Apparently, “men” can now have babies, but no one has bothered asking how the children involved might feel about that. Last week, The Oprah Winfrey Show featured the world’s “first pregnant man,” Thomas Beatie of Bend, Ore. Over the course of the ludicrous interview, we learned that “he” is actually a woman who has undergone transgender hormone treatments but still has a uterus. Beatie required artificial insemination by an anonymous sperm donor to become pregnant.
I began to wonder why the couple elected to inseminate Beatie, rather than his female partner — which would have been safer and easier, since he will need a C-section and cannot breastfeed. But I also suspected the couple had a self-serving motive, such as calling attention to themselves and/or making a social statement. As my 14-year-old sister — who normally pays about as much attention to social issues as the characters from Laguna Beach — wrote to me, “It sounds like some whack jobs just want to become famous.”
Lest anyone accuse me of being anti-gay, my complaint isn’t that two women will be raising a child. Some Post readers might remember a column I wrote two years ago, opposing an Ohio bill that would bar gays from adopting children. I still hold that position today. I have great respect for people who rescue a child from foster care or a foreign orphanage, no matter what their gender pairing.
But I do have a problem with people bearing the children of anonymous sperm donors — often for selfish reasons, and with no consideration of the consequences for the child.
First, anonymous sperm donation is just that: The child can never find out who his or her father is, much less have a relationship with him. It’s one thing for an adopted child — who was most likely separated from his parents because of their poverty, young age or negligence — to struggle with not knowing his biological parents. It’s quite another for a mother to intentionally create that situation just because she doesn’t want her important life to be interrupted by visitation and custody agreements.
Gay couples certainly aren’t the only guilty ones. Two months ago, Cosmopolitan published an appalling story titled “I Suddenly Had Baby Panic,” written by a single 30-something woman who developed an impulsive desire to have a baby. She might have sought a father her son could have a relationship with, but didn’t want to be burdened by “awkwardness and custody battles.” She shamelessly admitted that she “shopped” for her child’s genes the way she would for shoes or a new car: “It’s a cross between online shopping and online dating.” If anyone inquires about her son’s father, she plans to tell them that “he doesn’t have a dad; I had him on my own.”
Except she didn’t. Like everyone else on the planet, her child has a father — he’ll just never know him, since the bio-dad signed anonymity agreements to ensure that his son never comes around to bother him. How do you suppose the child will feel when he realizes his father’s only motivation for creating him was money? That he was probably short on cash and had bills to pay, so he masturbated into a specimen cup? What might he think when he realizes the sperm donor might have fathered dozens of half-siblings, none of whom he will ever meet? And how will he feel about the fact that his mother planned it this way?
It doesn’t matter; Mom is too busy thinking about what she wants to even consider her son’s needs.
Ideally, when people decide to have a child, it’s because they’ve decided to put aside their selfish desires and devote their lives to caring for someone else. They believe that children have a right to a relationship with both biological parents — and if this arrangement isn’t possible, the couple should adopt a child who needs a home.
But they shouldn’t use childbearing as a self-esteem-boosting exercise. They shouldn’t conceive just because they’re bored with life and feeling unfulfilled, and think a baby will fill that void. They shouldn’t conceive just to prove a point about the role of gay or transgendered people in society.
The acceptance of anonymous sperm donation speaks to the current childbearing generation’s self-absorption and sense of entitlement. They think that if they want a biological child, they deserve to get one — even if they have to purposely deprive him of a relationship with his own father. Even if it means a homeless child is getting the shaft so that the sperm-donor parents can have their custom-made, genetically desirable offspring. They’d rather “shop” for a baby with good genes than consider adopting one of the millions of needy children who are already here.
Contrary to popular perception, single parents and gays can adopt in almost every state (though many require gays to adopt as individuals, not as couples). If a person or couple can’t conceive naturally, why don’t they consider this very selfless option? Or, at the very least, can’t they seriously contemplate what being conceived from an anonymous father might mean to the child?
