At the rate that abortions are carried out, a child needs to rejoice if it is even born.

In the case of the lesbian couple who only wanted 1 child but got 2, (so they decided to sue), well diddums.

They could always adopt one out. There are plenty of couples wanting to adopt a child.

I think this article misses the point. Once a child is born biology takes over and a parent can not help but love a child unconditionally, (unless other biological and physiological conditions intercept such as PND). This is what many childless by choice couples realise –they would not be able to help but love a child if it was born to them but knowing this and also knowing the stress, cost and life altering choice to become a parent, (not to mention the pain if it all goes wrong as it randomly does when a child becomes terminally ill for example), they make an informed decision not to go through the door of parenthood. But being placed in that situation where you become a parent through no choice of your own but through medical negligence is awful and parents have every right to sue. Loving the unintended surprise baby unconditionally is biologically driven and the out come can be very positive for both parent and child. When this “blessing” is the result of medical negligence parents have very right to sue – but for the whole situation that has been physically, emotionally and financially forced upon them for which they had no choice just as they had no choice but to love and want the surprise child once born.

Billy C
Maybe the lesbian couple should be very thankful for what they have got.

- They got taxpayer funded IVF treatment.

- They were allowed IVF treatment even though the children will not know a father (and in some societies this would not be acceptable, and it is only through the sustained devaluing of fathers that it is accepted in our society)

- They have the ready choice of adopting out one child to a couple that desperately wants a child (or more than one).

Whether it was negligence is rather debatable. Multiple births are more common in IVF than natural births, and so are children born with abnormalities.

HRS

"Maybe the lesbian couple should be very thankful for what they have got.” I don’t believe the sexuality has anything to do with it. Obviously you have a problem with people who are not the same as you.

"They got taxpayer funded IVF treatment.” We all do in Australia – it’s called MEDICARE or the Private health 30% subsidy.

“They were allowed IVF treatment even though the children will not know a father .... devaluing of fathers that it is accepted in our society”. I find this doubtful as far as I know clinics in Australia do not provide this service unless the sperm is purchased from a clinic where donors are registed and agree to have their details released to the child at a future date should it be requested by the child. Any way children for thousands of years have not known their father – by pre-mature death, the result of an affair or adoption. Are they any less deserving to be born and loved than the rest of us? What right do we have to demand that assisted conceptions be under more regulated conditions than conceptions are for the rest of us?

“ They have the ready choice of adopting out one child …..or more than one” I think you should re-read my post above on this one.

”……. Multiple births are more common in IVF than natural births, and so are children born with abnormalities.” You have not been following the case. The woman only asked to implanted with one embryo shortly before the procedure. The doctor doing the implantation accidentally implanted two and when the supervising doctor was told this he said “oh ^&*%”. Yes multiple births are more common with IVF but only because women ask to implanted with more than one embryo or are on fertility drugs. This can increase the chance of pregnancy but can also increase the associated risks such as mis-carriage, pre-mature birth etc. I totally understand why the woman did not want to risk these conditions.

Umm, the unconditional love rot ignores the occurrence of child abuse by parents (both physical, emotional and sexual, and by both men and women). Yes, the bonding to a child is something that MOST parents will experience, but dont ignore that which doesnt occur and the sad consequences of such.

Yes no doubt the media have had a field day with the fact that the couple in question are lesbians. But the real difference between this case and the other examples mentioned in the article is that in the other cases NO child was wanted, but in the "lesbian case" a child was most definately sought. But they got two. As another poster pointed out, if you dont really want the other child, put it up for adoption, as there would be several families desperate to love and raise said child. Or if this leaves a sour taste in your mouth, then accept that you do obviously want the child and thus all of the responsibilities that go with it. After all, mother nature produces twins (and more) regularly when parents are normally only after one child at a time - IVF gives more control and choice, but it should never be considered foolproof.

Was Lesley just trying to see how hypocritical she could be and get away with it when she wrote this article?

To be a strong proponent for easy access to abortion and then to try and expect to be taken seriously with an article like this is too ridiculous for words.

Kids are a blessing for us, but we were in no doubt as to the huge financial burden and the permanent change in life style that happens when we made the choice to have children.

When it is not a choice, then children are a mixed blessing at best. To say that they can be adopted out as an alternative is glib and unrealistic.

While negligence on the part of a doctor that results in an unwanted birth should render him liable to some portions of the future costs, the courts should recognise the difference between negligence and the margins of uncertainty as 20/20 hindsight can always find something that could indicate a different finding.

In the case of the two lesbians with twins,I wonder whether the doctor fully appraised them of possible outcomes. If he did I think they are unscrupulous.

As a born again christian I used to worry about what happened to all of the aborted babies then one day I came across a testimony from a pastor in the USA (Odin Hetrick) who actually used to visit heaven (God took him there in his sleep) and there he was shown all of the little bright lights in one particular area of Heaven and when he asked the Angel that was with him he was told by the Angel that these were all of the aborted babies form earth and that God was preserving them for better life. I have read or listened to several journey to Heaven stories and I believe them. Killing the baby though is still killing. It needs to be confessed as the sin that it is. God comfort those who have done it. I know they suffer... and Im not being smug.

Seems to me Dr Leslie is perfectly consistent with her view that women should retain exclusive rights to all reproductive choices. Her dissent on wrongful births is merely spin designed to distract and divert.

We wouldn’t want legislative tightening of access to IVF, nor would we encourage paternity fraud fathers or unwilling fathers in general, from taking up such abhorrent ideas as wrongful births ... would we?

Sacrificing two lesbians in achieving a greater good? Priceless.

Billy C

How can you compare a sperm donor to a father? There is no comparison at all.

The argument that many children have grown up without a father is nonsense. There was no choice in those situations. Lesbian and single women who have IVF treatment do so in the knowledge that there will never be any chance of a father.

It is typical of the woolly headed policies of the today that the desires of the parent override the rights of the child. Unless lesbian women can find a father for their children they shouldn’t be able to have them. That is in the child’s best interest.

And to sue over the fact that you got two for the price of one is extremely cynical. They should be thankful they got children at all. In many countries they wouldn’t be allowed.

It is standard practise to use two embryos because of the only moderate chance that one of the fertilised eggs will take. As many posters have already mentioned, these women could have adopted out if the financial burden was just too great. They also could have terminated one of the pregnancies.

This sort of frivolous lawsuit is the result of our increasingly litigious culture.

Doctors are humans and make mistakes in good faith. This type of ridiculous lawsuit has pushed large numbers of doctors out of the OB/GYN specialty because of the massive insurance fees they need to fork out to cover themselves. Everyone’s heard of the old saying’ Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth’? These women should be ashamed of themselves.

Billy C
You write about love, but you seem to be very keen for someone to be sued.

Maybe you have love mixed up with litigation. It can occur.

But if a couple adopted a child, then it would be very unlikely that they would get 2 children if they only wanted 1, and they wouldn’t have to go all the trouble of suing someone either. Maybe it would be better than IVF.

Shadow minister,
What is “glib and unrealistic” about adopting out an unwanted child to a couple that actually wants a child.

I personally know of a couple that adopted a child. They did not regard adoption as being “glib and unrealistic”. In fact they were very dedicated and serious about it.

Paul L,
I would agree with you.

