"Deny them the right to exist" ?

Pericles.. in a nutshell...no. Where did I suggest or say that ?

Where is CJ Morgan when I need him ? ... "Tells porkies..stretches the truth" *Points at Pericles*....

No Pericles, I'm saying that IF a childless couple desperately want a child, and the man is infertile, then.. based on the closest parallel to this I can find in the Old Testament (there is zero in the new).. the sperm should come from the brother or close relation to the man.
Secondly, I said quite clearly I thought.. that the child needs to know its biological heritage.

I say that..because the evidence is there for us all to see.

Re Bugsy's comment, can you elaborate Bugsy ? "Believe me...I know" ?

I think it is something we can 'get over' to a degree, but the question will always be gnawing deep down.... maybe?

Finally, regarding 'rights' and the right to anonymity, I suppose we have to give a weighting to 'rights' and to me, the right of the 'yet to be conceived' who have no choice in the matter... is a higher priority. Surely we have an obligation to the helpless ?

Robert.. I won't dignify that snide comment in your post with any response other than this line.

Boaz, a little flustered?

>>"Deny them the right to exist" ? Pericles.. in a nutshell...no. Where did I suggest or say that ?<<

How's this for starters?

>>Personally, I believe we have missed the boat totally by placing the desire to 'have a baby' ahead of the interests of that very child<<

That suggests that it would be better not to have the baby, right?

Or this:

>>-I want to have a child.
-I cannot have one.
-I must find a way no matter what.
-I want to be fulfilled.
-I will get some persons sperm and do it that way.

The major problem with this, is it's lack of understanding of the nature of human beings<<

The "nature of human beings" would then, naturally, to have the baby. You are suggesting this is not a good idea.

What is one supposed to think?

Actually Boazy, I don't think I will elaborate.

But seriously, families (and people) have been torn apart by war, disease and whole mess of other catastrophes, not knowing who your biological father is is something that people can learn to get over.

Especially since they have parents, often a biological one in the mother, that went to the trouble to go through the process to produce them in the first place. Even if the question is deep down and gnawing, if a sperm donor wants to remain anonymous for whatever reason, then they can just get over it. I also know a few people who know who their father is and wish they didn't because of the pain of rejection involved. And no, it's not me.

Pericles... this has been a worthwhile exercise for many reasons, but one which stands out... is that it has shown how you jump onto something and 'spin' it. You drew a conclusion based on limited points made by me and you radicalized it. i.e. you observed a few points which pointed to nothing other than 'selfishness' and took that to mean 'deny them existence'... well done. Now we all know.

Take a deep breath and look at the other posts, I am saying that a BETTER way of fulfilling BOTH the parental desire AND the childs sense of connection, would be to take a sperm donation from the brother or close relative of the infertile father.

I also said this is a work in progress.. I'm thinking on the fly here.
It strikes me that we need to determine what frame work is the over-riding one for this procedure if at all..
1/ Is it for the 'fulfilment of parental desire' of infertile couples?
2/ Is it to achieve '1' but with the view to providing a biological extention to the family line?
If 2, then a near relative of the male would be best.

BUGSY..no drama about not elaborating, and thanx for your contribution, though I think its much easier to just 'say' "they can get over it" when we are not them.
I'd be interested in a response from one of 'them' :) if someone said that.

I also take your point about those who DO know their fathers and wish they didn't for reasons you outlined.

The problem is, Boaz, as it is with most of your ideas, that you never bother to think things through to a logical conclusion.

Your admission that this is "a work in progress.. I'm thinking on the fly here" is actually a poor excuse for fuzzy thinking and a fundamental lack of understanding of the real world.

>>You drew a conclusion based on limited points made by me and you radicalized it<<

On the contrary, I took your position, and expanded upon it in a direction that you had not considered. Because it was a moral/ethical direction, I thought that it might help you understand where you were - perhaps inadvertently - headed.

>>I am saying that a BETTER way of fulfilling BOTH the parental desire AND the childs sense of connection, would be to take a sperm donation from the brother or close relative of the infertile father<<

More fuzzy thinking. Better? For whom? Who are you to predict that a child will be less disturbed to discover that his uncle is also his father, than if his father were a complete stranger? Would you like to be the person who has to sort out the traumas that result from that awareness?

Drop the subject, Boaz. If you haven't even thought it through this far, then you are way out of your depth.

"Where is CJ Morgan when I need him ?" Don't fret, Boazy - I'm here, shaking my head as I usually do when I read the nonsense you post.

Actually, I think that this thread is an eye-opener as to what is the fundamental motive for your prolific xenophobic posts. If you'd read any more anthropology than the single outmoded essay to which you frequently and inappropriately refer, you'd be aware that the levirate marriage that is your model for this thread is one that is widely adopted by relatively primitive, patriarchal/patrilineal societies that are organised into endogamous clans. That is, those kinds of societies in which the maintenance of the male 'line' is seen to be essential in order to maintain and reproduce the patriclan.

Much of your thinking seems to emulate this kind of primitive 'us and them' ideology, including its patriarchal overtones and inward-looking worldview. Yes, knowledge of one's biological paternity is important in societeies that subscribe to this ideology - which is what it is, rather than being a 'natural' or innate need.

Fortunately, our society has evolved far beyond the stage where such a patrilineal ideology is adaptive or even desirable, but vestiges persisist beyond their usefulness - mostly in the form of outmoded religious ideas and cultural practices. Children who feel some sort of loss from not knowing their biological paternity do so because they have learnt to, raher than experiencing some kind of innate yearning.

Lastly, I agree with R0bert that "The situation described by BD is nothing like the horror faced by those forcible removed from families based on racial or social bias".

Boazy's claim that he is talking about the "real STOLEN GENERATION" is both inappropriate and offensive to Aboriginal people who suffered from removal from their families and kin by governments, and churches acting on governments' behalf.