Unfortunately, the definition of “child welfare” has become “whatever the adults want.”Ashley Herzog is a senior journalism major. Send her an e-mail at ah103304@ohiou.edu.
Reader Comments
you must have known i would respond to this, and i'd like to point out that The Post headlines suck.
That being said, i thought this column would go in a very different direction and talk about Thomas Beatie and "his" selfish and very disgusting decision to bear a child(even as a lesbian woman((with knowledge and acceptance of the transgendered community)) i find this extremely revolting and can't honestly understand what was going through his mind when he decided to have a child)
But.
I was pleasantly and unpleasantly surprised by where you took it. I one day want to have a child of my own too. While the idea of adoption is always there, the gift of being able to bear children is something that God blessed women with, i don't think that gift should have to be taken back just because i don't want to have a relationship with man.
I understand the idea about a child not having a father, but i think what is more imporant is not having a father figure or role model. Millions of children grow up without ever knowing their real father but are surrounded by men who embody or take on that role; they live full lives and aren't cheated out of anything(however that is an assumption, i can't be completely sure) I don't believe that picking and choosing sperm as if you were shopping is really the ideal way, but rather picking a sperm donor who has the same interests, and qualaties you are attracted to(that way it would kinda be like marriage((far fetched i know)))
I'm not sure if i think it's selfish for lesbian couples to want to be able to carry their own children. I think until we find a way that women are able to get pregnant on their own, there is really no reason that they shouldn't be able to use an anonoymous sperm.
Basically, as long as that child has loving parents and positive role models in its life (both male and female) i believe that the child will lack for nothing. It's those who have neither of these role models who search the world for something more.
Well, it's something to think about. Another option is to have a sperm donor of your choice, who has a relationship to you (like a close male friend), who can be in the baby's life but not have a romantic thing with you. I've heard of lesbian couples doing that...wasn't Willie Nelson a sperm donor for some famous couple?
Thomas Beatie's wife had a hysterectomy to treat her endometriosis, which is a pretty good reason to have Thomas carry the child.
Sorry for my error. Maybe my suspicions about them just wanting attention are false--although they do seem pretty eager to get on every talk show and magazine cover out there.
Another point I wish I had made in this column: Why are we not horrified at the revival of the notion of creating people with "superior" genes? That's exactly what sperm donation is turning into, since there are sperm banks that promise the mothers "genius babies" and "future Nobel Prize winners." (http://www.slate.com/id/100331/)
This was known in early twentieth-century America as "eugenics"--or "applied biology" in Nazi Germany, where the idea was wildly popular. (By the way, for you self-righteous philosophy majors who walk around with Darwin fish buttons on your bags, the Nazis based their view of the value of human life on Darwin's "survival of the fittest" theory.) Some liberals love to compare everything that conservatives and Christians do to something the Nazis did; where are they on this issue? Just because members of some allegedly oppressed group (gays, women) are engaging in it doesn't make it right.
It's one thing if the mother takes a gamble on random sperm and accepts what they get. But that is not what happens. They "shop" for the "right" genes, like the Cosmo heroine did.
And which sperm donors do you suppose they're choosing? The black man who grew up in a poor neighborhood and couldn't afford college, so he can't prove his genius to the mothers? The guy who has a great personality as well as learning disabilities, so he has trouble holding a job? A Mexican immigrant? No. Most of them want the sperm of what feminists and sociology-major types love to call "the ruling class": the rich, successful, flawless white males.
Naturally, I got several e-mails this morning with the typical self-centered viewpoint: "Who are you to tell people what to do?" The average 18-to-30-year-old is so brainwashed by the "do whatever makes you happy" mentality, they don't even think about ethics or values.
God forbid this trend becomes even more acceptable. The "imperfect" children who are eligible for adoption will have even less of a chance of finding a home than they already do.
