Anonymous Sperm

[Undesired Walrus]

There was a documentary on a while back called 'The Great Sperm Crisis' about the lack of sperm donors in the UK. Since Labour passed a law outlawing anonymous sperm donation (The child does not know who its biological father is), the amount of sperm donations in an average year in England is 20. That's 20 people. In Belfast, 0. It seems that because children can now track down their biological fathers, men are less willing to perform this good deed for fear of being tracked down later in life.

The doc showed the distress of many women who could not have a child because of this, and I sympathise greatly, but I cannot but help feel that the rights of these potential children was overlooked. I could find myself with no other opinion than that of supporting the legislation Labour brought in. Children must surely have a right to know their biological father.

Thoughts?

[Professor Yaffle]

Have you found an online source for the figures? I ask because I have heard/read that the law change hasn't actually resulted in a drastic drop in sperm donors. I'll have a look for some numbers too,but in th meantime, here's the first news story I found on the issue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5054910.stm

ETA:


The number of men registering as sperm donors has risen by 6% in the year following the law removing donor anonymity, latest figures show.

Some had feared potential donors may be deterred if they could be identified.
But in the 12 months following the law change there were 265 new sperm donors registered with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. This compares with 250 in the year before the law came into force for donors in April 2005.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6618977.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6618977.stm)

[Professor Yaffle]

I assume this is the programme, if so, (according to the review) they are talking 200 donors for the whole of the UK, not 20.

http://library.digiguide.com/lib/uk-tv-highlight/The+Great+Sperm+Crisis-478

Numbers have drastically reduced since the nineties when there were more like 400 donors per year, but that decline began before the change in the law, and according to the figures above, there has actually been a slight increase on the year before the law changed.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Children must surely have a right to know their biological father.

Thoughts?

Many married women would disagree with you.

:)

[Professor Yaffle]

Another news story giving the same figures:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/number-of-sperm-donors-rises-despite-the-loss-of-anonymity-447397.html

[TragicMonkey]

Given a choice between not knowing who my biological father is and not existing at all, I think I'd choose the former. I'm funny that way.

[Lonewulf]

Given a choice between not knowing who my biological father is and not existing at all, I think I'd choose the former. I'm funny that way.

I don't care on the latter. If I didn't exist, I wouldn't care. Simple as that.

Worrying about what I would want when I don't exist makes as much sense as discussing what I'll do when I'm dead.

[Giraffe107]

My parents needed help conceiving me and used artificial insemination from a donor as well as my father's sperm. I don't know for sure which sperm made my mother pregnant. I don't care. My father is the man who raised, loved, and cared for me- not some anonymous university student who donated 24 years ago. I don't need to know who he was. So no, I don't think children have 'a right' to know.

[shadron]

There was a documentary on a while back called 'The Great Sperm Crisis' about the lack of sperm donors in the UK. Since Labour passed a law outlawing anonymous sperm donation (The child does not know who its biological father is), the amount of sperm donations in an average year in England is 20. That's 20 people. In Belfast, 0. It seems that because children can now track down their biological fathers, men are less willing to perform this good deed for fear of being tracked down later in life.

The doc showed the distress of many women who could not have a child because of this, and I sympathise greatly, but I cannot but help feel that the rights of these potential children was overlooked. I could find myself with no other opinion than that of supporting the legislation Labour brought in. Children must surely have a right to know their biological father.

Thoughts?

It's not clear to me whether you think the father should be known for medical reasons (presuming such would help establish a person's genetic heritage) or for emotional reasons. If the former, that's becoming an non-issue, as genetics is much better now at determining what your actual genetics really is, rather than having to infer it from whatever your patrilineal inheritance may have provided. The emotional reason is debatable; while some people profess to mental anguish by not knowning, rarely has curiosity been blamed directly for death.

[AK-Dave]

... rarely has curiosity been blamed directly for death.

Many cats would disagree with you.
:duck:

- David

[noch1Narr]

Why can't the law in the UK separate donors who don't mind being identified later in life from those who do?
I am aware that that would NOT take into account the yet unborn child's 'right to know'. But it might make available anonymous sperm to women/couples who would welcome such an option.
Michael

[volatile]

Scrap the laws preventing being paid for donation; watch this problem disappear.

