Strollerderby : artificial insemination

Egg Donation: Which Comes First?

JeanneSager — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:29:00 GMT

I was surprised at the very clinical approach to the egg donation issue over at The Frisky last week.

Breaking down the medical steps a woman has to go through if she opts to donate her eggs to another family for procreation, it was a well-informed article. It just seemed to skip right over stage one.

I may be stereotyping here (OK, yes, I am stereotyping here), but when it comes to donating eggs vs. donating sperm, the donor seems more likely to have a mental and emotional hurdle to leap before they get to the point where they show up at a clinic and start filling out paperwork and rolling up their sleeves for shots.

Egg donation is a wonderful thing for the recipients who gain a chance to have the baby they would otherwise be unable to make (whether it be infertile females, gay men, what have you). It can also be quite lucrative for the women who do so. Women report anywhere from $5 to at least $20,000 for the process (which, if you read The Frisky article, is in-depth . . . much more so than that of the sperm donor).

Many women can separate the egg being removed from their body from the idea that somewhere out there, a child will exist. To them, it is not their child. It's the child of the person who received their egg. End of story. Still, many can't - and those are the women who would not make a good potential donor.

Maybe it's because I could hardly see myself being a donor (a personal choice, not a judgment call) that I think that part stands above the medical concerns when you're debating "is egg donation worth the money?" The exact question asked in the article is, "Is the money worth the headache and time it takes to be accepted as a donor?" I have no qualms about letting a woman do it just for the money (plenty of men do it, why can't we?), but again, the headache and time it takes to be accepted seem to be secondary hurdles.

Because until you can decide that you have no emotional connection to that egg, you shouldn't even think of facing all of those medical issues.

Do you think this is an issue best approached clinically or emotionally?

Image: FirstScience

Woman Plans to Be Impregnated with Dead Lover’s Sperm

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:50:00 GMT

Nabokov wrote, “Eccentricity is greatest grief’s greatest remedy.” This is certainly the case for a Bronx woman whose 31-year-old fiancé died unexpectedly from a heart attack last week. In the wake of her partner’s death, Gisela Marrero found comfort in the possibility that she could harvest his sperm. Marrero and Johnny Quintana had been together for 13 years and already have a two-year-old. According to Marrero, they were planning to have another child.

Marrero’s fight to harvest her lover’s sperm was a race against the clock, as sperm remain fresh for only 36 hours after death and Marrero was required to have a court order okaying the procedure, since she and Quintana were not married. The judge approved of the post mortem sperm extraction with only four hours to spare, so sperm bank employees rushed to the medical center where Quintana’s body was held.

In the midst of the indescribable pain that Marrero must be in, it makes sense that she would jump at the opportunity to keep the man she loved in her life, in any way possible. But, as unimaginable as it surely seems to her now, Marrero could eventually fall in love with someone who would love to be the father to her second child, making life much easier for this unborn child. I’m certainly not against artificial insemination for single women, but bringing a baby into the world so that the memory of his father can live on is, in my opinion, too much burden to place on a child.

Marrero claims that having another child was Quintana's wish and is the "last thing I can do for him." But having a child while alive and becoming a father after death are two entirely separate things. There's no way to know what Quintana, who was not expecting to die so young, would have wanted in this situation.

Do you think that the judge was right to approve of Marrero's desire to increase her family, despite her lover's death?

Photo: Daily News

Mom Gets OK to Collect Dead Son's Sperm

Moms From Two Countries Bond Over Shared Sperm Donor

JeanneSager — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:02:00 GMT

They've never met. But they're parenting brothers.

Sally is a British citizen who gave birth to son Alex in 2004. Riikka Turunen gave birth to son Kasper in six weeks later in her home country - Finland. Their sons' father? A sperm donor identified only as "Jens," sperm sample 3001, a Dane who likes football and plays jazz piano. Since finding each other online via the Donor Sibling Registry, they've been e-mailing back and forth over the thousands of miles that separate their lives. They plan to meet - along with Turunen's partner, Satu Sorjonen - in 2012.

I was fascinated when I read up on the Donor Sibling Registry here on the 'Derby in May. But I was looking at it from the angle of sibilings meeting siblings, from the perspective of a number of adopted friends who've confided in me over the years about the curiosity they say has been simmering since they first learned they were adopted.