I think the overall point in this column is that you again made a blatant statement without backing it up. You reference the Oprah interview, but you obviously didn't watch it because the reason Thomas was having the baby was the first question she asked them.
You're also implying in your above comment that one can create a genius baby through breeding but there have been no conclusive studies done to show there is a direct relation between intellect and DNA. Does Scripps not require psych 101 for journalism majors or did you just not go to any of the classes because you were "off to booze," as I believe you put it in another comment a few days ago.
And do you really think that when someone chooses an anonymous sperm donor they get their entire socioeconomic background? Stop taking your "facts" from sitcoms.
Your past three or four columns had been well written Ashley, but this is like you wrote is an hour before deadline and took even less time than usual to check anything you wrote.
Yes, sperm banks that specialize in "genius babies" or other such eugenicist garbage always brag about how rich and successful the donors are (go to the Web sites). It doesn't matter if there's a genetic link or if the men are actually geniuses (a lot of sperm banks are dishonest), but the mothers are still shopping for children with "superior genes." Why is this acceptable?
Oh, and you're wrong about there being no relationship between DNA and intellect, at least if you're going to use Psych 101 as a reference point. My psych 101 professor told us that adopted children usually have IQs closer to their biological parents' than to the adoptive parents'.
I know it's probably hard to imagine in your perfect daddy's girl world that even children who have fathers in their lives don't necessarily have a relationship with them, or if they do that it's an all together wholly positive one. But of course, that's your thing, spouting blatant, and often ridiculous, opinions on things that you know nothing about or could even fathom in your own life.
I do find it surprising that you tear anonymous sperm donors as well as those who use them apart, but completely ignore women who donate their eggs, often based on a certain profile, with a much larger monetary compensation and often no intention of being in the child's life. But apparently, its only the father figure that counts in this story...he's the one who hands out his credit cards, right?
A woman's right to bear a child is just that, her right. For better or worse, Beatie's child will be raised with a father and a mother figure, regardless of the fact that his mother was once a woman.
That still can't be considered conclusive data one way or the other because one has to take into account what kind of IQ test is being used, the education afforded to the student in relation to the biological parents and adoptive parents and the age of the child in question. There are so many extraneous factors there.
Personally I agree with the theory that intelligence and genetics are related, but the nature/nurture debate rages on and one can't claim one over the other definitively. We're not talking about the evolution debate here.
As for the sperm banks, yes, you're right they do promote the misbelief that simply having smart parents makes you smart. They're wrong for doing it because they're misleading their clients, but at the same time, mothers aren't wrong for looking to have a smarter child.
When we select a mate to have a child with we look at their physical characteristic and intellect as part of our selection. It's an evolutionary trait we've developed so that our children can succeed in the modern world. Even though a woman may not be "mating" with the man, she has every right to want the genes she would get if she were able to attract the mate who's gene's she choses.
What I'm trying to basically lay out is that just because these women are saying they want to have smart babies, they aren't doing anything different from anyone else because the bottom line is that we all want to have the smartest babies we can possibly have. There's no ethical breech here, not until someone is going GATTACA on the baby's DNA and removing defects before insemination.
Nice column, Ashley
I feel bad for the kid who will be the product of these disgusting people. What kind of nutcases decided that the "man" with ovaries should have the kid? Ewwwwwwwwww. When I first heard this story on CNN, all I could think about is the poor child that will never understand why his daddy is actually his mommy. Imagine him trying to explain it to his friends in elementary school...thats if he has any. No parents are going to want to have to explain to their seven year old why his or her friend's daddy is really his mommy. What are these people thinking? It is a horrible fact of life that some women are sterile. But its not time to go inseminate the husband. This sounds like something out of a horrible sci-fi movie. Whats next? Impregnate the dog cuz the husband doesn't have ovaries? Sounds outrageous, but so is this.
