Letters to the Editor
-
Anon, from a few pages ago
>>Your rights end where another person's rights begin.<<
I couldn't agree more. The "right" to remain anonymous ends when it bumps up against the child's right to not have his biological heritage kept hidden from him on purpose.
>>If sperm and egg donors have no right to remain anonymous, you can pretty much say goodbye to willing donors. <<
First of all, that is not true. Many banks now allow donors to be contacted when the child reaches 18. I have friends who have done this and they don't mind. If you do mind, don't donate.
>>What will all those infertile prospective parents do then?<<
There will still be donors. But nobody has the right to have a child in exactly the way they want, with no compromises. They might have to accept that their child has a right to his genetic information.
-
Competing Rights
Velora writes:
>>Your rights end where another person's rights begin.<<
_
I couldn't agree more. The "right" to remain anonymous ends when it bumps up against the child's right to not have his biological heritage kept hidden from him on purpose.
Why do you believe a child's right to his "biological heritage" (what does that mean, by the way?) trumps a donor's right to anonymity?
-
That this is even an issue is what is shocking
it seems women have numerous protection that they and only they are afforded. That men are not protected as much as women jusdtifies men doing all they need to do to right this situation. We men are not leftovers, slaves, or mindless robots merely in existence to provide sperm for society. It is high time men ROAR and make this right.
and too bad if it steps on other people. This never stops women from having all the ludicrous rights THEY are granted by society.
Seriously though, why are men so devalueed in society?!? Who is responsible??? WHO NEEDS TO PAY FOR THIS TRAVESTY?!?!!!
-
THE MORE I THINK ABOUT IT
the more pissed off I get.
WHO THE HELL THINKS THIS IS A FAIR THING TO DO TO MEN??????
-
the resons men get stuck is that you have to challenge the presumption that your wifes's child is yours
if you don't challenge it right away then you have "agreed" to "adopt" the kid and since from the kids point of view you are the father the "interests of the child" requires that the "father" be required to shoulder fatherly responsibilities.
-
Invalid
I don't give a shit what the genetic issues are to a resultant child, the issue is contractual privacy and how that is handled.
The offspring didn't sign the contract.
-
It's not like there's a social stigma for sperm donors,
This is absolutely not true. Lots of sperm donor offspring, especially the female ones, have a real attitude about it.
-
Invalid invalidation
Pyrian writes: “The offspring didn't sign the contract.”
Uh, but the mother and the donor did. Children (and the not born) cannot lawfully enter into contracts, but their legal guardians can.
-
no but adults and parents can be held liable for things they do that result in future harm to he developing fetus or embryo
so if depriving someone of information is considered damaging then there might be a legal basis for asserting some sort of claim
-
Sperm Donation is Unethical
Often treated as a dirty joke, sperm donation is rarely examined for it's ethics. Even when having a woman having child via sperm donation is discussed ad nauseaum, the sperm itself is treated as coming from some magical source, as if sperm donation really did create children without fathers.
But it doesn't. When a man sells his sperm, he is knowingly accepting the likelihhod that he is creating a new human life. We may criticize the women who use these services as delusional about the importance of fathers for their children (and I think they are very delusional), but at least they have every intention of raising the children they bring into the world. A man who makes children with no concern about who will raise them? Well- I wouldn't breed my dog because I wouldn't have control over how her puppies were treated. A man who deliberatly, for MONEY, donates sperm anonymously? Is any one REALLY foolish enough to think that this wouldn't matter to the resultant children? That they wouldn't feel the same complicated feelings that adoptees do? To paraphrase another poster: these men have carelessly played with the lives of other humans, and you can't sign that away on a contract.
-
glad to finally hear from you
people are acting like i am crazy for claiming you exist
-
whoa there buddy
Brightstar, calm down there. If you read the article and the companion piece on IVF "tourists." The British law appears to apply to both sperm and egg donors. No special protection for women. And I think a lot of people are making the assumption that sperm donation is only used by single women (or lesbian couples). However there are married couples in which the infertility is on the husband's side and sperm donation is a solution for them. I don't see why that would make you angry or how that gives the women in this situation special privileges. The companion piece actually explained how the rate of anonymous donation has decreased while the use of known donors has risen.
I do feel very badly for that girl in the article who felt like she was missing out on not having a biological father (she did have a step-dad for a while, but apparently didn't get along with him). She was very sincere about what she felt and her anger towards her mother. It turns out that she was very easily able to find her biological father and established a cordial relationship with him. However this may not be something that donors want and if they were promised anonyminity then they deserve that protection. It makes more sense to me to have a central clearing house where children and donors can register if they want to find or be found.
Personally, I would never use any sort of assisted fertility treatments other than insemination of my own husband's sperm (in the case of bad swimmers). I'm very wary at the unregulated nature of fertility clinics and I have no burning desire to have my own biologic children. And I would never go through the risk and cost of IVF. My husband feels just as strongly, especially if one of us was the infertile one, he didn't think it would be fair to have a child that was biologically related to only just one of us. We talked at length about this before we got married and agreed that adoption or fostering would be our choice if we couldn't have children.
-
Unless the UK is completely different than the US
these children should have at least as much medical history from these men as a lot of children born from regular old fashioned pregnancies. I have a son via sperm donation and I have a very comprehensive medical history not just for him, but for his whole family (sibs, uncles, aunts, parents, grandparents). I know religious background, physical characteristics. I have a couple pages of the interviewers impressions of this person and several paragraphs written by my donor on his interests, hobbies and what not. I don't for a minute think this is the same as having a father, but he's not my child's father and as someone else pointed out lots of children have grown up without fathers. My donor also is willing to be identified when my child reaches 18, but that doesn't make him financially responsible or even responsible for a relationship. Is the UK so different in their practices?