[Dean's World] Aziz P: sins of the fathers

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Aziz P:
sins of the fathers
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1201297786.shtml


   I think that this comment to [1]an earlier post was rather
   overwrought:

     You're position is basically shitting in the face of men who always
     wanted children, but can't because they are sterile. So when he
     takes his wife to a fertility clinic and gets her fertilized with
     someone else's sperm, are you telling me his is NOT the father?
     He's nothing?? What the fuck kind of bulls^&t is that?? Get off the
     fence. Either Fathers (step or bio) are good or they are S^&T.
     There is no in between.

   As far as I could tell, at no point in the original post was an
   argument made that non-biological fathers are "nothing". Interpreting
   it as such struck me as a very dogmatic desperation to take offense,
   any offense.

   But taking the comment on its merits, it appears rather disjointed.
   There are several issues being mixed up here. One is whether
   fertilization of your wife by another man's sperm at a clinic is
   "real" fatherhood. I may be naive here but that scenario seems
   fictional and contrived to me. Usually the point of fertility clinics
   is to get the couple's own sperm to implant in their own ovum, in
   vitro, to get viable embryos of their own for reimplantation (I have
   several friends and family who've been through the process with
   varying success). If the process fails, usually adoption is the next
   recourse; I guess I am old fashioned ut I dont see why a woman would
   want to go through the hell of pregnancy to carry any baby but one
   that is unambigously hers and her husband's to term. In fact the idea
   verges on obscene in my mind. Adoption is an obvious alternative with
   zero moral complications, in fact a highly honorable and much less
   risky alternative at that.

   The second issue is whether a step-father is better or worse
   intrinsically than a biological father. The answer here also seems
   obvious; the value of a father is how they parent, not who they are.
   That said, it's also rather obvious that all else being equal, of
   course a biological father is preferable. Pretending that the value of
   genetic inheritance, kin, and blood is ridiculous.

   Finally, I take issue with the idea that a father is "either good or
   s^&t" with no in-between. Maybe the less said about that, due again to
   it's overwhelming obviousness, the better.

   Or maybe I am just totally wrong on all counts. Still, I don't think
   that the comment in question was motivated by a genuine desire to
   discuss the merits of fatherhood in the abstract, but rather is yet
   another example of a pattern of abuse being leveled at this blog
   community as a whole. Rather than simply accepting the abuse, but also
   without responding in kind, I think the best approach is to simply
   respond on the merits of their arguments, such as they are.

References

   1. http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1201185649.shtml