In 2005, Britain changed the law protecting anonymous sperm donors and allowed children to learn the identity of donor fathers (which is bad news) and limited the number of women who can use sperm from one donor (which is good news).In 1991, Britain registered some 500 sperm donors; since the change in the law, the numbers have dropped by 40%.' Obviously, the men were anonymously donating sperm for the financial compensation, and not for the purpose of fatherhood.' Once the anonymity factor was gone, motivation declined as these men likely felt threatened by potential future responsibilities to a child they had no intention of taking any responsibility for; either financially or emotionally.Another concern about anonymity is the sanctity of the family.' I have always advised married, infertile folks who have called my program to keep their plans a complete secret.' I don't believe it is in the best interest of children to have a sense that the wonderful man protecting, providing, and loving them is not their daddy.' Anything which interferes with that child/father bond should be avoided whenever possible.' And, I never thought the origin of the haploid DNA contribution was as significant as the ultimate parent/child relationship.Britain capped the number of babies which can be created from one donor.' Sperm from one man can now be used to produce only 10 babies (in Holland the number is 25).' The United States does not cap sperm donations at all...and I think that is ridiculous.' You certainly don't want anonymous sperm in one geographical location to be used to make scores of babies who are unaware of their genetic relationship.' The statistical probability of them meeting, falling in love, marrying (aw, I'm such a romantic) and then having children is not insignificant.' This is a factor that could lead to obvious medical problems for their offspring. More >>

There have been a number of lawsuits over the years concerning the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) during relatively casual sex in relatively casual relationships.' The New York Post published a story about a forty-seven-year old attorney who filed suit against his wife of twenty-two years, charging that her straying had left him with Herpes Simplex virus 2, an STD that caused him to experience "pain, suffering, emotional, mental, psychological and physical injuries and the loss of enjoyment of life."I guess he figured that if he had it, and had sex with her, that she'd contract it and then he'd blame it on her during their estrangement so that he could leverage his position with respect to collecting back monies he'd have to give her in a divorce.' I guess that's it...because she filed papers last month with the results of her blood test which was negative for HSV-2, commonly known as genital herpes, with which the lawyer husband says he's infected.Nonetheless, the question still remains: who is responsible for the transmission of an STD in a casual or dating relationship?' Is it the full responsibility of the infected individual to reveal in advance of any sexual activity that they have the communicable disease?' Or, is it the responsibility of each and every individual to not rely on the kindness of strangers?I believe that anyone who knowingly transmits an STD should be prosecuted criminally and sued civilly.' The severity of the consequences should match the seriousness of the STD.' Some of the STDs are curable with medication; others are simply controlled with medication; some may lead to a higher incidence of cancer; and some are a virtual death sentence.'Considering these factors, people who don't ask - much less are foolish enough to believe it when they're told, "No, I don't have anything," - who don't take precautions such as condoms (which aren't foolproof), who have multiple sexual partners, and who don't value the monogamous commitment of marriage after both people have complete physicals and blood tests to ensure a "clean slate," have to take some responsibility onto themselves for their foolishness.It's like this: when you let your dog loose off the leash and it runs into the streets to be run over by a speeding car...the car actually killed the dog; but you put the dog in the place where it could happen.' That is shared liability and shared moral obligation.DO ask, and DO tell; and be truthful. More >>

A successful marriage requires falling in love many times, always with same person. - Mignon McLaughlin'''''''''''''''' American journalist and author More >>

I know I have made myself quite a controversial subject by my insistence that children be loved, cared for and raised by their mommies and daddies instead of hired help and institutionalized child care. As I have said many times, children evolve each and every day...and those minutes need to be influenced by and experienced with the people who matter the most. This is why I am thrilled about the one-sided effect of the current economic problems in America.According to a recent report in USA Today , parents nationwide are telling day care providers that "they must scale back or abandon their services. Instead, they keep kids at home with grandparents or up-end their work-life balance because gas and food prices have become prohibitive and average child care costs outpace rent and mortgage payments - even for those drawing salaries." Of course, the day care industry is scurrying around trying to come up with a plan to save itself. Many are offering all kinds of hours and financial deals. The USA Today article, after noting that the 2005 U.S. Census Bureau data (the most recent available) indicated that 2.65 million preschoolers attended day care, and that current statistics of un-enrollment were not available, called the situation "distressing."Sure it's distressing for an industry that has been so effective in its marketing, that parents who actually raise their own children are made to feel guilty for doing so. But it is not distressing for the children, who will now be in the arms of people who love them and are there to teach, nurture, support, and experience life with them.Sure it's distressing for parents who have to reconsider and reconfigure their lives to accommodate raising their children. But, they will find surprising rewards in the true experience of family.The hysteria from the child care industry has included dire warnings that parents will leave their kids home alone, in cars, or with strangers who might hurt them. That sort of child neglect and endangerment goes on in spite of filled-up day care establishments and should be dealt with through social services (to help families make better adjustments in their priorities) or through the legal system (where children are removed to live with safer relatives or foster care).If it is true that every cloud has a silver lining, then the "shine" is there for many children of parents who can no longer pay the $3,000 to over $10,000 a year for day care, because mommy or daddy is coming home to you . More >>

