Tuesday? Tuesday. Okay.

[kyburg]

Someone call the Maury Show! Seriously? One reason of many I believe everyone has a basic right to know their origins. Period. I mean - it shouldn't be a privilege granted only to 'normal' people, and however your family configuration shakes out can't be a consideration.

Everyone comes into the world the same way. Fer the love of mud, document it all the same way. Honestly.

---

I had three whole days to find an hour to unpack the dolls out of storage. I didn't do it. Again. Throw things.

Nah.

I didn't get any more books read, or watched any more television - or took in any concerts or conventions - but we did get a look at a karate dojo we think will be a good fit for kid, so that's something, right?

Sunday, attempted snubs were attempted at church (oh please) - and I ended up with all of the communion elements when someone else took it upon themselves to go around leadership council and bring in the elements themselves. Well, okay. Jim turned the bread into bread pudding Monday night and it was delish. So there.

(Really. Lost a parent at 6, a spouse at 37, three house fires, three burglaries and I'm supposed to get angry NOW? *checks* Nope.)

I *did* install a startup config file on my Sims 2 game that will allow me to combine households above the 8 Sims per lot limit. My first attempt? Resulted in a lot with 13 Sims on it, with more on the way. Oh dear ghads, I love a challenge. Now let's see if the game will run long enough for me to play this lot....

Ran the iPod out of power often. Slept as much as I could. Cleaned house like a mad mad thing. We reap the rewards of our work the rest of this week, such as it is.

Kid is being tasked with napping at school this week. I see a trip by me to re-teach sleeping away from home this week - stay tuned.

Comments

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

Everyone comes into the world the same way. Fer the love of mud, document it all the same way. Honestly.

I disagree. Having more restrictions, bureaucracy, and requirements for those of us who can't have children naturally just means that children become a privilege of the rich and fertile.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

The only thing I ask for is the same, simple documentation for children born out of assisted reproduction (including adoption) that the run-of-the-mill-nobody-needed-help crew get.

Who's your Mom, who's your Dad (the first, biological by DNA origin pair) on the certificate. And if you need two more spaces to identify the legal parents (because you were the one who got pregnant by donor egg & sperm?), good grief - ADD THEM.

I get so tired of people unwilling to be honest because it's merely inconvenient. Really really.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

it has nothing to do with honesty or rights or whatnot. There are plenty of naturally-conceived children around who have no idea who their father is; there's no "right" involved here. Plenty have no "father" on the birth certificate.

What you want is not "equality" - you want a special extra requirement just for people who are infertile. Extra burdens, which of course mean that fewer will be able to have children. Many sperm donors won't donate if their offspring will be able to track them down.


Who's your Mom, who's your Dad (the first, biological by DNA origin pair) on the certificate.

WTF? No. A sperm donor isn't a DAD. Jesus.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

When you're identifying biological parents? Yes, it is - by definition. (Are we going to split hairs on what to call the male half of meiosis? It can be done!)

And ask a kid created out of donors - http://donorconceived.blogspot.com/

Hey. Who's turn is it to get the 'fair' in this equation, anyway?

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

When you're identifying biological parents? Yes, it is - by definition.

"biological parent" isn't the same thing as "dad."

That you think it is is completely baffling to me.

I don't have to ask any of your handpicked disgruntled kids. As I remind you, my own brother is adopted.

I didn't bring "fairness" in. YOU did. you just messed up the application, creating a fairytale world in which naturally conceived children magically always know who their father is.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

As if I could handpick someone else's blog. *eyeroll*

You have one brother. I have two cousins and now, a son! I WIN! Oh, wait. Neither of us are adopted, so this isn't our narrative, is it?

(You realize this is completely pointless and pretty stupid, right?)

Fairytale world. Feh. I call privilege. If it's possible, it's stealing if you don't provide it.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

You have one brother. I have two cousins and now, a son! I WIN! Oh, wait. Neither of us are adopted, so this isn't our narrative, is it?

no, it isn't! which is why I am always baffled when you throw in some whiny, unrepresentative blog! you bring in one blog, I bring in another, and it's all stupid because it's not representative anyway.


If it's possible, it's stealing if you don't provide it.

?? you realize that's not the definition of privilege? or of stealing?

I call privilege on how you want to handicap people who can't naturally conceive.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

When you're the kid who never stops being seen as a child in the eyes of the law - it's not about the parents.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

WTH? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever! I have no idea how you've somehow deluded yourself into believing that children can force info out of parents and/or magically discover who their dad is if they weren't conceived via artificial means! IT IS NOT THE CASE! There is no DIFFERENCE between how the law treats biologically conceived and non-biologically conceived people!

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Force, no. I think the 'fair' approach includes thinking about someone besides yourself, your POV and needs/entitlements/etc when considering the trust you take on when you're parenting. That includes being willing to preserve their biological history when you and yours aren't the whole story. Fun? No. Better? Yeah.

Does that exist today? Oh hell no. What does today still makes me boggle. And creates scenarios that the article reported on, no more or less.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

I think the 'fair' approach includes thinking about someone besides yourself, your POV and needs/entitlements/etc when considering the trust you take on when you're parenting.

you might extend this to "thinking about what your children might want if THEY end up wanting to have children and unable to do so through normal means."

just because a given situation happens to be mine doesn't mean it might not be my children's later on.

What one really needs to consider, therefore, is the relative importance of the various effects your proposed rule would have. It would place a huge new burden on infertile people that would put sperm-donation-conception way out of the financial reach of all but the very-well-off. Balanced against that is some intangible possible desire a child might have to track down a sperm donor and contact the donor against the donor's will. i think the former is more important than the latter.

Of course, nothing you are proposing would have any effect on fertile people, who could go on denying this information to their children.


That includes being willing to preserve their biological history when you and yours aren't the whole story. Fun? No.

the fact that you think this is about "fun" indicates to me that you don't actually understand the effect this would have. PEOPLE WON'T DONATE.