Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    	I wasn't asked, but it was subliminally, sorta, kinda hinted at.
    My answer would be "no". You never said whether it was your friend or
    your friend's lover who would be the mother. If it was your friend you
    may feel inclined, but if it was her lover, you should really get out
    of Dodge City.
    	First, what happens if they separate?? No legal do's and don'ts
    here. It's not a marriage where the courts decide. The one who's not
    the mother has no say whatsoever........You as daddy don't have much
    more. If their relationship breaks up, you could be deep pockets until
    the child is out of college to the tune of $500 a month or more. 
    	Then there's your kids. How do explain that they have a half
    brother or sister somewhere?? What happens if .......
    		the child is abandoned??
    		the child is abused??
    		the child is retarded??
    		the child is handicapped??
    		or
    		the child is a prodigy??
    		the child is gifted??
    		
    	Kinda tough to stand on the sidelines knowing you've helped create
    someone and can't do anything to help or can't share in the great
    events like the first step, the first word, the first school paper etc.
    
    	For your own peace of mind, decline.
    
    Just my opinion, 
    
    Ken
    	

    The advice that has been offered at this point seems to be of the
    knee jerk emotional type and not generally useful. I can't help
    wondering whether the reactions would be the same if it were a
    heterosexual couple involved?
    
    My opinion?
    
    1) Know yourself. Will you regard this as your child emotionally? Or
    will you be hands off. Negotiate that with the couple.
    
    2) Know your true legal situation. Get legal opinions for a)liability
    should demands be made of you at a later time and for b) recourse
    should you determine there are factors you don't like regarding the
    circumstances the child is being raised in.
    
    3) Should you decide to do it have a surrogacy contract drawn up
    defining the situation. The contract ensures that some minimal level of
    discussion between the four people has occurred. A proper clause in the
    contract may be the right to renegotiate the contract at a later date.
    
    4) Don't hide it from your kids. The secrets are what can really hurt
    kids. When they know about a subject and know that talk about it is ok
    they will satisfy their curiosity and then put the subject on the
    shelf to be be mostly forgotten. You are helping a couple to express
    love. There is nothing to be ashamed or concerned about.
    
    
    It's a difficult choice you have to make. Good luck.
    
    Denny

 I'm glad it's you and not me.

 I would not want to father a child that was not in my immediate vicinity (in
general). I suppose that for a very special friend I could be convinced to
do it, but it certainly would not be a frequent occurrence.

 Perhaps if I did not already have children, it would be different.

 It is a tough decision, especially in light of the unpredictable manner in
which the courts view non-traditional families and reproduction. 

 I'd be afraid to risk it.

 The Doctah

    I was asked to be a "donor" for a couple wherein the man was sterile.
    Both the man and the woman were (and still are) close friends although
    no longer together.
    
    The situation was slightly different from yours in that it was stated
    explicitly that the child was not to know the truth and that I was
    to have no input as to how the child was raised.  Also, I am neither
    married nor have I any children of my own.
    
    My response was, "No".  My reason was that I was unprepared for the
    emotional burden of having a child and potentially not knowing where
    it was, how it was doing, what did she/he look like, etc.  It would
    be far too tempting to become more emotionally attached than
    circumstances would allow.  They had asked others, including the
    man's brother and my brother.  Nobody agreed.
    
    Although I suspect that the couples inability to have children was an
    integral reason for their demise, and in as much as I care for their
    individual happiness and feel partially responsible for their failure
    as a couple, I have not regretted my decision to deny assistance.
    It goes too far against fatherly instincts.
    
    Kris 

        
    .0 
    
    	Of course you've been asked to be a semen donar which is a little
    different than carrying a child for 9 months and then handing it over
    to a couple after it's birth, but the complications are very much the
    same.  I've attached portions of a report that I thought might be
    helpful (the report refers to two recent surrogate court cases)
    
    FOREWARNING: The attached article is very much against surrogacy, as am
    I.  There are too many children in the world available for adoption,
    which makes surrogacy, artificial insemination, and other medical forms
    of impregnation, unnecessary. But you must make the decision.  As a 
    deciding factor, please thinkabout the child that you will help to create.
    What type of future can that child expect?  Will she/he consider you a 
    selfless, generous individual worthy of praise because you were kind 
    enough to father her and turn her over to two people who otherwise would 
    be unable to have children?  Will she see this as a great thing to do, 
    or will she feel that you've abandoned her?  
    
