Sunday, March 19, 2006

Desperately Seeking Sperm-Donors

Saturday morning, I read "Looking for Mr. Good Sperm," Jennifer Egan's NY Times Magazine cover story about women in their thirties who have made it their priorities to have babies on their own, with the help of sperm donors.
One day last October, Karyn, a 39-year-old executive, pulled her online dating profile off JDate and Match.com, two sites she had been using, along with an endless series of leads, tips and blind dates arranged by friends and colleagues, to search for a man she wanted to marry and raise a family with. At long last, after something like 100 dates in the past 10 years and several serious relationships, she had found the man she refers to, tongue only slightly in cheek, as "the one." It all began last summer, when she broke off a relationship with a younger man who wasn't ready for children and got serious about the idea of conceiving on her own. She gathered information about fertility doctors and sperm banks. "Then a childhood friend of mine was over," she told me. "I pulled up the Web site of the only sperm bank that I know of that has adult photos. There happened to be one Jewish person. I pulled up the photo, and I looked at my friend, and I looked at his picture, and I said, 'Oh, my God.' I can't say love at first sight, because, you know. But he was the one."
One cute Jewish person, and she's sold. Well, to an extent, I can't blame her, especially after 100 dates, which isn't a number I've reached. So I guess people who are not in sperm donor clinics shouldn't throw vials. And while a certain part of me shouted out a supportive "you go, girl!" to the women who aren't waiting for the men to get their acts together or emerge from whatever rocks they're hiding under, another part of me was appalled at what I perceive to be in part, the creation of a child to substitute for the warmth of a lover or life companion, as well as the reduction of any sexual relationships that the mothers may participate in to a mere flesh-on-flesh encounter, with no strings and absent of any meaning or potential for future. Some of the women, while certain that they want their own children, are also in "relationships" with men who don't want children at all, and there seems to be an understanding that although the relationship between the two consenting adults will go on after the baby's born, said child will have no relationship with his or her mother's sexual partner. Not only can't I imagine how this will work parenting-wise, I wonder if it's going to be a lot more work to try to keep those parts of her life separate. But here's the case that really interested me.
Q., a 43-year-old health-care manager who attended a yeshiva from kindergarten through high school (she asked that I use only one of her initials), first sought out a Jewish donor. "Everybody either had glasses, they're balding or their grandmother was diabetic and had heart disease— typical Jewish population," she told me. Her solution: a 6-foot-2 Catholic, German stock on both sides, with curly blond hair and blue eyes. "He really was the typical Aryan perfect human being," she said, laughing. "He was a bodybuilder. He played the guitar and the drums, and he sang. He was captain of the rugby team in college. When I had the in vitro process done, the embryologist said: 'This is some of the best sperm I've ever seen. It just about jumped out of the test tubes."' Q.'s golden-curled, blue-eyed daughter has just turned 2.
For a moment, let's put aside the fact that she found the entire Jewish population wanting and opted for a Catholic, a "typical Aryan perfect human being," as she put it. And let's not discuss the psychological reasons for choosing to engineer your child with stock from the perceived perfect population (and whether or not such a decision is, in its own way, eugenics albeit an extremely different sort than that practiced by Nazi doctors). Let us instead focus on her demographic profile...she attended yeshiva through high school. So did I. What happened to her between 18 and her current 43 in order to persuade her that this was the only way to move ahead with her life? And how did she overcome community disapproval? Is she even part of a community? And did that inclusion or exclusion influence her decisions? What kind of support structure does she have, both financially and familially to be able to support a child on her own? And the question I found myself asking as I read the article, theoretically and educationally, this woman and I share a background--if I get to the point where if biologically the choices are procreate or give up the chance for motherhood, would my choices be any different? I obviously don't know. But what became clear to me as I read was that I'm way luckier with the support structures in my life than she seems to be with hers.
[...]Q. developed severe hypertension during her pregnancy and had to be hospitalized several times. Her symptoms lingered even after her daughter was born, and she became preoccupied with what would happen to the baby girl if she were to die. Her brother and a sister are selfish, she says, and her mother is elderly. Last fall, she went to the Donor Sibling Registry and got a shock: the Aryan bodybuilder with the leaping sperm has fathered 21 children (and counting — he is still an active donor), including four sets of twins. These children are all 3 and under, and their families — four lesbian couples, three heterosexual couples and six single mothers — have formed their own Listserv, where photographs of the children (all blond, with a strong familial resemblance) are posted, and daily e-mail messages are exchanged about birthdays, toilet training and the like. They are planning a group vacation in 2007. "I was elated," Q. told me. "To quote the granny on 'The Beverly Hillbillies,' I wanted her to have kin. Now here's kin that look like her; that're in her same age range. I even thought that if I get to know somebody really well from this group, maybe I would pick one of these other mothers, if they would be interested, to be designated as a guardian for my daughter."
Her mother is elderly. And her brother and sister are "selfish," she says. I don't know what that means, other than that apparently they don't support her. So if something--God forbid--happens to her, it looks likely that she'll be designating one of the other mothers--of children who happen to share the same genetic material but who may have nothing else in common, especially if her Jewish heritage is important--to be the guardian for her child. I'm not here to judge the choices of others. I'm not in their biological or situational shoes, and until I am, I can't tell you how tight said shoes are. But as the author of a book about children who survived the Holocaust because they were hidden--often with non-Jewish families, with the most Aryan-looking among them standing the strongest chance at survival--I can't help but feel somewhat unsettled, on a Jewish collective unconscious level. I've said it before, even with parents and siblings who I think would be willing to help, I don't think I could do it alone. And I don't think I'd expect the help, or be brazen enough to ask them for it. And as a freelance writer, I don't think I'd ever have the income to do it. And of course, a substantial part of me isn't willing to give up the dream of having it all--the companionship, the compatibility, and the conception--with the right guy at my side.