I believe that in the US, donors are already allowed to receive payment.

[gdnp]

What rights does the donor have under the new law? Does he have the right to be left alone if he wants to be? Does he have the right to the privacy of his medical records?

[Alt+F4]

It's very different in the U.S.

As correspondent Steve Kroft reports, an estimated 30,000 children are born in this country each year to mothers who have been artificially inseminated with sperm from an anonymous donor. Most of these children grow up never knowing their biological father — but now, with the help of sperm bank records and the Internet, some of them are finding half-brothers and half-sisters they never knew they had, who were sired by the same anonymous donor, forging family ties they never knew existed.

Linky:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1414965.shtml

[Dunstan]

Any man who donates sperm and expects to remain anonymous and free of legal obligations is a fool, regardless of which country he lives in. Even if the law in your jurisdiction currently protects your anonymity, things can change in the next few decades. (And in many instances, the law only "protects" anonymity in the sense that it won't compel a sperm bank to divulge your information. Whether you'll actually be able to prevent a sperm bank from revealing it without your consent is a whole other story.)

[TragicMonkey]

I don't care on the latter. If I didn't exist, I wouldn't care. Simple as that.

Worrying about what I would want when I don't exist makes as much sense as discussing what I'll do when I'm dead.

Easy enough for you to say: you exist.

[fagin]

Scrap the laws preventing being paid for donation; watch this problem disappear.

I believe that in the US, donors are already allowed to receive payment.
Reminds me of a cartoon strip I thought hilarious when I was younger.
Man and woman in lift of clinic.
Woman pushes button for third floor, and says to man, I'm going to donate blood. I get paid $20 a time.
Man pushes button for fourth floor, says I'm going to donate sperm, I get $50 a time.
Next time they meet in the lift, man asks woman if he can push third floor button for her.
Woman with bulging cheeks shakes her head and holds up four fingers.

Well I thought it was funny.

[Francesca R]

Children must surely have a right to know their biological father.

Thoughts?As per Professor Yaffle's sources, there does not seem to be a sperm crisis. However, the problem can manifest in another way, which is that would-be parents decide not to use UK donated sperm because they do not want their child to be in a position to exercise the right of discovery. This can be overcome by using donations from outside the UK.

I think the same laws exist for egg donation too, and hence the same issues.

My instinctive reaction is that no, I do not think that this right (to discover biological father or mother) should be retained for the child when s/he is born. I think that the interests of the parents should take precedence.

[Professor Yaffle]

As per Professor Yaffle's sources, there does not seem to be a sperm crisis. However, the problem can manifest in another way, which is that would-be parents decide not to use UK donated sperm because they do not want their child to be in a position to exercise the right of discovery. This can be overcome by using donations from outside the UK.

I think the same laws exist for egg donation too, and hence the same issues.

My instinctive reaction is that no, I do not think that this right (to discover biological father or mother) should be retained for the child when s/he is born. I think that the interests of the parents should take precedence.

Firstly, there is a real problem with the availability of sperm dontaions, it just wasn't caused directly by the change in the law. One of the stories I read suggested that the decline began once the government started talking about changing the law.

Also, I read that the law was later changed to cover sperm donations from outside the UK.

In most circumstances I am for the right of the child to be able to contact their biological parents (eg in adoption), but I am not quite so sure in the case of sperm donation, it's much more of a grey area.

[Lonewulf]

Easy enough for you to say: you exist.

And if I didn't, I wouldn't say anything at all, nor would I want to.

[Francesca R]

Scrap the laws preventing being paid for donation; watch this problem disappear.Oh and I completely agree with this. Not that it might make the problem disappear, but that compensation for sperm donation should certainly be allowed.

[Francesca R]

Also, I read that the law was later changed to cover sperm donations from outside the UK.Really? I'm not sure how UK law can require a foreign agency to disclose any information if it is not bound to by local laws. Have you got anything on this?

[Professor Yaffle]

Really? I'm not sure how UK law can require a foreign agency to disclose any information if it is not bound to by local laws. Have you got anything on this?

I'll see if I can find it again.

