有關優(yōu)秀的英語文章閱讀
散文風格是鑒賞散文的重要要素之一,是散文獨特的語言表達方式。散文風格的研究有利于對散文的鑒賞、理解和翻譯。下面是學習啦小編帶來的有關優(yōu)秀的英語文章閱讀，歡迎閱讀!
有關優(yōu)秀的英語文章閱讀篇一
My daddy was a donor
Even as a child，Christine Whipp，now a 46-year-old grandmother，says she was aware that somehow life was not as it pretended to be.
Her carpenter father had been an insulin-dependent diabetic who died when she was six. Christine and her mother never got on.
Ten years ago，Christine‘s mother referred to the secret directly for the first time.
“She told me that I had been conceived through donor insemination(DI)at the Margaret Jackson clinic in Exeter，”says Christine.“I was 40 when I found out that my father was a glass jar with a blob of sperm in it. My father doesn‘t have a face，or a name and he wasn’t even a one-night stand. If my mum had had an affair at least there would have been sex and lust，something human rather than something so cold，scientific and clinical. My parents never even met. How weird is that?I still feel like a freak，a fake. I don‘t feel I know who I am any more.”
Between 1940 and 1983，483 children were conceived through anonymous DI at the private Exeter clinic，most by affluent middle-class mothers，not factory girls like Christine‘s mum. Christine has never knowingly met a single one of them，though it’s almost certain that some-even scores - are her half - siblings. She has no way of tracking the donor or her half-siblings down. Christine has no access to records，and it is likely that none survive. She has no rights to know anything about the man who helped give her life. The situation hurts.‘I was only made to assuage my parents’reproductive vanity，‘she says bitterly.
Almost 18，000 babies have been born through donated gametes(sperm and eggs)and embryos in the UK since the regulatory Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was set up in 1991. Anonymous donations have allowed infertile heterosexual couples，gay couples and single women to create families that would otherwise never have existed. Between 1940 and 1990，tens of thousands more were conceived mainly using donated sperm，the low-tech end of gamete donation which has been around for over a century.
While the first baby conceived with a donated egg was not born until 1987，the first documented case of donor insemination took place in 1884，when the Philadelphia-based doctor William Pan coast inseminated a sedated woman with a medical student‘s sperm without her permission or knowledge. Sperm insemination remains，by far，the most common donor conception procedure.
No one can say exactly how many people alive in Britain today were conceived through donor conception-estimates put it at around 40，000.
The received wisdom was that secrecy was in everyone‘s interests. The biological mother and her husband usually wanted to pretend that，genetically，the child was completely theirs. The clinics encouraged women to go home after artificial insemination and make love with their infertile husbands. Then the couple could cling to the possibility-however remote-that the child was really theirs. Some clinics even mixed a sterile husband’s sperm with the donor‘s to keep the parental fantasy alive.
The donor dads were shadowy figures，guaranteed anonymity by the clinics. That way there was no risk of the past——and，conceivably，hundreds of offspring——returning to haunt the donors，and clinics did not have the expense and hassle of records. Keep it secret，it‘s simpler，advised the doctors. But it is not proving that easy. Someone forgot that gurgling，happy babies grow up into adults with complex needs.
“DI robbed me of half my genetic history，and it robbed my children and grandchildren too.”says Christine Whipp，she argued that she had the right to know her parentage.
Since 1991，details about donors——name，place and date of birth，medical history，physical characteristics，religion，occupation and interests——have had to be registered with the HFEA but offspring have no rights of access. They may only check with the HFEA that they are not related to someone they intend to marry or ask the HFEA——presumably they have to be，firstly，suspicious——if they were the product of donated gametes or embryos when they reach 18.
The HFEA says that it has yet to face a situation where it is asked to reveal the identity of a donor because a DI child has a genetic condition or a disease such as leukaemia where bone marrow from a biological father might be needed to save a child‘s life.“But the law is clear at the moment，’said a spokesman.”The identity of the donor cannot be revealed.“
Joanna Rose，28，DI-conceived，was recently granted leave by the High Court to begin an action under the Human Rights Act that would force authorities to give more‘non-identifying’information about donors to offspring born since 1991. Ms Rose，complains that she and her half-sibling Adam，34，a conservation biologist，have suffered an identity crisis from knowing nothing about their biological father.