31 comments:

Treifalicious said...

You know, Esther - these women with their children would end up not incredibly different from the legions of single parent families where the father is not involved or barely involved, whether the parents were married or not.

What do you think women who, say, get pregnant by boyfriends, especially when they are in their early 20s, who break up with them shortly after the baby is born (or even before) and is rarely, if ever, seen or heard from again?

These women carry on dating lives (though severely constrained unless they subject their child to all kinds of trauma with men sailing in and out of their lives). In her 40s, the men whe would likely be dating might expect women to have kids anyway from previous relationships. SIngle parents also often have G-dparents who at least traditionally are supposed to take care of the child if he or she is orphaned. These G-dparents could often be close friends.

The fact that Q's family won't help out is unfortunate and may very well have to do with their disapproval of her choice to have a baby this way. If Q had simply gotten pregnant out of wedlock or was divorced they would likely have been more supportive.

Bit yeah, single parenthood is said to be a b*tch and is not reccommended.

Esther Kustanowitz said...

You're right, of course, Treifalicious. The difference is that these women are effectively choosing to become single mothers, which many of the single mothers you're speaking of never had the chance to choose. And it takes a certain personal strength, financial stability and perhaps a smidge of craziness to do make this choice. All of which I lack at this point. Except maybe the craziness...
:)

Anonymous said...

I was quite interested in the article because I've had discussions with friends, more and more as the years go by, about which point you decide that you want to have a kid more than you want to wait for the right partner before you have one. As one of the women in the article said, you have your whole life to find a life partner, but there is a limit to when you can have a kid--biologically or through adoption. (It's more difficult for older parents--say, people over 50--to adopt, even more so if they're single.)

I'm a little bit aghast that I'm having these discussions with women who aren't yet 30, but I think our collective experience teaches us that you don't really have until 45 to have kids if you want to use your own eggs. And if you're going to need to have all of these things in place to make it work--a strong support network of family and friends, an income that can support yourself and one or two children--then you need to start thinking about it sooner rather than later. Not to freak anyone out here, but it takes time to get all of that in place.