[Professor Yaffle]

The new statistics were published three months after the anonymity rules were extended to include overseas sperm donors, to whom British clinics had turned for supplies. Specialists warned this would affect a new supply line from the Xytex Corporation in the US, which pays its donors $100 per sample (£52) and Cryos, Denmark's largest sperm bank, which gives donors between 125 and 625 kroner per sample (£11 to £57) depending on "quality and volume". British clients have also been prepared to pay up to $525 (£275) for sperm from an American donor with a doctorate ($445 without the doctorate), and can specify the hair colour and physique they require.


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/number-of-sperm-donors-rises-despite-the-loss-of-anonymity-447397.html

Obviously it doesn't cover people who go abroad for treatment, or the unregulated market in the UK (where you run into different problems: http://www.proudparenting.com/node/1050).

Also, from a few links I came across while trying to find that one, it seems that the problem is that donors are more reluctant than previously to donate to several families because they don't want large amounts of children tracing them. So while the number of donors went up, the number of fertility treatments they could provide went down.

[Mojo]

Also, I read that the law was later changed to cover sperm donations from outside the UK.


Does this mean the Vikings (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69437) won't be any help?

[Lonewulf]

Oh and I completely agree with this. Not that it might make the problem disappear, but that compensation for sperm donation should certainly be allowed.

Why are there laws in place to prevent compensation for sperm donation, anyways?

[Professor Yaffle]

A more recent article on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/health/12sperm.html?ref=world

[TragicMonkey]

And if I didn't, I wouldn't say anything at all, nor would I want to.

In that case, would you object to being murdered? Because immediately afterwards, you wouldn't care.

[Lonewulf]

In that case, would you object to being murdered? Because immediately afterwards, you wouldn't care.

:rolleyes:

So what you do to those that exist now, can be used as argument to how you should bend over backwards for the lives of the non-existent.

Very well, for all of these non-existent souls in limbo, I guess we should have people give as much birth as possible, because they all need existent bodies?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Why are there laws in place to prevent compensation for sperm donation, anyways?

For the same reason you cannot (legally) by a human kidney for transplant in the UK.

I'm not sure a reasonable fee for sperm or egg donation would provide much of an incentive for men or women to become donors.

[Francesca R]

Why are there laws in place to prevent compensation for sperm donation, anyways?Ethics; misguided ones in my view.

[Professor Yaffle]

Why are there laws in place to prevent compensation for sperm donation, anyways?

Sperm donors are paid some compensation.


Are donors paid?
All donors are paid per donation accepted. The payment is compensation for time and travel to and from our clinic. For donors from the Nottingham area, it is usually a standard £30 fee. No payment is made until the prospective donor is accepted onto the donor program.

http://www.nuh.nhs.uk/andrology/spermdonation.htm#Are_donors_paid

[Francesca R]

I'm not sure a reasonable fee for sperm or egg donation would provide much of an incentive for men or women to become donors.In the case of sperm donation, the stereotypical example is of a male undergraduate student supplementing his income in a way that some may find prefereable to bartending or refuse collection :)

[Professor Yaffle]

Re anonymity - from wikipedia:

For most sperm recipients, anonymity or not is not of major importance. [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_donation#cite_note-werner-6) For the donor conceived children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donor_conceived_children), on the other hand, it may be devastating not having the possibility of contacting or knowing almost nothing about the biological father.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_donation#cite_note-11) One in three of donor conceived children want information about their biological father. [9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_donation#cite_note-smith.26sheib-8) In case of non-anonymous sperm donation, most of the donor conceived people contact the clinic as soon as they reach the required age.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_donation#cite_note-smith-12)
Approximately 60% of requesters are female. [14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_donation#cite_note-scheibmedpage-13) Approximately 40% of requests are from people raised by single women, 30% from those raised by lesbian couples, and 20% from those raised by heterosexual couples.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_donation#cite_note-scheibmedpage-13) Approximately 60% of them are of the opinion that all sperm donations should include identity release. [14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_donation#cite_note-scheibmedpage-13)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_donation#Anonymous_or_non-anonymous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_donation#Anonymous_or_non-anonymous)

[Francesca R]

^The above makes sense, but I am personally more inclined to consider the interests and wishes of the (non-biological) parents (who may simply not go ahead with articifial conception as a result of non-anonymity)

[TragicMonkey]

:rolleyes:

So what you do to those that exist now, can be used as argument to how you should bend over backwards for the lives of the non-existent.

