1987_04 The Daily Collegian April 1987

              Page 2
= Friday. April 3.1987-
[1 p.mlnr
TH»
Hi
igkaJaa   FtHpino   Or¬
is* meet today at 3
p.m. m College Union 311 A.
"Currant
m a Sac
VUE*1 <n» *»*mattoiial Joint
•JJ2£? ^ ^unei^iiM today at 6 pm
naTtiaatra.        in&iaina«Bu«nQ204.
'    ua» ESd^C'     *^O0y   Sua  Got   Manter
i ST aibtect ofa   ^be shown tontght'at 7 and 9:15 t
-yatno^aU   W**G*»H**-:.
— The    Canterbury    ChntUan,
Toptea m EngHsh Fatfowattlp wi present *C*iza-
-1 « -~* flonarsdtheJewa-Suidarfri)m6
to 7 pjn. at St James Cathedral m
tne Fireside Room.
Ma/e weeping too
rare, too unnerving
» attttathe topic of a panel
Baby sale ethical?
Can a the creation of a human being be contracted like a building, a
piece of furniture or an automobile? Apparently so if Superior Court
Judge Harvey R. Sorkow's decision in the Baby M case is upheld.
The biological mother of Melissa, better known as Baby M, will be
deprived of all legal rights to see Melissa who is to be in the custody
of her biological father.
Melissa was bom March 27, 1986 to Mary Beth Whitehead, 29.
Whitehead had entered into an agreement with William and Elizabeth
Stem, both 41, in 1985 to be artificially inseminated with Stem's
sperm and bear the child for $10,000.
Whitehead apparently had second thoughts about the agreement
before the child was born. When the child was bom Whitehead reneg¬
ed on the agreement, did not collect the money and kept the child in¬
stead of turning her over to the Sterns. Whitehead had named the child
Sara.
Sorkow said in his 121-page decision that the contract between the
two parties was "valid and enforceable." He ordered that the child's
name on the birth certificate be changed from Sara to Melissa and that'
the Stems pay Whitehead the $10,000. He signed adoption papers for
Elizabeth Stern in his chambers after giving his decision.
The New Jersey couple paid a woman to produce a human being for
them. In essence, they bought a baby — which seems to be in
violation of a New Jersey law prohibiting the sale of babies.
If this case simply involved an inanimate object, there would be
nothing to contest Two parties entered into an agreement, and the lat¬
ter reneged on her part However, the product involved in this contract
was a human being.
Yes the father did contribute to the product by providing part of the
necessary elements — the sperm. Along with the biological mother, he
too had an emotional, physical and financial investment.
,  Can the courts truly legalize what can be looked at in no other way
as the selling of babies?
It is a Catch 22. They both have contributed to fht creation of human
life, but can either ethically be forced to waive his or her rights be
cause of a piece of paper, because of a contract?
» Surrogate parenting can result in the miracle of life for many people
unable to have children themselves. But the emotional attachments and
semingly inherent biological rights involved have led to a situation
where law may have no place.
Surrogate parenting has led to such a paradox because law is taking
precedence over human life^Does society really feel comfortable with
human flesh becoming a commodity?
Technology is causing society to contemplate moral questions it has
never had to face before. It is too bad technology is not also providing
the answers. '        	
At about 1 a.m., the book I was reading no
longer made sense. The English language
resembled so much gibberish and it was
clearly time to go to bed — as if the fatigue I
was ignoring hadn't made it abundantly clear.
I waited for sleep in the darkness of my
small room, with some music on low to mask
the noises of surrounding apartments. The
person in the room above me had some music
an too; I could hear a rhythmic turn turn tunvn
lunvn over and over again. I hoped he would
turn it off soon. It was an unvarying beat,
and quickly grew annoying.
It went on and on. I thought, will this
song never end? Shutting off my own music,
I listened to the room above'me intently. 11
was not music I had been hearing. Was it
laughing? no. The guy in the room
above me was crying. C_^" x
It is still a shock to see or hear a man cry
in this culture. Men do not do it as a matter
of habit. We do it when we can no longer
keep the pain trapped inside our bodies, and
when no one is around to hear. The man
above me was not merely crying, he was
sobbing with all the violence that his
emotions could bring to the surface. The
vibration carried down to me, locked in my
identical cell, and I could physically feel his
anguish
The reason for his weeping was something
I brooded on while I listened to him
Girlfriend? A fight of some kind? Perhaps
something more serious — a death in the
family. Perhaps financial trouble. I didn't
know what he looked like, but I thought he
was a college student, judging from the guys I
The
Iconoclast
S
 By Peter Melton
had seen coming from upstairs. I knew he was
a young man...Maybe the pressure of school
was getting to him. Maybe just pressure
itself.
His crying continued unabated: A quarter
hour went by. I began to grow alarmed.
Crying isn't always an indicator of
depression, but I wasn't sure he was beyond
doing harm tojumself. I was set to call
paramedics if I heard anything that could be
construed as suicidal.
I was tense. It seemed absurd to think that
just because he was crying, he would try
anything fatal. Crying is catharsis, it is
healthy, and it Jeaves one feeling calmer and
relieved. I felt this to be true in my
experience. But I could not relax. I wondered
See ICON, page 3
\Reader
Response
to The Daily Collegian is welcome.
Please send letters no longer than 250
words to The Daily Collegian, Keats
Campus Building, California State
University, Fresno, Fresno, CA 93740.
Letters must be signed and include the
author's name, telephone number and
address.
Manners missing
Dear Editor,
On March 31 from 12 to 1 pan. in the
UC200 Lecture Room, there was a
videotape presentation put on the Wo¬
men's Alliance as part of the Women's
Herstory Month Celebration. I came to
watch this video as did a handful of others.
At about 12:30. people started to enter the
room for a panel discussion on the
Simpson Immigration Act, which was
scheduled for 2 p.m. directly after this
video. As the first people entered, they
started talking, and one guy was setting up
some   equipment    rather    loudly.    I    asked
them to cool it because we were watching
a video. As others entered the room, the
noise became unbearable, and at this
point, it became- impossible to hear the
last IS minutes of the video. This is not
all. There were yet some with so little
respect for others that they were walking
back and forth in front of the TV screen
totally disrupting the presentation. Even
one of the speakers for this later panel
walked up in front of the TV, turned and
said, "What are we doing? Watching soap
operas."
I am so angry at this lack of respect. It
was      irresponsible,      inconsiderate      and
totally   uncalled   for.   To   think   that   this
kind   of  childish   behavior   is   allowed   to
See RESPONSE, page 12