Having said that, my aunt and uncle married when they were 39 and 36, respectively, tried to have biological kids for ~five years, didn't succeed, adopted an 8-month-old baby from China, and now have a lovely family complete with 4 year old daughter, 12 years after marriage. Yeah, so I'm 20+ years older than my first cousin, and my aunt had to deal with menopause and toddlerhood simulatenously (she assures me that this is not an easy task!), but it's working out well. This is becoming more and more normal, and, sadly, there is no shortage of infants from around the world who need homes.

I wonder how men feel reading this article, though. Both men who want to have children but haven't met the "right one" yet, and men who don't want to have children.

ptwelve said...

Clearly, these women are cornered. They've run out of time. It's now or never.

There's an equivalence to online dating where you *order up* your dream guy: tall, handsome, rich, etc. This way, you get to order up some qualities of your dream child -- in this case, tall, blond, no tendency toward diabetes, etc. Except that, when choosing half of your child's DNA, you actually DO have some control.

I totally didn't understand the lead of this piece. So her childhood male friend is there looking at the computer with her, and his picture appears on the donor site? Why didn't he just impregnate her independently? Did she tell him she was going to choose him? The whole thing made no sense.

And, Esther, 100 dates in 10 years is nothing. That's less than one a month.

Shaun Eli said...

Oh my, one of the women quoted rejected Jewish donors because they either wore glasses or were balding! Was she looking to date her offspring?

Has she heard of laser surgery? Hair transplants? A dermatologist told me recently that in a couple of years they'll be able to clone hair, so baldness certainly won't be a problem by the time her child reaches an age when hair loss is an issue.

I'm so glad she focused on what's important-- a blond haired rugby player.

TM (Jewlicious) said...

Baldness is a sign of high testosterone levels.

What if the perfect German dude's grandparents both died of cancer and - god forbid - all of these offspring are now at risk? Why would a sperm bank allow one father for so many offspring?

Ro said...

I agree with the balding remark. Isn't baldness passed down from the mothers side or does that depend? I agree with the remark that she is not dating her kid. It seems to me that she is trying to create a perfect companion for herself rather than creating a life. I wonder if thats a bit selfish perhaphs.....

I also wonder if there is a limitation on how many kids can be fathered by one sperm donor.

hmm Did anybody watch last weeks episode of Number 1 Single? I think Lisa Loeb had an ep dedicated to this topic. To insenmate or not to insenmate.

rolls eyes....

VJ said...

I think this is the Brave New World, and will be more common in the future. I too 2nd many of Esther's thoughts here. Naturally it takes a special kind of person who's willing to take on a child in mid life. But if you want to be a mother, and you have no great prospects for finding 'the one', this will become increasingly attractive to many women as they approach 40 something, and have a decent disposable income. Either way, adoption, IVF or 'simple' sperm donation will cost plenty. The cheapest being the latter option (depending how it's done), but the rest can easily be as much as 20-35K, or the average yearly salary for many women.

Again the Census tells us that this is a increasingly common trend, especially among fairly well to do urban dwelling professionals. Which is why the NYT is talking about it. Again it's never easy as it sounds as T reminds us, but it's not exactly uncommon in many communities. Poor available choices for parenthood is one reason, isolation from same is another.

Many people will read 39 year old Karyn's profile and think she's just selfish and 'too picky'. 'Something like 100 dates in 10 years' is afterall, about 10 dates a year. Not even 1 a month. Love that could last exiles of regular sea voyages lasting 3-4 years during the 19th century are a long forgotten experience. But evidently spending just perhaps much less than 100 woman hours a year with prospective Jewish mates drives people batty enough or scares them so thoroughly as to drive them to Aryans. That's just really sad to realize as Esther notes.