Very well, for all of these non-existent souls in limbo, I guess we should have people give as much birth as possible, because they all need existent bodies?

I'm simply pointing out that the people who DO exist because of anonymous sperm donation might not like hearing you say it doesn't matter, because to them it did.

You can distort that into any kind of stupid inanity you feel capable of (and by observation, that's a very wide range indeed). I don't care. To me it looks like you're satisfied that you have got yours and are willing to slam the door on others. Lovely!

[Lonewulf]

I'm simply pointing out that the people who DO exist because of anonymous sperm donation might not like hearing you say it doesn't matter, because to them it did. What was your argument to begin with? That knowing your parents was less important than simply existing.

Except that, if there were to be less births (and it was verified as being true and didn't end up being a false dichotomy), then while that ultimately means less people existing, it does not deprive anything from an invisible being. You only exist when you are born, and thus, even if less people are born, it does not get rid of another existing being's existence; I feel you are putting the cart before the horse.

Your argument ultimately can be used to have a very hard-lined stance in being incredibly anti-abortion (which I do not have), and furthermore is an argument against, say, watching one's population growth, as we would need to think of the opinions of the non-existent.

You can distort that into any kind of stupid inanity you feel capable of (and by observation, that's a very wide range indeed).Nice way to personalize the debate.

I suppose you consider your murder comparison to not be an example of stupid inanity? Or your own argument to begin with?

Those that point their fingers never point in the mirror...

I fail to see taking your argument to its natural conclusion is a "stupid inanity", though.

I don't care.Great... why are you responding to me in the first place, again?

To me it looks like you're satisfied that you have got yours and are willing to slam the door on others. Lovely!See above.

And even then, I haven't taken a position in this debate. I'm merely responding to your argument as you make them, and giving my own perception. I know you don't quite like that.

[gdnp]

Re anonymity - from wikipedia:

For most sperm recipients, anonymity or not is not of major importance. [7] For the donor conceived children, on the other hand, it may be devastating not having the possibility of contacting or knowing almost nothing about the biological father.[12] One in three of donor conceived children want information about their biological father. [9] In case of non-anonymous sperm donation, most of the donor conceived people contact the clinic as soon as they reach the required age.[13]
Approximately 60% of requesters are female. [14] Approximately 40% of requests are from people raised by single women, 30% from those raised by lesbian couples, and 20% from those raised by heterosexual couples.[14] Approximately 60% of them are of the opinion that all sperm donations should include identity release. [14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_donation#Anonymous_or_non-anonymous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_donation#Anonymous_or_non-anonymous)
Methinks that this was written by a person conceived through artificial insemination.

I am particularly interested in the last statement. Why is the opinion of the conceived children felt particularly relevant here? If 60% said that the donors should pay for their college, would we care? I think the donor has the right to remain anonymous if he wishes, and the rules should not be changed after donations have been made. The only societal purpose of identifying the fathers is for family medical history, and if the donor centers are not screening the donors for that beforehand they are not doing their job.

[richardm]

Children must surely have a right to know their biological father.

Why must they have that right? I agree that many people who were adopted or the result of AI using a donor have a strong desire to find their biological parents. I have a strong desire for a lot of things but it doesn't automatically translate into a right. What's special about this one?

it does not deprive anything from an invisible being. You only exist when you are born, and thus, even if less people are born, it does not get rid of another existing being's existence; I feel you are putting the cart before the horse.


Surely TragicMonkey was just using a rhetorical device? I don't imagine for a moment that he thinks there are billions of unborn children up in limbo cheering on potential parents.

[Professor Yaffle]

Methinks that this was written by a person conceived through artificial insemination.

I am particularly interested in the last statement. Why is the opinion of the conceived children felt particularly relevant here? If 60% said that the donors should pay for their college, would we care? I think the donor has the right to remain anonymous if he wishes, and the rules should not be changed after donations have been made. The only societal purpose of identifying the fathers is for family medical history, and if the donor centers are not screening the donors for that beforehand they are not doing their job.

You really think that the opinions of people conceived in this way are not relevant to arguments for andagainst donor anonymity? I'm not saying they should necessarily be the only factor, but they are certainly relevant.

