Shades of Dan Quayle vs. Murphy Brown in the the early nineties.

Now, it’s Bill O’Reilly taking on Jennifer Aniston over the 41-year-old actress’ statement (while promoting her new film The Switch, a comedy about sperm donation) that “Women are realizing it more and more knowing that they don’t have to settle with
a man just to have that child,” adding “Times have changed and that
is also what is amazing is that we do have so many options these days, as
opposed to our parents’ days when you can’t have children because you have
waited too long.”

O’Reilly called out Aniston on the remark saying the suggestion that men are an unnecessary part of a family is “destructive to our society.” For her part, Aniston has walked her statement back some, telling People Magazine “Of course, the ideal scenario for parenting is obviously two parents of a mature
age. Parenting is one of the hardest jobs on earth.” She goes on to say “And, of course, many women dream of finding Prince Charming (with
fatherly instincts), but for those who’ve not yet found their Bill O’Reilly, I’m
just glad science has provided a few other options.”

Here’s my problem with one specific “option” provided by science, the one that seems to be promoted as rather cute and funny in The Switch. In an era when deadbeat dads are rightly being called into financial and moral account for the children they help bring into this world, why are sperm donors (and particularly anonymous sperm donors) allowed to skate free from their responsibilities?

If nothing else, the dichotomy between how we treat men who impregnate women the old-fashioned way those who go the scientific route (often for payments of between $35 and $50 per specimen) sends a mixed message to men.  Are we morally responsible for the kids we bring into this world or not?

And then there’s the question on how such a scientific choice impacts the life of the resulting child.  Writing in the Washington Post in 2006. Katrina Clark chronicled her search for her anonymous dad, poignantly noting that:

I was angry at the idea that where donor conception is concerned, everyone
focuses on the “parents” — the adults who can make choices about their own
lives. The recipient gets sympathy for wanting to have a child. The donor gets a
guarantee of anonymity and absolution from any responsibility for the offspring
of his “donation.” As long as these adults are happy, then donor conception is a
success, right?

Not so. The children born of these transactions are people, too. Those of us
in the first documented generation of donor babies — conceived in the late
1980s and early ’90s, when sperm banks became more common and donor insemination
began to flourish — are coming of age, and we have something to say.

I’m here to tell you that emotionally, many of us are not keeping up. We
didn’t ask to be born into this situation, with its limitations and confusion.
It’s hypocritical of parents and medical professionals to assume that biological
roots won’t matter to the “products” of the cryobanks’ service, when the longing
for a biological relationship is what brings customers to the banks in the first
place.

We offspring are recognizing the right that was stripped from us at birth —
the right to know who both our parents are.

And we’re ready to reclaim it.

While Ms. Clark goes on to note that she has no anger at her mother, who she says is her hero who sacrificed everything for her, it’s clear that she believes women currently considering the sperm donor route would be wise to consider the third (and most important) party involved.

In any event, it’s a contradiction to tell men to man up when it comes to parental responsibility unless they happen to be sperm donors in which case it’s suddenly okay to disappear and have nothing to do with their children’s lives.