way receive my donation through a licensed sperm bank.

and id want to be considered an uncle.

sure, fine, but I want the child to know me like a family friend or something. or i can be that child's godfather.

No ... I would want to but no

I think in the end i would probably end up either A) Wanting to be part of the child's life and that causing problems or B) Feeling awkward

If they were good friend i would like to keep them as such and do not think i would want to feel guilty even if there was nothing to feel guilty about.

given the legal problems posed by informal donation, i (supposing i were a man) would force them to find a way receive my donation through a licensed sperm bank.

What would be different if it went through a sperm bank?

and id want to be considered an uncle.

Why not a father?

depends...how would I be donating this sperm? (just because I'm picturing some kind of vacuum cleaner contraption)

I personally would but would be rather bitter about it considering swell and wonderfulness are not sexual transmitted.

however I would go with the uncle demand just because it would fill that maternal instinct to care for my products and could lead to lulz

I'd suggest that they either adopt a child or donate...donate the amount of $$$ it takes to raise a child in their country to help children who are already alive...and dying.

I'm not sure but at the moment I don't think I would do it. If you wanted to see the kid more but the parents didn't let you, or if you disagree on how the kid is brought up or other problems arose I can't think of atm you can't turn you decision back, and it's a pretty big one. You could regret it for the rest of your life.
On the other hand it could be an opportunity you won't ever get again. And if they truly are good friends of yours you might have less problems since you already know them for a long time, and you also wouldn't want to let them down.

This reminds me of a news item a few months back about a mother who got payed to carry the child for a couple who couldn't have their own children, but now she wanted it back. I don't remember a lot about it because it seemed kind of trivial at the time, but I believe there were a lot of lawsuits etc. Of course the biological mother didn't know the parents really well, so it's different than your scenario.

I'm afraid it's impossible to answer the question without more specifics (how good you think the parents would be, how far away they live, what they expect from you, except semen of course, etc). But I think it would be better to use an anonymous donor, and I wouldn't have any problems with donating to a sperm-bank if they let me.

depends...how would I be donating this sperm? (just because I'm picturing some kind of vacuum cleaner contraption)

You'd use your hand (and whatever visual aids you need) to stimulate your penis, masturbate yourself to climax and deposit the ejaculate into a cup.

I personally would but would be rather bitter about it considering swell and wonderfulness are not sexual transmitted.

I don't quite get what you were trying to say there.

however I would go with the uncle demand just because it would fill that maternal instinct to care for my products and could lead to lulz

Again, "uncle". I ask you, too, why not father?

I think in the end i would probably end up either A) Wanting to be part of the child's life and that causing problems or B) Feeling awkward

What sort of problems? And what would be awkward?

If they were good friend i would like to keep them as such and do not think i would want to feel guilty even if there was nothing to feel guilty about.

I don't quite understand - you'd feel guilty over something you have no reason to feel guilty of? Elaborate, if you wish. I'm quite curious about people's thoughts on this.

given the legal problems posed by informal donation, i (supposing i were a man) would force them to find a way receive my donation through a licensed sperm bank.

and id want to be considered an uncle.

And what if gay friends asked you to be a surrogate mother for their child (using your ovum and assuming this is legal where you live)

Say you're invited to your favourite lesbian friends over the holidays. You have a nice enough time at the smörgåsbord and find their holiday traditions to be quite entertaining. Then they take you aside and have something to ask you. They've been thinking about their ticking clocks and whatnot, and have come to the conclusion that they want to have children. To get said children, they have decided to go with a donor they know, a swell and wonderful person they really like - you. Would you fill a cup for them? Would you like to be part of the children's lives? Not be part? What would be your conditions, if any?

And of course, there is a typo in the poll. I meant to do that. Yeah...

yes, I'd donate. and I would like to be at least an "Uncle" (in Hawaii, "Uncles" are not necessarily related to either parent it can be a close friend of the family) but it won't be a 'condition' for them.

I'm not a guy, but I have given at least a little thought to being a surrogate mother for a gay couple. In the end, I concluded that I really couldn't do it. Maybe it's an overabundance of motherly instinct, maybe it's pure selfishness, maybe it's something else, but I don't think I could give a child I had helped create over to another couple. Even if I had some involvement in the child's life, the arrangement would obviously be to give the couple a child that they could raise together, and that would limit my own input. And, while I think joint custody arrangements are often best when a couple has broken up after having a child, I don't think it's a good arrangement to start out planning for.

So, with all that in mind, I don't think I'd be the sperm donor for a lesbian couple if I were a guy either. I see nothing inherently wrong with doing either (and I do have a close friend who thinks that she would easily be able to serve as a surrogate for a couple we know), but it's not something I think I could personally do.

And if gay friends asked if they could use an egg and your womb for 9 months? Would you consider carrying a baby and then "giving it away" (I don't really know the English word for this, translated from dutch it would be something like "carrying mom") (I'm also assuming this is legal where you live, although I doubt it is.)

Surrogacy. That is to say, to be a surrogate mother.

What would be different if it went through a sperm bank?



Why not a father?

if you get sperm from a sperm bank the donor has no legal rights or obligations to any child that might be conceived.

that way if the women break up and the legal mother falls into some situation that requires government assistance, they wont end up forcing you to pay child support for a child you had next to nothing to do with.

can 2 women be both be legal parents of a child in sweden?

i would not want to be a father to a child i would have no rights to. if i were to be father i would want that reflected on the birth certificate and i would want the typical visitation that a non-live-in father gets.

if the child HAS 2 parents, s/he would not need a 3rd. so "uncle" is what i would want to be.

