Shady's Back...Tell a Friend!

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Baby Oh Baby!

An Israeli family was recently granted the rights to their deceased son's sperm. Their son was killed while fighting for the Israeli Army in 2002. Since then, the family has battled the court system for custody of his sperm and the right to impregnate a woman of their choosing, that their son had never met. The family says that their son wanted to have a family, but never had a chance, now he will.

I hadn't heard about this but it turns out that the practice of donating sperm before going into battle has cropped up in the U.S. as members of our own military have been sent to fight in Iraq. Sadly, I have a feeling we will see a court case about this at some point too.

I have to wonder what the Right "Babies Should Have a Mother and a Father" Wing will have to say about this one.

5 Comments:

Blogger (A Little) Gris Gris said...

Not okay. It's one thing if he had a wife, but this screams MOMMY ISSUES.

~And I'm out.~

2:55 PM

 
Anonymous Dr. Bombay said...

This seems to be a free market issue. Since we cannot give the product a value (other than an emotional one), we cannot determine the merits of this suit.

If we were able to commoditize it however, we will be able to determine if the product has a value that can be determined. Once we know what the value of spunk is, the inelasticity will be taken out of the system, and people can freely trade in “white gold”.

11:35 AM

 
Anonymous reebs said...

This whole concept gives me the heebie-jeebies. I want to know if the "woman of their choosing" 1)has any say in the matter and 2)whether she'll even have custody of the kid? What if grandma doesn't like how she raises the kid? I don't pretend to know how to draw the line here, but reproductive science is really starting to freak me out.

12:55 PM

 
Blogger (A Little) Gris Gris said...

It's actually the perfect scenario for his parents. It's as if they get to pick his wife. I know my mother-in-law would have preferred having a say. Too darn bad she didn't. Guess she's stuck with me. By the way, I know it goes both ways.

Value and heebie-jeebies aside, I still think it's wrong.

As for the 'children must have both a mother and a father' contingent - I'm sure they don't care as long as the deceased, his parents, and woman who will be fertilized, are all straight.

P.S. Reebs - I'm sure that the woman of their choosing will be required to contribute her eggs, her body, and 9 months of her life, but nothing more. And, if she wanted to have a role in the child's life, I'm fairly confident that the parents would go back to court and make sure that didn't happen.

I am sensing that the future Gran and Gramps have some control issues.

2:10 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and who would have coustody if (God forbid) gram and gramps don't last the next 18 years? Biological mother or random distant relative or the state?

I'm with reebs reproductive science is starting to open a whole lot of creepy doors.

4:10 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home