    More than likely you will be creating a situation that you will not be
    ready to handle when problems start to arise.
    
    I must admit that surrogacy (artificial insemination) could be a great 
    gift for one human to give to another, but we do not live in an
    altruistic society.  What we would like to be, and what is, are two very
    different worlds.      
    
    ============================================================================
	Medical technology has given everyone the chance to become a parent, 
	and surrogate parenting is becoming one of the popular choices.  
	However, surrogacy creates more problems than it actually solves.  As 
	a society we must decide how many problems we are willing to endure in 
        order to give a couple a chance to become a family.  Surrogacy strips
        the children already existent in our society who are unwanted, as well 
        as the unborn child, of respect and fair treatment, allowing children 
	to be neglected or used as pawns to achieve our own selfish dreams.  
	
    	The emotional stability of the child should be one, if not the only, 
	deciding factor on the 	legalization of surrogacy.   Couples in such a 
	dire need to have a child, that would neglect to try and foresee the 
	future problems of surrogate parenting, prove that their only reasons 
	for wanting a child are self serving.  Therefore surrogate parenting 
	can only lead to a lack of respect for human life in the future. 

	With the overabundant amount of needy children in the world, a couples 
	reasons to have a surrogate child should be analyzed.  Anyone who 
	views television on a regular basis is aware of the amount of children 
	around the world who are suffering from hunger and lack of education.  
	We read newspapers and hear news features about abused and unwanted 
	children, and yet instead of trying to solve these problems, medical 
	technology has given us a way to create even more children.  Is it 
	morally proper for an infertile couple to contract a woman to bear a
 	child for them when they could easily adopt a child from a third world 
	nation?  There are thousands of children available for adoption in war-
	torn countries.  Yet couples who tell society they desperately need a 
	child to become fulfilled as human beings turn their backs on these 
	children who desperately need capable parents for their survival. 
    
	Couples tell society that they want to have a child to love and care 
	for, to contribute a worthwhile person to society, but having   
	a child is more an act of fulfilling ones own wants and desires.
  	Having a baby has nothing to do with giving a child a good life, 
	because if it did, these couples would be more willing to adopt  
	from another race or nationality.  Anna Quindlen states in her 
	article "Life in the 30's", "[We] who decide to have babies feel 
	compelled to . . . justify our 	. . . decision with neat reasons 
	. . . that are most[ly] shams".  She reports that the desire to have 
	a child is based on the needs of the adults involved and not the needs 
	of the children.  Unborn children do not have needs.

	It is obvious to the onlooker of a surrogate situation that the risks of
 	surrogacy far outweigh the benefits. People who are unable to look ahead
 	to the future and anticipate the problems of surrogacy, would seem 
	incapable of having the common sense required to raise a child.  As Ms. 
	Quindlen reports, "[T]hat none of the adults involved seem to 
	be . . . capable of setting aside self interest and seriously consid-
	ering the risks they are assuming . . . is most surprising".  Couples 
	should not be allowed to create a volatile situation, because of their 
	own selfish desires.

	The child's emotional well being seems to be overlooked in surrogate 
	situations, but the child should be the only factor weighed in 
	considering the legality of surrogacy.  Anna Quindlen reports how the 
	courtroom is used as a place for people to fight over the ownership of
	a child, as if the child were a mere piece of property.  The judge 
	had great difficulty in deciding whether or not to award sole or 
	joint custody to any of the surrogate participants.  The question of 
	what is in the best interests of the child becomes unanswerable, and so
 	is the status of the child's long-term mental health.  Baby M was 
	literally embroiled in a media circus, and all the details of her
 	life will await her on microfiche in the town library.  There is no way
 	of telling what type of emotional setbacks Baby M will suffer as a 
	result of her parentage.  Baby M is just one case, but even if she were
 	the only case, as humans, we do not have the right to bring a child 
    	into this world under such inhuman circumstances.

	In another surrogacy case currently being reviewed Tamar Lewins 
	reviews the emotional damage that a child can experience in conjuction 
	with other family problems.  In Ms. Lewin's article, "Convolution of 
	Surrogacy," she writes about Tessa Seymour, a four year old surrogate 
	child whose adoptive parents are divorcing.  Both parents want sole 
	custody, as does the biological mother, and an unrelated couple, 
	from the East Coast, who read about Tessa in a newspaper article.  The 
	custody battled is destined to go on for years, while the judge tries 
	to sort through any laws already in existence, that might have an 
	effect on the case.  It is a proven fact that children whose parents 
	divorce suffer emotionally.  It becomes impossible then, to even begin 
	to estimate the extent of the emotional trauma that Tessa is being 
	subjected to, because of the lack of foresight and responsibility on 
	the part of the adults.