I have heard of sperm being used from sperm donors who lived in another country on the other side of the world, and that sperm was used for IVF of lesbian couples. The ability of the child to contact their natural father is basically 0, and there was no intention from the lesbian couple or from the IVF clinic for the child to have a father or to be able to contact their father.

It is very rare for any feminist to place any value upon a father, (eg the author of this article calls herself feminist and has written a lot about children and mothers but I can’t ever remember her writing anything about fathers).

Male sperm donors are not even considered to be a father, but at the same time I have heard of 2 cases where a male sperm donor was sued by a woman for child support. So in this current scenario, a male has got to be a complete idiot to donate sperm.

Paul L & HRS

Firstly:
I stand by my comments. Historically, there have always been children who have been created without a chance of knowing their father. And in most situations there was choice – for either of the parents not to have sex – but, for example, try telling that to the soldiers before they left for WW1 or WW2 – are you saying they should have been banned from pro-creating on the grounds that, (and some would have defiantly known this), they would leave the child fatherless? Many of Australia's anglo saxon population descended from centuries of families where no father was present and it was known that no farther would be present, (until the last two centuries this was most often the case that families arranged marriages and that the woman was for sex, child-bearing and raising and house work, (it was not until 1880 under the Women’s Property Act that women were no-longer owned in law by either their father and then husband as they were before). Many women bore the number of children they did because they had no-other choice. Fathering as we know it today most often did not exist then other than as sperm donation, finance and inheritance. It is only thanks to the feminists for changing gender roles that fathers now participate as much as they do their children and this is very life enhancing thing for both men and women. But at the same time I do not see the presence of a father, (or mother), as a necessary prerequisite for happy and well adjusted children as history tells us again and again, (and equallyif a parent is abusive life is so much worse for the child if they are present). What counts is love for the child not gender of person loving not necessarily the biological relationship as adoption shows us.

Secondly:
If a person has medical procedure performed on them they did not want or consent too they have every right sue.

Billy C
“It is only thanks to the feminists for changing gender roles that fathers now participate as much as they do their children”

Off hand, I can not remember any feminist ever saying anything positive about fathers. At present I can not remember this author saying anything positive about fathers, and I can not remember any other feminist ever saying anything positive about fathers.

Fathers have had to fight tooth and nail to get any type of reform of the abhorrent and totally gender biased family law system, and have been continuously opposed by feminists with their rhetoric of “women and their children”

If anything the litigation of the doctor may put another nail into the coffin of the IVF industry, which has become an anti-father industry that takes money from the tax payer’s pocket and deposits it into the pockets of those who run IVF clinics

HRS, sounds like you have come out of a nasty marriage! Most "feminists" have a high opinion of fathers. Extreme feminists perhaps not. I class myself as a feminist, given that I support equality of opportunity for both men and women, and its taken the feminist movement with all its up and downs to come close to achieving that ideal (well, in a lot of ways we are stil far from it). I have a very high opinion of fathers and the role that they can play (and SHOULD play). Most women are the same when you scratch the surface and get past the day to day frustrations that they have with managing a marriage/children/career (and I suspect that most men are the same - everyday annoyances aside most would have a healthy respect for the role of mothers).

As for fathers haivng to fight hard for recognition in the family law system, may I respectfully suggest that much of the ingrained attitude in family law actually comes from centuries old men's views on the role of the wife and mother (eg primary carer). Some women may now play on it, but please do most of us the respect of acknowledging where the problem came from in the first place

Country Gal,
The litigation could be a form of poetic justice.

The IVF industry tries to entice naïve young males to donate sperm, while knowing that the donor could be sued for child support at anytime. But while the IVF industry uses males as a supply source, the IVF industry also shows minimal interest in males or in fatherhood.

I have looked through submissions into a number of enquiries that have involved fathers in recent times, and not one submission has come from the IVF industry. A number of conferences into fatherhood have also been held in recent years, with no support or interest shown by the IVF industry.

So males are simply a source of sperm to the IVF industry, and this is a form of harvesting.

The IVF industry is well supported by many feminists, as IVF is a part of the cult of feminism. Abortion is also a part of the cult of feminism, but you will rarely hear a feminist speak of adoption, as adoption is not a part of the cult.

Fatherhood is also not a part of the cult of feminism with its “women and their children” cult chanting.

I have seen whole books written by feminists about raising children that did not mention fathers anywhere in the book. I also rarely hear a feminist mention fatherhood (except to denigrate fathers in some way). This article does not mention fathers, and the vast majority of articles written by feminists do not mention fathers

So “women and their children”, IVF and abortion are all part of the cult of feminism, while adoption and fatherhood are not a part of the cult.

HRS I really think you need a 'chill pill' or 4! The way you're spouting hate filled messages against women is not indicative of mental stability!

I agree that there are SOME mothers who do abuse the premise that a child has a right to know both parents; but the greatest majority do not.

I agree that there are SOME fathers who do not abuse the child's right to know both parents; but a larger percentage of fathers do by deliberately 'hiding' income to avoid child support.

And before you start whining again, an investigation into the financial affairs of just 100 fathers found that ONLY 4 were adhering to CSA assessed child support.

Men have always had more rights than women throughout history so what is your problem with the premise that the 2 sexes should be regarded equal? Not one superior to the other as has always been the case!

Try opening your eyes and ears to the reality of the situation instead of bleating like a toddler!

Try fleeing an abusive marriage to protect yourself and the child from an abusive spouse ....

Try living as a disabled single parent finacially anorexic because the disabled child is still emotionally and economically abused by the father.....

The family disolved because HE couldn't accept that rape, hitting, verbal filth, intimidation and threats are not acceptable behaviour.

Try coping with contact handovers where a howling and clutching toddler is ripped out of your arms, even though you have deperately tried to prepare and comfort the child prior to the visit...

Because Dad continues his systematic abuse through the child as payback...

Try growing up not knowing either of your parents, yet still truly believing that your child SHOULD have that right.

Weary Mum
Your post has very little to do with the topic, and is very abusive.

Eg “you need a 'chill pill' or 4!”, “not indicative of mental stability!”, “bleating like a toddler!” and so on.

The concept that only men are abusive is a propaganda myth.

But the case of the lesbian couple also highlights a form of abuse. The couple had sperm from a Danish donor, so the ability of now 2 children to ever contact their natural father is very remote.

If a father took a child from its natural mother and the child had very little chance of ever contacting their natural mother, then this would be regarded as a form of child abuse.

But in this case (and there are others that are similar) both children now have very little chance of ever contacting their natural father.

This is also a form of child abuse, but no mention of this has been made in this article, and I have never seen it written in any other feminist literature also.

Feminists and IVF clinics appear to be very supportive of harvesting males for sperm, but have minimal interest in males or fathers afterwards.

You have denigrated fathers (which is very common or fashionable), and I have tolerated your high levels of personalised abuse, but if you carry out further abuse, I will be recommending your posts for deletion.

When a village is commissioned to conceive and raise her child, no feminist worth her image would excuse anyone, least of all her local witch doctor or his IVF clinic from their village responsibilities.

Unfortunately, this strategy has a downside – village idiots can be assigned rights while clearly incapable of responsibility.

WearyMum,

You say “I agree that there are SOME mothers who do abuse the premise that a child has a right to know both parents; but the greatest majority do not.” You have some evidence for this, do you?

