Duffmeister,
You argue why the sperm donor has to declare their identity, and nearly all debate on IVF centres around this. However female eggs are often in much greater demand than male sperm, and yet I have never heard of a debate on whether female egg donors should be called upon to declare their identity.

The entire issue of IVF always seems to centre on the male sperm donors, and yet there are an enormous number of ethical or moral issues surrounding IVF. There are many problems with IVF, and I feel that many of these problems will be unsolvable, or they will never be solved satisfactorily.

The central point, (and not mentioned by the article author, despite all her maligning of males) is why do women want to become pregnant through IVF, when there are other options available to becoming a parent such as adoption.

As a society, should we be pursuing IVF (and spending public money on it via medicare) when adoption of many needy children is an alternative.

Timithy,

After a recent conversation with Audrey, I am encouraged to disagree with you from time to time ;-). Sorry :-(

Although I actually mostly agree with what you say in your last post, I feel the priority and the focus could be a little displaced. I’ve introduced a new slant to adoption – one I believe is very valid and fundamental to male-female relations. One that is backed up by some worrying statistics, but also one that deserves more serious study. It is also something that Duffmeister subconsciously acknowledges (as I quote above).

Can someone please address this first before we go back to your original question about women’s apparent choice of IVF over adoption. Timithy, this question was already posed – why ask the same question again, while burying a new one?

Ok Seeker, but the IVF industry is growing faster than government can legislate I believe. Sperm and eggs are being imported and exported between countries, and what rules or laws that are current in one country may not be current in the next. Men and women are being enticed to go to other countries to donate sperm and eggs. A Family Court may be able to overrule certain agreements or legislation if it believes that this will be “in the best interests of the child”, so there is no guarantee that child support payments will not have to be made before the child is the age of 18 etc.

IVF is an industry, with IVF companies now listing themselves on the stock market, but often the profits of these companies come from the tax-payer via Medicare payments for IVF treatment.

The success rate for IVF treatment is not that high, and women can have years of treatment before becoming pregnant, and then they can have a miscarriage. Children born from IVF have a 40% greater chance of being born with birth defects than other children.

The list of problems or potential problems that can occur with IVF goes on and on, so it becomes a very important to ask why not adoption instead.

Only taking a few swipes at feminists in some of these forums. They have had an easy run for too long. In the past they have been able to say just about anything about men, and not be held accountable for it. It is noticeable that if you return something back to them they immediately call it abuse or misogyny. Help, I’m being victimised and oppressed by patriachy.

Looks like we're back to the Timithy-show again, everything is the fault of feminism and women expressing an opinion and heavens forbid! equal rights to choice. While you're there Timithy, you may as well make a spurious connection between world poverty and feminism. Your 'selective' sensitivity is endless and it's hilarious that you feel we've misunderstood you. I believe your position is fairly obvious. Attacks on feminism are not misogynistic or abusive, but attacks on women directly are. There is a difference. And poor Timithy, help! I'm being shown up by women!! Debating with you Timithy, is iritatingly circular.

Let me just precede the following by stating that I'm pro-adoption. I doubt that women 'choose' IVF over adoption, as this implies that adoption is actually a choice. In a simplistic world cross-nationality adoptions would alleviate many global social problems. But it doesn't. It worsens them. Unmanaged, in it's current state, it's a murky, unlegislated minefield that promotes the hideous trafficking of children. Children with loving parents but no means to feed even themselves, sell their children as 'orphans' for a month's worth of food. You think IVF is expensive? Cross-national adoption is currently only for the rich and well-connected. Our system does not allow for the easy adoption of foreign orphans. The average wanna-be adoptive parent is unfortuately not Angelina Jolie.

Hi Audrey,
I've never attacked women or females. I have a daughter and I also sponser a little girl in a very impoverished country. Do you?

However I have attacked feminism, as feminism and feminity are entirely different, and I see no real constructive use for feminism (for females or males). Please get your fact straight.

I also have made complaint about the author of this article because of her unnecessary maligning of males and I am entirely justified in that.

I have also changed my name, so you will not immediately believe that I am a sexist male, although nothing is sexist if it is true.

Oh come on .. 'Timkinese'?? Why don't you go for Timithea?