	Not only will surrogacy create emotionally imbalanced children, but it 
	decreases the value of human life.  It becomes that much easier for the 
	childless couples and society to turn their backs on the unwanted 
	children of today by creating another biological alternative to 
	adoption. 
	
    	Surrogacy is a solution to a non-existent problem created by people who 
	consider their own selfish desires to be true needs that must be met. 
	It introduces emotionally unstable children to an already over populated
 	world, and creates an atmosphere where human life becomes less valuable.
       ====================================================================
    

    re .0:
    
    My cousin is in a longstanding lesbian relationship.  She and her SO
    have each adopted a child and the four of them live as a family unit.
    It works well for them.  
    
    Any idea why this option has been discarded?
    
    regards,
    Marge

    I think there are several positive aspects to this situation.  
    
    But first let me say that I commend the author for .0 in asking for our
    input.  He obviously does not have a 'gut' reaction and wishes to
    explore the possible impact a decision he might make on his family.
    
    Adoption is a difficult option for a lesbian couple and although they
    might be willing to consider it, in all probability they would be
    turned down.
    
    To me the major consideration would be the legal and financial
    obligations.  It is entirely possible that there are ways this can be
    handled so that there isn't any legal responsibility.  
    
    The couple has been together for ten years, there seems to be some
    stability in their relationship.  Children thrive in stable, loving
    environments.  
    
    The real question is do you want to be involved.  Being an uncle
    implies a close, family relationship that would probably be extended in
    the event of some tragedy.
    
    My grandchildren have a multitude of cousins and the experience is very
    positive for them.  Their paternal grandmother raised two of her
    siblings children and her children consider these actuals cousins as
    brother and sister.
    
    I think this situation has the potential of creating an extended family
    for your children.  
    
    It is my opinion that if you can find ways that it could add value to
    your family you might be comfortable with the donation.  But I do think
    that it is a mutual decision between you and your wife.

I've been asked to think about it twice, it's a tough decison.
.3 had a lot of good points.

	Have you thought about what this child would mean to you? If it
	would mean a lot, would you want to be involved in any way in
	raising it? Are you SURE? Do the parent(s) want you to be involved?
	Are you willing to go along with their wishes? Are you SURE?

	What does your wife think? Does it matter to you? Does it matter to
	them? Does she have any say? What will you tell your children (if
	anything)? How will you feel about this child if you break up with
	your wife? If your wife and all of your children are killed?

	Why do the parents think it is important to know the biological
	father? Are you the only "candidate"? If not would they/you be willing
	to put up with the ambiguity of mixing all of the donors's 
	"contributions"?

	You're in a tough situation... (yeah, you already knew THAT) it would
	be very easy to say "no". It will be extremely hard, now and forever,
	to say "yes". Are you up to it? It would make a couple very happy (I
	hope).

Both times I've been asked, I've been extremely flattered. After all, what
greater compliment could you give a person? 

What did *I* do? None of your business. (Practice that phrase...)

	-- Charles

    re .6
    
    Sorry, but that is an extremely biased article - so one sided as to be
    fairly useless. I've been involved with two foster children and
    everything written in .6 about surrogate children can also be said
    about children who are available for adoption. Many, many of the
    children "already available" have been abused emotionally, physically
    or both. The older the child the more work and less certainty that
    you as a new parent can influence the child's life and values. A
    surrogate child may provide some physical risks but the emotional
    makeup is a fact of the parental upbringing - not unknown abusive
    influences.
    
    By the way - I'm not necessarily advocating surrogacy. I am trying to
    provide some balance in what I perceive to be a onesided discussion. 
    
    Dj

    re .6 again
    
    I just reread the .6 article. It seems to address a rather different
    situation in which a baby is handed from the biological mother to
    another person who agrees to serve as the mother. The case being
    discussed in .0 is one in which the biological mother retains the
    child. A totally different situation from that in .6.
    