But a mom, looking for a sibling who isn't really a sibling? I understand - sort of. That same curiousity is there. They're seeking someone who shares their child's blood, who may share their ski slope nose or their oddly long pinky toe. They're looking for confirmation that traits they can't place in their own families have roots somewhere out there.

Still, I can't help wondering if they'd care about these kids if that information was there, in front of them. If a woman bears a child through the traditional insemination process, she (usually) knows something about the guy. If he goes on to father more children with someone else, she usually isn't jumping up and down to meet the kids. Even stepmothers often tell me their love for their stepchildren developed because this is the child of the man they love - the fact that their own biological children share the same genes is secondary.

So why bother?

Adopted kids who go searching for birth parents or siblings, children born thanks to sperm donation who are seeking their "father" and any other kids he may have helped produce, are usually raised in an environment where a shared blood line is limited to just one person or none at all. There are dozens of reasons why they might begin their search, but it comes back to one thing - finding someone with that common link.

What these moms are finding isn't a link common to themselves but to their kids. Where no other answers are available for those kids' burning questions, it's a toe in the door. And for the moms, it's pretty incredible to open their hearts to another kid for the sake of their own.

Image: Science A Go Go

Source: Times Online

Soldier Dads Get to Watch Kids' Born from Overseas

Nicole Kidman drank the Kool-Aid and it was fertile

How to Annoy Your Sister: Advertise on Craigslist

Ruling: Docs Must Impregnate Lesbians and Singles, Too

Madeline Holler — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:05:00 GMT

The California Supreme Court has ruled that fertility clinics may not turn away clients based on their sexual orientation or marital status. Yes, that's even if the doctors claim helping lesbians or singles become mothers is against their religion. Hallelujah!

What's incredible to me is that doctors turned away paying customers in the first place. But with the baby-making business booming, perhaps there was some wiggle room in the bottom line for bigotry.

The suit was brought against a clinic in California in 2005. Doctors told Guadalupe Benitez that they refused to inseminate her with donor sperm, first because she is gay and then later because she was unmarried. The doctors said they were exercising their freedom of religion in turning her away.

The ruling says anti-discrimination laws take precedence over doctors' right to religious freedom. Amen!

Now the question is, will those docs get out of the business, you know, on religious grounds? I doubt it, too, I doubt it, too.

What's your take?

Photo: LA Times

Rudest Question to Ask a Pregnant Woman: Lesbian Edition

Erin White — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:26:00 GMT

Madeline and her faithful readers have come up with a bevy of rude, ruder, and rudest questions to ask a pregant women. I can't help but add my two cents with a short but rude list of questions I got during my two pregnancies.

But before I do, let me just say that I am wholeheartedly committed to deepening people's understanding of how LGBT couples become parents. I know that often times what looks like homophobia is simply misinformation and that, armed with the facts, people are far more likely to be comfortable with and accepting of lesbian and gay families. But pregnancy brings out the sensitive in all of us, gay or straight, so here are five questions that, in my opinion, should be googled, not asked:

1. Do you know the father?

Darlin', there is no father. There is a donor, and maybe I know him and maybe I don't, but either way it's no business of yours.

2. Did you consider adoption?

We did. DId you?

3. What is the baby going to call you?

Ms. W. and Ms. C. Lesbians are nothing if not formal.

4. Do you hope it's a girl?

The fact that lesbians want to have sex with women doesn't mean we want to populate the planet with them. It's 2008, people. The Marge Piercy novels are out of print and Holly Near is married to a man. Lesbian Separatism is (mostly) dead.

5. Was IVF just a fortune?

I don't know. I didn't have IVF. I had Artifical Insemination. And so did the vast majority of other pregant lesbians, some of whom actually made it a DIY job. (WIth a syringe, not a turkey baster.)

So there's my list. What can you add?

Pregnancy: It's Not Just for Women Anymore

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:47:00 GMT

An Oregon man has publicly announced that he is five months pregnant with a healthy baby girl. So all of those hypothetical “If men could get pregnant….” statements may get practically tested after all--although somehow I don’t think abortion is going to become a sacrament or maternity leave is going to last for two years for the sake of Thomas Beattie, a transgender man who had to go through nearly ten doctors before he found one who was willing to handle his highly unusual case.