[Lonewulf]

Surely TragicMonkey was just using a rhetorical device? I don't imagine for a moment that he thinks there are billions of unborn children up in limbo cheering on potential parents.

It wasn't a rhetorical device that sounded very convincing to me. The fact that TragicMonkey probably does not think that there are billions of unborn children up in limbo, would just further demonstrate why I didn't find the rhetorical device particularly illuminating.

I also stick to my statement that it's an argument that can be used in a variety of topics, such as abortion and suggesting that the world is growing more overpopulated, and I find it no less convincing in those two cases either.

[applecorped]

I will personally help England out with this. There should be extra left over if anyone is interested.;)

[TragicMonkey]

It wasn't a rhetorical device that sounded very convincing to me. The fact that TragicMonkey probably does not think that there are billions of unborn children up in limbo, would just further demonstrate why I didn't find the rhetorical device particularly illuminating.

I also stick to my statement that it's an argument that can be used in a variety of topics, such as abortion and suggesting that the world is growing more overpopulated, and I find it no less convincing in those two cases either.

Oh, I see! If an argument can ever be used for something else, something you disagree wiht, it simply must be wrong!

A child conceived through artificial insemination by a donor is obviously wanted. People sometimes want to have children. And sometimes those people, though no fault of their own, cannot do it without help. Why the hell shouldn't they be able to get the help of other people?

My argument, very simply, is this: some people owe their lives to anonymous sperm donors. I don't think it is your place to say they shouldn't exist, and that if they didn't exist, they wouldn't be complaining. How dare you tell people, at least one of whom has posted in this thread that it doesn't matter whether they exist or not? That's like me going to your mother and telling her she should have aborted you!

If you don't approve of anonymous sperm donation, don't donate.

[Francesca R]

Worrying about what I would want when I don't exist makes as much sense as discussing what I'll do when I'm dead.I read this as being in favour of anonymous sperm donation (giving precedence to the wish of the donor, and also the future parents who could seek non-anonymous sperm if they felt differently--not to the wish or "right to choose" of an unborn child).

Which is the same as TragicMonkey's view and--as it happens--the same as mine.

Yet you've got caught up in some sidetrack here. So what's your view?

[Lonewulf]

I read this as being in favour of anonymous sperm donation (giving precedence to the wish of the donor, and also the future parents who could seek non-anonymous sperm if they felt differently--not to the wish or "right to choose" of an unborn child).

Which is the same as TragicMonkey's view and--as it happens--the same as mine.

Yet you've got caught up in some sidetrack here. So what's your view?

I honestly don't have one, one way or the other. I can see both sides.

I don't have a lot of emotional investment in this issue.

[Lonewulf]

If you don't approve of anonymous sperm donation, don't donate.

And if the child, after he is born, doesn't? Should he refuse to be born, or...?

[Francesca R]

I don't have a lot of emotional investment in this issue.I don't see what "emotional investment" has to do with having a position in a debate.

And if the child, after he is born, doesn't? Should he refuse to be born, or...?It's too late. When the child was conceived s/he had no say. So too bad.

[Lonewulf]

I don't see what "emotional investment" has to do with having a position in a debate.What other methodology would you suggest, for me to find my own position?

It's too late. When the child was conceived s/he had no say. So too bad. Ah, I see.

Not convinced.

[Francesca R]

Ah, I see.

Not convinced.But is is entirely consistent with what you said with "Worrying about what I would want when I don't exist makes as much sense as discussing what I'll do when I'm dead.".
Not that your statement is my argument. But it is aligned with it in that it implies you should not be concerned with what a not-yet-born child might want.

[Lonewulf]

But is is entirely consistent with what you said with "Worrying about what I would want when I don't exist makes as much sense as discussing what I'll do when I'm dead.".I was rather sloppy when I stated that, and I apologize. Rather tired over here.

I meant that if I didn't exist, and wouldn't exist, then it doesn't matter that I might have existed. Not clear by what I said at all, and I retract the earlier statement for this one.

But if I didn't exist, and would be born, then it might matter what kind of life I was born into. If we're to be thinking of the living, then we should think about what kind of life the child would have.

For instance, what if a mother wanted to sign away her child's rights, for any reason, and make him a slave?

Now, what if the woman wanted an abortion?

