Subject:  Re: wrong using married donors? |
Author:
FQ
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Fri 11 February, 2005 03:38:36
In reply to:
DOnna
's message, "Re: wrong using married donors?" on Thu 10 February, 2005 10:16:08
Hi Donna
As a married person and donor, I was only talking about artificial insemination. So basically, you would not object to a married donor, who has the OK from his wife and children, and you've confirmed this by interviewing them, if it is OK.
So this way, you do not have a feeling of
stealing something that belongs to someone else, but
being given it as a gift, with consent. And because if everyone is informed, you kind of have the feeling of being a welcome member of an extended family.
Are those your feelings?
By the way, how old are you? I've encountered this moral sentiment from some other potential recipients, who were in a heterosexual relationship or single, and relatively mature, but not from younger, lesbian couples. So I am very interested to know more about how you feel on this issue.
Just another personal question - if you attach such value to marriage, how did this whole thing develop? If it is too private, you can mail me at my e-mail.
Wishing the best and good luck
>Hi,
>
>I think trying to generalize things into there being
>just two groups of people is oversimplifying a very
>complex issue. Bringing a life into the world
>involves a large number of considerations and marriage
>is a very complex relationship.
>
>I can only speak to my views. I believe marriage is
>sacred and involves honesty and openness not just with
>one's spouse but with ones children as well. I also
>do not take donor insemination lightly. You are
>helping someone create a life. It's a big decision
>and as such should be discussed with your wife and
>family before embarking.
>
>I have absolutely no issue with using a married donor
>if they are honest with their family.
>
>As to people not wanting to use a married donor
>because of feeling exploited. This makes no sense to
>me. I don't know what you are deriving this
>information from. I can't speak for every woman out
>there, but I don't think there is any fear of
>exploitation. If you are talking about NI without
>disclosing this to one's spouse or involving them in
>the process, well then that is CHEATING on your wife,
>plain and simple. Not to mention sex puts a person at
>risk for diseases that could potentially be
>transferred to one's wife.
>
>Hope this clarifies. Now, I am leaving this forum.
>Thanks for your input.
>
>BYE
>
>>Hi Donna,
>>Thanks for the reply. OK, so there are 2 groups of
>>people. One doesn't like married donors outright. The
>>other, the thought of married donors keeping this
>>information away from the family.
>>
>>The first group is very easy to understand. The woman
>>feels exploited. Here, she is desperately trying to
>>get a child. And her counterpart already has a nice
>>family and children, feels smug, and enjoys the bit on
>>the side. Even if this is without outright sex, but
>>just through AI. It still has a sexual connotation.
>>
>>However, what are the primary motives of the second
>>group? Why is it OK if the wife and family are
>>informed? Is it because you do not have a feeling of
>>stealing something that belongs to someone else, but
>>being given it as a gift, with consent? Or is it
>>because if everyone is informed, you kind of have the
>>feeling of being a welcome member of an extended
>>family?
>>
>>I am not judgemental, I just want to hear about your
>>feelings, since I am frequently facing such
>>situations. Wishing all the best and looking forward
>>to your reply
>>
>>>Short answer to long rant....
>>>
>>>Nothing wrong with a married donor, only wrong when
>>>aforementioned married donor is keeping his donor
>>>status a secret from his wife and family. This is
>>>just my opinion and preference, but I will not be
>>>party to such a lie by omission.
>>>
>>>Some women might also feel uncomfortable asking a
>>>married man to donate sperm. Not because they are
>>>looking for some single guy to marry, but because it
>>>is a difficult enough process finding a compatible
>>>known donor without adding to it the complexities of
>a
>>>husband wife relationship.
>>>
>>>Next time perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions
>or
>>>make assumptions. Thank you.
>>>
>>>marriage>What is so wrong with using a married donor?
>>A
>>>>substantial amount of sperm samples you get from
>>sperm
>>>>banks are from married donors. In fact, our health
>>>>authorities in the UK have started a push for
>>>>prompting married men to donate sperm through their
>>>>doctors.
>>>>
>>>>They reasoned there would be less threat of
>>infection,
>>>>and potentially better genes, if the donors did not
>>>>come up because they wanted to, initially, but
>>because
>>>>their doctors chose them.
>>>>
>>>>You wouldn't like a married donor only if you had
>the
>>>>romantic idea of setting up a family, with that
>>>>person, after conception. But for that, you could
>>>>simply use straight dating and be outright that you
>>>>want children (&marriage) straight away. You may
>>>>laugh, but there are certainly men out there, for
>>whom
>>>>that would be their ideal.
