Yeah, thanks for pointing to gods grace in every thread you have ever responded to BD, we really like that sort of thing around here and honestly don't deserve the salvation offered. Personally, I would never have heard about Jesus and his teachings if it wasn't for the online missionaries. Now I'm off top buy a bible and a holiday to the Creation Museum in Kentucky! WOOHOO.

Are you really so wrapped up in your own little pious world that you can't see what's so evident?

Poster's here tolerate you, some of them only barely. That's it. If you get support it is in the form of a 'Bible at sixty paces' thing.

As to the rest of your usual rambling dirge; thanks; you amply demonstrate what I'm saying.

Oh,....and get your facts right;I didn't use THAT word. But YOU did. Freudian?

BD this is an interesting topic, and although I haven’t completely made up my mind about this yet, I tend to feel that, in principle, biological grounds are a good reason for disclosure for medical background reasons. Also, perhaps these children should have the same rights as adopted children.

On the other hand, I’d say that we can’t neglect the fact that even in the mainstream family, there’s a chance that either the husband has had an affair that resulted in a pregnancy he might not even know about or doesn’t want to know about, or the wife has had an affair with the chance that one of the couple’s children might be another man's.

I found a study on recipients’ choices between anonymous or identity-registered sperm donors that may be of interest to you.
Although it’s not an Australian study it can still give us some insight on statistics although IVF for lesbian couples doesn’t apply to Australia- therefore I promise not to bash you if you ignore this.

Of course, not only white women have used sperm donors as your title suggests; but I suppose in Australia white women using a donor would be in the majority.
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/20/3/820
The majority of candidates preferred to use an identifiable donor because they thought it was the child’s right to know who its natural father is.

I find the idea of the brother-in-law having to impregnate his diseased brother’s wife appalling; has the woman a say in this at all? Perhaps she doesn’t WANT sex with her brother in law or have this man’s child…

I have one question. If the sperm of a sperm donor is used by about 15 different women there will be 15 half-brothers and sisters walking around. What if, coincidentally, a half-brother and sister would end up marrying and starting a family- would this inbreeding impose a risk to their offspring?

Thanx Celivia

your input further expands our thinking on this.. I won't ignore it :)

Bugsy and Ginx.. *points to Celivia's post*..its easy isn't it.. leave aside prejudice and hate.. and engage with the issue at hand...

bingo...we then have a useful discussion.

No, Boazy- with you it's never a "useful" discussion.

Ditto, Bugsy!