(Because I also said Uncle.)
Why not a father?
for me, I won't be the 'father' because I won't be raising the child or being a major part of the child's life.

I'd help with the babysitting, the spoiling of the child, but I won't be the one potty training nor being the primary caregiver.

And what if gay friends asked you to be a surrogate mother for their child (using your ovum and assuming this is legal where you live)

they could have an egg (if it werent some big hassle for me) but not my body to gestate it.

and with the same deal. id have to get to be the auntie.

if you get sperm from a sperm bank the donor has no legal rights or obligations to any child that might be conceived.

that way if the women break up and the legal mother falls into some situation that requires government assistance, they wont end up forcing you to pay child support for a child you had next to nothing to do with.

Of course, that issue could also be solved by simply treating homosexual couples equally under the law.

What sort of problems? And what would be awkward?



I don't quite understand - you'd feel guilty over something you have no reason to feel guilty of? Elaborate, if you wish. I'm quite curious about people's thoughts on this.

I would just feel obligated to help ... and I have a tendancy to get emotionally attached.

I guess it would be made better or worse depending on the level of involvement they wanted me to have in the child's life

Basically if it was my kid I want to be part of its life, a big part. and i do not think I could be in a possition willingly to create a life and step away from it. I just have a feeling that it would cause problems with the friends possibly as they (rightfully so) want to be the true "parents" of the child

I know for some reason I am not making much sense on this subject ...

I have zero offspring, and I intend to keep it that way.

Of course, that issue could also be solved by simply treating homosexual couples equally under the law.

probably.

but having an informal donor is like keeping a hand grenade in your closet. it has the potential of blowing up on you at any time. the "real" parent is out there and could claim paternity unless he has specifically waived it at some point.

You'd use your hand (and whatever visual aids you need) to stimulate your penis, masturbate yourself to climax and deposit the ejaculate into a cup.

sounds like the instructions to a play set, did they get any toys for obligatory winter festival?

I don't quite get what you were trying to say there.

its as though there implying that sperm from the general public can be somehow dirty either that or Admiral Akbar would have something to say

Again, "uncle". I ask you, too, why not father?

because 3's a crowd and you won't be filling the position of father rather (I would hope) the guy who's there when the shit hits the fan

Hm...

I do it under six conditions:

1). I am the child's god father. When the child is conceived I do not want my name on the child's birth certificate. I do not want to be listed as the father.

2). I have legal documentation that I will not be forced to give a). child support b). financial aid, c). university/schooling aid, d). medical aid/support, and/or e). spousal support to the couple or the child. I would also get a prenuptial agreement.

3). I get to name the kid. If the baby is a girl I'd name her 'Rose' (after my grandmother) or if the baby is a male I'd name him 'Kain'.

4). The two lesbians have to take a nanny/babysitting course to prepare them for feeding, dressing, managing, schooling, preparing, parenting, spending, and assisting with/on their newborn. This is something I believe ALL parents should do. Every single person who even thinks about having a child should, in order to raise the child the best they can, be doing this.

This would avoid so many hassles. I have seen so many dead babies from being bundled too tightly in blankets, and that have had frostbite inside their skull from not wearing a toque (note: I live in Canada. It gets that cold and it is a killer.). It'll also help with the learning curve of taking care of a baby--changing diapers, waking up in the middle of the night when it's crying, knowing if the kid is having a medical emergency, knowing how to do CPR on a baby, and a whole bunch of other things could save their kid.

5). They set up an RSP or a protected investment fund for the child's education. Education is important to EVERY child, and I would be beating myself for eternity if a kid I helped conceive became an idiot or a useless ninny because he/she couldn't get into college/university. And with rising tuition fees most people in 20-30 years will not be able to afford secondary education.

6). I would also have them talking to an investment professional or an accountant to get their books straight. Kids are really expensive. Heck, when I was a kid my mother spent $200 (Canadian) on diapers per month. That's $2,400 over a year, and almost $7,000-ish for the three-four years that the kiddo would be using them for. These things pile up and can possibly bankrupt a family. Mortgages on homes to fit your new family, rising rent, and numerous other things have to be taken into account before having a baby.

__


I have nothing against lesbians. If a heterosexual friend of mine came with this issue to me I would do the exact same thing with exactly the same four points. It's just that a whole bunch of parents, hetero or otherwise, rarely are prepared for the crap they have to go through to raise a child. Normally most parents are rushing from day to day just hoping that they will raise a kid they can be proud of.

in Hawaii, "Uncles" are not necessarily related to either parent it can be a close friend of the family.

Here too. I suspect that's a global thing

at the same time as *I* would want to be an uncle, i see it as perfectly legitimate for a gay man who is never going to be able to have a child of his own with his life partner to set the condition that if he donate, he would be the child's father and have all the rights and responsibilities that go with that.

or for any man gay or not to set that condition.

Say you're invited to your favourite lesbian friends over the holidays. You have a nice enough time at the smörgåsbord and find their holiday traditions to be quite entertaining. Then they take you aside and have something to ask you. They've been thinking about their ticking clocks and whatnot, and have come to the conclusion that they want to have children. To get said children, they have decided to go with a donor they know, a swell and wonderful person they really like - you. Would you fill a cup for them? Would you like to be part of the children's lives? Not be part? What would be your conditions, if any?


well personally i would offer to deliver the sperm, the old fashioned way *wink wink* but yeah i would, and i would want to be a part of the kids life, i want to be known as an uncle or godfather, but my condtions must not be mentioned in public *wink wink *

Here too. I suspect that's a global thing
I suspect that too... but I didn't wanna jump to conclusions. :)

I suspect that too... but I didn't wanna jump to conclusions. :)

Pfft where's the fun in that

Not a chance. I don't care for my family's genealogy and don't want to pass it on, and frankly, most of the lesbians I know are a little on the, shall we say, a little too anti-male side. Not in a hostile manner, but I wouldn't want them to cut away a potential son's masculinity or be hostile to a straight daughter, and most of the lesbians I know would be.

