I think I have a right to decide both the race of my child and the race of people whom I fuck. You are deliberately taking the negative, i.e., “I don’t want my kid to be black or white”. I see it the other way: I would vastly prefer my kid to be one of two races, if I have a choice. It’s not anti-black or anti-white or even pro-Indian - I don’t care that I am Indian, only that I happen to want my kid to be the same race as me. I don’t think that’s wrong.
I don’t think that’s an apt comparison. For it to be an apt comparison, the insurance company would have had to promise something, that they did not deliver. If I buy a 2012 Honda Fit and they send me a 2011 Honda-something-else, they can easily replace my car. If they refused to make good, I might very well take them to court, even if my 2011 car was just fine. They can’t easily replace it when they send me an incorrect baby.
Anyway I think the judge will decide if she gets compensation. I think she should, some, anyway. The company screwed up. It should pay. I’m not sure why it should just get off scot-free for its mistake. We should just shrug and go Whoops! They just draw randomly from a pile of bottles of semen! We have no idea what you’re going to get, so don’t even bother picking!
ETA:
Thakn you, this makes sense to me. I don’t know about additional money - I really don’t. I’m no expert in the law! I’ve never even thought about it (having a child in this manner). But I do agree with the lawsuit in general. Not every lawsuit is frivolous.
You get a wrong order at McDonald’s and they can pay you back and give you the right food.
You get the wrong child and they can’t really make you whole. It’s like McDonald’s saying “Well, we’ll give you the money back, but you can never have the Big Mac again.”
Her life is irrevocably different than it would have been had they done their jobs properly. And you acknowledge that is isn’t okay what they did. So, it wasn’t okay, they couldn’t undo it, and she has to live with it. How is that not damage?
She chose a donor in one of the most important decisions any person can ever make.
If she were married to a man and was supposed to be inseminated with her husband’s sperm and they inseminated her with the wrong man’s, would that still be a no-harm, no-foul situation in your mind?
Yeah, I think comparisons to normal consumer goods will always run into the limitations of this analogy. A baby is not like a hamburger or a car or any other thing that can just be refunded and replaced. A baby has independent existence and significance. They can’t just be sent back to the kitchen or returned to the store.
So, if you’re in the business of babies, you’d better get it right because the stakes are really fucking high.
You know, interestingly, what most people assume when they see a small child with two women is not that the two women are a lesbian couple. At least not in my experience - and I’ve been one of a pair of women with a small child many, many times. They assume that only one of the two ladies is a parent and the other is a friend or other relative of some sort. At least in my experience. If you have a different experience of being one of a pair of ladies with a small child, feel free to tell me how your experience differs. My point was less that she owed anyone an explanation and more that she’s going to be obliged to respond - either to explain, or to give a non-explanatory, STFU to the inquirer and more that the desire to avoid having to deal with the situation at all is reasonable. Either way, it’s a conversation that mostly gets avoided if mother and baby are apparently of the same racial background.
I do not in fact think that - in fact, I think the opposite. I think that if I were a lesbian adopting a child, it is certainly a reasonable thing to consider arranging matters to minimize the number of random strangers questioning one about one’s reproductive history and family structure.
Oh, thank you so much for this right here. The decision whether or not to adopt children, and the circumstances and criteria under which any individual elects to do so (or not do so) are deeply personal. Since you’ve apparently decided - and feel totally comfortable posting - that I’m a cowardly racist, don’t let me stop you.
I’m sure you won’t believe me, cowardly soul that I am, but while I can understand why someone might consider the racial background of a child they were adopting, it wasn’t a factor that played into my own considerations on the topic. My point - not that that it matters to you in your rush to call me out for not being brave enough to adopt a child of whatever racial background was handy at the moment - is that a reasoned decision about the extent to which anyone wants to set up circumstances such that they’ll - at a minimum - have to field questions on the topic is a reasonable thing to consider.
Also, you’re wrong. Deciding whether or not adoption is a good option for me is a decision that is entirely about me. (Well, and my husband, because decisions about appropriate family planning are the sorts of things responsible, happily married people reach a consensus with their spouse about).
I’ll also point out that if I feared what strangers thought and said about me, I sure as shit would not be posting on this message board. And you’ve just thoughtfully given me a graphic example of why that might be.
Why, in the name of all that’s sane and holy, would she be willing to accept a second sperm donation from the clinic that f-ed up the first one so egregiously? Also, and I may very well be mistaken about this, but isn’t she seeking funds to move away from the racist neighborhood - which she presumably lived in before her daughter was born?
Of course you do. However, that is not at all logically connected to what you said or what we are discussing.