In the one case, we think to the future life of the child. In the second case, there is no future life beyond the fertilized egg. In the case we were presented with, a dichotomy between whether one lives with an anonymous father, and another in which case one lives at all, I see one as weighted more than the other -- in short, one looks to what knows in his life, the other looks to the fact that he doesn't exist, which is somehow wrong. Which is why I didn't see it as a convincing argument.

To be frank, if this legislation does end up lessening the amount of sperm donations, I'm not really emotionally affected by such a thing -- probably because I don't really "get" the importance of sperm donations in general. If a child doesn't know who his true father is, I don't know what it's like and whether it would make me want to find out who my own father was (and I'm biased, as I'd rather have never known who my father was, in light of what he actually did), so it's hard for me to have any real empathy/sympathy in this case as well.

Which is why I'm talking about lack of emotional investment. If one has to be given up to favor the other, I would appreciate knowing what was important what was being given up, and why the other was considered more important.

[gdnp]

You really think that the opinions of people conceived in this way are not relevant to arguments for andagainst donor anonymity? I'm not saying they should necessarily be the only factor, but they are certainly relevant.

I disagree. I think the choice should be entirely up to the donor.

Do you thing the (implied) opinion of an embryo is relevant with regard to a woman's right to abortion? Or does the mother's autonomy outweigh any rights of the fetus, at least in the first trimester?

Do my children have the right to my medical history if I wish to keep it private?

Let's turn this around: Should the donors be allowed to demand information on children that they have fathered?

Information should only be shared with the mutual consent of the donor and the child.

[Francesca R]

In the case we were presented with, a dichotomy between whether one lives with an anonymous father, and another in which case one lives at all, I see one as weighted more than the other -- in short, one looks to his life, the other looks to the fact that he doesn't exist, and that that is somehow wrong. Which is why I didn't see it as a convincing argument.Right. Well it isn't my argument so never mind.

I don't really "get" the importance of sperm donations in general.To fulfill the strong desires of various people to have children. What's not to get?

[Lonewulf]

To fulfill the strong desires of various people to have children. What's not to get?

Okay.

And why might someone want to know who his biological father is?

[Francesca R]

I can't answer that.

[gdnp]

Okay.

And why might someone want to know who his biological father is?

Why do people research their genealogy? Why should they care who their ancestors were, where they came from, or who they are related to? They never met any of these people.

[gumboot]

I kind of find this quite weird...

I mean, even if the child can find out who their biological father is, so what? It's not like they can make the man give them any information. Chances are he'll simply tell them to get lost.

As for medical history... I don't even have any legal access to my parents' medical records, so I fail to see how a child could have legal access to a sperm donor's legal records. That sounds like a rather substantial violation of privacy.

[Slayhamlet]

I kind of find this quite weird...

I mean, even if the child can find out who their biological father is, so what? It's not like they can make the man give them any information. Chances are he'll simply tell them to get lost.

So what? You don't think it would be a considerable deterrent to many potential donors to have to deal with the possibility of the offspring they never wanted to know (and in many cases never even had the right to know themselves without the grown-child's request) strongly desiring to meet them, despite being essentially a stranger? I assume many anonymous sperm-donors (and the vast majority are anonymous) would find the prospect of that kind of situation psychologically disquieting. It's not necessarily so easy as saying "piss off, I donated anonymously for a reason!"

As for medical history... I don't even have any legal access to my parents' medical records, so I fail to see how a child could have legal access to a sperm donor's legal records. That sounds like a rather substantial violation of privacy.

Laws can change. Perhaps not likely in this case, but still.

[Primus]

If it was anonymous and you got a small fee I would definitely consider it.

It is however the concept of having to tell a needy 18 year old that their reason for existence is I was a bit hard up and really wanted a copy of Gears of War 2 that is stopping me.

[gdnp]

Radiolab on NPR did a show on sperm recently that included a 15 minute segment on a woman trying to find the identity of her sperm donor. The link can be found on this page (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2008/11/21) in the segment called fatherhood.

Here (http://www.donor-conception-network.org/childof_stranger.htm)is a link to an essay that she wrote on the donor sibling registry, a site that tries to connect the children of donor conceptions to their half siblings.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Hey! I've just found an easy way to make £120/hour and it's practically on my doorstep.