You should try being a father who cannot see his kids because the mother doesn’t want him to, irrespective of court agreements awarding the father visitation rights.

You should try living with the fact that the mother can leave town at a moments notice.

Try living with the regular visits from agencies of all shapes responding to vicious UNFOUNDED allegations just to make your life more difficult and access to your child less likely.

Try living with the fact that the POISONOUS C#NT who looks after your child can fill their heads with lies about how bad Dad is, in the safety of knowing Dad has little comeback.

Finally watch as she claims the fruits of all your hard work, whilst she sits on her FAT A#SE watching day time telly and looking for ways to scr#w you out of more of your money

So before you go over the top with your personal insults, recognize that there is more to this world than your own finite experience. Good fathers, who love their kids, cop it from all directions under the current system. You can just about guarantee that the woman will always win in the family court and the social workers are almost always militant feminazis who KNOW that the man is always the bastard, the one to blame, and act accordingly.

Paul L
Now that’s a little bit over the top, and rather off topic.

If that is your situation then I don’t think it is abnormal, and I have actually heard of far worse.

In fact your situation is very much the norm for many men.

However I think that this has come about through the devaluing of men and fathers, and this devaluing has been sustained and also planned. The situation is now that fathers are not believed necessary, and it is believed that fathers can be eliminated through IVF, and this was first proposed within the cult of feminism in the 1970's.

There is no love in IVF. It is a completely unnatural and artificial system, and unlikely to be sustainable in the longer term.

HRS – I did sound vitriolic didn't I! Oops - must be the Rheumatoid Arthritis and spinal damage 'arcing' me up. I don't get any pain relief except for a 2-3 week spell when I have a Spinal Block (can only have 3-4 a year.) … won’t take me long to get the hang of this forum.. and thanks for the warning.

"Feminists and IVF clinics appear to be very supportive of harvesting males for sperm, but have minimal interest in males or fathers afterwards."

Doesn’t a lot of this harvesting involve men being paid by clinics for their “sperm donation” – it certainly did for most of the past 60 years in Australia, U.K and U.S. And until recent legislation demanding that the “harvested men” provide financially for their progeny - it was considered a simple financial transaction and no more legally binding than a blood donation. The legislation opened a ‘Pandora’s box’ of lawsuits and anger on from parents and kids alike.

With regard to frozen sperm harvested for a married couple who later divorce, I can’t recall too many cases that were successful for the former wife’s.

"Feminazi” – a term I and many women are heartily sick of hearing as it doesn’t really mean anything. It’s simply another derogative name to apply to women who refuse to be held to the “goods and chattels “ legal standard espoused prior to the 70’s.

In fact since 1975 I can only recall one woman that would come close to a “feminazi” and that was a time when we were being implored by the Women’s Electoral Lobby et al to stop shaving our armpits and to be more “male than men.”

‘Feminism’ is about raising the status of women so as to bring their rights into line with their male counterparts; that the two genders be held equal. At no time in my almost 50 years have I ever expected to be deemed superior or inferior to a man or a woman …. Equality should be the right of both genders as neither can literally survive without the other!

Paul L. "You have some evidence for this, do you?"

Um yeah I do and forgive my previous sarcasm! One of the very latest reports - embargoed until August this year - releases relevant data collected in the last Census regarding Single Parent families. I haven't got it in front of me but would be only too pleased to forward you the link. I have so much data on my 3 hard drives - can you give me a couple of days?

The info in just this one report would surprise many who assume that single mums generally are wealthy; or that the majority are young and uneducated; or that as a percentage they didn't work prior to being required to legislatively.

I know the FC can now impose prison terms for either parent found to be breaching Orders - have you looked into this option?

I was adopted in another country and am legislatively denied any information about my birth parents. Knowing how adversely it affected me I have never denied our child the right to know/see his Dad either before or since Court Orders were imposed - I left the marriage 8 years ago. He has since remarried so it's a "yours, mine and ours" situation. It ain’t easy but ….

If it's "lying" that's got her through then she should watch out. It may be small comfort to you at the moment but "What goes around comes around." There will come a day when the kids will realise they have been "stooged" by her. Whichever parent is abusive - it bites them in the proverbial at some stage...

The recent changes to the Family Law legislation make it pretty difficult now to up and leave without good reason no matter which parent it is so you would have very valid grounds to fight her on this.

Well wearyMum, I didnt think you were over the top at all. And I certainly wouldnt call your post abusive or personal. You simply pointed out flaws in another posters comments, mainly by reference to your own situation rather than his!

The problem with a sweeping term such as "feminism" is that it covers a huge raft of views from those women who could be called feminists because they work (whereas 50 years ago they would not have been allowed to in that industry) but still consider the husband to be "head of the house", right through to the "man-haters". And the problem is that the women-haters tend to hone in on the man-haters (and vice-versa).

HRS, while the IVF process may have been hijacked in some quarters, the main reason behind the start and the continuation of the IVF industry is for couples that cant have children without assistance. Yes, there are the odd cases where its a single woman, or lesbians. I dont have the data, but given the number of people I have personally spoken to about their IVF experiences, I doubt very much whether these cases make a significant percentage.

I agree with you that sperm donors should never be able to be pursued for financial support. There are perhaps a few exceptions that it would maybe be fair (to the child created) to lift this protection. This is where the mother (or parents in the case of sterile husbands) are killed or so seriously disabled that they cant provide for the child. It does infringe on the donor, but at the same time, men shouldnt donate unless they are prepared to take a remote possibility of having to provide for the offspring created. Otherwise the responsibility should lie solely with the parent/s that are "actively creating" the child

There should also be a requirement that the child be told its origins at a certain point (maybe 18?), and that it be given the right to contact its father. Lots of people DO tell their children this, but mandating it would give equality to all children who were born this way. Current sperm banks could be reassessed, and donors contacted to see if they agree with the new rules, and those that dont (or cant be found) should be destroyed. All new donors would of course know the rules. A similar approach should be taken with egg donors (yes, women can be donors too!). There could even be profiles put with each donor, outlining whether the donor is willing to be contacted by the child at anytime (or indeed wants to have an input into the child's raising). Women and couples selecting donors would then have to comply with the donor's wishes too. Much more equality all round.

So, instead of having a go at women in general, and whinging about what the system DOESNT do, how about making a few suggestions about how to improve it. Overall its an industry that does a lot of good to a wide range of families (most of them nuclear and traditional) - its unfortunate that its the fringe looneys that we hear about.

Weary Mum
I have never once used the term “feminazi”. The Nazi system was more of a political system, but feminism has more of the characteristics of a brainwashing cult than a political system.

Feminism has nothing to do with equality, but that is another topic.

In some cases male sperm donors donate without being paid, and in other cases male sperm donors are “recruited”, and then paid on a contract. But the payment is normally minimal, and any sperm or egg donor can be sued for child support at any time. The litigation of the doctor is basically for child support to be paid in one lump sum, and this occurred 3 years after the child was born. Similar has happened to sperm donors in other countries.