As for the whole sperm donor thing: I know many people who do not know their dads for all sorts of different reasons. But, why would any women (or any man who donates for that matter) perpetuate this epidemic by choosing from square one to have an absentee father? Now, your child is a statistic because you're selfish? Of all the mother and fatherless kids in this country you want to go add to the list out of pure selfishness? I can't imagine anyone who grew up without a father, thinking fatherlessness is no big deal. I guess the bottom line is, stories like these give new meaning to the phrase: "This country is going to hell in a handbasket."
Alissa
Given the rabid outcry in the media against fathers for not "being real men" and sticking with their kids, this sperm donor avenue doesn't exactly offer much encouragement does it?
Personally, I'm far too Obsessive-Compulsive to not know whether I might have had any children with strangers...
Alissa, did you read anything about the story or watch it on Oprah? The "daddy" is actually a woman. She has eggs, ovaries, and a vagina. She just looks, thinks, and acts like a man. What's so hard to comprehend about that? Why does it "sound like something out of a horrible sci-fi movie?"
The problems this kid faces in elementary school, if any, will be because of his ignorant peers, not because of his parents. Hopefully, these parents will raise a mentally and emotionally strong child that is able to deal with his closed-minded classmates (and, most likely, their parents).
Yeah, maybe these people are selling their story to the media. But they want to give a baby love, and that's the most important thing about this story. Why can't two adults choose to have a baby - when they are physically enabled to do so - because they want to have, and love, a child? How in the world is this selfish?
And as for the single parent issue: have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, one single parent who wants a child badly enough to be willing to raise it on his/her own, will be able to give it more than the love of two parents combined?
There are children born to terrible, undeserving people - men AND women - in this country every day. People that beat, starve, molest, and abuse their children. THIS is a real problem in America. Two loving parents choosing to have a baby isn't.
Lol @ mmakebeliever for commenting on my "perfect" life--which, of course, you know nothing about--unless you're a stalker. (I wouldn't doubt it.)
This is the last comment I'm going to post on this column, because I think this sums up the point I made about what happens when the parents think only about themselves, no matter how "loving" they are. I got this e-mail from the adult child of a sperm donor who obviously doesn't think his situation was so great:
"As a donor conceived person (and a parent myself) I couldn't agree more. It was a fantastic article and I commend you for your stance, **which is exactly how many of the adult dononr conceived community feel**." (emphasis added)
Enough said.
Final note, to Scripps_Alumna:
"And as for the single parent issue: have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, one single parent who wants a child badly enough to be willing to raise it on his/her own, will be able to give it more than the love of two parents combined?"
No. There is zero evidence for that. Go look up the MANY studies that have shown that children of single mothers are at greater risk for almost every type of emotional and behavioral problem out there than kids raised by both their parents.
While one person may agree with the stance from experience, that is not enough to say you're position in the piece is right. Produce about 2,000 more e-mails and I'll stand by your article Herzog, except the part where you showed a lack of research.
"Sorry for my error. Maybe my suspicions about them just wanting attention are false--although they do seem pretty eager to get on every talk show and magazine cover out there."
I see what you did there! You turned your own error back against them! You're so awesome, Ashley! BFF FOREVER.
Ashley, do the many studies you cite refer to single mothers abandoned by the father - or does it refer to single mothers by choice (i.e. single mothers that choose to use a sperm donor)? I'm really curious to know this. I assume there is a big difference, but I could be wrong.
I'm sorry, "do they" refer to single mothers by choice.
Actually, while my friends and I were sitting in Scripps before class talking about your column someone who happened to go to high school with you confirmed your perfect life.
...please don't flatter yourself into thinking that I would waste my time stalking you.
I went to high school in Texas and am the ONLY graduate from The Woodlands High School at OU right now. Nice try, liar. Internet stalkers (and their bs excuses once caught) never cease to amuse me.