I must admit that when I first heard about Beattie’s pregnancy claims on ABC, I feared for the reputations of transgender people everywhere: a man gets gender reassignment surgery, then gets artificially inseminated and broadcasts it on the Internet? Plus, according to ABC, a few of Beattie's neighbors were convinced the whole thing was a hoax. “I saw him the other day, and he didn’t look pregnant,” one said. (As I later learned, my concern about Beattie's outspokenness was shared by some in the trans community.)

But after reading Beattie’s moving first-person account published in The Advocate, I had a very different take. ABC failed to mention that Beattie’s wife is unable to carry a child, making their decision to have Beattie be the biological mother understandable. Furthermore, Beattie explains the logistics of his situation in such a way that it's clear this will be a very wanted baby. He has always identified as a man, and years ago underwent chest reconstruction surgery and began taking testosterone to appear outwardly as one. But he kept his female reproductive organs, so in order to become pregnant, all he needed to do was stop his testosterone injections. Not that he wanted to start getting PMS and cramps again, but hey, we all make sacrifices for our offspring.

Marry for Love—or Diaper Duty?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:53:00 GMT

Today, “Marry Him!,” an article by Lori Gottlieb in the March Atlantic Monthly, was emailed to me for the third time by a single, female friend. Since the article became available online recently, it has been circulating amongst single women in their twenties and thirties, generating either rage, resigned sighs of agreement, or panic. As a single mother of a child she conceived with donor sperm, Gottlieb argues that the idealistic search for a soul mate—oh so important in one’s twenties—seems like a massive mistake when one is living alone at 35, trying to pay the bills and get the diapers changed. Look past his flaws, Gottlieb urges. Passion? Romance? Good conversation? Hot sex? They all pale in comparison to having someone—practically anyone, so long as he’s steady, sane, and able-bodied—to share the bills and child care with.

As a 25-year-old woman who has always wanted to have children and who has zero prospects of making that happen anytime in the near-ish future (at least in the two-happy-parents-who-are-not-on-welfare sort of way), I was Gottlieb’s ideal audience. On the one hand, I resented Gottlieb’s blanket assertion that what all heterosexual women really want, deep down, is a husband and a child, as well as her glib view of divorce—at least you get babies and child support out of the deal, she argues. Coming from a family where divorce is practically synonymous with anniversary, I would take not knowing my child’s father over going through a divorce any day.

And yet, sad as I am to admit it, Gottlieb’s warning was not wasted on me. As someone who does eventually want a family at a time when dating in America often consists of “hooking up” from time to time—meaning that now more than ever men my age are in no hurry to commit—Gottlieb’s article did wake me up to the possibility that at some point in the not-so-distant future, I may have to approach these matters of the heart with a bit more brain power.

I have always been devoted to the idea that I will never settle down unless I find the One—but don’t expect me to go looking for him; I’m an independent woman who doesn’t need a man. Approaching dating with the goal of pinning down a husband always seemed to me like a nauseating endeavor that no self-respecting woman would engage in. But Gottlieb’s article got me to thinking that at some point (I can afford to be a picky, hopeless romantic for a few more years), I may find that no self-respecting woman would stubbornly refuse to lower her lofty standards of husband material.

What about you single moms out there? Do you long for a partner as stridently as Gottlieb or are you happy with your independence? And do you women who are married see any wisdom in Gottlieb’s advice?

Image: Atlantic Monthly

Woman Undergoes Traditional Insemination With Sperm Donor

Madeline Holler — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:02:00 GMT

It’s a tale as old as time.

A sweet girl who loves children grows up to be a sweet nanny who loves children. She dreams of meeting Mr. Right, for whom she’ll bear children. Sweet loving nanny turns 35, panics, and opts to skip Mr. Right. Instead, she searches for Mr. Right Sperm Donor, whom she finds at a U.K. sperm donor website.

Mr. RSD agrees to meet. Fertile and anxious, she packs an insemination kit. Across a crowded room, she sees Mr. RSD, who happens to be very attractive.

Instead of handing him a cup, they take off their clothes and he donates his sperm the old-fashioned way.

This wasn’t his first time sowing oats -- he's fathered a handful of children -- though he says … well, in her words: We arranged to meet in a local hotel and talked about the practicalities. He mentioned that with the other women, it had been done with artificial insemination, but the other way was just having sex if I wanted, which he vaguely mentioned might make a pregnancy more likely because it is more natural.

Smooth, Mr. RSD, very smooth.