However there are many IVF clinics that now have a shortage of sperm donors for various reasons. This study highlights the nonchalant or even disdainful attitude that many IVF clinics have towards sperm donors,

http://www.ivf.net/ivf/index.php?page=out&id=2718

Across the globe IVF clinics have also shown minimal interest in fatherhood and in males, and only want males for their sperm. So the IVF industry cannot expect too many sperm donors in the future.

Country Gal,
Definitely, the comments from Weary Mum were abusive. Many men report verbal abuse and nagging from women, but of course this is not regarded as being abuse.

Many countries have the requirement that the child can learn the identity of their father when they turn 18 and in some cases 16.

I personally would be quite alarmed to know that I had been born in a test tube and that my father had been recruited by an industry that has minimal interest in fathers, and that my father’s sperm had been mixed with animal eggs for testing.

All very loving.

I am currently having IVF. To me, the Canberra case throws up issues of medicine and human error; of what we do when we discover, as we inevitably do, that doctors can and frequently do make mistakes. I do not believe this couple have chosen the best path; it seems to me that a philosophical approach would have served them better. To be a little poorer of appliances and holidays and a little richer in children is surely not a bad thing. Though I loathe sounding like a hippy or, worse, a Christian, I tend to think that the best response to misfortune is to chuck out some extra love at the world.

As always, I think Leslie's response excellent and measured. How ridiculous to suggest she is anti-father. For a start, I've read her write movingly and gratefully about her own father. A quick Google also finds her writing about "pervasive male anxiety about their role in women’s lives and in the business of forming and raising families – an expression to which compassion and validation would be the appropriate response." (http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/articles/0506cannold.html) On ABC TV's Compass, Leslie said of assisted reproduction that "men ... are worried. And I'm not criticizing them in any way for being worried about this, but they're worried about being left out of one of the most important things we do as humans - which is to create new humans. And I think that's very much what we need to start talking about. Why are they getting left out when the women who are leaving them out seem to be saying they don't really want to?" There are many more examples. By my reading, Ms Cannold empathises, and seeks to broaden the debate about fathers, not shut it down.

Continued below...

...continued from above:

My IVF clinic supports both me and my husband. IVF is terribly diffiucult thing for husbands - particularly if a couple has male-factor inferlity, and the man has to watch the woman he loves go through such extreme treatment. (IVF, for those of you who do not know, is quite a battering - like the mother of all PMS sessions.) My husband's name is included on all my treatment forms; he can come to all my appointments; he is an equal partner is the process of assisted reproduction.

The poster that feels sperm donation exploits men does not even mention egg donation. To learn more about egg donation, please read this excellent and moving piece by Kylie Ladd – http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/i-dont-need-to-know-my-donor-children/2007/08/13/1186857423043.html?page=fullpage – who donated her own eggs for the same reason many men donate sperm. Because it will help a couple who dearly wants a baby have a baby. Because it is a good and noble thing to do.

IVF is FULL of love. If and when I have a child, or children, I look forward to telling them how very much we wanted them; how we focussed on them during every ultrasound and every injection. I hope they'll think about the cleverness of their conception, and be amazed.

Botheration,
The enormous amount of time and money spent by so many people on IVF could have been spent on adoption, which I think would have suited many more children also.

The IVF clinics themselves are using the feminist chant of “reproductive rights”, but unless a father is actually paying money to an IVF clinic, then the IVF industry has shown minimal interests in fathers. (eg No public statements made about fatherhood, no submissions made to public enquiries concerning fathers, no attendance at fatherhood conferences etc.).

To the IVF industry, a male is either a pay check or a sperm donor, and as show in the study referenced previously, the IVF industry has even minimal regard for its recruited sperm donors.

I have rarely seen any tangible evidence to suggest that feminists are actually interested in fatherhood also. For example:- Various feminists in Europe did justifiably complain when research was carried out to clone the female egg, but these same feminists made no comment at all when experiments were carried out to fertilize a female egg without using male sperm.

It seems that these feminists regarded fertilizing a female egg without using male sperm as being a very natural act, and well within reproductive rights.

Hopefully the IVF industry will cease to exist shortly due to a shortage of both male sperm donors and female egg donors, and the harvesting of humans by the IVF industry will become a thing of the past. No one will have to litigate anyone then, which would solve that problem also.

In all her articles about children and parenting, this author has made very few comments about fathers, and any positive comments she has made about males in general are far outweighed by her negative comments. I would attribute this to prior feminist training.

Lordy be, HRS. You are bitter. I fear that neither of us will sway the other, but nevertheless, here goes.

IVF and adoption solve fundamentally different problems. The decrease in adoption has little to do with IVF: it dropped most markedly after the single mother’s benefit was introduced in the early 70s. Times have changed, and society generally accepts the time and money once spent on adoption is better spent, not on IVF, but on helping troubled families and single mothers to raise their own children. Money withdrawn from IVF would not flow to adoption.

IVF, conversely, attempts to fix infertility. The vast majority of procedures, including ours, use parental eggs and sperm. If donations ended tomorrow, IVF clinics would still function.

As for your statement that, “unless a father is actually paying money to an IVF clinic, then the IVF industry has shown minimal interests in fathers”, this is true for mothers too. Potential parents pay. The clinic itself is not fussed which gender coughs up. Once the treatment is in train, the clinic should afford fathers the same empathy and respect it affords mothers. Ours certainly does. If men are treated shoddily, HREOC monitors discrimination in IVF clinics. Also, the study you cite is American. In Australia it is illegal to pay women for donating eggs.

IFV clinics are not Amnesty International. Just because they do not put fathers’ rights front and centre does not mean they are not receptive to them; it means they are busying themselves with getting people pregnant.

Your attitude to “feminists” seems more informed by personal bitterness than impartial inquiry. Over and over you claim there’s no evidence feminists care about fathers. But don’t you see that you’re deaf to it? I’m a feminist, and I think fathers and men are absolutely bloody fantastic. So do others on this board. So does Dr Cannold. But you cannot hear it. Examine that.

We all strive lifelong to untangle our political views from dark psychological places. I’m crap at it myself. But the truth lies between the unraveled strands, so it’s worth a shot.

HRS, Botheration is right in pointing out that you appear to have your views of feminism from the extreme angle. As I have pointed out before, any large body of thought will have its moderates (generally 95%) and its extremists. Unfortunately its the extremists that are wont to jump up and down and make themselves heard. Most women would reject that suggestion that fathers and fatherhood is worthless, and yet most women could be classed as feminists. The few shrill women that carry on like pork-chops should generally be ignored. Most women ignore them, so try recognising them for the idiots that they generally are, and give them the same treatment.

IVF wont dry up if sperm OR egg donors run out. The main basis behind IVF is assisting infertile couples, and fertility drugs are usually the first port of call. Yes, there will be some couples who will also miss out if there are no donors, which is very sad for them. IVF is generally chosen over adoption, as adoption is very difficult in this country, and waiting lists can be so long that by the time a couple qualify, they will be deemed to be too old. Yes I agree that adoption rules could do with a real work-over, and perhaps a solution lies between traditional adoption and the fostering that is now preferred, something that allows natural parents to continue to have a role in the child's life.

As for promotion and support, what evidence do you have of the IVF industry providing support to women's associations etc?