I think some of this has a consumerist bent and desire to it too. Most of those 'Jewish types' may indeed not be conventionally 'pretty enough'. Most will not be the blonde tall body building types. We work with what we've got. Again it seems like for whatever reason, for many women in and around NYC, (and elsewhere), this is not good enough. It was good enough for momma & grandmom, but not for dear daughter. 'Glasses & balding', oh my. I can think of many dark and dangerous unstable men that might be well contained and swell looking, but give them glasses, make them balding, perhaps a history of heart disease in the family and they might as well be a crazed serial killer with a dripping bloody knife for all that it will matter here. Geez, past a certain age MOST people will have some serious health condition. Many people have chronic conditions that their parents never had too. Many people are indeed healthier than their parents.

All we have is our 'typical Jewish population'. For over 5000 years, through repression, war, death, triumph & success, it has indeed been 'good enough'. What's the basic problem here with women like Q and her ilk? We can not all be Supermen. Even that blonde 'ubermensch' sperm donor for Q. will have some problems and issues that may remain hidden. Perhaps some deeply hidden and very unfortunate psychological traits that do not compliment his looks all that well. A tendency toward addictions, or aggressive acts towards others. But to actually be 'outbred' by Catholics (!!) should be all telling us something as Jews. Some of this is covered by Esther.

Naturally on some level it is shameful to the community. On another level it speaks to the desire of the perfect consumer product in a baby, and one many women are perfectly willing to sacrifice their health and futures to obtain. That has many profound implications, but a spot light on these seemingly superficial desires by Q and other should be almost as acceptable as Woody Allen telling us 'the heart wants what the heart wants'. Yes, the heart may want many, many things. We have our faith, our humanity and our dignity that might intervene and suggest otherwise. Evidently though we are going in for the production of 'perfect' *looking* babies, not just Jewish ones or healthy ones.

So bottom line, reading the NYT is annoying, almost all the time. And yes, they will highlight all the annoying aspects of life that you may have missed in the big city. You'll feel like you need a bath to cleanse yourself of the sleaze and hype after reading it, and that's just from the Magazine or style section. I fully support adoptions for couples or singles who want children and who have the desire and wherewithal to take care of kids. I think that single parenthood is very difficult and taxing, but no one should be encouraging anybody to think of kids as the 'ultimate human commodity'. I fear I'm too late in this, and that there's really no good or easy way to stop this common sentiment. Why do we as deeply flawed, imperfect beings want and so deeply desire our progeny and yes mates to possess 'super human qualities' or at least pretend to not have these all too common Human failings as well? I really think this is a very flawed way of looking at begetting children, and I do believe that the children may indeed suffer from this belief, or at the very least we will suffer from these children. I thank goodness that it's not all that common at the moment, and that the costs make it unlikely to be so for some time to come. Thanks for the thoughtful provocative post Esther. Cheers & Good Luck! 'VJ'

Anonymous said...

Baldness is a sign of high testosterone levels..
--------
Ancient Jewish saying I think I read in a fortune cookie:
1. Man who grows bald in front is a thinker.
2. Man who grows bald in the back is a lover.
3. Man who grows bald in front and back thinks he's a lover.
4. Man who grows hair on his palms has been donating too much of his sperm to sperm banks.

VJ said...

In the above exposition, this works better as "I can think of many dark and dangerous unstable men that might be well contained and swell looking, but give a decent honest bloke glasses, make them balding, perhaps a history of heart disease in the family and he might as well be a crazed serial killer with a dripping bloody knife for all that it will matter here."

And on numbers, the Census tells us that this 'single parenthood' is an increasing urban trend for well educated women in their 30's & 40's. The trend is still not that 'big', and of course the numbers for 'assisted technology' births is actually much lower. So just to be clear on the concept. Most women will know more than a few likely willing sperm donors, and have little need to search through the files for the 'best looking Aryans'. After all the late great playwright Wendy Wasserstein went that route. Most of the time it's quicker and has much more to recommend it.

Cheers & Good Luck! 'VJ'

Anonymous said...