>>>>
>>>>The main advantage of sex is not that AI doesn't
>work
>>>>and NI does. It is simply that NI is a much more
>>>>poweful motivational tool.
>>>>
>>>>Artificial insemination works fine. People telling
>>you
>>>>it will not work at all are trying to corner you
>into
>>>>something you would not like. The only technical
>>>>discussion point is whether NI is slightly more
>>>>efficient than AI.
>>>>
>>>>Anecdotal evidence does suggest that NI is more
>>>>efficient. It has never been tested conclusively in
>>>>humans. Who would like to try it out? However, in
>>many
>>>>non-human mammalians (cats, rabbits etc), ovulation
>>>>can be induced by a somewhat rough intercourse. In
>>>>humans, ovulation itself is induced regularly by a
>>>>pace-setting mechanism inside the brain which
>>>>synchronizes with the ovaries. However, there are
>>>>other additional targets such as cerival patency
>>>>(sperm passing through the cervical canal into the
>>>>uterus), tubal capture of eggs (like in baseball
>>where
>>>>a high-speed flying ball is caught by a glove), and
>>>>nidation, the nesting of the embryo into the uterus.
>>>>So there are plenty of targets where the sensual
>>>>perception of intercourse and the body response can
>>be
>>>>effective.
>>>>
>>>>Of course there are several additional pluses and
>>>>minuses. The minuses are the risk of infection is
>>much
>>>>higher through the tears in the vaginal lining. You
>>>>can get infected by sperm itself, and this is the
>>>>reason for frequent obligatory testing. However, the
>>>>risk through sperm itself is much smaller than
>>through
>>>>intercourse. There is also a much higher risk of
>>>>emotional problems and feelings of guilt (I've slept
>>>>with a person who is ugly and who I don't love, I
>>>>betrayed my lover etc).
>>>>
>>>>On the plus side, it is much more rewarding for the
>>>>would be father. Male satiety after intravaginal
>>>>ejaculation is greater than after masturbation. So
>>>>there could be, theoretically, less problems in
>>>>receiving donations several days in a row around the
>>>>ovulation time, or in retaining the person as a
>>>>regular donor for the necessary stretch of time. If
>>>>you read the comments on this site, a lot of
>>>>recipients lose contact with their donors after 2-3
>>>>cycles, because these are no longer willing. So it
>>>>could enhance the motivation. However, nothing is
>>>>certain, it is just a rule of thumb. So if you find
>a
>>>>male extremely attractive, and he is not a serial
>>>>donor...
>>>>
>>>>The key thing about sex, is that with it, your
>circle
>>>>of potential donors is much wider, so you can choose
>>a
>>>>much better candidate. If you get dreary people
>>>>looking for sex, it means you are casting the nets
>>>>into a wrong place.
>>>>
>>>>One should not choose people that don't come up to
>>>>your aesthetic expectations, as donors, even if they
>>>>don't ask for sex. If you feel they are ugly, what
>>>>your brain is trying to tell you is that they will
>be
>>>>poor donor material. If you choose such a person,
>>your
>>>>brain may shut down the pathways needed for normal
>>>>fertility. So choose people who look nice to you
>>>>(beauty is in the eye of the beholder), appear
>>>>intelligent and show high acquired social status.
>>This
>>>>is one aspect where having a known donor beats
>having
>>>>an anonymous one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, good luck in your search!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Well, I've tried posting here several times, I'm on
>>>>>practically every newsgroup and bulletin board I
>>>could
>>>>>find and I've hunted high and low for a sperm bank
>>>>>near me with open donor programs.
>>>>>
>>>>>It seems there is noone in my area who is genuinely
>>>>>looking to be a donor and isn't either married and
>>>>>trying to hide his donor status from his wife, just
>>>>>trying to pressure vulnerable women under pressure
>>>>>from their biological clocks into having sex, out
>>for
>>>>>money, living in outter Siberia, or just saying
>they
>>>>>want to help, but when it comes down to it, they
>>>>>dissapear.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, I've had it. Looks like being a mom is not in
>>my
>>>>>cards and after almost 2 years of looking and 3
>>>donors
>>>>>that were set to go then backed out, I am DONE.
>>>>>
>>>>>I did meet some very nice women on this board and
>>>>>other newsgroups and even a few men that seemed to
>>be
>>>>>genuine (but sadly, too far away) so I haven't lost
>>>my
>>>>>faith in humanity completely, but just wanted to
>say
>>>>>bye and thanks anyway and wish the rest of the
>>people
>>>>>on here luck!
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 