    Dj

       To add $.02 more;

            If you assume that the relationship between the two women is
       as stable and has the same stresses as your own marriage, and
       that you will tell your present children the truth about their
       other sibling, it sounds "do-able" to me.  There are still,
       however, some serious stress issues that will probably arise over
       the years. 

           If you are the "almost a father" is your wife "almost a
       stepmother"?  Assuming your wife is your friend and confidant,
       how will her opinion effect the other household?  Will she accept
       that?
       
           When you have to choose between going to one child's event
       (baseball game, play, school open house) over another child's
       event, how will you handle it?  How will the other couple handle
       it? 

           If/when there is serious financial stress on the other family
       (loss of a job, server illness) will you help?  If so, how
       much?  At what cost to your current family?

           How close (non-romantic) a relationship do you think you
       will develop between you and the specific woman who bears the
       child?  How will this effect your wife and thus your marriage?

       Personally, I couldn't bring myself to take the risk, but, if you
       can work your way through these and all the other questions, it
       does seem possible.  Good luck with your decision and it's
       consequences either way.

       Richard

         I'm curious to know why the lesbian couple wishes to be able
         to tell the child who the donor was.  In most lesbian
         relationships I've seen where the couple decided to have a
         child, they wished the child to be "theirs."  Artificial
         insemination from a sperm bank/anonymous donor gives the
         couple just that.....their child, without having the extra
         ties of another "parent".  I'm curious to know why they wish
         the child to be other than only theirs.   Especially with
         someone that is not a very close friend (from what you imply,
         this is a cousin of a friend, not a good friend of yours.)

         I find it wonderful that they wish to have a child, but I do
         find the possible ramifications on you, even though it is a
         rather "clinical" relationship to you, to be rather high.

	 As with adoption, artificial insemination simply means that
	 the child has different biological parent(s), but isn't the
	 love of the child what is so very important?  Does the source
	 of the sperm really "mean" anything?

	 In your case, yes...it does have a lot of ramifications on
	 you, because, unfortunately you might be found liable at a
	 later time simply because of the biological connection.

	 Would you love the child simply because he/she was conceived
	 from your sperm?  Or would the fact that the child would be
	 in your life (somewhat) be the reason that you felt for the
	 child?

	 I find it odd, that's all, that the lesbian parents would
	 want to bring another "parent" into it.

         If I was a male (which I'm not :-) ) I would not donate
         because I would not want to (have to/want to) feel an
         emotional/biological attachment to a child that already had
         two loving parents.  To me...its the love you give a child
         that makes you it's parents and it your child--regardless of
         where/who the child comes from...and I feel that having
         another third party in there would detract and confuse the
         child.  After all his/her parents would be the lesbian
         couple...not you.

	 kath

    	RE:  .14  Herb
    
    	> I have a great deal of trouble thinking of *anything* more demeaning
    	> and contempuous of the opposite sex than 2 lesbians using a man as a
    	> *known* donor -except perhaps two gays using a woman as an incubator.
    
    	Herb, I'm having a great deal of trouble trying to imagine how or
    	why you would consider a request for help in bringing a life into
    	the world as being either demeaning *or* contemptuous of the opposite
    	sex.
    
    	The two women aren't asking for support or for fulltime involvement
    	from the prospective father - they simply want to bring a precious
    	life into the world that they can love and raise together.
    
    	Why would you want to assume the worst possible motives for the
    	way that these two women have chosen to solve the problem of not
    	being able to conceive a child without some kind of assistance?

Herb,

I'm honestly confused by your statement. What is demeaning about it? I assume
that these two people wouldn't ask me unless we were very good friends. There
would be no issue of "use me as a stud" these are my FRIENDS. They would be 
asking me a very big favor, but I'm allowed to say no. There is no "usage"
involved.

Is the problem that you would know you were the father but would not be allowed
a significant role in raising the child? That would be hard for me too. Is the
problem that these people are in effect saying "we can raise your child better
than you can"? I can see how you might feel that way, but I don't see it that
way at all. 

It seems to me that you believe that men (and you in particular) have 
a proprietary interest in their sperm, or perhaps their genes. That by
virtue of providing the sperm, they have an inherent responsibility/right
around the child produced from the sperm. Is that part of the issue for you?
It seems to me in many, or most, cases this is true, but that there are some
cases (anonymous sperm donation) that it is not. The particular case at hand
seems part of the "gray area" in between, and things are not nearly so clear
cut.

