041 xoJane Sperm Donor Story

This story originally appeared on xoJane.com.
What to do? What to do? Jennifer Cramblett is suing a Chicago sperm bank for wrongful birth because a lab mix-up produced a baby of the wrong color — black.

The Uniontown, Ohio, resident who lives with her lesbian partner Amanda Zinkon and biracial daughter Payton, two, also alleges breach of warranty in the suit filed this week in the Circuit Court of Cook County, which has the largest population of black folks in America, by the way. (This population is what probably explains the creature that is Barack Obama, but that’s another story.)

During her pregnancy, Cramblett found out what she thought was sperm from donor vial No. 380, a white guy, actually came from donor No. 330, a black dude. So now this lesbian couple living what until very recently was widely considered a nontraditional lifestyle is clutching their chests over the prospect of having to raise a black girl, though they report having “bonded with Payton easily.”

It’s just that the neighbors are a problem. And the family.

“Family members, one uncle in particular, speak openly and derisively about persons of color. [Cramblett] did not know African-Americans until her college days at the University of Akron,” the suit says.

“Because of this background and upbringing, Jennifer acknowledges her limited cultural competency relative to African-Americans, and steep learning curve, particularly in small, homogenous Uniontown, which she regards as too racially intolerant.”

This suit, these women, America’s un-evolved racial attitudes present some problems, so let me start here:

They’re right.

The couple questions their “cultural competence” to raise a black child given their limited experience with black folks. Not enough white parents involved in what’s called transracial adoption question their competency in these matters. “Love will conquer all,” they say, until the first time they’re perplexed by the inability to get a comb through their little black girl’s hair, then cut her “bangs” that shrivel up into a curious forehead afro. Mark that No. 1 on things to discuss with the therapist when that little girl grows up.

As white women, they’re certainly typical. Most white people don’t have any black friends, as we know from a recent Public Religion Research Institute study showing three-quarters of white Americans don’t have any non-white pals. It’s so easy to pretend America’s racial problems (think: #jordandavis #ferguson) don’t exist until they populate your Twitter feed.

The couple also say they live in what they consider a racially insensitive town that might give the child hell one day. Yup, that could happen. Just ask Trayvon Martin. Oh, we can’t.

They didn’t ask for their lives to be turned into a giant social experiment. Yes, the sperm bank messed up big time, and they should take the hit for it. Whatever money this family receives could be used for Payton’s education or to provide enrichment opportunities of the culturally enriching kind so she just grows up happy and well rounded regardless of her skin color. I hope she doesn’t grow up hating herself or other black people because that happens, you know.

They’re wrong.

They’re gay, so they’re already a social experiment (meaning, homosexuality is only now being accepted as a norm in mainstream society). Gay marriage may soon one day be the law of the land, but the fact that it’s a fight proves the point.

They’re women living in what author Tara Mohr calls a “transitional historical moment.” On one hand, women have more freedom and opportunity than ever, thanks to everything from the first-wave feminism of 1848 Seneca Falls to the success of the 50-year-old Civil Rights Act of 1964, largely thought to be aimed at minorities like Payton. This law is totally responsible for breaking open workplace doors for women, mostly white ones. The very nature of being a woman is a social experiment.

Both women say they were sexually abused as girls, so when “you think of sperm, you think of sexual encounters and neither of us wanted to think of males in our lives again,” according to the suit. In other words, the fact that the baby came out in a way they didn’t plan underscored the lack of control they have felt over their own bodies.

These are strong women for surviving sexual abuse and carefully planning to have children who would be blood relatives by virtue of being inseminated by the same sperm. But did they consider the fact they could have had a boy?

The genetic engineering (and entitlement) tendencies of these women is nauseating. So what, life didn’t turn out the way they planned. Look at employment stats, housing numbers, the failure of public education and mass incarceration — that’s black life, baby.

And what? They don’t know any black lesbians? With children?

Each woman seeks an undetermined amount that exceeds $50,000 in damages. Because they certainly are — damaged.


Deborah Douglas is a journalist living in Chicago.

- Quibbles
(Warbles, I will answer your question in the next post. I've been a little busy lately :/ Sorry.)

018 If you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, would you do it? (and more)

First of all, it's Day 1 of Quibbles-and-Nargles-without-Nargles, and I miss you :(

Thank you for the views! Look, you guys even made one of my favorite natural monuments!




So thanks.

Today, as I was sucked into the vortex that is watching Vlogbrothers' Brotherhood 2.0 series (starring Hank and John Green and possibly the Yeti and Katherine and Daniel Biss), I found the origin of the Evil Baby Orphanage.

The Evil Baby Orphanage all started when Hank asked John (and the viewers) the question: If you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, would you do it?

As John put it, there were several groups of people reacting to this question.