That and I'd be a little uncomfortable with being someone's biological father in that manner.

if you get sperm from a sperm bank the donor has no legal rights or obligations to any child that might be conceived.

But that is if the donor is "anonymous" in the sense that the receiving couple do not know him. If you've picked a person, I have a hard time seeing how a middle person would change the legalities.

Coincidentally, in Sweden at least, sperm bank donors cannot be anonymous in regards to the children - while the donor has no rights or responsibilities, the children have a right to know their "biological background".

that way if the women break up and the legal mother falls into some situation that requires government assistance, they wont end up forcing you to pay child support for a child you had next to nothing to do with.

That could be a problem if you didn't want such involvement, but if you do...

can 2 women be both be legal parents of a child in sweden?

Yes, but "private" donation with a known donor has the complication that parenting rights in Swedish law are written with the child at the centre and thus a known biological parent (not a sperm bank donor, though, as mention earlier) cannot sign away responsibilities he has against a child unless those are taken over by someone else, since the child's rights are deemed more important. If the father consents, the other mother can adopt the child, but the father loses all rights and responsibilities through that - "one child, two legal parents" is the mantra, so one can unfortunately not have two legal mothers and one legal father. :\

i would not want to be a father to a child i would have no rights to. if i were to be father i would want that reflected on the birth certificate and i would want the typical visitation that a non-live-in father gets.

I understand what you mean, but I meant more before the child. Would you like to be known as "dad" to it, or as an "uncle"?

sounds like the instructions to a play set, did they get any toys for obligatory winter festival?

You ask me as if I'd know. My sperm has only been deposited in condoms, paper towels, on various aspects of someone else's external body and a vial for a sperm count, so I wouldn't know what a donor would get. ;)

its as though there implying that sperm from the general public can be somehow dirty either that or Admiral Akbar would have something to say

I wager they'd feel it's important for them to know something about the father of their future child and so, and less about "dirtiness" - I guess everyone would want all people involved to be tested for communicable diseases regardless.

because 3's a crowd and you won't be filling the position of father rather (I would hope) the guy who's there when the shit hits the fan

Why couldn't you fill that role? I'm not speaking legally, but more the social and educative role.

at the same time as *I* would want to be an uncle, i see it as perfectly legitimate for a gay man who is never going to be able to have a child of his own with his life partner to set the condition that if he donate, he would be the child's father and have all the rights and responsibilities that go with that.

or for any man gay or not to set that condition.

So, you mean you find it legitimate for all men, gay or straight, to want fatherhood in this case? I'm a bit confused by that last sentence.

But that is if the donor is "anonymous" in the sense that the receiving couple do not know him. If you've picked a person, I have a hard time seeing how a middle person would change the legalities.

Coincidentally, in Sweden at least, sperm bank donors cannot be anonymous in regards to the children - while the donor has no rights or responsibilities, the children have a right to know their "biological background".



That could be a problem if you didn't want such involvement, but if you do...



Yes, but "private" donation with a known donor has the complication that parenting rights in Swedish law are written with the child at the centre and thus a known biological parent (not a sperm bank donor, though, as mention earlier) cannot sign away responsibilities he has against a child unless those are taken over by someone else, since the child's rights are deemed more important. If the father consents, the other mother can adopt the child, but the father loses all rights and responsibilities through that - "one child, two legal parents" is the mantra, so one can unfortunately not have two legal mothers and one legal father. :\



which means that before you ever enter into such a situation you should talk to a good lawyer.

it sounds like if you were to do such a thing in sweden you need to be prepared to end up having some kind of legal/financial responsibility if things go badly for the mothers. that would require careful consideration.



I understand what you mean, but I meant more before the child. Would you like to be known as "dad" to it, or as an "uncle"?

the truth is that you can never know how you will feel about such a child until after it is born. you might think that it will mean nothing to you and you can just walk away, or you might think that you would be happy to be called "uncle ashmoria" or you might think that you would need to be the childs father in practice as well as biology. but you dont KNOW until the child is a reality.

going to visit your friends to see their new baby and seeing that baby with your eyes can make you feel a connection you never thought possible.

anyway i said uncle because i dont want another child but i know that any child that i would have that kind of connection to would be important to me. so i would want to have a place in his life but not as a real parent.

if you would love to have a child, i see no reason not to make that part of the deal. millions of fathers have that kind of relationship with their children. it works well enough for them so there is no reason for it not to work for someone who plans it that way.

Say you're invited to your favourite lesbian friends over the holidays. You have a nice enough time at the smörgåsbord and find their holiday traditions to be quite entertaining. Then they take you aside and have something to ask you. They've been thinking about their ticking clocks and whatnot, and have come to the conclusion that they want to have children. To get said children, they have decided to go with a donor they know, a swell and wonderful person they really like - you. Would you fill a cup for them? Would you like to be part of the children's lives? Not be part? What would be your conditions, if any?

And of course, there is a typo in the poll. I meant to do that. Yeah...

IF I were to do something like that, I'd get all the agreed to terms spelled out in a contract. And I'd get it witnessed and notarized.