The fertility industry is already issuing dark warnings that an end to anonymity will create a shortage of sperm，eggs and embryos，a terrifying prospect for the women having trouble conceiving，and the men who have difficulty fathering a child.
Melissa was conceived through DI 37 years ago. Melissa‘s mother blurted out the truth in 1996 during a heart-to-heart chat. But it was five months before her father knew the secret was out. Her mum feared he might have a heart attack.
Father and daughter have rarely discussed it since. Melissa，an only child，loves her dad.
Melissa would like to discuss with her father the possibility of being more open with their friends. She spent two years abroad after learning the truth and discovered she felt“freer”when she could speak about being DI.“When I‘m home I feel I’m an actor in a play again，”she says. Melissa felt something was not quite right as she was growing up. There was nothing she could put her finger on，or articulate，just this lingering unease. She grew up oddly disappointed that she was not at all like her father.“He‘s extremely capable，practical and focused，”she says.“I am the opposite extreme and I always felt he deserved someone more like himself.”
Since 1996，she has veered between the joy of the truth and despair at an“insoluble situation”。She，too，talks of identity crisis. She wants to find her donor father but does not know how. She is most angry at the Government which，she argues，ought to do more to protect the rights of the DI children that adults are desperate to have.“My mother didn‘t think about the long-term implications，”she says.“They just wanted a baby so much.”
Melissa argues that in future clinics should only recruit donors willing to be identified. She also wants a voluntary register for past donors. Because the consultation paper only consider the possibility of identifying future donors，Melissa says tens of thousands of DI offspring are being offered no hope of ever finding their donor parents. Melissa asks why，when adoption law changes were made retrospective，that is being ruled out by the Government for DI.
The motivation of sperm donors varies. There are students who think，“￡15 a throw，twice a week，good beer money”，older men with perhaps more altruistic motives and，of course，egotists who，before limits were put on the number of sperm donations，seemed keen on hundreds of“mini?me‘s”running around.
Until a couple of years ago there had been little research into the happiness and wellbeing of DI children. But a few studies since suggest many grow up feeling a secret is being kept from them，and at least half suspect their‘social’dad is not their genetic father before being told. Most think they have a right to find out who the donor is，and 60 per cent want to meet him. Despite evidence that secrecy is damaging，one study of DI families in Britain，Italy，the Netherlands and Spain found that only 9 per cent of parents had told the truth to their children by the age of 12.
William，18，from north London，is a rarity. He cannot remember a time when he did not know that another man had helped his parents，Walter Merricks and Olivia Montuschi，create their family.“It is something I completely accept，”says William.
His sister，Susannah，15，conceived through another sperm donor，recently wrote touchingly of her interest in the man who‘gave me life and my parents great joy’。But William has no curiosity about his donor. He does not look at all like Walter，a lawyer，but he says he shares many of his personality traits. It‘s proof，William says，of the power of nurture.
William thinks it would be“outrageous”to identify past donors，who were previously promised anonymity. He argues that the rights of adoptees to information about their birth mothers is greater than those of DI offspring. In DI，I see the sperm and eggs as components in baby-making，like the wheels are components of a car. Giving up sperm is not like giving up a baby.
William‘s parents decided to be honest with their children from the start. Their motivation was not fear that their children might suffer an identity crisis as adults，but a gut feeling that a solid family could not be build on a lie.
Canadian filmmaker Barry Stevens，conceived through DI in London 49 years ago，argues that even if sperm donations drop when anonymity disappears，why should DI offspring sacrifice their rights so sperm banks can be full?Stevens，who recently made an award?winning film about trying to track down his biological father——and perhaps 200 half-siblings——is part of a lobby pushing the Canadian government to give DI offspring more details about donors.
Stevens now argues the state has a duty to children whose parents lie to them.“The first relationship between a citizen and larger society is the birth certificate. In the case of these children that document is a lie. I would like to see everyone have access to their birth information.”How，he asks，can genetic heritage be so deeply embedded in our culture and then DI offspring be expected to accept that，for them，it does not matter?
“Everyone was so keen to tell us it didn‘t matter. And then suddenly I felt this enormous anger-that was for me to decide.”
