Posted on 05/21/2006 11:55:33 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
(CBS) CHICAGO It's a trend that some fear may have long-term consequences. More unmarried women over the age of 25 are not waiting for Mr. Right.
As CBS 2's Alita Guillen reports, these ladies are having children on their own.
The fantasy father at their fingertips is a sperm donor with all the right stuff.
Katherine Gehl and April Lashbrook had successful careers and dated, but they didn't have husbands. They heard their biological clocks ticking loudly.
"It was like a time bomb," April said.
"I need to go and have a baby and be a mother, and so I did," Katherine said.
Women used to depend on chemistry in the bedroom to conceive a child. Now, more and more women are turning to the lab and depending more on science than sex.
This twist on the mating game begins at a sperm bank, where donors can earn up to $900 a month.
"These guys are college students. This is a form of income," said California Cryobank Medical Director Dr. Cappy Rothman.
The sperm undergoes testing for diseases, genetic defects and blood type.
"Donor sperm, in many ways, is guaranteed good sperm," said Dr. Lauren Streicher, a gynecologist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital.
When April chose her donor in 2003, she got a long profile including a medical history and even written answers to questions.
"I knew immediately that was who I was going to choose," she said.
Now, many banks offer much more, including childhood photos and the donors' voices on CD.
Once chosen, the sperm remains frozen and stored until needed. Then it can be shipped anywhere.
While women can inseminate themselves at home, both April and Katherine used fertility specialists.
Many of these donors have already proven their fertility.
"It's an excellent way of getting pregnant because you usually have men who have confirmed pregnancy," said Dr. Brian Kaplan, a fertility specialist with Fertility Clinics of Illinois.
"We are creating a real potential disaster here," said Elizabeth Marquardt with New York City's Affiliate Scholar Institute for American Values.
Some critics are concerned that as this practice becomes more popular, and that with an unknown number of children from the same donor, that two of them might unknowingly hook up.
"In the future, we will have to have a DNA test with anyone we want to have sex with just to make sure we're not related to them," Marquardt said.
Many sperm banks say they try to limit pregnancies based on geographic area to reduce that risk. However, in a transient society, it may be hard to do.
Critics also worry how this might change the definition of family.
"As a society, we're saying fathers don't matter," Marquardt said.
Thirteen-year-old Liz Herzog, whose father is donor number 1002 from Virginia's Fairfax Cryobank, says she's happy with her life.
"I can't even say that once in a while I wish I had a father, because I don't," she said.
Through the Donor Sibling Registry Web site, she has discovered at least 10 half-sibling and has met seven, including Callie from Pennsylvania.
Liz's mother, Diana, thinks these newly forged relationships will last a lifetime.
"You can only hope that your child will be well-adjusted and happy enough when they grow up that they won't feel that they're missing too much," Diana Herzog said.
April's daughter, Julia, is now almost three years old.
"When she was born, it was just amazing," April said.
Katherine's daughter, Alexandra, is eight months old.
Both are enjoying every moment motherhood has to offer.
"It is so much greater than I had any idea," Katherine said.
April, Julia's mom, knows of six half-siblings so far.
All of the single moms we spoke with think the possibility of meeting and dating a half-sibling is very remote because they are very open or plan to be open with their children.
It is interesting to note that back when sperm banks first opened in the 1970s, it was all married couples seeking sperm donors. Doctors say those couples were more likely to keep it secret.
No, what never ceases to amaze me is how raising kids with a mother and a father is somehow narrow-minded and bigoted.
I fail to see any modicum of reason in your thinking...
If a woman really wants a child and doesn't want a husband, she shouldn't have a child.
Since when is "I want it really bad!" a good reason to do anything? So our wants and desires should dictate our actions, whether the results of fulfilling (or trying to fulfill) those desires may harm or be bad for someone else?
IOW, all those ads that say "Serve Yourself First", "You're Number One", "You Deserve It" are today's Golden Rule.
Amen to that...
If a woman really wants a child and doesn't want a husband, she shouldn't have a child.
Since when is "I want it really bad!" a good reason to do anything? So our wants and desires should dictate our actions, whether the results of fulfilling (or trying to fulfill) those desires may harm or be bad for someone else?
IOW, all those ads that say "Serve Yourself First", "You're Number One", "You Deserve It" are today's Golden Rule.
They should just go to the local mall and pick up one of the "free range" ones you always see wandering around...
(it's a joke, a joke)
Amen!!
Clearly, this is the result of the Clinton legacy coupled with a severe ignoring of moral decency.
Having a mother and father is a basic premise that has existed since the first creatures roamed the Earth. And it has not only served the planet, but humanity well.
Bottom line--if it ain't broken, don't try to futz with it...
I had a few coworkers who donated to sperm banks while they were in college, and judging by some of their other antics, it's not a surprise.
PHEW! I just wanted to check. I had to ask because I know there are those would propose what you said.
I personally don't believe others are being as absolutist as you do, and I'm sure you've been freeping long enough to know your statement regarding absolutists is absolutist in itself ;o)
While I recognize there are exceptions to rules, it is irresponsible to ignore the "rules" wholesale. I would also council a single, pregnant, rape victim to put the child up for adoption apart from extraordinary mitigating circumstances such as engagement, or vast personal resources.
My brother turned out the be an extraordinarily successful, family man, but that is in no small part due to his upbringing by a "greatest generation" family.
In my own life, as a waiting adoptive parent, I have quite a bit of contact with others who have adopted in similar circumstances, and I am continually amazed by the children I see. They are better behaved and outwardly happier and more secure than any other group of children I have ever seen...bar none. I can only attribute such uniformity of outcome to the extremely rigid vetting process done on us before we are permitted to adopt from our children's country of birth.
Trust me on this: once you see the results of children raised in "nuclear families" and you KNOW there are no family skeletons or pathologies, you gain a new appreciation for the traditional model.
"No, what never ceases to amaze me is how raising kids with a mother and a father is somehow narrow-minded and bigoted."
I never said that.
I can't believe the feminist moral relativist garbage people are sucking down. And spewing out. Moral relativists are the most hardcore of absolutists - they cry out against "judgementalism" while judging those who disagree with them in the harshest terms. Unbelievable that they can't see that their own beliefs cancel each other out. They only see what they want to see, to support the worldview they cling to.
It has to do with the moral absolutists. They crack me up.
Personally, I like people -- at least in theory -- flaws and all. We're all flawed creatures, which is one of the things that makes us endlessly fascinating. Moral absolutists miss this point.
They are, in short, the kind of people who inspire me to show up at family gatherings in a torn suit, a 23 year old stripper, waving half a bottle of Remy around in the air.
Then you're the exception, not the rule.
Kids need a father.
Judging from that post and the tone of your postings on this thread, that's the impression I get--right or wrong.
Often, it's not just in the words that hit the thread, but how they come across to everyone on the thread--lurkers and posters alike.
A woman who adopts a child while single makes a decision to care for a child who has no chance at the best case scenario.
Please tell me, how many of us have lived in the 'best case scenario'? You make it sound as if you do not live in the best case scenario, you should have no children what so ever. If so, you've just condemned half of freerepublic.
Tell me, would you have more sympathy for a single woman who sleeps around, gets pregnant, and keeps her child (whether or not she can financially support it) than a single woman who makes a conscious decision to have a child she knows she can support and love?
Just imagine the end result if this type of baby-making continues (and increases) for a few hundred years.
Spooky.
Amicably. Does that include love? Or is it just a business arrangement to you? You know, children are pretty smart and know when their parents don't love each other. Would you rather a child see that?
Thank you for this post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.