"So bottom line, reading the NYT is annoying, almost all the time."
VJ- Couldn't have said it better myself. Your points are excellent. The focus on appearance (g forbid your child needs glasses) is the height of superficiality. One of these women were more irritating than the next. Especially unappealing 1)The women who lives in a basement studio apartment with a murphy bed and who walks around with the picture of her sperm donor in her wallet and who needs to save up just to have the child. 2)the women who claims she wanted a non-white donor because "I don't have to slather sunblock on my kid all the time. I want it to be a healthy mix. You know how mixed dogs are always the nicest and the friendliest and the healthiest? If you get a clear race, they have all the problems. Mutts are always the friendly ones, the intelligent ones, the ones who don't bark and have a good character." and 3) "One was Indian: "He's got black straight hair," she told me, "brown eyes, he's six feet but he only weighs 150. Which is good. If I have a girl, she wants to be skinny, and if she can eat what she wants, that's perfect. You don't have to get in fights about food." Children aren't purses or dolls to dress up. A woman should ideally have a child under the best situations (family support, financial security, etc.) If I have a choice I would never have a child in a sub-par situation. To have one just because its time is just sick. If these mothers truly cared for children they would adopt older children who are in desperate need for a home, become foster parents and/or get involved with children's charities. As it stands, because of financial requirement almost all of these women will have to work and put their young children in childcare. But like Esther the fact that they dragged Judaism into this drek (ex jdaters etc.) makes me furious. This article needs a disclaimer. Women featured in this article are extremely shallow and do not represent all women, Jews, jdate users, and/or women over 30. Liek VJ, I need a shower. Ick. P.S. For all of you men out there- Quite a few women think you're perfectly attractive. Don't let this train wreck of an article get you down
.

Anonymous said...

Oops- That was a disclaimer for bald men at the end of my post. They were unfairly targeted in the article. Some women really think you're sexy and perfect just the way you are. If someone would write you off simply for that reason, they're not worth your time or your love. :)

VJ said...

Thanks for that Anon. It's really a good thing I never read the entire article. It sounds perfectly horrid on too many levels to count. In other words, about a perfect NYT Mag story. It'll probably get plenty of undeserved 'buzz', in and around NYC, and again unfairly stereotype Jewish women everywhere, which is something I did not want to do in my comments. I well know this applies to a very small select audience that makes everyone involved look pretty sorry. It's the ethos that bothers me most, and the fact that the NYT's seeks to pander to our most basest instincts here, and in so many different and underhanded ways, it's going to take weeks to deconstruct them all. Pretty bloody typical too. Cheers & Good Luck! 'VJ', ga.

Lab Rab said...

Just so you know, in situations in which poskim recommend IVF with donated sperm for infertile Jewish couples, they insist that the donor be non-Jewish, so as to avoid all questions of Jewish paternity and mamzerut.

That said, this situation is, well, different.

Kudos to you for keeping up the dream. Your time will come.

VJ said...

Lovely, That was my next question LR. Thanks! Cheers, 'VJ'

Chutzpah said...

There are plenty of financial unstable orthodox married couples having children #6-13 after the wife turns forty with no regard to the risk of defects because they don't screen for them and they don't have abortions, and of course they have faith that G-d will provide or "the Community" will chip in to help them. Is what they are doing any worse than single woman choosing to go it alone with a donor?

Anonymous said...

Is what they are doing any worse than single woman choosing to go it alone with a donor?
----------
Perhaps. I have a lady friend who went the donor route. Had a beautiful little girl.

But the kid soon realized that all the other kids have a daddy, I mean a daddy they could hug, and hers is not around. She would like her real daddy to be there. How you gonna manage that with "Sperm in a Bottle", any suggestions? LR (male)

VJ said...

There's a bit of a difference between having a married couple begetting their 'full measure' of family as they see fit, and some of the single women described in the NYT piece. True, some of the same basic questions of rights are concerned here.

The assisted technology is somewhat loosely regulated but it's increasingly unlikely that you'll be able to find a clinic that's willing to do such a procedure much past age 44-45. It's been done to be sure, but not without some heavy coercion and subterfuge on the woman's part.