[參考譯文]
46歲的克里斯蒂娜·惠普爾現(xiàn)在已經是祖母了。她說，自己在孩提時代就覺得生活中似乎有什么地方不對勁。她的父親有糖尿病，在她6歲那年就離開了人世。她和母親一直合不來。
10年前，克里斯蒂娜的母親第一次直接提到了這個秘密。
克里斯蒂娜說：“她告訴我，她是在?？巳氐默敻覃愄?middot;杰克遜診所通過人工授精懷上我的。我直到40歲才發(fā)現(xiàn)自己的父親原來是一個盛著精液的玻璃杯。我父親沒有面孔，沒有名字，甚至不是一夜情的結果。如果我是媽媽短暫風流的產物，那至少涉及性和欲望，是一種人性的東西，而不是這么客觀冰冷而具有科學性的東西。我的父母從未見過面。這有多離奇?我現(xiàn)在仍然覺得自己仿佛是個怪物，一個假貨。我弄不清自己到底是誰。”
從1940至1983年，?？巳氐倪@家私人診所通過匿名捐精液的人工授精孕育了483個孩子。他們的父親大多是富裕的中產階級，像克里斯蒂娜母親這樣當工人的極少。這些在瑪格麗特·杰克遜診所通過人工授精出生的人中間，幾乎必定有克里斯蒂娜的同父異母兄弟姐妹，但克里斯蒂娜從未與他們見過面(也許見過但她不知道)。她沒辦法找到那個捐精者或她的兄弟姐妹。她也沒辦法查閱有關檔案——這些檔案很可能已經不復存在。關于那個給她生命的男子，她無權了解任何事情。這令她非?？鄲?。“我來到這個世上只是為了滿足我父母的生育虛榮心，”她忿忿地說。
自從人工授精和胚胎學管理局(HFEA)于1991年成立后，英國大約有1.8萬嬰兒通過捐獻的配子(精子、卵子)和胚胎孕育出生的。匿名捐獻使不能生育的異性夫婦、同性戀伙伴和單身女性有了孩子。從1940年至1990年，又有數(shù)萬名嬰兒主要通過捐獻配子出生，其中大多數(shù)是通過捐獻者的精液人工授精的：這是較低級的配子捐獻技術。
直到1987年，才出現(xiàn)了第一例通過捐獻的卵子孕育的嬰兒。而通過捐獻者的精子進行人工授精最早發(fā)生于1884年。當時，費城的醫(yī)生威廉·潘科斯特在事先沒有征得當事人同意的情況下，用一個醫(yī)學院學生的精子給一位服了鎮(zhèn)靜劑的婦女人工授精。通過捐獻者的精子進行人工授精，是用捐獻者的配子幫助人們懷孕的最常見方式。
沒有說得清今天到底有多少英國人是通過這種方式出生的。據估計，人數(shù)在4萬左右。
人們普遍的看法是：保守秘密符合所有人的利益。接受人工授精的婦女和她的丈夫通常都假裝孩子完全是他們的。診所鼓勵婦女在人工授精后回家與丈夫做愛。然后，這對夫婦就可以想像這個孩子的確是他們的——盡管這種可能性微乎其微。有些診所甚至把不育丈夫的精液與捐獻者的精液混合，以便讓孩子的父母保持幻想。
通過捐精成為父親的人都面目不清。診所保證不透露他們的姓名。這樣就不會出現(xiàn)成百上千個后代回來搔擾捐獻者;此外，診所也不必承擔相應的費用和麻煩。醫(yī)生們建議說：保守秘密，這樣做比較省事。但是，事實證明并沒有那么簡單。有人忘了，那些格格笑的快樂嬰兒有一天會長大，變成有復雜需要的成年人。
“人工授精剝奪了我一半的基因歷史，也剝奪了我子女和孫子女一半的基因歷史，”克里斯蒂娜·惠普爾說。她認為自己有權了解自己的生身父母。
自1991年后，捐獻者的名字、住址、出生日期、醫(yī)療記錄、外貌特征、宗教信仰、職業(yè)和興趣等詳細情況都必須在HFEA登記，但是后代無權查閱這些資料。他們只能通過HFEA證實自己和結婚對象沒有血緣關系;如果他們懷疑自己是捐獻配子或胚胎的產物，他們在18歲后也可向HFEA查詢。
HFEA說，該機構還要面臨一種情況：如果人工授精孩子患有遺傳病或白血病這類疾病，他(她)可能需要生父的骨髓才能活命。HFEA一位發(fā)言人說：“但是，目前的法律非常明確。捐獻者的身份必須保密。”
