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.