Support for my point keeps rolling in. This donor-conceived woman from Cincinatti posted my column on her blog, "Confessions of a Cryokid." She is determined to find her biological father and is clearly not happy with her parents' actions:
http://cryokidconfessions.blogspot.com/2008/04/other-side-unnamed-sperm-donors-allow.html
Quote from yet another e-mail from someone who actually has personal experience with sperm donation:
"I am just writing to congratulate you on a wonderful article which you wrote regarding donor sperm and the issues donor conceived people are faced with. You put up such good arguement, which is sensible and understanding. I have to wonder if you have had any direct experience with dc or if you are plainly just smart."
Hahahahaha, oh Herzog, you're so cute. I needed a good laugh this morning, thank you so much.
Now that I know you're from Texas, so much has become clear. It's now glaringly apparent that any attempt to open your eyes to the real world is futile. You've had to grow up in the most backward state in the union, no wonder your ideals are so twisted.
1,999 more e-mails and I've got your back... a full week and you have two.... damn
I grew up in Cleveland. And I went to high school in Houston, one of the biggest cities in the U.S. and also one of the most diverse. But I know you're so much more enlightened than me, most likely growing up in Ohio and now attending college in a rural area on one of the whitest campuses in the US. Congratulations, I'm sure you've seen it all.
Way to set a completely arbitrary number of 2,000--as if I would ever get that many e-mails about one column. Also, check the "cryokids" blog I posted and read some of the links to support groups and articles. If that's any indication, the sperm donor offspring are NOT on your side.
http://childrenhaverights-saynotoreprotech.blogspot.com/
http://donatedgeneration.blogspot.com/
I'll keep them coming if you want. If I didn't have actual schoolwork to do, I'd keep this up all day.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1796095.htm
http://whosedaughter.blogspot.com/
I'm sure none of you will actually read these blogs and interviews from donor-conceived people. I also note that no one has responded to my point about sperm donation making it harder for adopted kids to find a home. Your idea of a bulletproof argument is "Your life is perfect" or "omg you're from Texas!!!" Your philosophy TAs would not be impressed.
East coast born and raised Herzog, you're wrong again. I came to OU for the Scripps school you so love to disgrace every time you write a column.
You've spun the discussion from you article, by the way. The article was about the "man" having a child, something I agree with as strange as he/she, whatever still has all their original parts and is merely taking hormone replacement to give the physical appearance of masculinity. My problem fell with your lack of research on the issue.
Your article then switched to women who go to sperm banks to create super babies, something that there is no conclusive scientific evidence to support as possible or unethical given that choosing favorable qualities in a sperm donor is no different than choosing favorable qualities in a mate. If they broke down the make-up of that donors DNA strand and allowed recipients to choose based on that, you've got an ethical breech.
You then went off about how women who have themselves inseminated from random donors are selfish because the child then never knows it's true father. From there you've pulled random facts and stats and testimonies from these supposed e-mails you've received. I guarantee I can find more people in the psychology department that will testify that the quality of life of the child, the upbringing, the quality of the parent and the amount of love the child receives plays much more of a factor in their life than whether or not they were the product or artificial insemination from a random donor.
I created the random number of 2,000 e-mails open your eyes that you have the opinion of one person with one idea. Osama Bin Laden is one person with the idea that America is the worst nation on the face of the planet. That doesn't make him right. Unfortunately, sources never seem to be something you're strong with. You need more than a few people with bias opinions to back up your claims. Get some psychologists with knowledge of the field and an overwhelming number of people who hate life because they never knew their birth parents and I'll have no problem believing your argument.
I know plenty of people who were adopted and never knew either of their parents. Granted it's a little different from coming from a random donor, you still never know who your father is, and even worse you don't know your mother either. My grandfather was dropped on a doorstep in 1931 and has no idea who his biological parents are, and has never wanted to know and never complained a day about it. I dated a girl in high school who was adopted from Korea when she was an infant and has no idea who her parents are and never complained about it. When you look at the situation from the perspective of the child, you're going to have a bias and varying results. Some people will resent their parents for it and others will appreciate what they have. This is why unbiased scientists are looked to as the authority on issues like this.