Botheration and Country Gal
I would think that adoption should be very much emphasised, and adoption is much more loving than the totally artificial world of IVF, (complete with its recruitment of donors, test tubes, microscopes, Petri dishes, injections and experiments on eggs and sperm)

There are now millions of children who have become orphans or are living in extreme poverty throughout Africa and Asia because of AIDS, and for a society to be spending so much time and money on HIV borders on obscene.

However I tend to think that there is more money to be made with IVF and also abortion, so in our consumerist society, we have IVF and abortion and very little interest is being shown in adoption.

As far a feminism is concerned, the so called extremist feminists are very much mainstream, and most of them are being taxpayer funded and employed in Universities in various countries around the world.

The feminist fascination for IVF dates back to the 1970’s with the release of the book “The Dialectic of Sex” by Shulamith Firestone

http://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/firestone-shulamith/dialectic-sex.htm

It was widely read as a part of women’s study courses and regarded as a feminist classic. It describes pregnancy as being “barbaric” and calls for systems of artificial reproduction. That desire by feminists lives on, with the pronouncement a few years ago by the loving feminist queen Germaine Greer (who is employed in a university and well respected by fellow feminists) that men were now “surplus to requirements”.

However there have been theories put forward that a zygote cell could be produced from any cell in the body, so the female egg or follicle may become redundant in the wonderful and loving world of IVF. So considering the direction that the loving IVF industry is going, Shulamith Firestone’s loving dream of artificial reproduction may not be very far away.

I also think that feminism is to equality what George Bush is to peace.

I fear that neither of us is going to convince the other HRS. Germaine Greer is a twit. Most women have known that for years. To refer to such extremists as being mainstream feminists is just silly. Yes they are in uni's etc, but newsflash for you - theoretical think-tanks such as uni arts departments rarely have much to do with the real world.

Perhaps one day a zygote can be created from another cell, but we are still much further off from actually bringing that child to independent life without the use of a natural womb. Is that what this is about, you have womb envy?

One of the reasons that feminism has focussed on pregnancy, is gaining of control of the process. Remember that it comes from a history of having zip control over what is in fact a very dangerous process. Modern medicine has helped to alleviate many of the risks, but dont forget that many women still die of childbirth related problems, even in Western countries. If I didnt have access to contraception that I could control (ie the pill), I would eventually die from childbirth (I cant give birth naturally, and you can only have so many caesers safely). So feminist-sought contraception is a life-giver to me (and countless other women).

Country Gal
Many cults such as the cult of feminism will attempt to recruit from universities, because the students are often enthusiastic and have romantic notions, but they are still naïve and lack real life experience. So I would think that parents and all taxpayers should be quite concerned if any type of radical or extremist is employed in a university to give lectures to young people.

IVF is not the pill. IVF is heading towards artificial reproduction and the creation of designer children.

The IVF industry was initially welcomed by feminists because they thought that it could eliminate fathers, but unfortunately the IVF industry will eventually eliminate mothers also.

“Eggs may be grown from stem cells, researchers say”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/06/21/1396520.htm

The IVF industry has also been experimenting with developing the artificial womb, and also manipulating the genetic structure of various other animals as well as humans.

The IVF industry tries to hide behind “helping the infertile”, but lesbian women and single women who have IVF are not infertile. The IVF industry welcomes them because they represent a dollar sign.

There are now millions of orphaned children because of AIDs, but there is little money to be made in adoption.

HRS

I have just re-read the posts on this list and on whole your posts seem to emerge from a nexus of fear, ignorance and what I consider a quite bazaar imagination, (Every state and territory has laws that cover donor sperm and eggs and these uniformly define the relationship between donor and off spring as biological only – no-one can sue for support or inheritance but you are perfectly happy to spread fear and ignorance regarding this and other issues). I also see that when people on this list make points that don’t suit your assertions you seem to either deliberately ignore the point made or go further with even wilder assertions and language, (such as “harvesting males for sperm” - has anybody else on list ever herd of anything so ridiculous!). From your posts it seems you believe that that feminists are bad, mothers are bad, lesbians are bad, IVF is bad, people who conceive biologically rather than adopt are bad, universities are bad, sperm/egg donation is bad, single mothers are bad, abortion is bad, IVF doctors are bad etc....). Basically everything that is beyond your control that has anything to do with women and reproduction is bad. I say of you don’t like IVF – don’t have it, don’t like feminists – don’t become one. Don’t like sperm/egg donation – don’t donate sperm - No one will ever force you!

Billy C
You have now convinced me, and I am brainwashed.

I can no longer think for myself, and I am planning on calling myself an “ist”.

Unfortunately I can’t make up my mind as to what type of “ist” I should call myself, or what type of cult I should belong to.

But as a part of my penance, I shall repeat the following several times a day: -

IVF is love.
Abortion is love.
Feminism is love.

I plan to be a very loving person in the future, and I will concentrate more on making money by any means possible.

HRS

Your post illustrates the point in my previous post completely.

Thank you

I really am my own worst enemy - find it too hard to back away from an argument.

"IVF is love" - mostly it is. Its about creating a child that is wanted and loved (as opposed to one created by accident that no-one wants). It is also clinical and scientific, but that doesnt detract from it purpose. If people didnt want children to love, IVF would cease to exist.

"Abortion is love." Now you are being silly. Its difficult to link abortion to love in anyway, but that's perhaps because I feel that there is only a limited role for abortion. Part of the reason that abortion has become more available, widespread and accepted in the wider community IS the work of feminism, but this work has been to try to bring some equality into the equation of child-bearing. Most women who seek abortions have little if any support from the male that helped impregnate them, and are left holding the baby - literally. So they are now free to exercise an alternative. Now, I dont agree that just because the father is useless, that the mother should get off the hook. Its too tit-for-tat. But I can see the logic to the argument for availability. It just doenst sit well with me morally.

"Feminism is love." Well, yes it can be. You obviously dont want to see this side of it. Its more about seeking equality of opportunity and fairness in treatment. As for the nutters at uni's, if you teach your kids early on that academics are mostly theorical rather than practical, then they'll know enough to endure the rantings needed to get a degree in the Arts. Better still, send them to business school. They'll at least pick up some skills that will do them good.

Paternity fraud is a kind of love that delivers stability and security for mother and children. Why would any resident or social father wish to deny it (unless as suspected by feminists, men are evil)?

Divorce can be as much about love as marriage itself. Change in dynamics certainly, but more often about love none the less. Best interests of children? Pure love. What is abortion if not tough love? Why would a woman allow her potentially lovable child endure less than loving conditions? Sadly but understandably, it is because “father is useless” – otherwise, conditions would be ideal, wouldn’t they (hello?!).

Anything involving screwing men, that is not love, is simply lust. So when not lust, it is definitely love. Why can’t men discern between love and a kick up the butt? Probably because they are soooo stuuuuuupid!

Country Gal,
I think you misunderstand me. I’ve now become liberated and progressive, and I totally agree that men are useless (and women aren’t), and I now fully support the IVF industry, as it does appear to have tremendous potential for profit.

Reproductive Choice – great marketing slogan.

Designer children – should be advertised regularly in Good Idea magazine.

Single and lesbian women – represent a significant market for IVF industry expansion.

Children having a father – who cares.

The Island of Dr Moreau – would make a great tourist attraction.

Regulation of the IVF industry – the IVF industry is love, and there should be no regulation of love.