But, Baby, it’s different with you, you’re special, he told her. Oh wait, that’s not what she told reporters.

The two Brits met through an unregulated website that lists volunteer sperm donors. The site was conceived in response to a sperm shortage in the U.K. The shortage came about after new laws were enacted, which require donor name and information to be made available to offspring once they turn 18 years old.

On the site, sperm donors post their pictures and list attributes. It's filled with highly educated professionals. Of course. Sperm seekers pay a nominal fee and sift through the miles-long list of men ready to give. Background checks and health tests are up to the individuals to verify, which the nanny did by taking Mr. Right at his word that he's a doctor, and that he's STD- and HIV-free.

Cue the lullabys: Sweet Loving Nanny is now Sweet Loving Mommy. It took three encounters over three months before a pregnancy test came back positive. A healthy baby was born. Mr. RSD, perhaps during another "meeting" with a fertile woman, received the news via text message. Let’s hope there's room in his volunteer schedule, because Mommy wants another baby. Something tells me, the answer will be yes.

Photo: Daily Mail

Dear Men: Sorry, We Can Make Babies Without You. Signed, The Women

Karen Murphy — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:45:00 GMT

Woohoo! Okay, men, don't tell me you didn't know this was coming, but apparently you're about to become obsolete: a transplant technique is being devised that grows human cells from bone marrow. There are a number of advantages to this, namely:

1. It avoids the ethical dilemma and the endless debate posed by using embryonic stem cells. (Take that, George Bush!)

2. It's groundbreaking in terms of female infertility.

3. It's also groundbreaking in terms of men, affording men opportunities to become fathers who might not be able to otherwise (if they're rendered sterile by chemotherapy, for instance).

4. Same-sex couples won't need to line up at the sperm bank. Or beg eggs on a street corner.

5. And, well, the whole "men are redundant" thing.

Don't get me wrong, I adore men and I certainly don't see them being phased out. At least, not yet. But with this new way developing of conceiving without them, and new vibrators being invented all the time, seriously, what's the point? Ladies, are you with me? Tired of having to put the seat down all the time? Imagine a world where you wouldn't have to...

What To Do When Mommy Gets Inseminated With Some Random Dude's Sperm? Sue, Of Course!

Alisyn — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:41:00 GMT

Of course. It's what what we sue-happy Americans do, isn't it? But in the case of the Thomas and Nancy Andrews, it seems that suing the Park Avenue sperm bank that accidentally inseminated Nancy with sperm belonging to someone other than her husband, could do more harm than good - because the insemination resulted in the birth of their 21/2 year-old daughter, Jessica. Jessica's parents say "While we love Baby Jessica as our own, we are reminded of this terrible mistake each and every time we look at her." Why? Because Jessica, born to a white father and a Dominican mother, is black.

DNA tests confirmed that Jessica's father is not Thomas Andrews. Now the Andrews family has been given permission by a NY judge to sue the sperm bank for malpractice. Through court documents, the Andrews said "We underwent a complex medical procedure for the sole purpose of bearing a child of our own... we were never informed that this type of mishap could occur... this type of mishap is almost unimaginable. We fear that our daughter will be the object of scorn and ridicule by other children, both in school and as she grows up." (Ridicule?)

They certainly have a case for malpractice, no doubt about it. I shudder to think about how I'd feel in Nancy Andrews position (betrayed? confused? angry?) But what about their daughter? Her feelings have to be taken into account here. She is a living, breathing person, being raised in a family that is suing a sperm bank over her skin color. How's that going to make her feel about herself as she grows up? If some random white dude's sperm was used in the insemination process, they'd be none the wiser... Is a couple thousand dollars going to be worth the pain they may cause for their little girl down the road?

Pope: Ixnay on High-Tech Babymaking

Patti — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:14:00 GMT

He just wouldn't be Pope if he didn't feel comfortable getting all up in our uteri, would he? Over the weekend, Pope Benedict spoke out against "designer babies". Subjects of his displeasure included prenatal tests that detect defects or disorders (presumably because they might spur parents to terminate a pregnancy?) and artificial insemination (who knows?).

The guy might have a point about prenatal testing to an extent--as our own Karen recently noted. But given the issues that can be resolved much more easily if they are detected prenatally, I'd hesitate to throw this particular baby out with the bathwater. And God only knows what his problem with insemination is. Any thoughts?