rights of a sperm donor to lesbian couple

bunny999

OP -you could try www.stonewall.org.uk - info bank

foreign_correspondent

Presuming you have no concerns about the father/sperm donor being an unsafe person for the child to be with - why not allow contact?

I have never known a child to be harmed by too many people caring about it and loving it...

...However, I work with plenty of children and young people who are very deeply damaged because they feel let down, rejected or abandoned by absent or unknown parents. This can have a very profound impact on a childs self worth.

Barcode

Steph998 wrote: »

Having a baby is a completely selfish thing for any person to contemplate - we have babies for 'us', not for the child that will result. But to have a baby when your chosen relationship does not allow it for purely biological reasons - ie. you are both female, is even more selfish.

I would say the same about infertile couples who resort to IVF, after all, they are biologically prevented from conceiving in the usual way. Whilst I agree with the rest of your post that the O.P appears to have displayed an alarming lack of forethought, the O.P's sexuality is irrelevant.

That said, perhaps the O.P should consider whether the reason for not wanting contact with the biological father stems from her reasons, or whether that is genuinely best for the child. Unless the father is unstable in some way, then what would be the huge problem? It is a normal thing to want to know your origins, and your child may well resent you for not being forthcoming later on.

Steph998

Barcode wrote: »

I would say the same about infertile couples who resort to IVF, after all, they are biologically prevented from conceiving in the usual way. Whilst I agree with the rest of your post that the O.P appears to have displayed an alarming lack of forethought, the O.P's sexuality is irrelevant.

.

How can it be irrelevant? How can two females ever make a baby naturally...its impossible. Lesbians are biologically prevented from conceiving in the 'usual' way because apart from the lack of natural equipment, neither of them produces sperm. Infertile couple are biologically prevented from conceiving in the 'usual' way because one or both of them is infertile.

Infertile couples are exactly that. Infertile. Made incapable though infertility...not lack of the two halves of the jigsaw.

superstylin

Steph998 wrote: »

How can it be irrelevant? How can two females ever make a baby naturally...its impossible. Lesbians are biologically prevented from conceiving in the 'usual' way because apart from the lack of natural equipment, neither of them produces sperm. Infertile couple are biologically prevented from conceiving in the 'usual' way because one or both of them is infertile.

Infertile couples are exactly that. Infertile. Made incapable though infertility...not lack of the two halves of the jigsaw.

It is irrelevant because the OP did not ask if we thought that two females having a baby was right or not.

Barcode

It's irrelevant because:

(a) The issue is over whether the child should have contact with his biological father. That is not an issue exclusive to gay-couples. There are numerous situations when the question of whether this is the right thing to do can occur.

(b) Infertile couples are biologically prevented from conceiving. It does not matter that they are hetrosexual, the end result is the same.

I do think the O.P exhibits a degree of selfishness, but not because of her sexuality. But because she is depriving her child of what is a basic right, namely, to know where he has come from. And again, that is unrelated to sexuality.

If you think the O.P forfeits her right to be a parent in virtue of her sexuality, then it's plain inconsistent-fuzzy thinking to think that others prevented from biologically conceiving don't forfeit their rights. There is no point in turning this into a sexuality debate: that's a secondary issue, the primary concerns what is apparently best for the O.P's child.

Steph998

I had no intention of turning it into a sexuality debate. But their sexuality is not an irrelevent fact IMO, and on that point we will have to disagree. The OP mentions they are lesbians it in the title of her thread, so she obviously thinks it is relevant.

Vomityspice

It relevant as it pertains to the facts of the situation. i.e. how two women came to have a baby......

However, the inference (implied) is that lesbians won't be good parents? There is no evidence so suggest that this is the case.

The fact that they don't seem to have thought it out as to what would be best for the child is the bit that concerns me. The fact that they are lesbian is in now way a reflection on their ability to parent appropriately.

I can't see why the biological father wanting contact is such a bad thing? He was good enough for them to donate sperm to...... Three loving parents is better than two? The child doesn't have a finite capacity to love? There is enough to go around.

elainew

Barcode wrote: »

I would say the same about infertile couples who resort to IVF, after all, they are biologically prevented from conceiving in the usual way

What a load of balony!!! So people who can't conceive should just grin and bare it--I take it you have children as only someone who doesnt know the pain of infertility could talk such crap !!

Barcode

elainew wrote: »

What a load of balony!!! So people who can't conceive should just grin and bare it--I take it you have children as only someone who doesnt know the pain of infertility could talk such crap !!

Re-read, and in the process, try to acquire some basic reading comprehension skills.

It was pointed out that gay people should, as you put it, "grin and b[a]ear" it since that is their biological predicament. I responded that infertile couples are in the same situation, i.e., they must resort to alternative methods such as IVF.

That has no bearing on what *I* think: it's pointing out that if you accept one premise, you had better accept certain other situations that have the same consequences.