The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Weighing the Rights of an Anonymously Conceived Child, aka Cryokids
Spaten Optimator
Smooth OperatorRegistered User regular
Smooth OperatorRegistered User regular
Here's an interesting ethical question, one that I think we will see a lot more of as humans manipulate the reproductive process:
The article that prompted this question:
Her point:
How important is it that the donor remain anonymous? What, if any, rights do these offspring have to know that name, that person?
Not knowing one (or both) parent's identity isn't uncommon, but this is a circumstance over which society has direct control control. Should a certain amount of disclosure legally go with being a donor?
The article that prompted this question:
Greenawalt, who lives near Cleveland, and Clark, a college student in Washington, D.C., are part of an increasingly outspoken generation of donor offspring. They want to transform the dynamics of sperm donation so the children's interests are given more weight and it becomes easier to learn about their biological fathers.
...
"The adult voices of donor offspring are a welcome counterbalance to an array of cultural forces aimed at further marginalizing fathers," wrote Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker. "At the very least, as this study implores, it is time for a serious debate on the ethics, meaning and practice of donor conception."
...
At one point, Clark soured on the entire idea of donor conception. Now she accepts that it can be a blessing for some families, but she favors ending donor anonymity and hopes more parents will tell the truth early on to their donor-conceived children.
"The most damaging thing I've seen is when parents wait to tell," she said.
In an article she wrote for The Washington Post in 2006, Clark described the emotions that wracked her as an adolescent.
"I realized that I am, in a sense, a freak," she wrote. "I finally understood what it meant to be donor-conceived, and I hated it."
Her point:
My point is that the loss associated with being donor conceived is something that I will carry for the rest of my life, and that to deliberately create a human being with that loss is unethical.
How important is it that the donor remain anonymous? What, if any, rights do these offspring have to know that name, that person?
Not knowing one (or both) parent's identity isn't uncommon, but this is a circumstance over which society has direct control control. Should a certain amount of disclosure legally go with being a donor?
Spaten Optimator on
0
Posts
Wait is this seriously not provided with anonoymous donors?
Like, how hard is it to take someone's medical history report and just x out the name or something christ.
I don't buy the idea that 'cryokids' have the right to be able to go find their biological parents. Maybe they have the right to be told about the circumstances of their birth at some age, but I'm not sure who that obligation falls on, ultimately. The state?
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
If there's no drawback to the donor other than potentially having to shoo away some unwanted offspring 15+ years down the road, and there's a tangible negative effect on the children themselves caused by anonymity (which there seems to be), then what's the problem?
Personally I think it would be kind of cool to know that you had a kid out there somewhere that you could make contact with if you so desired.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I'm also the result of a sperm donor, and I have no problem with Donor anonymity. The study that article quotes? It was funded by a christian fundamentalist organization.
I noticed that almost all of the distressed children in that article were raised by single parents. Not once did it mention that children like me that were raised by lesbians are generally emotionally stable, more so than children raised by straight parents, even if the child was created by a sperm donor. That wouldn't agree with their true motive- to convince the public that anything outside of a "natural" family is wrong.
Also, what the hell makes that woman think that shes a freak for being a sperm donor's kid? All the natural processes are there; guy gets hard, experiences friction, squirts mucus, sperm fight like little gladiators for that right to live, baby is formed. There's just an added step with a turkey baster, and the two people aren't in the same room when it happens. Hell, it's basically long distance conception.
Yea, medical history really should be provided at the time of donation, along with giving the agency permission to access all future records, so that they can pass any important developments on t the child.
And it's the parents responsibility to tell the child as soon as the child asks (which he or she will certainly do at a very young age)
What I'm not clear on is what the remedy sought in those cases is. Even if the donors were made not-anonymous, that doesn't solve the (questionable) "problem" of existential angst on the part of people who find out later in life that they had a surrogate biological parent.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Sperm donors have that option in various ways. Anonymous donors are donating on the grounds that they will be anonymous. If they are not anonymous any longer, they will no longer provide donations, narrowing the options for would-be parents significantly. If the intended parent is the one who desires the donor to be anonymous, they will have to use a much less safe or ethical method to obtain it, as with abortion.
Take away a person's legal options and you invite danger.
I guess my main question is: if we remove artificial insemination from the equation entirely, it's still possible to not know who one of your parents is (either the mother simply Not Knowing, or the mother refusing to tell the child). At this point, what should the rights granted to the child be? Basically: "cryokids" is a red herring in the discussion, since the situation can happen without this technology. What's the answer on a biological level.
Personally, I don't think anyone has a RIGHT to know information about a parent, but it's probably best for the child's mental health to at least have the question answered in some way when the child asks why they don't have X or Y parent.
Maybe I'm just not at all sympathetic to this line of reasoning, but I just do not see what bothers them about that. It's the only reality they know, after all.
If that girl knew who her father was all along, she'd probably just hate him for not letting her go to that concert with that guy, and not letting her have her own cell phone for, like, forever! He's totally ruining her life, god! I bet she wishes she never knew him now.
