Please tell who said she didn’t at least deserve a refund?
Only because disabilities often have inherent costs that are recoverable when someone else causes them. Being born the “wrong” race is not inherently damaging, or the basis for a lawsuit.
So the why would any fertility company contract with lesbians or minorities? If they know any mistake they make will consider societal disadvantage off the offspring as an aggravating factor, and a basis for awards, why would they give sperm to a lesbian?
Maybe, but you should be reasonably prepared for any number of things that have more of an effect. Regardless, those are the risks you take on as a parent whether or not you foresaw it.
Companies are generally made up of mostly moral people. If you think that a lawsuit is the main thing preventing them from misbehaving, I think you are wrong. Just consider the sheer number of misunderstanding and issues resolved without lawsuits.
Having read through the entire thread, I’d have to agree with many of the points you with the face has made.
The refund (and possibly a bit more), seemed like just compensation IMO, but attaching a dollar value (I’ve read why they chose that number) to the hue of her biological daughters skin, is wrong. I also view it as ironic, given they are a same-sex couple in the given state and area.
As its own isolated situation, I understand the counter-arguments, but given the history of race relations in the United States, I feel this is an opportunity grab, which essentially perpetuates the idea that blackness is a burden, which white people shouldn’t have to shoulder (more or less). If the reverse were the case, a minority family would have a tough time trying to mount the argument that they should enjoy a more affluent/privileged lifestyle, based on similar terms. It’s almost sad how laughable it would be, as a concept.
Ultimately, the aim should be to eradicate intolerance and bigotry. While this case likely won’t have much bearing in the greater picture, it sets a precedent, in some ways.
Edit:
Though I didn’t agree with your angle, I actually didn’t get this from your posts, either. I’ve seen your posts in other threads, so even if it were the case, I wouldn’t think that was the intention.
For those who the mother’s lawsuit is justified and doesn’t reflect poorly on her character, here’s a thought experiment:
Imagine this were a movie told from Payton’s vantage point. She’s 18 and has grown up knowing that she was result of a mistake that prompted a wrongful birth lawsuit that publically pathologized her hair and hyperbolically portrayed her coloration as a defect so extreme it necessitated exile from her mother’s hometown.
What do we suspect her relationship to her mother is like in this movie? Would we consider the mother to be a sympathetic character? Or would we see her in a bad light? Would we blame Payton for not being close to her mother?
Now imagine another movie, an alternate universe version of the one above. In this movie, the same mistake happened, but Payton’s mother did not sue…choosing instead to raise her daughter as though she was serendipitous blessing that was the best thing that happened to her despite the difficulties that comes with managing racism and ignorance. Wouldn’t we see Payton’s mother as heroic and righteous? Would we not see this as the behavior of a truly loving parent? Or would we think she was foolish and actually working against her daughter’s best interest, because she didn’t try to recoup “losses”?
I know, right? But according the mother’s own statements, she is not universally loved in her community. And I have no reason to think she isn’t wired much like the rest of her family is.
Sorry, I’m too tired to go back and look. I could be wrong of course, in which case I’ll withdraw it - you, at least, are happy with her only having a partial refund (and you can check your own posts for where you quoted her having a partial refund).
But I thought black people were disadvantaged? Are you arguing that they’re not?
Because the parents know what they’re going to be dealing with in advance.
You don’t actually take on the risks of your child being discriminated against for being black if you’re white and the donor you’ve chosen is white. You take on a lot of risks, like your child might one day get hit by a car and be permanantly disabled, or that your child has autism, or that… or all sorts of things. You’re not even, actually guaranteed that your child will look white because genetics throw up strange things.
But the sperm bank did actually send out the wrong sperm and it admitted that. It was sperm that resulted in a child that does not look like, and from the start had very little chance of looking like, the other parent. It was sperm that gave the child a disadvantage in life due to racism.
Large companies are mostly made up of moral people who are ordered to do things by people who aren’t necessarily immoral, but so far removed from their end customers that it’s hard for them to apply any ethics to them. Most of us get screwed over by those companies now and then and it’s rarely because the employees on the ground want to make a quick buck, it’s because their eventual employers want to maximise profits. Some large companies do much worse things than send out the wrong sperm, and I would be disappointed in you if you asked me for a cite as to that (also because it would derail the thread).