Some will no doubt see this as every woman's natural right. Perhaps, but when the process involves a business transaction for cash money, then the state can naturally step in too. Lest we forget that there are many, many religions where this type of IVF or indeed any type of reproductive technology aiding conception is seen as anathema. Many of these religions are also powerful allies with the current government in some of the most aggressively regressive policies seen in regards to reproductive rights and women's rights in our recent history. It is largely forgotten that the Catholic Church is uniformly opposed to such things, and they've got plenty of clout and a voice in policy making that is all but absent for much of the Jewish community.

Which brings me to my final point. Yes, reason #592 why I Hate The New York Times. It's the women hating, the women ignoring, and the toadying to all those women hating conservatives who regularly appear on their august pages, to the almost complete exclusion of women's voices. My local rag does better. See the link to the 03.20.06 American Prospect story by Garance Franke-Ruta:


[http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11330]

Cheers & Good Luck, 'VJ'

Chutzpah said...

LR,
"How you gonna manage that sperm in a bottle question?" The same way any parent deals with answering any difficult questions from their children, i.e., presenting the answer with love and patience in a manner that is appropriate to the child's level of understanding.

"all the other children have daddy's"...no, they don't. Many women are abandoned by their babydaddy before the birth.

"she would like her real daddy to be there" yeah, and so would children who lose a father to abandonment, accidents, disease, war, and incidents of terror

Jennifer R said...

I know this goes against Jewish beliefs (then again, I'm not Jewish, so...), but I don't think there is somebody out there for everybody and that they will meet and be happy and have children if they want to. And if you're running out of time and you want a kid, but can't find a husband to provide one before you can't make a baby any more...hell, you might as well get some sperm. At least they won't feel like they missed out on EVERYTHING in life that they wanted. And well, plenty of single parents out there anyway.

(Ironically, this comes from someone who doesn't even want kids.)

Needsabetterjob said...

chutzpah hits the nail on the head. These people are having way too many babies, IF they can't afford em. Then again, it could be that the 'community' is in favor of large families, and has no problem supporting that.

I think the larger issue is that there is no solution to the singles crisis.

Anonymous said...

I have not read all the comments but I noticed almost no attention given in the NY Times article to the best interests of the child; that is, the entitlement of a child (in my humble opinion) to at least start out with a two parent stable home (even if the parents are of the same gender). As someone did comment I think, divorce, death, all of those circumstances that can lead to single motherhood do not result from a person making a choice at the starting gate to deprive a child of a father and a stable two-parent home (and I would feel similarly about bringing a child into an unstable marital situation just because the clock is running). I am a woman of a similar age to the women in the article, and for now I could not bring myself to justify depriving a child of a father from the get go just to satisfy my need to be a mother. I would have to think of the child's interests first and despite modern thinking I cannot let go of the entitlement of a child to at least a shot at a two parent stable marital (or at least marital-like commitment) home in which to be born. I do not find these particular women courageous (maybe I would find others to be so) but rather selfish to a point where I had some doubts about their abilities to be good mothers, let alone both mother and father.

Simcha said...

I agree with everything above. Almost.

If anyone of reproductive age is desperately seeking sperm, please e-mail me. I'm Jewish, can walk, talk (usually), have a bank acount, a car and an apartment.

As a limited time offer, which ends when the Prophet Elijah comes, with every sperm donation we'll throw in a free foot massage. AFTER the chupah. Simcha

Anonymous said...

Here's on the NYT article, from blogger DCBachelor.

Best of show:

"With online dating, friends used to say: ‘What about him? What about him?’ I’d say: ‘Don’t like the nose. Ah, the eyes are a little buggy. He really likes to golf, and you know I don’t like golfing.’ There was always something."

Translation: There is not a man alive that meets my standards.

Chutzpah said...