So, you mean you find it legitimate for all men, gay or straight, to want fatherhood in this case? I'm a bit confused by that last sentence.

yeah i do. any man, even if he had a dozen kids already, would have a legitimate desire to be the father of a 13th that he was father to by artificial insemination.

i started with the gay part because a gay man is in the same position as a lesbian. he needs a willing woman as much as she needs a willing man so she should be willing to accept the deal. then i thought it through a bit more and decided that a father is a father and he is never wrong to insist on it.

You ask me as if I'd know. My sperm has only been deposited in condoms, paper towels, on various aspects of someone else's external body and a vial for a sperm count, so I wouldn't know what a donor would get. ;)

you keep paper towels in your bathroom?

and I thought I was fancy :p

I wager they'd feel it's important for them to know something about the father of their future child and so, and less about "dirtiness" - I guess everyone would want all people involved to be tested for communicable diseases regardless.

"well Timmy we was at this party once and your dad was shaking it about the place with a lampshade on his head..."

I say you donate at a sperm bank and have them naturally assume its your genes that way you have a back story for the child (and your tested sexually at sperm banks I would hope:eek:)

Why couldn't you fill that role? I'm not speaking legally, but more the social and educative role.

because the difference between father and close uncle is that social grabby thing babies do when they are young (hence why people moan about daycare), to fill the father role you would have to play an overactive part in the child's home life

biology has no part in parenthood (http://www.unk.edu/acad/biology/Faculty.Biology/Springer/Behavior/HarlowFiles/fig03.jpg)

which means that before you ever enter into such a situation you should talk to a good lawyer.

I should think that would apply to most serious undertakings with legal ramifications. :)

it sounds like if you were to do such a thing in sweden you need to be prepared to end up having some kind of legal/financial responsibility if things go badly for the mothers. that would require careful consideration.

If the other mother doesn't adopt, yup, but if you don't have them go through with it, it's a bit weird to complain that the responsibilities vis-à-vis the child remain with you as the legal parent. Sure, one could make "arrangements" and "contractual agreements", but those are invalidated if any of the parents or children invoke "föräldrabalken", which is the "parenthood law" governing these things. So, either have the other mother step in, or have an expectation of possible future demands. For me, though, I wouldn't mind taking economic and legal responsibilities for the children, were that to be the case. It's just the dilemma of remaining the legal father or signing it away that is the thing I'm hung up on.

the truth is that you can never know how you will feel about such a child until after it is born. you might think that it will mean nothing to you and you can just walk away, or you might think that you would be happy to be called "uncle ashmoria" or you might think that you would need to be the childs father in practice as well as biology. but you dont KNOW until the child is a reality.

going to visit your friends to see their new baby and seeing that baby with your eyes can make you feel a connection you never thought possible.

anyway i said uncle because i dont want another child but i know that any child that i would have that kind of connection to would be important to me. so i would want to have a place in his life but not as a real parent.

Thank you for that elaboration. :)

if you would love to have a child, i see no reason not to make that part of the deal. millions of fathers have that kind of relationship with their children. it works well enough for them so there is no reason for it not to work for someone who plans it that way.

True, very true.

you keep paper towels in your bathroom?

and I thought I was fancy :p

Well, I don't masturbate just in the bathroom, but in any case, my cloth towels were much too expensive and IMO stylish to wipe up jizz with. Also, I find the concept of a "cum rag" utterly unhygienic. No, disposable is the way to go.

"well Timmy we was at this party once and your dad was shaking it about the place with a lampshade on his head..."

I say you donate at a sperm bank and have them naturally assume its your genes that way you have a back story for the child (and your tested sexually at sperm banks I would hope:eek:)

I still don't quite understand what you're trying to say, I'm afraid, but if you mean that donors are interviewed and tested at sperm banks, of course they are, but for some people it's important to know the person fathering their children better than from just a curriculum vitae.

because the difference between father and close uncle is that social grabby thing babies do when they are young (hence why people moan about daycare), to fill the father role you would have to play an overactive part in the child's home life

Why would it be "over-active"? You think it would displace one of the other parents, or that they might resent it?

Well, I don't masturbate just in the bathroom, but in any case, my cloth towels were much too expensive and IMO stylish to wipe up jizz with. Also, I find the concept of a "cum rag" utterly unhygienic. No, disposable is the way to go.

damp dish cloth and sink tap?

I still don't quite understand what you're trying to say, I'm afraid, but if you mean that donors are interviewed and tested at sperm banks, of course they are, but for some people it's important to know the person fathering their children better than from just a curriculum vitae.

I can see why they are asking it from you, it just seems that they are ignoring a legitimate alternative and causing extra hassle because they are pumping full of maternal instincts

Why would it be "over-active"? You think it would displace one of the other parents, or that they might resent it?

well I can see it causing an issue but I was more suggesting that you could never be the child's real father in the same way that a father will find himself replaced by step-fathers if there is a split early in childhood (which would tear you apart I suspect)

really I think that going through with this could be the biggest mistake you make especially since you do seem to want to be part of the child's life which at times (I will avoid saying most) you just won't be able to do

just decline but be the uncle who spoils it rotten before you have kids of your own

I would totally donate my eggs to someone, I wouldn't need to be involved any more than that, but if they wanted me to, I would.

If I had sperm I would donate it to friends, I would be as involved as they wanted me to be. I would make double sure I knew my legal obligations before I jumped into doing it though, clarity is king.

I would totally donate my eggs to someone, I wouldn't need to be involved any more than that, but if they wanted me to, I would.