28歲的喬安娜·羅斯也是通過人工授精出生的。最近，高等法院準許她根據《人權法》開始一項訴訟，這項訴訟可能將迫使有關機構向1991年后出生的人工授精孩子公布更多有關捐獻者的信息。羅斯說，她和她同母異父的兄弟亞當因為對生身父親一無所知而陷入身份危機。
但是，生育業(yè)已經發(fā)生警告：結束匿名將使精子、卵子和胚胎供應不足。這對于不育夫婦和患不育癥的男子是可怕的前景。
37年前，梅利莎的母親通過人工授精懷上了她。1996年，她母親在一次坦誠相見的談話中對她說出了真相。但直到5個月后，她的父親才知道這個秘密已經不再是秘密。
從那以后，父女二人幾乎沒有談論過此事。梅莉莎是獨女，她愛父親。在她逐漸成長的過程中，有些事情似乎不對勁。她說不清楚，只是一種揮之不去的不安感。她失望地發(fā)現(xiàn)，自己一點也不像父親。“他能力極強、講究實際而且非常專注，”她說，“我卻是相反的極端，我總覺得他應該有一個更像他的孩子。”
1996年以后，她一直不知道應該為真相大白而高興還是為一種“無法解決的情況”而絕望。她也談到身份危機。她希望找到生父，但不知道從何找起。她對政府非常憤怒。她認為，政府應當為保護人工受精孩子付出更多的努力。“我母親沒有想到長遠的問題，”她說，“他們只是特別想要個孩子。”
梅利莎認為，醫(yī)院以后應當只接受愿意講明身份的捐獻者。她還希望過去的捐獻者自愿登記。因為有關的討論文件只考慮到查明未來配子捐獻者的身份。她認為，既然對收養(yǎng)法所做的修改可以溯及以往，人工受精方面的法律也應該如此。
捐精者的動機各不相同。有些學生覺得：“每次15磅，一周兩次，用來買酒喝挺不錯。”年紀較大的人也許會有更為利他的想法。當然，(在捐精次數(shù)受到限制以前)也有一些利己主義者似乎熱衷于創(chuàng)造出成百上千個“小我”。
幾年前還沒有對人工授精孩子生活是否幸福的調查。但是，后來的幾項研究表明，許多人工授精孩子在成長過程中覺得父母有秘密不告訴他們，至少有一半人懷疑自己的父親不是生父。多數(shù)人工授精孩子都覺得有權知道捐精者到底是誰，60%的人希望和他見面。盡管有證據表明隱瞞事實可能產生不利影響，對英國、意大利、荷蘭和西班牙的人工授精家庭進行的調查示，只有9%的家長在孩子12歲以前把真相告訴他們。
來自倫敦北部的威廉是個例外。18歲的他從小知道另一個人幫助父母(沃爾特·梅里克斯和奧利維婭·蒙圖斯基)創(chuàng)造了他們的孩子。威廉說：“我完全接受這一點。”
他的妹妹，15歲的蘇珊是通過另一位捐精者孕育的。她最近寫了一篇非常感人的文章，表示她對那個“給了我生命和父母巨大歡樂”的男子很感興趣。但是威廉對那個捐精者毫無興趣。威廉看起來一點不像沃爾特，但和他有很多共同點。威廉說，這就是養(yǎng)育的力量。
威廉認為，要查明過去捐精者的身份是“不道德的”，因為醫(yī)院已經許諾為他們保密。他認為被領養(yǎng)的孩子比人工授精孩子更有權了解生身父母，因為精子和卵子只是制造嬰兒的事件，放棄精子與放棄一個孩子并不一樣。
威廉的父母一開始就決定和孩子說實話。他們的動機不是擔心孩子長大后出現(xiàn)身份危機，而是一種基本的感覺：穩(wěn)固的家庭不能建立在謊言上。
49年前，加拿大電影人巴里·史蒂文斯通過人工授精在倫敦出生。他認為，即使因為取消匿名制使捐贈者減少，也不應該為了讓精子庫更充足而犧牲人工授精后代的合法權利。他最近拍攝的一部獲獎影片反映了他設法尋找生身父親和大約200名同父異母兄弟姐妹的經歷。這部影片是游說加拿大政府讓人工授精孩子了解關于捐精者更多情況的動力之一。
史蒂文斯認為，對于那些向孩子說謊的父母，政府也有責任。他說：“公民與社會的第一個關系就是出生證明。就這些孩子而言，這個證明是假的。我希望所有人都能了解自己的出生情況。”他說，為什么基因遺傳在我們的文化中如此根深蒂固，而人們卻期望人工授精后代接受基因遺傳根本不重要的看法?
