confused about an essential point
Okay, in the story it's revealed someone code-named "Starbuck" fathered over 500 children through in-vitro fertilization 20 years ago. In turn the sperm bank, in its normal course of doing business, responded 20 years ago to requests from women who wanted to get pregnant but were unable to do so through natural means. So far so good, I get that. What I *don't* get is why the screenplay had the public outraged at Starbuck for getting all those women pregnant in the first place, as if he were some kind of criminal pervert at worst (and "pervert" was used frequently in the movie media in describing him), and at best a randy, money-grubbing slacker. Huh?? He was donating sperm for money, which is legal, and furthermore it wasn't Starbuck who got those 500-plus women pregnant, it was the CLINIC, doing its job in responding to requests from women! Could someone explain to me why the media (with its tabloid headlines) and the public in this film were so outraged at HIM?
share