Edit: flip this on its head. Would it be unethical for an anonymous donor to seek out all the children who were conceived using his sperm and meet them?
I think the best solution would be for there to be some mechanism for both parties to get in touch IF they both want to get in touch. I'm pretty sure this already happens somehow, if only though unofficial channels.
There was an article a while back about this group of people all conceived from the same anonymous donor--it's like hundreds of people. They have a message board an local meet-ups and everything. None of those people seemed at all concerned that they didn't know who their father was. Most had no interest in knowing.
Don't know who daddy is? Mom doesn't either? You think *that* makes life not worth living? Really? Go compare notes with the child of incest who's mother, through peer and community pressure, was told she was obligated to go through with the pregnancy because it was "the right thing to do," or to the child who's mother (or father) tells them in rage and personal angst that if only she hadn't gotten knocked up, she could have done x/y/z with her life. Amazingly enough, unwanted and resented children who know both their parents don't have perfect lives, either.
/rant
To the question at hand, no, I don't think "cryokids" or the children of one-night-stands or the children of volunteer sperm donors who's mothers deliberately get knocked up the "natural" way have an inherent right to know who the donor was if the donor does not wish to participate in the lives conceived by their donation. Kids showing up on the doorstep twenty years after a donation can do some pretty interesting things to the donor's current life and situation, and the donors may not want to participate in the lives of the people they never met in person.
The thing is, pertinent medical information isn't always going to end up in the father's medical records, if only because men can be pretty dumb about that. So the donor might be able to tell the kid things like "I get headaches if I eat too many nuts, but it's not too bad so I never thought to mention it", or "I found out after I donated that my uncle was at least a little schizophrenic, but he never saw a doctor about it because nobody in the family ever wanted to even talk about it". Even if these traits don't manifest in the kid, they could in the next generation, when the donor-baby grows up and has kids of their own.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
Pretty hard, actually, as this can seriously compromise the privacy of the donor. It's pretty easy to take a sufficiently detailed medical history and data mine the original donor out. Far easier than you'd think. Much more difficult to make that data truly anonymous without making it unusable.
Balancing the needs of the child for that data against that of the donor's privacy. There's not an easy answer there.
Is it really $150? <googles DC-area sperm banks>
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/13/health/main4597958.shtml
You never, ever agree to donate sperm unless it's done anonymously through an agency or whatever. The courts will make you pay child support if the recipient demands it. It doesn't matter, as long as you are established as the father they'll pin the bill on you no matter what. If you don't pay, you go to jail. You come last, women and children first. That's why you need to be careful and keep your seed to yourself.
It's just like adoption rights. It's slowly but surely changing.
Anonymous sperm donation came about because it was used to help married couples conceive where the husband was infertile - so of course one didn't want another male in the picture.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
If I donate sperm and provide medical history when I'm 35, it doesn't help the kid when I have a heart attack or stroke at 65.
RUNN1NGMAN: It's usually $50 per donation, and they basically contract you for one donation per week over a period of time like 3 or 6 months.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Cry more, cryokid.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And does this "moral" deserving have a solution to women getting pregnant by less safe means? Forcing donors to reveal themselves will work about as well as outlawing abortions.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Hmm, interesting. If my genetics weren't unconscionably bad I'd have to consider it.
I remember a news report a few years ago in Denmark. I think it was in connection with talks about removing donor anonymity retroactively, and they mentioned a guy that had donated a 1000 (his sperm quality was so high that they could tap him 3-5 times a week). At 500 DKK ~ 90$ a pop. 0,5 mil DKK or 90.000$
Of cause you can't have sex while being in "rotation" so that can't be fun.
I think removing anonymity is a bad idea, mainly because I see it as a very small step to then open up demands of child support. The donor doesn't choose the recipient, so I have a hard time seeing why they should be responsible.
.
Island. Being on fire.
Jesus Christ, grow up, lady. Your pompus ass has enough time to blog and whine, so you're doing better than a hell of a lot of people. You wanna suffer a loss no human being should have to endure? Go to fuckin Pakistan and watch your dad get dragged down the river.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Having 50 18 year olds calling you up saying DADDY I WANT TO KNOW YOU!
Yeah that might suck.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Quote from the conclusion that ties in with my question:
I understand with the cryokids situation that there are obviously a whole different slew of laws about adoptees and relatively few for cryokids. With regards to the privacy of the biological parents, though--specifically for cryokids, dad--what difference is there between the parents who opted to have their children legally adopted and the parents who donated their sex cells for the purpose of fertilization?
I can understand privacy laws for donation of sex cells for research, but for a person who specifically donates their sex cells for the purpose of procreation, how is it that they should be treated differently than parents who biologically carry the child to term, then put it up for legal adoption?
Edit: And maybe that could be one way of making a distinction--clearly defining the roles of donation clinics between procreation and research, where privacy laws are different between the two.
I sympathize for them, but that quote sounds really fucking melodramatic.