If I had sperm I would donate it to friends, I would be as involved as they wanted me to be. I would make double sure I knew my legal obligations before I jumped into doing it though, clarity is king.

sounds like someone planes to save money on Christmas presents ;)

Yes, and I wouldn't care, as long as I wouldn't get full parental responsibilities (barring emergencies--I wouldn't necessarily mind being part of a "safety net" of sorts.)

It would be a little weird (not necessarily objectionably) if I was to have no part in the child's life, though... to know that a son or daughter of mine is growing up, but not to be a part of it.

As long as I get to be involved with the children, yes.

sounds like someone planes to save money on Christmas presents ;)

wrapping that would be a Bitch tho... :D

One could but needs to take responsibility to help raise that child I believe. I am sure two lesbians could do just fine however I think the child would be better served if the biological father was involved. So if the one donating is ready to be a father then I say go for it. If not then I would suggest leaving it to someone else.

Say you're invited to your favourite lesbian friends over the holidays. You have a nice enough time at the smörgåsbord and find their holiday traditions to be quite entertaining. Then they take you aside and have something to ask you. They've been thinking about their ticking clocks and whatnot, and have come to the conclusion that they want to have children. To get said children, they have decided to go with a donor they know, a swell and wonderful person they really like - you. Would you fill a cup for them? Would you like to be part of the children's lives? Not be part? What would be your conditions, if any?

And of course, there is a typo in the poll. I meant to do that. Yeah...No, due to the legal repurcussions.

No. I have no desire to procreate - regardless of the route.

damp dish cloth and sink tap?

Unpractical, and eeuw.

I can see why they are asking it from you, it just seems that they are ignoring a legitimate alternative and causing extra hassle because they are pumping full of maternal instincts

I don't think it would be causing extra hassle. Different hassle, but not extra.

well I can see it causing an issue but I was more suggesting that you could never be the child's real father in the same way that a father will find himself replaced by step-fathers if there is a split early in childhood (which would tear you apart I suspect)

I think you're way too pessimistic and I don't see why a father who isn't with the custodial mother would not be able to be a "real father".

really I think that going through with this could be the biggest mistake you make especially since you do seem to want to be part of the child's life which at times (I will avoid saying most) you just won't be able to do

It seems that you're using the personal you instead of the unpersonal one. Are you directing this at me?

just decline but be the uncle who spoils it rotten before you have kids of your own

This would be a child of one's own.

No, due to the legal repurcussions.

What would those be in Germany?

I think you're way too pessimistic and I don't see why a father who isn't with the custodial mother would not be able to be a "real father".

There's no reason really. I had a friend growing up whose mother had a one night stand thing with her father (resulting in the pregnancy) they figured out half way through the pregnancy that her mom was a lesbian, thus they only got together once, never had a romantic relationship, never married, not a problem. He was her "real dad", she lived with her mom, and he saw her on weekends and summers and holidays.

No, absolutely not.

I don't think IVF should be allowed. If you can't do it naturally, then there's obviously a reason. Adopt instead.
Two lesbians should not be raising a child. It needs a male influence or only one female influence.
I wouldn't donate anything bodily anyway.

No, absolutely not.

I don't think IVF should be allowed. If you can't do it naturally, then there's obviously a reason. Adopt instead.
Two lesbians should not be raising a child. It needs a male influence or only one female influence.
I wouldn't donate anything bodily anyway.


I consider myself conservative except for this area.

There are some simple reasons why a woman cannot conceive as Fass probably can attest to. IVF is a very important process that allows people to have kids.

Two lesbians can raise a child just fine. However I do agree the child should have a male influence as should a child with two gay men have a female influence. Just because a parent or both parents are gay doesn't automatically screw up the child. I can make a huge list of bad attributes that people have that trump being gay.

No one would want my mish mash of genetic dead ends, but presuming the premise-if I was close to them or something of the kind, then yes, I'd certainly want to do what I could. I don't think I would want to be part of the child's life in a meaningful way, which is to say no more involved than I would be if the sperm came from someone else. I'm helping someone else's decision to have kids, not making my own decision about having kids. I want no more over that child than I do a donated kidney.

Maybe if I got to 'donate' my sperm the old fashioned way...;)

I picked "Yes, but only if I didn't have to be part of the children's lives."

It sums up my feelings sufficiently.

Say you're invited to your favourite lesbian friends over the holidays. You have a nice enough time at the smörgåsbord and find their holiday traditions to be quite entertaining. Then they take you aside and have something to ask you. They've been thinking about their ticking clocks and whatnot, and have come to the conclusion that they want to have children. To get said children, they have decided to go with a donor they know, a swell and wonderful person they really like - you. Would you fill a cup for them? Would you like to be part of the children's lives? Not be part? What would be your conditions, if any?

And of course, there is a typo in the poll. I meant to do that. Yeah...

Never, and here's why:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/03/nsperm103.xml

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1831308/posts

Never, and here's why:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/03/nsperm103.xml

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1831308/posts

Oh man that is shitty. I guess they all should've went to a lawyer and signed a contract or something. Assuming that could be done and it would hold up.

I'm assuming you are refering to yourself? If so I think that you want to do it (from what you've posted) and I think that you could handle it ( though, obviously I only know what I've seen on the forum) so I think that before you go any further you should consider it legally and write up a contract with a/your lawyer if you do decide to do anything.

Say you're invited to your favourite lesbian friends over the holidays. You have a nice enough time at the smörgåsbord and find their holiday traditions to be quite entertaining. Then they take you aside and have something to ask you. They've been thinking about their ticking clocks and whatnot, and have come to the conclusion that they want to have children. To get said children, they have decided to go with a donor they know, a swell and wonderful person they really like - you. Would you fill a cup for them? Would you like to be part of the children's lives? Not be part? What would be your conditions, if any?