This is one of those times when one of your emails says it all.' The following email puts every parent on notice with respect to the proper protection of their children from influences which hurt their souls: "Hi Dr. Laura!' I type reports for some youth programs and typed a report a few weeks ago that has been on my mind. This report said that this particular teenager had been using very offensive swear words since the age of 5 when this person saw an R-rated movie. My first question was "What is a 5-year-old doing watching an R-rated movie?" Where is the parent? Another report indicated that one teenager had started inhaling cocaine after seeing it done in a movie. I see kids being influenced by the media all over. As a teenager many years ago, I was taught that our minds are like a camera - i.e., taking a picture that you can't get out--so be careful about what you put in it. Many people are concerned about the effects of violent video games and truly believe that these games will affect kids, but why don't they use the same standard about movies that have sex (especially explicit sex) and vulgar language in them? That sticks every bit as much as violence. Once something has entered your mind, it is changed. Today, I read in a local paper about a study that was done regarding teens and media (television and movies) containing sexual content. The teens who watched media with sexual content were more likely to engage in such behaviors than those who did not. We would never invite a stranger into our home without knowing their purpose. Yet, every day we invite strangers into our homes when we turn on television or put a movie on. We think we know these people--they're on the front cover of every magazine at the checkout. These people often, don't have our best interests at heart or the best interests of our kids at heart. They are there to make money, and generally, that is their only purpose. I'm amazed at some of the talk show hosts and authors that have shared their infidelities, whether on TV or in books, like it is a badge of honor. They will certainly take credit for lending their influence in the [recent] presidential campaigns, but they certainly would not take credit for their influence in the lives of today's teens in the terms of drugs and sex. We have choices! We as parents need to be more judicious as to what we will allow in our homes and what we will allow our kids to be exposed to within our realm. We need to love our kids and ourselves enough to turn "that program" off and spend our time with our kids or developing ourselves. Our kids are influenced by a lot of other people away from the home, but when they return to the home, we do have the influence to reinforce the difference between good and bad, right and wrong. Thank you so much for all that you do to fight the negative effects on the family!" When you're so busy, busy, or have long given up on taking the leadership role in raising your children, or you're way too easily dissuaded by popular culture from having moral standards and values by which you wish to raise your family, your children become prey and the predators are many.' Like vampires, they wait to suck the blood out of your children's souls and psyches, leaving them to the forces of their immaturity and the allure of their impulses.Your children need you to take stands...their futures depend on it! More >>

