The newest installment of Style Exposed explores the emotional, uncharted and unregulated world of sperm donors and their offspring.
In this provocative documentary, you'll get to know Ben—a man who learns his donation has produced more than 74 children (with more on the way)—and two half-sisters from different parts of the country who are meeting face-to-face for the first time.
Ben also admits that 15-20 of his biological children have made an effort to contact him:
The comments posted in response are especially revealing:
Belinda: "... I now believe there is a reason God designed children to have 2 parents."
ILikeBeingMarried: "Few times in my life have I been shaken up so much by a tv show. Why do we allow sperm donors to father so many kids? ... The whole sperm donor thing outside of marriage is just plain dangerous."
Go Green: "Now that everyone is seeing the importance of going "green", why not take it a step further and ADOPTING! To me it's a little selfish to want a baby so badly that you'd spend so much money for the procedure... risk you and the baby's health by giving birth at the age of 38-45... then risk your children marrying their own siblings because now there are 75 kids who don't know that they are related!"
8 Comments
Children come into this world with an innate and immutable need to connect with their biological parents; a need they carry with them to until the day they die.
Marriage corruption supporters are seeking to rip this innate and immutable need away from children; just so they can experience a superficial sense of acceptance for the choices they made - choices so repulsive that they cannot even bring themselves to acknowledge.
The one thing everyone needs to understand about our tormentors is that they view our humanity as a weakness; our sense of right and wrong as a weakness.
Hypocrisy is a virtue in the world of the same-sex enthusiast.
"Maybe I was dumb?"
That's a mild way of putting it.
Dear Lord, I pray that men see this and take it to heart before they get involved in the baby manufacturing business.
I need to stop there before I throw up.
And this has nothing to do with preventing same-sex marriage or civil unions. Nothing at all. So what's the point?
"No it isn't" and "So what?"
Signed,
The marriage corruption movement
Only marriage between a man and a woman promotes responsible procreation and provides children their right to be raised by both on a daily basis.
The problem is that this is a loophole that some people have found to partake in human trafficking for their financial gain. People who do this type of stuff should be on the hook for child support for all of these children, then they would think twice about their irresponsible behavior.
We must look at technology for what it is. There are good sides to it, and perhaps bad consequences to all new technology. Look at the technology of the atomic bomb. Look how the USA retaliated towards Japan's men, women and children, dropping (not one, but) two bombs onto cities. Why? Because they could. Having a power is, to some, sufficient justification for using that power. But then we learn from the consequences... Using someone's sperm to substitute for another's, and fertilize the human female gamete, without proximity of the individuals, is a new technology. And new technology sometimes brings controversy with it, if it is useful. As in the case of same-sex civil "married" couples, or even unmarried couples, this kind of insemination brings a third party to engender a child. Therefore, laws regulating such a triad's privileges will necessarily be more complex. In the case of commercialization of such technological procedure, there's still another party involved - the corporation. There are legal issues to be resolved for those who can afford it. Adoption and artificial insemination of a third party are the only possible ways for a same-sex couple to "engender" a child they can legally call "their own", though with the genes shared with the third party. By adoption or artificial insemination, same-sex couples override their inherent hybrid nature, as a couple, but not without bringing a third party into the legal equation. If the law allows commercialization of this technology, it must regulate it. If it is regulated by the State, then we all, in a democratic society, are responsible to voice our opinions on the matter, and elect representatives according to our views. Adoption and artificial insemination are political tools same-sex civil marriage advocates use to look similar to natural genetic-related families (but they are not). But there are compassionate applications of this new technology. If the emphasis is on the rights of the children, rather than only on the rights of the progenitors, or the adoptive couple, it has positive applications; but it is much more complex from a legal point of view. How many engendered children are aborted, associated with use of this technology?
Randy, your comment doesn't make sense. Please clarify. Signed, marriage equality advocate. (You see, two can play the game of semantics.)