• First were the "No! A baby is a baby, and baby Hitler has done nothing wrong yet!"
• Then, there were the "Hitler killed seventy million Jews, I think we have the right to kill him."
• And finally, there was viewer Brooke who said, "Why don't we go back in time, collect baby Hitler, bring him to the present, and put him into an Evil Baby Orphanage with all the other Evil Babies and try to reform him?"

So out of these responses, I got the following follow up questions:

1. Is it okay to kill a baby? What if you knew this baby was going to kill over seventy million civilians on purpose?
2. Is it possible to be a good person and do bad things? How about being a bad person and doing good things?
3. Do we have the right to kill people who kill people? When is it okay to kill?
4. If we learn from our mistakes, why are we so keen to avoid them?
5. Is a bad person a bad person if he hasn't done bad things yet? 
6. Should we blame the leader more than we should blame his/her followers if they do bad deeds? Good deeds?

Overall, I don't think we should go back and kill baby Hitler. A baby is born good, and we shouldn't kill a baby just because it will make the wrong choices. I think we should give all people a chance to change their life course.


1) Is it okay to kill a baby? What if you knew this baby was going to kill over seventy million civilians on purpose?

It is never okay to kill a baby. Everyone deserves a chance to live, and everyone deserves a chance to make choices, as I said earlier. Even if I knew the baby was Hitler, I would not kill it. I wouldn't commit homicide because of what-ifs in the future. Instead, I would go and guide Hitler in his later years so he wouldn't make such choices. Maybe I would even put him in a different family, with different influences and conditions. Possibly, I would tell the admissions office at the art school Hitler was rejected from to accept him, because that would probably change his life. Of course, this is all assuming I'm all-powerful and I can persuade people to do random things very easily.

2) Is it possible to be a good person and do bad things? How about being a bad person and doing good things?

I don't think you can be a good person and do bad things. We are only as 'good' as our actions are, and the fact that we do good things makes us good people. We can be good people and make mistakes, but killing a baby or manipulating someone, for instance, is despicable, inexcusable, and never something a 'good' person might be forced to do 'under circumstances', or by 'accident' (I'm talking to you, Voldemort).

3) Do we have the right to kill people who kill people? When is it okay to kill?

This goes back to my post on the death penalty. It is never okay to kill someone, even if punishing them is worse. What makes us better than criminals if we are also murderers? What makes certain kinds of killing justifiable? Is murder different as it concerns the circumstances? I'm answering my own question with more questions, but this one's not really an easy one to answer with words.

4) If we learn from our mistakes, why are we so keen to avoid them?

This is a part of the reasons why I don't think I would kill baby Hitler. I don't mean to say that watching 70 million people killed is the best way for us to learn from our mistakes, but if this ever happens again, we'll pick up on it quickly enough to prevent it. It's a bit like chicken pox, once you get it, your immune system sort of catalogues it into your health arsenal. The next time it approaches, your body recognizes it and stops it before it begins. I think that even if I killed Hitler, something similar would have happened, and with the weapons of mass destruction invented today, do you think it would be a good idea to let the Holocaust happen... in this age? I guess 70 million people killed then is better than the entire 7 billion of us killed now. Humans learn from their mistakes for a reason, and the Holocaust has given us enough of an example of what might happen if we turn a blind eye to cruelty and injustice again.

5) Is a bad person a bad person if he hasn't done bad things yet?

Some of us are born trusting everyone we meet. Some of us are born with fifth and sixth chances gladly handed out to everybody. And some of us are born naturally suspicious, with an eye out for danger and an intelligence to match. Severus Snape was one of these people. And so was Hitler. I guess what I'm trying to say is that people aren't born bad, because as I said earlier, our actions define who we are, and you can't really do bad things when you're newly born. But people can be born with personalities that match bad actions, or personalities that flourish under the wrong care.

Let's take Severus Snape. Maybe if he was born into a happy family with great wealth and support in his community, he wouldn't have joined Voldemort. He would probably still be put in Slytherin, because you can't really change your personality, but if he was guided to make the right choices, he would definitely have been different... maybe if Lily Evans had been his older sister. But he was born into a constantly fighting family that was sneered upon and struggling with money. His suspicious and cunning nature bloomed into a misunderstanding of 'right' and 'wrong', and he eventually turned dark. If Hitler were influenced differently, and if the circumstances were different, he wouldn't have done what he did, I'm positive. Babies are born innocent, and Adolf Hitler was once a baby.

6) Should we blame the leader more than we should blame his/her followers if they do bad deeds? Good deeds?

And finally, I'm a little too tired to finish this post, so I'll throw this one out to you, Nargles. And viewers. Do you think a leader should be judged differently than his/her followers? Let me pull a SAT and follow with this: "Support your position with reasoning and examples taken from your reading, studies, experience, or observations." Have fun with this, it's a really great question, and I'm really interested in your (<-plural?) thoughts on this.

 - Quibbles 8/4/14