More >>

More >>

I've had a liberal commentator on live television in Canada suggest that someone should slit my throat because of my support of traditional marriage.' He was not countered at that moment, nor criticized later.'' I, however, had to have bomb-sniffing dogs case a Canadian stadium before I gave a charity fundraising talk because of some nasty threats.'A fellow in West Hollywood didn't see the irony in showing hatred towards Sarah Palin by hanging her in effigy...after all, if it's not one of "us," then it's explained or excused as simply funny or an exercise of free-speech.'Calls to my radio program come from people of both genders, all age groups (5 to 81), the spectrum of races and those of various socio-economic standing, liberals and conservatives, and "straight" as well as "gay."' It would seem that socio-political positions be damned, since most all people have an interest in the well-being of their children, their intimate, family, work, or community relationships, their inner struggles, as well as morals, values, ethics, and principles.''When I helped a young male caller with his "boyfriend" problems - which are no different in their content from "girlfriend" problems: common sense, fears, communication, - I got a spate of letters like this "I can't stand it anymore! I know Dr. Laura can't refuse to help people who call in, but I am SO sick of homosexuals being crammed down our throats. I can't even turn on Dr. Laura's show and get away from it. "Decent, moral, religious, family-oriented people listen to Dr. Laura's show and don't want to listen to that crap. I feel like gay people are trying to throw their sexual preferences in our face more and more all the time with calling in to radio shows, lawsuits against people who don't bend over backwards for them, children's books, greeting cards, etc. The world really is going to HELL!' I would really have a hard time answering calls like that if I was Dr. Laura." The station that aired my radio show dropped it because "She talks to homosexuals as though they were human." These comments are generally more than balanced by ones like the following: "I've been a listener... for years and years. I've always enjoyed your show and appreciated your approach. One of your conversations today prompted me to write you. I am gay, and have had a long and challenging process in accepting my sexuality. Not only am I gay, but I'm a Christian, and generally hold conservative beliefs. Many of my friends have bought into the "victim" mindset that our community is told we have to fall into.' In my opinion, all this seeks to do for anyone is to separate and divide. They believe that everyone needs to completely accept and support gays.'"While I personally believe that this is how I was born and how God made me, I also realize that many people do not share my view. While I disagree with them, I respect their right to hold that opinion. You made an excellent point today when you highlighted the difference between tolerance and acceptance. Right or wrong, good or bad, It's simply unreasonable for anyone to demand complete acceptance of anything from anyone else. "I wish with all my heart that my gay and lesbian friends would get past their biases and listen to what you have to say about right and wrong, healthy behaviors and appropriate ways of handling conflict. Thank you for being you, standing up to those who cowardly try to tear you down and silence you, and for coming into my radio every day. You have helped me more than you will ever know!!" Speaking of hate, there's a new television series (ABC, Thursday, 10 PM) called "Life on Mars."' A New York City police detective goes spinning back in time from the year 2008 to 1973 - where he is stuck.' The 1973 cop he teams up with and he have interesting "cultural" differences.' For example, the 2008 cop describes an assault that just happened as "a hate crime."' The 1973 cop mockingly retorts - "As opposed to an "I really, really like you crime?" - pointing out the absurdity inherent in such classifications - as though all men and women were not created equal nor equal in the sight of the law. More >>

More >>

The organization "Students for Life of America" has released yet another undercover video of a nurse at a New Jersey Planned "Un-Parenthood" facility describing how an abortion would be performed on a 22 week-old unborn child and admitting that some babies survive such abortions. "It does happen," the nurse said.Well, here we are again with another YouTube.com or Eyeblast.tv video ( www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e46UqG8zSU ) demonstrating either the illegality (i.e., not reporting minor girls pregnant by adult men) or immorality of Planned "Un-Parenthood" Clinics.In the SFLA's video, the nurse explains the late-term abortion procedure to the pregnant woman, while the woman questions the nurse about the details. "Is the baby alive?" asks the pregnant woman. "Usually not," the nurse replies.' The woman asks if the baby could be born alive, to which the nurse responds: "Usually, for the most part no, but it does happen.' It's an actual delivery," her explanation continues, "but it wouldn't be able to survive on its own, so eventually the baby does die." According to the Catholic News Agency, Kristan Hawkins, SFLA Executive Director, commented on the video: "I was absolutely stunned when the Planned Parenthood nurse revealed that allowing a baby to die after being born alive is a common practice for abortionists.' This is outright infanticide." SFLA has called on Congress to investigate Planned Parenthood, which reportedly receives about $300 million in taxpayer funding each year.' Apparently, there is not a law protecting those who survive abortions.' Critics of such a bill claim that such a law or requirement - to tend to the life birth - would burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.Oh my gosh, when a human being survives the attempt to destroy them, they are left to die in order not to burden a physician and an almost-mother?' What kind of civilization thinks this way?I'll tell you what this is really about: if Planned "Un-Parenthood" saved the lives of babies who survive their abortions, then women would less likely come to them for abortions, and that would hurt Planned "Un-Parenthood's" bottom line.'According to National Right To Life ( www.nrlc.org/News_and_views/july07/nv071907.html ), the dedication of Planned Parenthood to abortion is...apparent: "against 264,943 abortions, Planned Parenthood saw just 12,548 prenatal clients. This means that it was 21 times more likely that a pregnant woman coming into a Planned Parenthood clinic would receive an abortion than receive prenatal care.' In 2005, in its entire nationwide network of over 860 clinics, Planned Parenthood saw just 248 infertility clients.' Put another way, this means Planned Parenthood Federation of America' treated just one infertility patient for every 1,068 abortions it performed.' Adoption services or referrals aren't even mentioned." Planned "Un-Parenthood" is always screeching in its fundraising warning letters that it is about protecting women's reproductive choices, but what one of its latest service reports shows is how rarely Planned Parenthood's plans involve parenthood, and just how often they involve abortion, which is why I call it "Planned Un-Parenthood." More >>