If you wanted your article to truly hold water, you'd have actually watched the Oprah interview or maybe read the story in Time or People, whatever it was in and gone to someone in the psych department to back up your claims. That's the difference between an opinion writer and a real journalist. That's also one of the reasons The Post keeps finding itself retracting and correcting stories.
It never ceases to amaze me how people in this country can find ways to justify their selfish behavior. The fact of the matter is that the majority of women who choose artificial insemination are being selfish, whether they choose to recognize it or not. It is true that some kids may never care that they don't know who their father is, but the possibility can be eliminated by not taking part in this practice. Instead, why not adopt a child who has already been brought into this world and now needs a home and someone to love them? True, they may never know their biological parents either but for them a loving home is better than the alternative. Great column Ashley, its good that someone is willing to try to bring balance to The Post!
Nice diversionary tactics. You asked me to provide more firsthand evidence from sperm donor children, saying you would change your mind if you saw enough (although you did demand "2,000 e-mails," a number with no special meaning to anyone but you). So I provided many examples, so now you're demanding I produce "psychologists" who agree with me. Who cares what "psychologists" think? Do they know more about life as a sperm-donor baby than the sperm-donor babies themselves? Read the blogs I posted.
Also, I notice you haven't provided any sources of your own. Link me to some blogs and articles written by donor-conceived children who now advocate the practice. Then, at least you'd have a comparable number of sources for your claims as I do for mine.
I used to be unsure of your gender, but now I'm convinced your a guy, since you're refusing to give up on an argument even after I proved you wrong on the terms you demanded. No hard feelings, though--I'm used to it.
First of Herzog, you're the one who made the claims, you are the one who needs to back them up.
I explained why I used the number already, it was rhetorical if anything, but I am surprised you bothered to find sources.
Psychologists with knowledge of the area can tell you whether person is distraught because the were a donor-baby solely or because of their upbringing. If I never knew my father because I was a donor-baby and my mother was a bitch, I grew up in a shack with no male influence and received little encouragement from my parent(s) then I would be pretty pissed about my situation. I'm not saying that this is why your sources are upset, I'm just saying that more plays into this than just being a donor baby. The quality of life and the relationship with the parents has to be examined and neither you, nor I, nor the person directly involved (as they have a conflict of interest) are qualified to do so. That's why, after further though on the issue, I suggested going to a psychologist. I have no doubt that the people you've provided have a problem with their situation, but it doesn't mean the sheer fact that they are donor-babies is that cause.
I will say had you provided this research in your original article I'd have given you more support. I don't criticize you because of you personally, it's because of how you write. If you had included testimony from people who were donor born and psychologists that back you up then I would never have questioned a word you said other than the Oprah stuff because I saw the interview. I'm trying to get you to sure up your argument so I can't argue you with you. it's how constructive criticism works. We go to the same college, we work at the same paper (shock and awe), I want don't want either to look bad.
Pardon the typo in the last line, I was distracted when writing.
This has devolved into a pissing match.
Haha, you're right. I apologize. Moving on...
Excuse me, my bad, it was junior high. It happened, so if he was lying, I couldn't tell.
...and really, if I was stalking like you've accused me of doing twice, wouldn't I have known that's where you went to high school? Just sayin'
Quiet. We're moving on.
The stalking charge was outlandish, but no more so than your comments about "daddy's credit cards."
Not to reopen the topic extensively, but given what I'm about to say, I just thought I should offer it up.
I relayed this column to my sister, just offering that it was written and the debate that came afterward. Little did I realize, her best friend was a donor child. Her parents told her when she was very young (she has two mothers who chose an anonymous donor to have a child together) and she came to understand fully what it meant as she got older. She doesn't resent either mother and doesn't care who her biological father is.
Now, I'm not saying this is the case for all, but given Ashley provided a source for the negative, I at least have a source for the positive.
Just a thought: http://postcardsfromyomomma.com/post/32963412
Submit a comment to The Post