There are companies that control the seed supply for various plants, and the IVF industry could do the same with humans. If feminists and the IVF industry can convince the consumer that the normal mating processes between a man and a women are primitive, unliberated and non-progressive, then the only way for the consumer to reproduce would be through IVF.

The shares I recently purchased in the IVF industry would increase markedly in value at that time, which would represent an excellent return on investment.

Seeker,
You are correct, divorce is love, and also men are stupid. But they can be exploited for profit, and that is the most important thing.

Buy shares in IVF. I think it won’t be too far away when marriage is replaced by a system of donor conscription, and there is a tremendous future in IVF

Ho-kay.

Well, I am done arguing about IVF, HRS. You are, of course, free to hate it, and campaign against it, as indeed – as long as you do not hurt them – you are free to hate women. Hate away; I hope it soothes. I prefer your rage to the non sequiters and feeble sarcasm. And I am genuinely sorry for whatever drove you to that rage.

But your facts are frequently incorrect. For example, there is *enormous* money to be made in adoption. What prohibits Australian parents from adopting is, in fact, the money: it costs between $25,000 and $45,000, and takes years. Conversely, the first IVF cycle costs around $2,500. Subsequent cycles are cheaper. In Australia, doctors who treat infertility or give abortions are not richer than other doctors, nor are their clinics more profitable than other medical clinics.

Furthermore, feminism isn’t a cult, it’s a civil rights movement dedicated to achieving women’s social and political equality with men (notwithstanding our many biological differences). Feminism’s first and greatest battle was suffrage – 1902 in Australia, though shamefully not extended to Indigenous women and men until 1967.

Still, we are not so powerful as you fear: worldwide, only 17% of parliamentarians are women – in the Australian federal house of reps, it’s 25%. We remain underrepresented on boards and in business. We do not conspire against you.

In fact, those of us who call ourselves feminists do so not because we hate men – how ridiculous! – but because we love justice. As Rebecca West said, “I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.”

I sense you are seeking a political framework to justify your misogyny, which I suspect arises from some sense of powerlessness in your own life. You do not want my advice, but you’re getting it anyway: if you feel there isn’t enough love in the world, love more.

Country Gal and Billy: high five! You guys rock.

Botheration,
I haven’t said I dislike women. In fact, I have said men are useless and stupid, but I haven’t said the same about women.

If I said anything positive about men, then there may be less demand for IVF, and the value of my shares in IVF might decline, and I wouldn’t want that.

Most cults train their members to respond to criticism in a certain way. For example:- the Moonie cult trained their members to say the words ”Crush Satan, crush Satan” whenever someone questioned the Moonie cult.

The cult of feminism trains its members to respond to criticism by saying that the other person is “misogynist”, or “a woman hater” etc. This response by feminist cult members is universal, and it can be seen on web-sites all around the world. It helps feminist to continue with their hypocrisy.

But feminists seem to have a preoccupation with abortion, IVF and divorce. They all are love of course, but it is very rare for a feminist to mention adoption.

If there was more concentration on adoption, then obviously the costs of adoption would decline, similar to the decline in the costs of IVF over the years.

However it is good that feminists can’t think for themselves, and have been programmed to malign males and not to mention adoption much, because it indirectly helps to keep the value of my IVF shares steadily increasing.

HRS, I apologise for calling you misogynist.

Best of luck to you.

HRS, the problem that you have is that YOU cant recognise that feminists CAN think for themselves. I repeat, feminism is NOT a cult, it is a body of thought. As such there is a wide spectrum of belief within that body of thought (compare it to a political group if you like, if you pick say Australian Labor party you have a spectrum from social conservative right through to bleeding red commie). And like any body of thought, you have ranters, that get plenty of public attention because of the idiotic things that they say, then you have mainstream, which are fairly quiet, and just tend to get on with things. Feminism doesnt have the hurdles to achieve that it did back in the 60's and 70's, even though the ranters (ie Germaine Greer) are too blind to recognise this. Note that there are still many areas where inequalities still exist, mostly around childcare responsibilities. Many of the problems here are perpetrated by men, particularly when men look down their noses at other men who make the choice to be primary chldcarers, for even a short amount of time. I find this reprehensible. Men can be excellent childcarers and housekeepers if they want to be. The attitudes that are out there just go to show how little value is placed on these roles, which is a crying shame.

Adoption problems in Australia stem not so much from cost (although its expensive) but from extreme regulation. Its been very hard to adopt at least since the late 70's - this I know because my parents languished on an adoption waiting list for a number of years in the 70's. Now its almost impossible to adopt within Australia, and the redtape to adopt from another country is very hard to get through. Many couples would take this option if it were open to them. But its not, even where IVF wont work (and it doesnt always).

To get equality in marriage, marry an equal and stay married (and equal). For economic equality, decide who you want to be, and then compete just like everyone else. Don’t expect politburo to dictate your friends, social circles, professional groups or political memberships; nor manage your personal relationships or social standing.

Feminism’s false promises are no less destructive than any other branch of Marxist “body of thought”. Ideals of fair and just society, should not be confused with feminist dogma.

On the topic of the article at hand, if we assume IVF is good, and having children, is also good, then why does our legal system entertain such tort claims? I can’t imagine a father ever being compensated for an unwanted child (his or otherwise, due to professional negligence or otherwise). Is tort law also based on some Marxist principles, or is it more a matter of our legal profession simply running amok?

As I understood this case, there was a type of formal contract here – the paperwork covered 2 embryos, but then there was a verbal change of heart just before the procedure - or is this some media attempt at misinformation propaganda?

Botheration,
I accept your apologies.

Country Gal
I’ve seen a lot of studies, but I have never seen any study that concluded that men look down on other men who care for children.

But feminists seem to know a lot (and of course feminists can think for themselves), so I have 3 questions.

1/ There was the case of a single man in India who became a single father using a surrogate mother who got pregnant through IVF using his sperm and donated eggs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4309332.stm

As a feminist, would you support a single man using a surrogate mother to have a baby through IVF, so that he could become a single father.

I myself think its great, because Billy C has now convinced me that IVF is great, and I have recently purchased shares in a number of IVF companies (so the more IVF the better it is for me).

2/ Also would you support a child being produced by IVF from 3 parents, which produces an artificially created designer child.

http://www.ivf.net/ivf/index.php?page=out&id=215

I personally think its great, because IVF is love, and the more IVF there is the better it will be for my share prices.

3/ Do you think I should keep my shares in the IVF companies, or should I sell them.

As a liberated and progressive feminist, who can think independently and has not been brainwashed by any cult, I’m sure you will give a loving and feminist answer.

Seeker,
That is an interesting point that verbal agreements usually mean very little. I think it also relevant that they seek costs for raising a child until its 21. So this is child support, but it is a lump sum child support payment, and not a monthly payment.

HRS,

1/ I dont have a problem with either single men or women having children through any process, so long as they have the means to support said child. Whether IVF be utilised, or the old fashioned method. For both though, I think they should be required to undergo counselling first, to ensure that they are aware of what they are in for.

2/ That doesnt sit well with me ethically. The problem being that the more we know about science and genetics, the more we can tweak nature to get what we want. My problem with this is that it appeals to the base nature of humans. If it were used just for disease screening, well thats a slightly different kettle of fish, but still bit iffy.