Nottingham here I (ahem) come.

[TragicMonkey]

Hey! I've just found an easy way to make £120/hour and it's practically on my doorstep.

Nottingham here I (ahem) come.

They pay by the hour? Are you sure they don't pay by the volume?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I'm torn on this one.

I know that if it was me, I'd want to know. I'd want to know exactly who my father (or mother) was. I'd feel that it was my right to know. My parent's "privacy" would mean nothing to me.

What kind of a heartless creep wouldn't want to at least know what happened to his or her child? Assuming the child or the child's other parent's motive for finding them wasn't to seek some sort of financial support, that is.

On one hand, I think it's very good that European governments don't let donors remain anonymous and a shame that America lets both sperm donors and egg donors off scot-free after they donate.

As if they didn't just conceive a child! That is something you have to take responsibility for.

On the other hand, I sympathize with the argument that if a parent wants their identity to be kept a secret, for whatever reason, that's his (or her) buisness and should be respected.

You should make it easy for someone to do a good deed.

It's the same situation with adoption- you are only discouraging parents from giving their child up with laws invading their privacy.

[Ivor the Engineer]

They pay by the hour? Are you sure they don't pay by the volume?

If I'm lucky they'll pay by the spermatozoon.

[Euromutt]

On one hand, I think it's very good that European governments don't let donors remain anonymous and a shame that America lets both sperm donors and egg donors off scot-free after they donate.

As if they didn't just conceive a child! That is something you have to take responsibility for.
I'm not sure I agree with that. Especially the notion that a donor can be "let off scot-free" as if sperm donation were some sort of criminal offense.

The way I see it, as a sperm or egg donor, you're not making the choice to conceive a child yourself, but rather, you're giving some of your genetic material to other people to enable them to "conceive" a child. The act of donating sperm or eggs does not, in and of itself, result in conception; that also takes a recipient who has chosen to take and use the genetic material. The latter decision is the one that will directly result in conception, and as such, it is the person or persons who take that decision who ultimately bear responsibility for the resulting offspring.

Personally, I strongly favor donor anonymity, but I acknowledge that there are problems associated with it that need to be addressed. The main problem is the reported mental anguish on the part of children resulting from not knowing who one of their biological parents is. Now, I think (though I'm willing to be proved wrong on this) that that's caused by the socio-cultural emphasis on the importance of "biological parenthood" that is determined by genetic descent alone. I mean, it's one thing with adopted kids, where the biological parents were actually physically involved in the conception and (at least in the case of the mother) birth of the child. But is a child really a "part of you" when conception took place via AI or IVF, without you being present, or even aware of the fact? (I mean, I feel a strong emotional bond with my son, but I was there throughout my wife's pregnancy, and I was present at the birth.) Would children resulting from donated genetic material suffer this reported mental anguish if they didn't see the donor as a "biological parent" but just as someone who facilitated the conception? Say, like the doctor or nurse who administered the artificial insemination.

[Beerina]

Children must surely have a right to know their biological father.

Thoughts?

Many married women would disagree with you.

:)


:)

[I Ratant]

Hey! I've just found an easy way to make £120/hour and it's practically on my doorstep.

Nottingham here I (ahem) come.

As an engineer, I keep extensive records of day-to-day activities...
I counted back, and find I'm something like $300,000 short!

[Soapy Sam]

Throughout history, I wonder how many kids were wrong to believe what their mother told them about who their father was?

Apart from avoidance of some recessive genetic disease or similar, I can see no reason why sperm-donor kids should have a right to any more certainty about their fathers than anyone else.

[Darth Rotor]

Do the UK accept sperm donation from overseas? If the need is that great, I am pretty sure I can provide some. We are done having kids, but I am still, according to my doctor, firing warshots. (Greater love hath no man than to sacrifice his own seed ... no, that's not how it goes.)

While not every ejaculation may deserve a name, perhaps a few more could do with one. It's a gift, when looked at from a certain light, and it is the Christmas season.

Medically, I think it would be useful for the child to know where the seed came from, and the mother, in event of a doctor needing to know a thing or two for purely medical reasons. I'll be happy to be informed that this concern isn't critical by more knowledgeable persons.

(Does one FedEx a batch of sperm in this case? )

DR