And of course, there is a typo in the poll. I meant to do that. Yeah...

It would depend on specifics, I guess.

I'm not too hung up pn the idea of shooting and running, so I would kind of like to stay involved after the cup - but I gues that's really the 'parents' choice, and I guess I'd respect that.

I wouldn't do it if they weren't at least my friends - people I know well and respect... in fact, the sort of people you'd consider as your own partners, if they were to swing that way.

It would be a little weird (not necessarily objectionably) if I was to have no part in the child's life, though... to know that a son or daughter of mine is growing up, but not to be a part of it.

Yes. And that is one of the reasons for me to choose No.

The connection (physical or mental) between parent and child is unbreakable, no matter if the parent is a part of the child's life.

So if I were a part of it, the 3 person relationship between the lesbian parents and I would be a big concern. Will knowing the truth frastrated or confused the child? Kids are very sensitive actually.

But if I were not a part, I believe i can not just assume nothing happened and I never had such a son or daughter.

Both are not what I expect.

What would those be in Germany?I'd assume they'd be similar to the ones in the UK, namely that I can be held accountable financially for the child.

No, absolutely not.

I don't think IVF should be allowed. If you can't do it naturally, then there's obviously a reason. Adopt instead.


And someone who can't breathe naturally obviously has a reason why, and should never be ventilated.

And someone who can't eat naturally obviously has a reason, and should never be allowed to receive nutrients in some other way.

Right?

Or is this a bias that only stretches as far as sexual discrimination?


Two lesbians should not be raising a child. It needs a male influence or only one female influence.


Why?

One of the most well-balanced kids I know was raised by a lesbian couple I know. Smart, erudite, well rounded... if my kids turn out nearly as well, I'll be happy.

Worth mentioning (?) that a child's parents are not their only influences...


I wouldn't donate anything bodily anyway.


Based on your responses thus far, I'd imagine that's a loss that'll be lamented for centuries.

Say you're invited to your favourite lesbian friends over the holidays. You have a nice enough time at the smörgåsbord and find their holiday traditions to be quite entertaining. Then they take you aside and have something to ask you. They've been thinking about their ticking clocks and whatnot, and have come to the conclusion that they want to have children. To get said children, they have decided to go with a donor they know, a swell and wonderful person they really like - you. Would you fill a cup for them? Would you like to be part of the children's lives? Not be part? What would be your conditions, if any?

And of course, there is a typo in the poll. I meant to do that. Yeah...
o.o Hmm... well, with my views on homosexuality, I'd like to help them out, but thing is in that case (assuming that by "fill a cup" you mean with my sperm) I'd technically be the biological father, and I think probably shouldn't have children either way, if not only because of human population then because passing on my diabetic genes would be child abuse. But it's for that same reason that I'd be inclined not to want to reproduce in a heterosexual relationship either.

Good thing I came across this, though, since I was considering getting a vasectomy; if in the future I hypothetically had lesbian friends and had a vasectomy that choice would've already been made.

And someone who can't breathe naturally obviously has a reason why, and should never be ventilated.

And someone who can't eat naturally obviously has a reason, and should never be allowed to receive nutrients in some other way.

Right?
Eating and breathing don't contribute to overpopulation.

No, absolutely not.

I don't think IVF should be allowed. If you can't do it naturally, then there's obviously a reason. Adopt instead.
Two lesbians should not be raising a child. It needs a male influence or only one female influence.
I wouldn't donate anything bodily anyway.

o.o This is odd, people who even talk about the label "feminazi" get repeatedly accused of being sexist to the extent that people accusing this act like they have more say as to what that person thinks than that person himself/herself, and yet what Sel Appa is saying here is something that can probably be more reasonably interpreted as being sexist in itself and people don't seem to be mentioning that?

o.o This is odd, people who even talk about the label "feminazi" get repeatedly accused of being sexist to the extent that people accusing this act like they have more say as to what that person thinks than that person himself/herself, and yet what Sel Appa is saying here is something that can probably be more reasonably interpreted as being sexist in itself and people don't seem to be mentioning that?

I assumed it was outside the scope of the thread and I have been trying not to threadjack.

Eating and breathing don't contribute to overpopulation.

By keeping the population not dead, yes they do.

there is little I hate more in the gay community than the insistence on artificial insemination. people should find a way to adopt, not spend beaucoups of money on little spitting images of the selves they obviously worship.

Do you feel that way for all members of society or just the gay members?

Just to clarify your position a bit

there is little I hate more in the gay community than the insistence on artificial insemination. people should find a way to adopt, not spend beaucoups of money on little spitting images of the selves they obviously worship.

o.o This is odd, people who even talk about the label "feminazi" get repeatedly accused of being sexist to the extent that people accusing this act like they have more say as to what that person thinks than that person himself/herself, and yet what Sel Appa is saying here is something that can probably be more reasonably interpreted as being sexist in itself and people don't seem to be mentioning that?

Not here to defend Sel Appa however he mentions only that there should be a male influence. I agree and will add like I did earlier there should also be a female influence in a situation where two gay men are raising a child. Should it be mandated? No. I don't think Sel Appa mentioned what kind of influence but that role can be taken up by a uncle or father of one of the two lesbians. Just as a aunt or parent of two gay men. I believe that is all that it was meant. That in itself is not sexist I believe.

I wouldn't, I just wouldn't want the hassle, and it will always cause hassle in some way.