3/ Not being a financial planner, I cant give you this advice :)

Country Gal,
It must be very easy for a feminist to think for themselves, and I must say you have answered these questions very quickly (in almost 3 days). But I’m surprised at the breadth and scope of your feminist thinking.

In question 1/ I’m surprised you didn’t think of adoption as an alternative to IVF, particularly in the case of India, where there are an estimated 11 million orphaned or abandoned children.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1627008.ece

I guess this is because of your feminist training and loving and all that.

In the case of question 2/ I’m surprised that you didn’t think of mother nature earlier. Feminists believe in mothers and in mother nature, which is why they advocate so much for reproduction to take place in a test tube or under a microscope.

In the case of question 3/ I’m surprised that you think that company shares only have a monetary value, and do not have an ethical value as well.

But I’ve now decided on what type of “ist” I should call myself, and it is capitalist. And because I have recently purchased shares in IVF companies, I am now a full believer in IVF.

I think there should be no restrictions or regulations placed on IVF at all, as any restrictions placed on IVF would have to be patriarchal and non-progressive.

With IVF, a woman can have a baby without a man, and hopefully in the near future, a man could also have a baby without a woman. This would be very loving and progressive and all that.

And a consumer should also have full rights to reproduce whenever they want, without any interference from the public, and reproduction should only be a matter between the consumer and their IVF clinic technician.

I can’t foresee any problems at all with IVF, and hopefully IVF will become the only way for the consumer to reproduce in the future.

Children are not necessarily blessings – just look at abortion rates. But when conditions are right, they can be used to form, maintain or break relationships and otherwise for general procurement of social, political, legal and economic advantage.

Seeker, that's a sad way to look at things. Yes children can be used as pawns, but not normally deliberately by their parents at least. Not sure that this is what you meant, but its what I picked up from rading between the lines. Yes, children can used as such by parents (as well as society in general), but for MOST parents, it would be a side-effect, not a deliberate action. Does that make it any less harmful to the kids involved? No, I dont think so, but given lack of intent, its not quite the same.

HRS, like I said, I am my own worst enemy - I really should just leave you to your misery given that you've resorted to sarcasm. Unlike you I dont sit by my computer everyday - I have a life. Going away with my husband for our wedding anniverary was far more important to me this weekend than checking the computer to see whether you had made another silly post.

We have been over the adoption issue before. Its very difficult in Australia due to the regulations surrounding it, and not all Aussie's are as cashed up as Hugh Jackman and his wife, who left the country in order to be able to adopt from overseas. The local approach be it right or wrong, is to foster children rather than adopt them. So whilst adoptions do still happen in this country, they are by far the most difficult way to "obtain" a child. Which is sad really. As I've argued on previous topics, I'd rather see a drop in the abortion rate and a rise in the adoption rate. Even when IVF is available, it is far from foolproof - there is a high failure rate. So even with IVF as the main treatment for infertility, adoption would still have a large role to play. As it is, those for whom IVF fails, generally have to get used to the idea of a childless life

Country Gal,
Someone who is infertile does not necessarily have to be childless. With the wonders of modern IVF a consumer can always outsource and get someone else to have the baby for them. With child minding centers, a consumer can also outsource and have someone else raise their child as well.

Happily my shares in IVF companies are increasing in value, so I’m thinking of extending my portfolio and buying shares in some abortion companies also, and that way I can cover birth and death.

So I’m become quite feminist in my general philosophies, although I still cannot force myself to say that I am feminist without feeling nausea, but I might be able to adjust to that feeling of nausea in time.

I see that you are learning to say the word adoption, although I’m not sure if that is allowed in feminism.

While there has been much talk about the necessity to allow in more refugees (many of whom appear to be quite rich), there has been no talk on the possibility of adopting more children from other countries who are orphans or have been abandoned. I see that feminists always have their priorities right.

Country Gal,

For what it's worth, my advice is to Back. Away. Slowly. Toward. The. Door. You are eminiently sensible and very kind, but I feel there are other issues at play here besides those appropriate to sprited debate. Which is a pity, because there are points I wish I could discuss with you about abortion and adoption and Germaine Greer (unfairly maligned if you ask me). But people get bitter and nasty on these forums - I find it too disheartening and I think there are worthier battles elsewhere.

Nevertheless, I agree with you on many things, and just wanted to give voice to my support.

Thanks Botheration! I'm afraid I'm not one to give up easily, even when bashing my own head against a brick wall (or wishing it was someone else's).

I'd be delighted to participate in an intelligent discussion about children, feminism or any other topic you please! We can always try to carry on here and ignore HRS et al (he forgets that I have sided with him in the past against other posters whom I came to the conclusion were man-haters, so I owe him no favours).

I honestly believe that hard-line feminists such as Germaine Greer had their time. Even 20 years ago the world was a very different place as far as equality of opportunity goes, and hard-liners had a big role to play in getting where we are today. Nowdays though I feel that most of the big battles have been won, and that anything else will have to be gained in increments over time. New generations will help to change views, as they take a different perspective on things to thir parents and grandparents. That said, childhood experiences play a big role in adult expectations. I was lucky to be raised in an environment where I had no restrictions just because I was a girl. My husbands family are very different (and I'm not very popular as a result). But I see my sister-in-law spending her life being miserable mainly because she believes that her job is to win, then please a man, but then spends her life wondering why this doesnt give her fulfillment. My husband also has some pretty deep-seated beliefs about the roles of men and women thanks to his upbringing, but I'm slowly educating him! Actually his views have changed dramatically since our daughter was born, as she has become his little offsider (equally happy playing with dolls or pushing her dumptruck in the sandpit). Interestingly it has also changed his views on perving on women and making derogatory comments about them (used to be perfectly acceptable, but now the "target" is someone's daughter!).

Botheration,
I think Country Gal has begun to open her mind. She has even said the word “adoption”, and all by herself.

That amounts to dissention. So now you want to take Country Gal back to the cult, where you can be secretive and gossip and feel oppressed.

Country Gal won’t be able to resist.

But I am quite honest and open about it. I now fully support IVF and abortion because I plan to make money from it, and that will make me feel good.

There is a definite need for much more adoption, but feminists will rarely mention adoption, and tend to talk in glowing terms about IVF and abortion instead.

I think feminists like IVF and abortion so much because it gives them power over life and death, and that is what makes feminists feel good.

HRS, I too believe adoption is not the panacea it once may have been, just as Country Gal believes it to be also the case for feminism. Abortion may be higher than many believe to be ideal, but it’s not going to magically contract without a proportional increase in the numbers of decent people. Educated, and decent.

And anyway, there are more adoptions occurring in Australia than you seem to be aware of. Men can freely adopt children by marrying single mothers. And what about all those social or residential fathers consciously or unwittingly adopting babies as they pick up their wives or girlfriends from their maternity wards?

Men can accumulate as many biological or adopted children in this way as their pay packets will allow, but at $200k (disposable) to raise each one, and without guarantees of paternity, continuity, or tangible returns whatsoever, my envy goes out to mothers and their sperm donors.

Country Gal, I’m glad you stayed.

Seeker
I would think that the greatest friend of women is men, and not feminists.

Feminism is of course heavily influenced by Marxism and the writings of Engels, but a part of feminism is also influenced by various sects and cults such as Wicca and various forms of witchcraft. Wicca and witchcraft are actually a part of the curriculum of a number of feminist university courses.