I assume from your note(s) that you have problems with surrogacy as well?

	Anyway; I don't understand your point, would you elaborate?
	-- Charles

    Its funny, but when *I* look at what is being asked, i.e. the couple is
    asking for the man's partial involvement, it seems like a very positive
    and innovative thing.
    
    In womannotes, there is a LOT of discussion about adoption, and what
    its like to give birth to a child that you can never see again. I think
    about the men in the service who have fathered children overseas but
    don't stay long enough to know their children, some men don't even know
    they have children. And I think of the men who father children who get
    put up for adoption, and I wonder if those men end up doing a huge
    "block-out" job on their brains.
    
    I think there is a great deal of value in permitting the biological
    father to know what is happening to his off-spring. I find it
    incredibly similar to the "open adoptions" that are happening today in
    which a birth mother gets regular pictures of the child, and sometimes
    is invited to get to know the child as an aunt.
    
    There are differences, certainly, between carrying a child for 9 months
    and then relinquishing it, and releasing sperm which creates a child.
    But I think the couple is giving the donor the benefit of the doubt;
    and is creating an environment where he can participate up-front, so
    that he never has to wonder.
    
    Yes, a lot of people have come up with the negative flip side. But I
    find it hard to believe that if adoptive parents become financially
    hurt that they agency goes looking for the birth mother. Or the father
    for that matter... the fact is, if the name of the father is NEVER on
    the birth certificate, its not a very likely scenario. And in the case
    of artificial insemination, that's probably fairly easy to do.
    
    Yes, there are a LOT of things to think about. But right now, it looks
    like its potentially a very positive thing, if that's what you choose
    to do.
    
    And as for surrogate parenting... I have to laugh when I read that
    note. Because there's not necessarily a big difference between a couple
    that CAN conceive and doesn't adopt vs one that CANNOT conceive and
    doesn't adopt. Both can "selfishly" want a child with biological ties.
    Being able to physically conceive a child does not guarantee any
    greatness of character, or any other parenting ability. 
    
    The only conclusion I can come up with from that article is that ANYONE
    who doesn't adopt a child is selfish. I can't lay all the blame on
    those who cannot conceive a child.

    Hi all,
    
    This is the base noter again. I've been following this discussion
    avidly, although things in the office have been pretty hectic and
    I haven't had a chance to add a reply.
    
    It's been very helpful to my decision process to read everyone's
    thoughts on this, and I'm certainly pleased to have sparked off
    such a lively debate. This issue is obviously a very personal one,
    and personal feelings and opinions are what will ultimately make
    the decision.
    
    I can say a couple of things about my own feelings. I *don't* believe
    that adoption is the only moral route for couples who are unable
    to conceive on their own. If a woman is able to conceive and bear
    a child, then I think artificial insemination is a good way to proceed
    if a fertile male partner is not in the picture. As one who's been
    there (twice) I can say that helping/bringing a child into the world 
    is an amazing experience and really affects the way one views the new 
    child. 
    
    I certainly don't feel used by these women. They have asked my help
    in a very respectful manner, offering whatever degree of involvement
    *I* want in the process. My main concerns, as I said in the base
    note, are what my feelings are going to be towards the child and
    how it will affect *my* family. The legal issues can be resolved,
    I'm sure, artificial insemination has been around for a while.
    Although I would certainly involve a lawyer if I decide to proceed.
    
    After much thought and discussion with my wife, we have decided
    to at least meet the women. If we go ahead, we would want no formal
    relationship with them or their child after the 'donation' (although
    we wouldn't try to *avoid* contact). This would be *their* child
    and we would want it laid out in the contract that both sides give
    up any legal claim on the other. It turns out that their main legal
    concern is the donor trying to gain legal custody of the child at
    a later date!
    
    For those who wondered why they want a known donor: they plan to
    be up front with the child about how the child was conceived. This
    means telling the child that a man gave his 'seed' so that they
    could have a baby. They would like to be able to tell the child,
    when the child is older and if the child is interested, who the
    donor was. I can understand their reasoning, and my only caveat
    (again assuming that I go ahead) would be that there be an age limit
    below which they would not give that information. I feel that given
    at least fifteen years of lead time, my kids would be old enough
    to understand what the situation was and understand my involvement
    and why I had done it.
    
