They keep thinking: Who needs men?

KAY HYMOWITZ gets one thinking about fatherhood. In the age of the sperm bank, a man can be the worst he can be and have it affirmed by women who should know better. I'm not sure what to make about this -- whether individual choice triumphs over nature and tradition. But Hymowitz's piece is thought-provoking.

There are multiple ironies in this unfolding revolution, not least that the technology that allows women to have a family without men reinforces the worst that women fear in men. Think of all the complaints you hear: Men can’t commit, they’re irresponsible, they don’t take care of the kids. By going to a sperm bank, women are unwittingly paying men to be exactly what they object to. But why expect anything different? The very premise of AI is that, apart from their liquid DNA, we can will men out of children’s lives.

It’s not a good idea for society to erect a wall between children and their biological fathers — nor to encourage men to disown their kids. In several nations, including Britain and Sweden, sperm donors must agree to be identified if the child wishes, typically as of age 18. It would be a good idea for America to follow suit.

But let’s not kid ourselves that such a rule would also put an end to fatherlessness — which is nourished by our cultural predilection for individual choice unconstrained by tradition, the needs of children, or nature itself.

Does a child conceived with the "help" of a sperm bank have a right to know her biological father?