That in itself is not sexist I believe.it implies that there's a significant, fundamental difference between male and female that isn't socialized...which carries sexist implications, depending on who you're talking to.

it implies that there's a significant, fundamental difference between male and female that isn't socialized...which carries sexist implications, depending on who you're talking to.

Even outside the socialized differences there are basic hormonal difference which makes men and women behave different. Fairly straight forward I thought. If a person can not make the distinction without calling it sexist is not very intelligent or is severely brain washed.

Eating and breathing don't contribute to overpopulation.

Really? Your math sucks. Think about it.

(Ah - I see Fass already addressed it).

Even outside the socialized differences there are basic hormonal difference which makes men and women behave different. Fairly straight forward I thought. If a person can not make the distinction without calling it sexist is not very intelligent or is severely brain washed.

what kinds of basic hormonal differences?

what kinds of different behaviors do these cause?

Not here to defend Sel Appa however he mentions only that there should be a male influence. I agree and will add like I did earlier there should also be a female influence in a situation where two gay men are raising a child. Should it be mandated? No. I don't think Sel Appa mentioned what kind of influence but that role can be taken up by a uncle or father of one of the two lesbians. Just as a aunt or parent of two gay men. I believe that is all that it was meant. That in itself is not sexist I believe.

Utter wank.

I know women who act more 'male' than guys I know, and guys that act more 'female' than girls I know.

I guess the idea of strict 'male' or 'female' influence is hogwash.

what kinds of basic hormonal differences?

what kinds of different behaviors do these cause?

You are asking how testosterone and estrogen have a different effect on behavior?

Utter wank.

I know women who act more 'male' than guys I know, and guys that act more 'female' than girls I know.

I guess the idea of strict 'male' or 'female' influence is hogwash.

Sorry but your response is utter wank. There are differences between the two sexes and if you can't figure that out then sorry for you.

Rather then going round in circles, can anyone cite any studies on whether kids need both a male and female influence?

Even outside the socialized differences there are basic hormonal difference which makes men and women behave different. Fairly straight forward I thought. If a person can not make the distinction without calling it sexist is not very intelligent or is severely brain washed.

what kinds of basic hormonal differences?

what kinds of different behaviors do these cause?

You are asking how testosterone and estrogen have a different effect on behavior?
a significant difference with regards to raising a child, yes. none of my psych classes have mentioned the gender of a parent having anything whatsoever to do with proper child development.

incidentally there are more than two sexes, though the others are rather rare.

Sorry but your response is utter wank. There are differences between the two sexes and if you can't figure that out then sorry for you.

I didn't say there were no differences. Reading comprehension can be your friend, too.

Obviously, some genders have more penises than others, and maybe less vulvas... but that's not the point. Those are differences between the genders, but are not differences between the INFLUENCES of the genders - unless we are talking about phallocentrism, or some such.

Clearly, there are no strict influential differences (for the reasons I stated above) that are immediate and implicit in the physical gendering of the flesh.

If you missed that point, it might bear a second examination. If you saw that point made, and still disagreed... well, I have no answers. Maybe you need to meet more people?

You are asking how testosterone and estrogen have a different effect on behavior?

testosterone and estrogen are not the only hormones floating about, and neither of them are gender specific.

is my estrogen making me act a certain way? if so, how?

testosterone and estrogen are not the only hormones floating about, and neither of them are gender specific.

is my estrogen making me act a certain way? if so, how?

It's making you act like a girl. Obviously...

a significant difference with regards to raising a child, yes. none of my psych classes have mentioned the gender of a parent having anything whatsoever to do with proper child development.

incidentally there are more than two sexes, though the others are rather rare.

Interestingly enough though, I just got back from my aunts who is a neuroscientist. She says that one of many things psychology doesn't teach you is that a baby really needs its mother, and that day care centers are bad for babies and young toddlers and can do considerable harm, which can be shown apparently through neuroscience. They say that the bond between the baby and its mother is very important.

To the OP,

What are the odds of the couple surviving as a couple long enough to raise a child to adulthood without breaking up first and forcing the child into a one parent home? If the odds are that they will NOT stay together that long and the child will end up in a single parent home and I was it's other parent, I would be prepared to take on the financial and emotional responsibilities of helping to raise that child very seriously and be prepared before I agreed to father that child. If the odds are that they WILL stay together for the duration that the child is being raised, then I'd still be prepared to take on those responsibilities (just in case). If there is NO chance that they will stay together that long, I'd just let my lesbian friend couple come over and visit my kids that I already have and we'll call them both auntie ;).

If one can't ever be ready and emotionally and financially able to assist in raising that child (if the need should arise), then perhaps it would be better if one not choose to father that child in the first place.

It's making you act like a girl. Obviously...

:eek:

Obviously, some genders have more penises than others, and maybe less vulvas... but that's not the point.that would be sex and not gender. sex is anatomy, gender is self-expression and presentation.

also, I'm looking in a psych research database for studies specifically related to parent gender and the healthy development of a child...I'm not finding much because this is so broad and also because I don't think any trained mental health professional would even bother to ask if the gender of a parent has anything to do with the child's well being...in general there are more important things to worry about. if I find any studies that address this I'll post them here.

that would be sex and not gender. sex is anatomy, gender is self-expression and presentation.


Actually - if you look at what I wrote, that is kind of addressed in my phrasing. I realise it's inaccurate anyway (because it leaves out transgendering), but it was a concise attempt to discuss the fact that the only real IMPLICIT differences, are anatomical.

:eek:

Now, if we can only work out what 'acting like a girl' means....