他說：“每個人都急于告訴我們這并不重要。我突然間覺得極為憤怒——這應該由我自己決定。”
有關優(yōu)秀的英語文章閱讀篇二
of friendship
IT HAD been hard for him that spake it to have put more truth and untruth together in few words，than in that speech，Whatsoever is delighted in solitude，is either a wild beast or a god. For it is most true，that a natural and secret hatred，and aversation towards society，in any man，hath somewhat of the savage beast;but it is most untrue，that it should have any character at all，of the divine nature;except it proceed，not out of a pleasure in solitude，but out of a love and desire to sequester a man‘s self，for a higher conversation：such as is found to have been falsely and feignedly in some of the heathen;as Epimenides the Canadian，Numa the Roman，Empedocles the Sicilian，and Apollonius of Tyana;and truly and really，in divers of the ancient hermits and holy fathers of the church. But little do men perceive what solitude is，and how far it extendeth. For a crowd is not company;and faces are but a gallery of pictures;and talk but a tinkling cymbal，where there is no love. The Latin adage meeteth with it a little：Magna civitas，magna solitudo;because in a great town friends are scattered;so that there is not that fellowship，for the most part，which is in less neighborhoods. But we may go further，and affirm most truly，that it is a mere and miserable solitude to want true friends;without which the world is but a wilderness;and even in this sense also of solitude，whosoever in the frame of his nature and affections，is unfit for friendship，he taketh it of the beast，and not from humanity. A principal fruit of friendship，is the ease and discharge of the fulness and swellings of the heart，which passions of all kinds do cause and induce. We know diseases of stoppings，and suffocations，are the most dangerous in the body;and it is not much otherwise in the mind;you may take sarza to open the liver，steel to open the spleen，flowers of sulphur for the lungs，castoreum for the brain;but no receipt openeth the heart，but a true friend;to whom you may impart griefs，joys，fears，hopes，suspicions，counsels，and whatsoever lieth upon the heart to oppress it，in a kind of civil shrift or confession.
“喜歡孤獨的人不是野獸便是神靈”。說這話的人若要在寥寥數(shù)語之中，更能把真理和邪說放在一處，那就很難了。因為，若說一個人心里有了一種天生的、隱秘的、對社會的憎恨嫌棄，則那個人不免帶點野獸底性質，這是極其真實的;然而要說這樣的一個人居然有任何神靈底性質，則是極不真實的。只有一點可為例外，那就是當這種憎恨社會的心理不是出于對孤獨的愛好而是出于一種想把自己退出社會以求更崇高的生活的心理的時候;這樣的人異教徒中有些人曾冒充過，如克瑞蒂人埃辟曼尼底斯羅馬人努馬西西利人安辟道克利斯和蒂安那人阿波郎尼亞斯是也;而基督教會中許多的古隱者和長老則確有如此者。但是一般人并不大明白何為孤獨以及孤獨底范圍。因為在沒有“仁愛”的地方，一群的人眾并不能算做一個團體，許多的面目也僅僅是一列圖畫;而交談則不過是鐃鈸丁令作聲而且。這種情形有句拉丁成語略能形容之：“一座大城市就是一片大荒野”;因為在一座大城市里朋友們是散居各處的，所以就其大概而言，不像在小一點的城鎮(zhèn)里，有那樣的交情。但是我們不妨更進一步并且很真實地斷言說，缺乏真正的朋友乃是最純粹最可憐的孤獨;沒有友誼則斯世不過是一片荒野;我們還可以用這個意義來論“孤獨”說，凡是天性不配交友的人其性情可說是來自禽獸而不是來自人類的。友誼底主要效用之一就在使人心中的憤懣抑郁之氣得以宣泄弛放，這些不平之氣是各種的情感都可以引起的。閉塞之癥于人底身體最為兇險，這是我們知道的;在人底精神方面亦復如此：你可以服撒爾沙以通肝，服鋼以通脾，服硫華以通肺，服海貍膠以通腦，然而除了一個真心的朋友之外沒有一樣藥劑是可以通心的。對一個真心的朋友你可以傳達你底憂愁、歡悅、恐懼、希望、疑忌、諫凈，以及任何壓在你心上的事情，有如一種教堂以外的懺悔一樣。