I did no such thing. You took the negative. Need I remind you. You said:
Note you didn’t say you would WANT and Indian child there. You said what you did NOT want, and you used exclamation points. Furthermore, your preference, if we are assuming your situation is analogous to the case in question, is moot. It’s already happened. The question is whether the race of the child being difference from what you requested is sufficient justification for seeking damages.
Sure, it’s wrong. It may be a common sentiment, but it doesn’t make it less wrong. Would you blanch at calling a White guy who only wanted White grandkids racist or bigoted? What about if he wanted to live in an all White town? Probably not a tough call there. It’s not the most racist thing someone could desire, but it certainly is a bit racist under most circumstances. Why? Because most of the time, the race of one’s child is immutable byproduct. It’s not something malleable beyond the choice of a mate. When you do have a choice, the decision is usually based on social beliefs and and prejudices predicated on their being a qualitative difference.
Hiding behind this desire for racial purity or preference is the innocuous sounding excuse of wanting to match of fit in; which is EXACTLY what most racists say in polite company. I don’t know you well enough to say you you are a racist, but if you are expecting to get a pass because your misguided notions are not provably racist, I think you will have to look elsewhere.
Correct, but the assessment of damages is not based on what you wanted, but the incurred costs you took on, and the qualitative differences between what you go and what you contacted for.
Would you say the same about a restaurant who got an order wrong? Of course not unless there was clear malice or massive negligence. One mistake can happen to anyone. The whole idea that not being sued into debt for one mistake means you got off scot-free is strange in my opinion.
You go to McDonald’s and order a Crispy Chicken Sandwich. They fill your order with Original Chicken Sandwich (Non-Crispy). You take it home, eat it, and it was enjoyable. You then call them up and request that they give you more of what you just ate, they look up your order and give you another Original Chicken sandwich, which you promptly decline cos you had originally ordered a Crispy Chicken Sandwich.
They confirm that what they had given you was an Original Chicken sandwich, apologize and offer to refund the money you paid for the sandwich that you ate and enjoyed. You decline and sue them for a lot of money to punish them for not having served you what you originally asked for.
Yes, they made a mistake but I say; you win your case and your award amounts to $100. THE END.
If I lived in rural Minnesota - where school districts tend to be pretty decent - and moved into the Twin Cities, I would have at least a $50k delta in housing costs to get a similarly sized house in a similar condition in a similar school district where the community was diverse. That doesn’t include the $30k it would cost us to move our possessions (we had it looked at a little over a year ago when we were considering a cross country move), the loss of vacation time from switching jobs. Loss of 401k vesting. Annual costs to visit family for trips for the next number of years.
Frankly - $50k seems like a bargain. It would cost them a lot more to move me.
Right, which is again why the analogy is imperfect. However, the law is pretty clear that you need to substantiate ACTUAL damages.
Damage does not equal different. The issue is whether she is worse off as a result of their mistake. Unless you think the company is responsible for her racist neighbors, I am not sure why she should get tens of thousands of dollars above and beyond a refund.
Again, how is it no-harm no-foul? More importantly, the basis for the above complaint is not having a kid of the wrong race, but from the wrong person. If this case was predicated on the mix up as opposed to race, people would not have come down so hard on her.
I suppose that is true. Now please explain how that redeems anything you said? Your point was that this woman will have to explain the child to others because she isn’t the same race. That makes no sense given:
The child is actually hers
Anyone who picks up that she is a lesbian will know the child is not exclusively a byproduct of their relations
Everyone will assume that the father is of a different race, which is actually true.
Again, do you think every interracial couple gets constant comments and questions on HOW their child is theirs? You seem to be thinking these inquisitions will devolve into her having to explain she was inseminated with a Black guy’s sperm.
Or, if the kid is clearly biracial and bears some similarity to the parent, who is not incidentally the biological parent as well.
This is just such a non-factor, and mostly exists to allow people to justify their prejudices.
If your hesitance to adopt a kid of a different race boils down to worrying what people will think or what questions others might ask you, then you ARE being a coward.
That’s not what I said.
If her primary concern was that her kids be related, then she really doesn’t have much of a choice. Furthermore, there are several ways she could ensure the above was true without having to exclusively rely on the bank’s assurance.
She is seeking damages in excess of $50k. Why would it cost that much to move? More importantly, why would it be okay to raise a White child in a hostile racist environment anyway?
How is that comparable though? Clearly, moving from Baltimore, MD to Potomac, MD or East Palo Alto to Palo Alto is gonna cost more. That doesn’t make it a fair or reasonable request just to satisfy diversity requirements.