It’s a big deal, ordering sperm to create a baby. It should be done right. If it’s not done right, more than a partial refund is in order.
On the other side, based on her posts in other threads, I don’t think that was the intention either, but that is how those posts that contained statistics came off to me. That blackness is a terrible stigma and that this woman should profit from being burdened by proxy.
Racism is still a problem in America, but that shouldn’t mean that this woman should be able to use other people’s suffering to her advantage, or that this case should be handled as if there was a chance that this particular child could have been white, the way that there was a chance that a child injured during birth could have been healthy.
Any reasonable person would have interpreted Dangerosa’s posts to this thread that way. I like Dangerosa and we are in agreement on other topics 99% of the time, but I’m also not afraid to say something is bullshit when it’s warranted. And it was warranted here.
Everyone is human and can be sucked into arguing passionately. I get that. The urge to score debating points is sometimes irresistible, and it can cause people to say pretty ridiculous things.
But there should come a point that a reasonable person will take a step back and take a look at what they are saying. This thread started heading towards WTFish territory back on page 1, when the subject somehow shifted to the challenges of interracial adoption.
Plenty of parents do that without any thought of monetary compensation. There is nothing particularly unusual about a child discovering their parents don’t like some aspects about them including aspects that are beyond their control such as musical aptitude, athletic ability or appearance. In fact, I would consider it a normal part of growing up. You know, discovering that parents are human beings with flaws. The thing that strikes me most in this case was that this woman was actively trying to avoid creating a situation where certain characteristics made life with her child difficult. She wasn’t leaving things to chance. She purposely made an effort to choose a donor with specific physical traits. The sperm bank screwed up in a major way and should be held responsible.
No, I would be happy if the arguments in her lawsuit were roundly rejected. If she wants to sue on more general grounds, and there is precedent to bolster her claims, then she should be awarded damages.
Inherently disadvantaged? No. The law should not recognize real societal biases as a basis for damages or weighing the relative worth of human beings.
Which is not really relevant. Eighteen years is a long time to adjust and get over any shock one might have when dealing with an “unexpected” disadvantage. Besides, she knew she was having a biracial kid fairly early on.
Clearly you do take on that risk since this happened here and has happened before.
How do you know that? Unless you are arguing a Black person can never look more like a White person than another White person, then short of seeing the two donors side by side, you cannot make such a statement.
Lots of things give you a disadvantage. Could she sue if the child had been born ugly or short?
Which is all true, but doesn’t speak to your contention that it is the MAIN reason companies and people act ethically. Do you treat your SO well because you are afraid of a lawsuit? Is that why you avoid committing crimes or why you generally act like an upstanding citizen? Of course not. Lawsuits are an important tool, but they are not the main separation between us and chaos.
Why? Assuming this was an honest mistake, and that she has no other demonstrable damages, why should she get paid MORE?
Anyone using mail order sperm is taking a chance that other mothers aren’t. How could they not be? You’re putting your trust in a bunch of people not to screw up, including the postal service.
I hope this mother didn’t actually think using a sperm donor she’s never met was less riskier than conventional conception.
If you think telling your kid you wish he were more musically inclined is comparably to telling them you wish they weren’t born half Black, and suing on that basis, then I don’t think we have much to discuss.
There were. You are suggesting she get money above and beyond the thousands she has already received. Why? How much do you think would be fair, and why should she get that?
How? First, in context, it is pretty clear I am speaking about the refund she received so there is no basis for confusion. Second, it wasn’t HER money once she paid for the sperm. The refund was a payment for the error. My statement was perfectly accurate and not at all misleading.
I didn’t say it was misleading, I said it was disingenuous. You seem to be implying that she has been fully compensated because she received “thousands”. She has been compensated for the product that she did not receive, and that’s all.
Just because you don’t think that’s “full” compensation doesn’t mean it’s not compensation. What is full or not is subject to interpretation, otherwise there’d be no lawsuit. Repeatedly insisting she hasn’t been compensated is more disingenuous than the point you’re disputing.
A business like this is probably teeming with lawyers who’ve written client contracts with just these circumstances in mind. So there’s probably a legal basis for them to say she has been fully compensated.