:)

Interestingly enough though, I just got back from my aunts who is a neuroscientist. She says that one of many things psychology doesn't teach you is that a baby really needs its mother, and that day care centers are bad for babies and young toddlers and can do considerable harm, which can be shown apparently through neuroscience. They say that the bond between the baby and its mother is very important.

Not necessarily the mother, I'd have thought - but certainly someone to imprint on at a very young age.

if I find any studies that address this I'll post them here.

Researchers in developmental psychology have concluded that no significant differences exist between children raised by lesbians and gay men and those raised by heterosexuals. Although these scientific studies have attracted criticism, scrutiny has shown that they are actually epistemologically sounder than the body of knowledge that the critics themselves have developed in order to mount their case against lesbian and gay parenting. Nevertheless, to the extent that they are limited by a number of problematic assumptions structuring the paradigm within which they have been conducted, the parenting studies are not a body of maximally objective knowledge. The same assumptions have also tended to inform legal discourse on lesbian and gay parenting. A paradigm shift away from questions about the goodness or badness of lesbian and gay parenting is overdue, both in sexuality-focused psychological research on child development and in the law's approach to nonheterosexual parenting.There is a variety of families headed by a lesbian or gay male parent or same-sex couple. Findings from research suggest that children with lesbian or gay parents are comparable with children with heterosexual parents on key psychosocial developmental outcomes. In many ways, children of lesbian or gay parents have similar experiences of family life compared with children in heterosexual families. Some special considerations apply to the context of lesbian and gay parenting: variation in family forms, children's awareness of lesbian and gay relationships, heterosexism, and homophobia. These issues have important implications for managing clinical work with children of lesbian mothers or gay fathers.

again...the literature doesn't even address the idea that there has to be a certain amount of male or female influence for health child development, because anybody with psychology training in the last 30 years or so wouldn't even ask that question...if anyone else wants to sift through hundreds of studies and articles and try to find a few that say otherwise, feel free, but I don't see anything to indicate you'd find anything. without mentioning gay parenting specifically, I found nothing whatsoever mentioning parent gender differences on healthy child development.

ah, ok. I'm so used to seeing people not know the difference I sort of automatically correct them on it by now. my mistake.

Is all good. It's not like it can be overstated.

Not necessarily the mother, I'd have thought - but certainly someone to imprint on at a very young age.

Well my aunt is pretty insistent that the kind of affection needed can only be efficiently offered by the mother, take that whichever way you will.

Actually - if you look at what I wrote, that is kind of addressed in my phrasing. I realise it's inaccurate anyway (because it leaves out transgendering), but it was a concise attempt to discuss the fact that the only real IMPLICIT differences, are anatomical.ah, ok. I'm so used to seeing people not know the difference I sort of automatically correct them on it by now. my mistake.

Not necessarily the mother, I'd have thought - but certainly someone to imprint on at a very young age.yeah, "primary care-giver", not the biological mother, per se. there are HUGE problems that come when kids don't bond appropriately to a care giver, attachment disorders are a bitch to treat, but that caregiver doesn't have to be the biological mother, or a woman at all.

Assuming that this happened to you, Fass, I would suggest that whatever arrangement is made, that everyone involved should be very clear as to what they feel their involvement should be, very clear on how they feel about the whole thing and the other people, and be especially clear about any hesitancies or misgivings anyone may have.

Raising a child is not a responsibility to be taken lightly. If you wish to limit your responsibilities in any way, you should be very clear about this before any commitment is made, or even implied.

Of course, my advice applies to anyone who is thinking of having kids. It is not specific to this situation.

Well my aunt is pretty insistent that the kind of affection needed can only be efficiently offered by the mother, take that whichever way you will.

What does the mother specifically have to do with it? Mothers die in childbirth all the time, those children don't have one, they turn out okay.

Interestingly enough though, I just got back from my aunts who is a neuroscientist. She says that one of many things psychology doesn't teach you is that a baby really needs its mother, and that day care centers are bad for babies and young toddlers and can do considerable harm, which can be shown apparently through neuroscience. They say that the bond between the baby and its mother is very important.

the bond between Baby and Mother or Baby and parent? Could it be the fact that in Day Care Centers the baby establishes bonds with multiple adults several times a day and thus that causes the harm?

I wonder how young the toddlers are that she tested?

What does the mother specifically have to do with it? Mothers die in childbirth all the time, those children don't have one, they turn out okay.

I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just asking how you know that they turn out okay? In your guesstimation they turn out okay? Or do you know that children of mother's who die in child birth are statistically just as likely to be happy and productive adults as other children? I'm just curious.

By keeping the population not dead, yes they do.
Ok, fine, but it's much more reasonable to decrease the birth rate than increase the death rate. If not being born is akin to dying, then every moment you don't spend reproducing is a continuous genocide.

I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just asking how you know that they turn out okay? In your guesstimation they turn out okay? Or do you know that children of mother's who die in child birth are statistically just as likely to be happy and productive adults as other children? I'm just curious.

know? not really, haven't met them all. I haven't really seen much research on it to be honest, nor have I seen any research saying that the mother must be around 24/7 for a kid not to go off the deep end. I was near death sick just after my first was born, mostly her dad took care of her, she saw me for feedings, but that was about it, for about 6 weeks. She isn't damaged. She did have someone looking out for her, taking care of her, giving her attention, but it sure wasn't me.

If they seriously wanted me to, I would do it. I would want to be a part of the child's life too, but would understand if they didn't want me to be.

I would prefer to do the donation "in person" though, rather than into a cup. ;)