In the past fertility was very important, but there was little medical knowledge. So most villages had their local witch, and it was the local witch the woman went to if she wanted to loose a baby, or if she wanted a baby and she believed she was infertile.

The witch would cast spells and carry out various acts accordingly. The witch had great power and control over people, and was either revered or hated (a bit like Germaine actually).

The modern abortion clinic and IVF clinic have replaced the witch, which is why so many feminists support both abortion clinics and IVF clinics. They think it maintains their control over reproduction, but in the case of IVF clinics, there are many more failures than there are successes, although the failures are rarely advertised. The success rate of an IVF clinic is probably about the same as a witch.

But considering the money spent on IVF and considering the vast number of children who are now orphans due to AIDS, I think only a feminist would encourage or support IVF.

I would agree that many men are very noble, and many men marry women or stay married to women when they have no idea if the child is theirs or not. That noble act is rarely mentioned by feminists.

Hi Seeker, I think that some of the issues that have helped to slow adoption rates in this country are some of the same issues that we are going to see come out of donor IVF. Ie, that of kids wanting to contact their biological parents etc. I guess the difference between the two is with IVF both parties to any arrangement are willing (otherwise you wouldnt donate or go through the procedure), whereas with adoption usually the child isnt wanted by the natural parents (they didnt go and get pregnant just to help out someone else who couldnt). Adoption is always going to be a bit trickier because of that. It caused a massive uproar in my inlaws family about 6 years ago when they found out that there was an older child in the family that had been adopted out, and who came seeking her father. Personally I think the uproar was overdone (it wasnt my husbands father that had done the deed, but his uncle, so not really that close to home). But what it did for me was to demonstrate the effect that this can have on families. This is why I think that with any IVF donation, full disclosure to children is a must, and that donors need to agree to these terms when signing on.

HRS, as a by-line, my first post 2 weeks ago mentioned adoption, and was in support of your post at the time.

HRS and Seeker,

In 1972, there were 4,500 in New South Wales; in 2006, there were 19. There are four reasons for the decline:
1. the Supporting Mother’s Benefit (1973): suddenly, abandoned pregant women could afford to keep the baby
2. social acceptance of single mothers
3. the pill, and access to cheaper, better contraception in general
4. legal abortions.

IVF is not a significant factor.

These are compelling reasons. Even if you outlawed abortion, I think it is very unlikely that adoption rates within Australia will grow.

However, you could help make it easier for Australians to adopt children from overseas. Lobby the federal government, and your home state and territory government. Demand they:
• make it cheaper. NSW’s inter-country adoption fee is $9700; in other states it is over $10,000. This is non-refundable; you pay even if you are rejected. But the final cost, as I’ve pointed out before, is between $25,000 and $45,000. This is not because there is no demand – there are thousands of people on waiting lists. In fact, some states have closed their lists;
• ask the federal government to sign bilateral adoption agreements with the 36 other countries that have signed the Hague Convention; but which we haven't yet signed those agreements with. The Hague Convention governs intercountry adoption;
• make it quicker. The average wait is 7 years. Some parents begin the process of adoption when they are young, but end up rejected because they are too old;
• raise the age limit. People in their 40s can still parent, particularly if they adopt an older child;
• make the law consistent between the states and territories. Cause it's a mess.

Please, you say you care, so *do something*. You could help. Alternatively, you could say, “But you will not hear feminists using the word adoption” ten thousand times, and you could be spiteful and sarcastic to people who have caused you no harm, who have difficult lives of their own, and who wish you well.

The choice is yours.

Hey, Botheration and Country Girl,

I would also welcome the chance to discuss - and yes, probably at times even to disagree - issues in a non-combative and less acrimonious way than the bunfights which develop whenever a female (the term it seems is interchangeable with "feminist" or "feminazi" no matter what one's views are)speaks up on these posts.

If ever you have a spare hour or five, look up the User History of HRS et.al. and you'll see that everything one says has been said before.

That no matter how compelling the evidence provided it is ignored.

That you can pose questions as to sources, clarification, justification until blue in the face and never get an answer.

No matter how reasonable a line is taken it is regarded as inflammatory merely because it is uttered.

And that even when you can prove them wrong they will pop up in the next thread repeating the same quotes or reasoning.

From time to time new people with something interesting to say drift in, get abused and take off again and I am coming to resent it bitterly.

There is a General Discussion index available so why don't we open up a thread there and simply make a deal to ignore any irrational, unreasonable or abusive posts? Simply let them have their two cents worth and ignore them completely? Dunno about you guys, but I've have enough real dramas in my life to consider courting vilification and abuse a royal waste of my time.

Whaddya say? I'd also love to talk about Greer and why on earth anyone gets their knickers in a twist over her these days; and why female academics cop such flack ; and adoption law reform etc. (You know here in China you can't adopt if you are overweight. Not morbidly obese, mind you. Just overweight!)

And p.s. start now by ignoring any reaction this post gets by the mob dubbed often "the usual suspects"?

Country Gal,
You still retain some feminist thinking processes. You keep suggesting that what happens in your family is representative of a whole.

You have said various things about fathers, abortion, adoption, IVF etc, but you will find that there has actually been very little proper research ever conducted into fathers, abortion, adoption, IVF etc in this country.

For example:- I have only heard of 1 study conducted into sperm donors in this country, and that was a very small study carried out by a journalist.

Although feminists are a minority, they control most of social science, and will only conduct what research they want to conduct, and will only allow out what information they want to allow out.

So instead of proper knowledge, we have feminist advocacy research, anecdotal evidence and much misinformation.

You should learn to look at things on a broader scale, and that way you may learn something. You will learn very little from feminism.

New discussion relevant to feminism started!

HRS, glad to see you write actual points, questions and assertions. These we can discuss! I keep bringing up my family to highlight some of the vast differences that still exist, not to try to paint all of society the same way. My big shock ws to find that there were still (lots of) people that think as narrowly as my in-laws do. Most employers I have worked for on the other hand have been quite the opposite, and have been keen to promote and give payrises to the most worthy staff members, irrespective of gender (at one stage I was offered a promotion to the highest level in the business, and I was 6 months pregnant, so quite obviously there was no gender discrimination there - my boss was male too).

You are quite right in saying that there is little research into men and male roles. I respectfully suggest however, that men still control much of the funding in this country (look at the proportions of politicians), so women can hardly be blamed for this. The problem though with any sort of social research is that it is usually conducted with an agenda in mind by the researchers, so should always be taken with at least a grain of salt. That said, most people would no doubt support research into men's roles/issues etc if some researcher wanted to start. The level of community support behind mens health issues is a great example of how the whole community supports both mens and womens issues.

Country Gal
You are still following feminist thinking processes. You think that any criticism of feminism is a criticism of women.

That is like a cult that says that any criticism of the cult is a criticism of God.

Like IVF clinics, feminists hide their many failures, but at the end of it, the most prominent thing feminists have achieved for women is the feminisation of poverty. That has come about because of the feminist policy of destruction of the nuclear family, but the enormous number of women now on welfare is something feminists don’t like to talk about much.

Certainly I believe that there should be pressure on government to take funding from IVF and put it towards adoption of children.