Religions and babies with Hans Rosling

Advertisements

One Man Fathering 150 Children? Why Sperm Banks May Be Unethical

Choose your sperm donor from an online catalog listing his race, SAT score, hair and eye color. Big business has taken over family making for sperm donors and receivers. This is cause for concern as the selection “pool” is made up of these certain select members and they donate weekly and are paid for their “work”. These donors can be chosen by multiple clients and thus create many more possible half-siblings across the country who may never know their sisters and brothers — which has ramifications that have not been thought through thoroughly.

Dr. Rene Almeling, an assistant professor of sociology at Yale, is the author of Sex Cells: The Medical Market for Eggs and Sperm (University of California, 2011), soon on the Babbidge Library shelves. The books description reads:

Unimaginable until the twentieth century, the clinical practice of transferring eggs and sperm from body to body is now the basis of a bustling market. In Sex Cells, Rene Almeling provides an inside look at how egg agencies and sperm banks do business. Although both men and women are usually drawn to donation for financial reasons, Almeling finds that clinics encourage sperm donors to think of the payments as remuneration for an easy “job.” Women receive more money but are urged to regard egg donation in feminine terms, as the ultimate “gift” from one woman to another. Sex Cells shows how the gendered framing of paid donation, as either a job or a gift, not only influences the structure of the market, but also profoundly affects the individuals whose genetic material is being purchased.

Find additional background at One Man Fathering 150 Children? Why Sperm Banks May Be Unethical | Sex & Relationships | AlterNet.

Looming behind any scenario in which millions of women shop for DNA from among millions of strangers based on characteristics such as looks, education, attainment, culture and class is the specter of eugenics: the pseudoscience — popular in early 20th-century America and Nazi Germany and elsewhere — of improving human populations via marriage restrictions, sterilization and selective impregnation. We don’t practice eugenics in this country anymore. Or do we? Is it the flipside of death panels?

What do you think?

More on baby gender selection and discounts

Sometimes people may wonder how librarians find the information they do.  It’s genetic. My profs in Library school called it having an I-gene. But that I-gene can really lead to some strange travels, one of which I had today.

June 22, 2009 Web excursion:

Went back to Contexts.org/ (sociology site of great interest), went to their blogs section and found a blog posting on an issue I had blogged about recently — Baby gender control. So I clicked:

http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/06/22/new-york-times-frames-sex-selection-as-culturally-asian/

At the end of the article, I learned a new term:

“By the way, on a discursive note, sex selection is called “family balancing” by some clinics. What an excellent example of re-framing!”

Love learning new terms. 🙂

So, I searched Google for “family balancing”

19,000 results the first of which was GenSelect.com

genderselect

Okay, I’ll bite.  After all there’s a money back Gender Guarantee. 🙂

http://www.genselect.com/goodnews/FamilyBalancing/

Is this a hoax site? As seen on TV? BBBOnLine? Looks a bit hokey to me but I decide to plod on.

http://www.genselect.com/store/

Wow! Lots of different kits for baby boy and baby girl making. What would my old granny have said? Then I hit the jackpot:

Found a 15% Discount if I went to Mommieswithstyle.com and searched on GenSelect. So I did…

http://www.mommieswithstyle.com/do-you-want-to-pick-the-gender-of-your-next-child/

Of course, I didn’t tell you about trying to decide which kind of Mommy I am — classic, trendy, retro, or princess.

Oh my, I am glad I don’t have to debate all these choices.

Drizzle drazzle drozzle drone… Time for this one to go home.

Contexts Crawler » the motherhood penalty

Yesterday The Examiner ran a story on an article published in the  American Journal of Sociology – and winner of the 2008 Kanter Award Winner for Excellence in Work-Family Research – about the ‘motherhood penalty’:  the pattern demonstrating that working mothers make less than women without children. The study, authored by Shelley J. Correll of Stanford University, Stephen J. Benard, and In Paik also suggests that, “the mommy gap is actually bigger than the gender gap for women under 35.”

Read the post via Contexts Crawler » the motherhood penalty.

%d bloggers like this: