Mad Cow Rules Hit Sperm Banks' Patrons (desperate quest for Nordic sperms)

“Not at all. She wanted a very specific physical type of child. She didn’t take into account the child’s needs, only her own desires.”

She wanted a father of her own ethnic background. Wow, what Nazi she is, along with what must be 90%+ of marriage individuals who marry someone of similar ethnic background.

What would you recommend, drawing vials of sperm out of a hat containing specimens from men of all major ethnic groups?

“Sorry, but this child would be nothing but a ‘status symbol’, a toy, a trophy to her. “

You are drawing conclusions you could not possibly have sufficient information to make. You have some need to make such a statement. Or do you know this individual personally, and know many personal facts about her?

She wanted a father of her own ethnic background.

She wanted sperm that would give her blonde, blue-eyed kids. . .she didn't want a father for the children, even though kids NEED a father.

What would you recommend, drawing vials of sperm out of a hat containing specimens from men of all major ethnic groups?

I would recommend that single women (or men for that matter) not go around making babies to satisfy their own desires. If she is really all about the kids, let her adopt one or more of the unwanted children in the horrible 'system' that the pro-aborts keep talking about. Oh, that's right. . .she might not be able to find a perfect, brand new baby with blonde hair and blue eyes. She might have to settle for :::gasp::: a child with dark hair.

You are drawing conclusions you could not possibly have sufficient information to make.

I believe the article gives me sufficient information to draw this conclusion. You are free to disagree, of course.

If volunteering to bear a rape child made yesterday's single mother a hero, why does volunteering to conceive from a donor make today's single m other "evil" and "selfish"?

:::sigh::: I explained the difference already. I don't know whether you truly can't see the difference or are just pretending, so I will try again.

The difference is that one woman is being unselfish in choosing to give a child life who was unintentionally conceived. The other is selfishly choosing to purposefully conceive a child knowing she is bringing the child into a situation where one of his/her most basic needs will not be met - having a daddy.

Most conservatives believe that children inherit the physical and mental characteristics of their parents.

Yes, they inherit eye color, hair color, height, perhaps a generic level of intelligence, etc. Children learn how to choose behavior from their parents - it isn't a genetic, driving, uncontrollable force within them that causes them to do things. (That belief that behavior is uncontrollable is decidedly liberal, not conservative).

Even though the woman in today's discussion decided to raise her child alone, she at least exercised free choice in picking a sperm donor representing the characteristics she wanted.

Yes, blonde, blue-eyed little toys.

Because rape denies a woman that opportunity, most rape victims choose not to have a child who may grow up as a "bad seed."

If they truly believe that this will happen, it's only because the ignorant have convinced them (who are equally ignorant) that it will occur.

By the way, they don't have to raise the child. They can give the child up for adoption. Executing one of the innocent parties is not the answer - not even for the woman who was raped.

The difference is that one woman is being unselfish in choosing to give a child life who was unintentionally conceived. The other is selfishly choosing to purposefully conceive a child knowing she is bringing the child into a situation where one of his/her most basic needs will not be met - having a daddy.

We can argue that it's more desirable for a child to be raised by both parents in a conventional marriage than for one parent to be missing, but you can't convince me that intentionally bearing a rape child is less of a risk than that! If you have a normal relationship with a loving family, it's easy to make sure that role models of the "missing" gender are there for your child as he/she grows up.

And I'm not arguing that all a child's intelligence and personality are inherited, only that an inescapable percentage of it is. When we marry in the conventional way, we worry over such things as the possibility that an angry streak in several of our mate's relatives represents something that may carry into your new children. At the same time, we hope that a strain of musical talent we may see in the family is something inheritable. So what, then, are the odds that someone who raped you is not bringing an assortment of ugly problems into your family tree?

We can argue that it's more desirable for a child to be raised by both parents in a conventional marriage than for one parent to be missing, but you can't convince me that intentionally bearing a rape child is less of a risk than that!

Bearing a child is always a risk, but you aren't getting the point. The issue is the morality of the parents. It is immoral to kill a child, and it is immoral to purposefully conceive a child with full intent to raise that child in an environment where one of that child's most basic needs will not be met.

Having talents and tendencies may well be inherited, but what the child does with those talents and tendencies are CHOICES.

Are you proposing we kill all people who are children of criminals so as to avoid some potential criminality on their part in the future? If not, then you are being quite inconsistent to claim we should only kill certain ones.

By the way, you'd better check your own family history. It is very likely you have both heros and villans in your ancestry. And yet, those villians did not produce a line of villans, and the heros did not produce a line of heros.

Behavior is a CHOICE.

Bearing a child is always a risk, but you aren't getting the point. The issue is the morality of the parents. It is immoral to kill a child, and it is immoral to purposefully conceive a child with full intent to raise that child in an environment where one of that child's most basic needs will not be met.

While I maintain that in today's society, raising a single-parent child is much less of a risk than raising a child who has an elevated potential for violence - in particular, a child whose very existence may bring back post-traumatic stress memories to its mother. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Are you proposing we kill all people who are children of criminals so as to avoid some potential criminality on their part in the future?

That's government-imposed eugenics, an entirely different argument. I'm talking about choices made by individual victims, which where possible would be a choice not to conceive in the first place, rather than to abort.

While I maintain that in today's society, raising a single-parent child is much less of a risk than raising a child who has an elevated potential for violence - in particular, a child whose very existence may bring back post-traumatic stress memories to its mother.

You may maintain whatever you like, of course. I've found not one valid study that would support that view.

I do find it interesting that one who claims to be conservative seems to be espousing a completely opposite view from one of the core principles within the conservative philosophy - personal responsibility. After all, if we cannot control our behavior, then the philosophy of personal responsibility would be one built on sand.

I'm talking about choices made by individual victims, which where possible would be a choice not to conceive in the first place, rather than to abort.

You're trying to justify this woman's selfishness by arguing that what she is doing is better than allowing to live a child conceived through rape. Sorry, but that is a very silly argument.

Of course, that's usually what one gets from pro-aborts.