    SO... although I still haven't decided, my decision has certainly
    been helped by everyone's opinions. I'm sorry to say that I probably
    won't post my final decision, after all this is a very private matter.
    But I'd like to thank everyone for their help and concern.

Thanks again,
     - Mark

Re: .19

>    There are differences, certainly, between carrying a child for 9 months
>    and then relinquishing it, and releasing sperm which creates a child.

I read this as implying that the father must, by biological necessity, have
less of an "interest" in his child than the mother.  I hope I'm reading this
wrong because I don't believe it and don't like the implication.

Why should a father have one iota less commitment and involvement and concern
for his child than the mother?  The common attitude that men's involvement
is simply "releasing sperm" is dehumanizing.


I consider the topic under discussion a complex one, not given to pat
answers.  A friend asked me, in connection with this note, if I would ever
agree to be a surrogate father.  And I truthfully answered "I don't know".
It would depend on so many variables I couldn't even begin to list them.

But I do know that anyone who chooses to create a loved and wanted child
ought not to be scorned.

				Steve

    > <Is the problem that you would know you were the father but would not be
    > <allowed a significant role in raising the child?

    > Yes. And that is what is demeaning. "I want to use your sperm to create
    > your child. You will know who the child is but have VERY limited/no role
    > in being the on-going parent of that child."  I *am* a father, and could
    > not cope with such an "arrangement".

    Right. I think I've got that part now. Thanks. I have absolutely no
    problem with anyone who says "hey, this is too much for me, I can't handle
    that". This is an intensely personal issue, I think we both agree. I have
    a problem with the "my sperm = my child", but we don't have to discuss
    that here or now.

    > Further than that, I am "editorializing" that no one else can/should
    > either.

    This is something I don't understand. It seems to me that you're saying "I
    won't, and you shouldn't." "I won't" - fine, no problem.  "You shouldn't"
    - why not?

    > <But I'm allowed to say no. There is no "usage" involved.>

    > If one says "no" the attempt at usage was unsuccessful.

    Mumble. Semantics. I think of "using" as something sneaky and underhanded.
    Perhaps you don't. I think that because you feel that what is being asked
    is inherently bad that any "asking" constitutes an attempt to "use". Since
    I don't think that what is being asked is bad, I don't feel used.

    > <I assume that these two people wouldn't ask me unless we were very good
    > <friends.

    > This would be an egregious abuse of my "friendship".

    I think this disconnect is the same as the one above. Given that you feel
    that what's being asked is fundamentally bad, I can see why you feel that
    way. I don't feel that way though.

    > <The particular case at hand seems part of the "gray area" in between,
    > <and things are not nearly so clear cut.

    > To me, there is *nothing* gray to me about *CHOOSING* to father a child,
    > know who that child is, but not be able to be the parent of that child.
    > My opinion about that is at least partially based on the fact that I am
    > both a father and a parent.

    Right. It is part of the gray area for me. Shall we agree to disagree or
    would you like to understand my viewpoint?

    > I am stating how I would react to such a proposal, 

    Good! Great! Thanks. [What's the opposite of a smiley face? I'm really
    serious here.]

    > I am also stating my opinion of people who would consider such a
    > proposal.

    Hmm. What IS your opinion of people who would consider such a proposal? I
    haven't really figured it out.

	-- Charles

    Steve, you're reading implications that simply aren't there. There is a
    big difference physically between donating sperm to impregnate a woman
    and carrying a child to term. Period. The difference is as big or small
    as the difference between being male and being female.
    
    I'll point out some major differences... a sperm donor doesn't have to
    wear big clothes for a few months.  A sperm donor will probably not
    experience morning sickness. A sperm donor will not experience labor
    pains. A sperm donor will not always know WHEN the child is conceived
    or being carried to term, or if his sperm is used. Trust me, its hard
    not to be able to tell when you're pregnant. Funny things change in the
    body.
    
    I don't know where you got the idea that these differences imply
    greater or less INTEREST. They're simply differences.
    
    I am greatly disturbed that you read something so negative in what I
    wrote, especially when I was trying to point out that it seemed that
    everything was being done to respect the potential for the sperm donor
    to have exactly the same feelings/interest that birth mothers have been
    known to have.
    
    Bottom line: you read it wrong.

>    <What IS your opinion of people who would consider such a proposal>
    



	 Probably about the same as my opinion of someone that decides
	 to buy a Grand Prix instead of a Beretta.

	 What's the difference?

	 :-)

	 kath