有關優(yōu)秀的英語文章閱讀篇三
of love
THE stage is more beholding to love，than the life of man. For as to the stage，love is ever matter of comedies，and now and then of tragedies;but in life it doth much mischief;sometimes like a siren，sometimes like a fury. You may observe，that amongst all the great and worthy persons(whereof the memory remaineth，either ancient or recent)there is not one，that hath been transported to the mad degree of love：which shows that great spirits，and great business，do keep out this weak passion. You must except，nevertheless，Marcus Antonius，the half partner of the empire of Rome，and Appius Claudius，the decemvir and lawgiver;whereof the former was indeed a voluptuous man，and inordinate;but the latter was an austere and wise man：and therefore it seems(though rarely)that love can find entrance，not only into an open heart，but also into a heart well fortified，if watch be not well kept. It is a poor saying of Epicurus，Satis magnum alter alteri theatrum sumus;as if man，made for the contemplation of heaven，and all noble objects，should do nothing but kneel be- fore a little idol，and make himself a subject，though not of the mouth(as beasts are)，yet of the eye;which was given him for higher purposes. It is a strange thing，to note the excess of this passion，and how it braves the nature，and value of things，by this;that the speaking in a perpetual hyperbole，is comely in nothing but in love. Neither is it merely in the phrase;for whereas it hath been well said，that the arch-flatterer，with whom all the petty flatterers have intelligence，is a man‘s self;certainly the lover is more. For there was never proud man thought so absurdly well of him self，as the lover doth of the person loved;and therefore it was well said，That it is impossible to love，and to be wise. Neither doth this weakness appear to others only，and not to the party loved;but to the loved most of all，except the love be reciproque. For it is a true rule，that love is ever rewarded，either with the reciproque，or with an inward and secret contempt.
舞臺上的愛情比生活中的愛情要美好得多。因為在舞臺上，愛情只是喜劇和悲劇的素材。而在人生中，愛情卻常常招來不幸。它有時像那位誘惑人的魔女，有時又像那位復仇的女神。你可以看到，一切真正偉大的人物(無論是古人、今人，只要是其英名永銘于人類記憶中的)，“沒有一個是因愛情而發(fā)狂的人：因為偉大的事業(yè)抑制了這種軟弱的感憎。只有羅馬的安東尼和克勞底亞是例外。前者本性就好色荒淫，然而后者卻是嚴肅多謀的人。所以愛情不僅會占領開曠坦闊的胸懷，有時也能闖入壁壘森嚴的心靈——假如守御不嚴的話。埃皮克拉斯曾說過一句笑話：”人生不過是一座大戲臺。“似乎本應努力追求高尚事業(yè)的人類，卻只應像玩偶奴隸般地逢場作戲似的。雖然愛情的奴隸并不同于那班只顧吃喝的禽獸，但畢竟也只是眼目色相的奴隸——而上帝賜人以眼睛本來是更高尚的用途的。過度的愛情追求，必然會降低人本身的價值。例如，只有在愛情中，才永遠需要那種浮夸謅媚的詞令。而在其他場合，同樣的詞令只能招人恥笑。古人有一句名言：”最大的奉承，人總是留給自己的“。——只有對情人的奉承要算例外。因為甚至最驕傲的人，也甘愿在情人面前自輕自賤。所以古人說得好：”就是神在愛情中也難保持聰明。“情人的這種弱點不僅在外人眼中是明顯的，就是在被追求者的眼中也會很明顯——除非她(他)也在追求他(她)。所以，愛情的代價就是如此，不能得到回愛，就會得到一種深藏于心的輕蔑，這是一條永真的定律。
看了“有關優(yōu)秀的英語文章閱讀”的人還看了：