That is absurdly high (bordering on unbelievable) even if you hired people to pack and unpack.
I believe this lady works at an AT&T store. I don’t think most of those things are large considerations. But if they are, she should feel free to argue them.
It would cost them more to PAY me to move too, but it would not COST them that much to actually move me. BIG difference. She can only recover the latter.
It isn’t, and some of us have taken pains to avoid that regardless of what our children look like. This mom is apparently not one of those people since she would have tolerated it if she hadn’t had a biracial child. Racism is bad for everybody. But it’s obvious that it’s worse if you’re on the receiving end of the bigotry, isn’t it?
This distinction as to the switched-baby cases strikes me as strained. In both cases, the parents get a healthy baby with the wrong person’s genetic material, due to somebody’s mistake.
Why is the pain and suffering of having a baby with the wrong genes “obvious” in the one case and “subjective” in the other? Or rather, why is the pain and suffering obvious in a case of a baby that looks like the mother and not in the case of a baby that doesn’t?
Because the stakes are different - white people don’t tend to get shot by police in hostile racists environments for being white. They don’t tend to get pulled over for driving while white. They don’t see statistically different discipline in school - with escalation happening much faster and much more severe consequences for the same behavior.
Here is the uncomfortable truth - it costs money for minorities - especially blacks - to raise their children in safe environments with good schools. They can’t live in certain communities and expect that their children will be treated with fairness. The communities that they can live in are often either expensive, or poverty ridden. And that is a systemic problem.
As a white family, I can move my family to nearly anywhere in the U.S. I can live in a low cost of living area like Montana or South Dakota or Alabama. I can consider taking a job that would move me to rural Georgia. There will be many factors in if I consider that move - but its unlikely to be “will my children be treated with respect and get a fair shake.” As the mother of a minority child, I have to consider that when we talk about moving - Portland is fine…Atlanta only good in some suburbs - be cautious. Austin better than most of the rest of Texas - research carefully. That’s white privilege - and it means white people are going to spend less because there are more choices out there to provide a high standard of living without worry about my children or myself getting treated fairly.
This family has recourse to address the economic impact of white privilege on their lives - because the situation they are put in has been the result of negligence on the part of the sperm bank.
Would it be really awesome if they didn’t need to address the issue of white privilege - yep. And most white people get to go through their lives not really needing to address it. But they have to - for their daughter’s sake.
One of my friends believes they should stay in the racist town - because the only way the town will change is if they are forced to change by addressing race. And that is the only way the town is likely to change. But that is a big burden for a little girl.
None of this means that the little girl is defective. Society is defective.
Then the question becomes - should they simply eat the costs for their relocation and not sue. And I don’t think they should. And that comes down to a sperm bank that apparently has not changed its processes in the two years since this happened. The parents made a decision to use sperm from a white man - perhaps it was the default decision of most parents who want a child that looks like them and at a sperm bank (unlike adoption) that is an easy decision to make. Or perhaps they decided that a white child was in their comfort level - that doesn’t make you racist - it merely means that given the choice, you like your cocoon of white privilege and you aren’t ready to take up the banner of race relations (and as a lesbian couple, perhaps you already feel you are doing your part for tolerance and inclusion) (and taking up that banner won’t be a choice - your minority child will run into a situation that is fairly clearly discriminatory - probably with a teacher - will you let it stand.) But regardless of their reason, the sperm bank did not give them what they asked for - which the sperm bank was contracted to do - and they are now facing expenses to remediate.
Actually, if we were talking about that - we’d be talking about a LOT more money. Us white folk have it darn good and it shows up in everything from our kindergarten grades to our annual salary. She is just hoping for some money to minimize the effect of white privilege.
Sure. I completely agree. My point is just that this town objectively deleterious no matter the color of her kid’s skin.
Well said. I agree with most of what you posted, but none of it speaks to my question which was not why it is worse, but why it’s okay for a White kid.
But why should a specific act of negligence be the means for addressing societal White privilege?
I think them changing is highly unlikely.
They should sue if they can demonstrate those direct costs.
Was this reported somewhere?
Their lawsuit is not based on it being the wrong sperm but rather sperm of a Black guy. That is the part I take issue with.
I agree, and for that matter you could say the same thing about a ton of places. You could say it about America in general or many other countries with significant problems related to race. It’s fair to say she must not have realized this was a major problem before, but I guess she does now. Some people only do the right thing when they’re forced to.
And if she discovered that she’d received sperm from the wrong white guy, she might’ve sued anyway. But that would have been harder to detect. Her request for damages would probably look very different, though.