The "entitlement of a child"??? NOBODY is "entitled" to anything in this world...there are NO PROMISES and NO GUARANTEES. People would like to be "entitled" to being born with silver spoon in their mouths. People would like to be entitled to be born into a family with no troubles or health problems, but it doesn't work like that.

Life is a game and you gotta be in the game to play it.

I would think that being born to a mother who went through all the trouble of the process of sperm donation and who is an educated, successful upper east side new yorker with a supportive extented family is a pretty large "entitlement" for a child to start out with. Beats the hell out of being #11 into a two-parent family that has to share one cholent bone.

Lyss said...

Hope nothing 'weird' pops up in those Aryan genes in the future....

Not sure I would've chosen Aryan, ut I might not have stuck with "Jewish genes". To me the cultural experience of being married to a Jew is important. If I'm just using a man for his genetic material, then it's not so important.

As for the woman who rejected jewish sperm because the donor was balding or whatever- the point of reproduction is to combine genes for an optimum outcome. There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to ensure that future generations that spring from your loins have the best start possible and the least amount of medical deficiencies.

andrew said...

So, when did sperm care what religion the man who had the sperm had?
Doesn't religion just come as a cultural choice? You can choose your religion, but you can't choose your parents.
What you need to consider is, this is as a case of you deciding how to bring up your child.
What you will find is that child will be a good mix of both parents genes.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Karyn in the article should reconsider having a child. The article says that all of her blind dates and jdate/match.com profiles left something to be desired (ie: buggy eyes, etc)... Maybe Karyn is a bit fixated on the superficial.

She says she postponed her first insemination because of a flood in her apartment. Not convenient time to have a child? Who said children were convenient? Parenting means stepping up to the plate even when the kids are "not convenient" and it would be easier withou them.

She says that someone always loses out in a relationship/marraige - and it's usually the woman/wife. Maybe she needs to get some new friends/family and see that it is indeed possible for relationships to be equal.

Seems like Karyn needs a shrink - not an appointment for another insemination.

Needsabetterjob said...

I agree w/ Chutzpah again. You have to think of the damage caused to the child in this system. I have seen lately a young child from Hassidic large family that he was dumped onto Social services. he is very messed up.

david said...

Greetings, I invite you to consider my offer to assist. Please view my website at www.jewishspermdonor.net

Anonymous said...

Hi David
nice to see your ad, here is mine, *smile*: I am 44 years old, a medical doctor, jewish (Asheknazi) and married with 3 children. Based in London, UK, I am an AI only donor. I do think children are fun, and enrich life, and so would be happy to donate sperm - AI only - to a lesbian couple, hetero couple or someone single, preferably from the same ethnic/religious background (I mean ke-dat ha-halacha). I am 165cm/70kg, with black hair and green/brown eyes. I enjoy travel - *smile* Last AI success, by the way, was in Jan 07 to someone who was 42, *smile* If interested, please mail me at navevi04@yahoo.co.uk

To clarify: Actually, I would prefer donating to someone Jewish. However, just one wish with the last statement - over the last 3 years I have been contacted by something 15 Jewish recipients who all, after some chat (sometimes over almost a year) explained that they were actually looking for something else - like
"if I had to choose between Jewish and tall, I would choose tall",
"If I had to choose between Jewish and 20-35, I would choose 20-35"
"If I had to choose between Jewish and single, I would choose single"
"Why do I need a Jewish donor as a woman? Since I am Jewish, the child will be Jewish anyway" or the best so far:
"I would have a problem using a known donor" etc - I guess everyone gets the drift, *grin*

And these are all comments I get AFTER all these people have contacted me initially. I mean them coldcalling me, not me coldcalling them. My current null hypothesis is that they were actually looking for a NO, for emotional reasons, were surprised to get a YES, so had to backtrack and say a NO themselves.

So please, don't contact if this ethnic feature is unimportant, if you are actually looking for something else, or just doing it for testing the waters - potential donors have feelings too, so please don't contact just to tick on a box - done that - next...

Kind regards

FQ, MD