Wendy,
I think this is one time I'm going to have to disagree with you. It's probably because I simply don't really care for the way the system is currently. I just don't like the idea of mens' sperm (mostly the sperm and not the case of womens' eggs, although it would work both ways) being spread around, wherever and to whomever, while he has no responsibility, and worse yet, the child never knows their real father.
Besides the reasonable assumption that a child is best raised by two adults, which may not always occur in a sperm donation situation, I think it's better for the child when they are partly raised by their own father as an additional parent. I just think it's better (no proof of course) and I think if this ruling ever did or could apply to the sperm banks and discourage donations that this may be the silver lining in the cloud. I know that if I had, had a choice, I would have chosen to have my biological parents conceive me and raise me. It's just naturally better from a common sense perspective even though it won't always hold true, but the chances are greater that it will.
If the ruling stands it would encourage people (i.e., women mostly) to have children with people they actually have relationships with and who are willing to raise a child (i.e., take financial responsibility as well), not just some flake (perhaps) who was looking to make a quick buck from his jizz shot without having any regard or responsibility for the consequences of his actions. There is something about purposely taking an action to conceive a child that makes me believe their needs to be some follow up and responsibility. Doing it as a favor to someone else doesn't seem to cut it morally with me almost for the same reasons I don't favor abortion. It's too convenient and too easy to play with something as important as a life this way and it's just not right.
The ruling could be a good thing in this regard and it truly could be in the best interests of the child. I don't feel sorry for lesbians, gays, etc. Same as for those couples who can't conceive because there never seems to be a shortage of children/babies ready for adoption. It wouldn't stop those wanting to conceive that have good eggs and sperm. If you want to do IVF then do it with someone willing to be the parent, plain and simple. No hunting for a sperm donor who with lots of money and probably fewer lawsuits down the road in the future. It could hurt the medical industry.... boo hoo, as if we would feel sorry for them!
Something I do agree with is that if you make a contract with someone it should be honored and it's strange that they will do this for sperm banks but not the guy in this story (I guess that's the reason you're writing this because the sperm donors may be next). I just don't see the difference. But then again, I don't agree with any law that generally presumes a husband to be the father of any child born during the marriage. This needs to be tossed with the advent of DNA testing. That's like saying if I go out and screw some woman I picked up in a bar and she has a baby that I can take it home to raise as my own and my wife has to be the "mother". How fair is that? Of course if the same law worked for men there would probably be fewer sperm donations to banks and more being made at the bars!
Cheers and keep up the good work!
