Tory Donor Lord Bamford Funds The Reform...
News2 mins ago
Sperm Donors
If somebody donates sperm now, if I hav got the changes in the law right, they are no longer anonymous. This means, presumably, that sperm donors may hav children knocking on their doors demanding to see their dad, who nevr for a moment knew they existed. This must be nasty for both of them.
What effect woud it have for the father to have a child turn up on their doorstep that they know nothing about, not even the mother? What effect would it have on the child having the 'real' father they look for not knowing they exist and possibly not even caring? Would the sperm donor be responsible (in any way, although I am mostly asking about the financial responsibilities) for the child?
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flashpig. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
flashpig - as I understand it, the father has no legal responsibility for the child. But I take your point about the impact of children turning up unanounced to a father who may not know them, nor want to. That's one reason why on moral grounds I don't think sperm donation and egg donation should be permitted.
If people are really keen to have children, and cannot do so naturally or with normal medical treatment to assist them, they should adopt. A baby is a new human being, with rights of its own. Where did the notion ever come from that would-be parents have a "right" to have a child!?
While I agree with badams about some peoples' perception that having children is a right, if the child knows that they are born fron donor sperm or eggs, then I would have thought that they would also know about the donor process and the fact that their biological parent is likely to have no particular feelings for them. Equally the donor will know that they are likely to have biological children out there and hopefully will have considered that before donation. For me a worse scenario would be that if it became widespread, it would become necessary to have dna testing before marriage to prevent "blood" siblings marrying. Now there's a nasty way to find out that your papa ain't your papa!!
woofgang - you raise a very interesting point. And how would we deal with the increasingly large number of children who are born outside of marriage?! Next thing you know, there'll be home DNA testing kits in Boots. And what about dating?:-
"hey, would you like to go out with me some evening"?
"Sure - send me your DNA profile and I'll think about it".
not sure but when i read the laws a while ago (might have changed) it wasnt allowing identity of the father, it was merely allowing certain restricted info about them such as age, proffesion etc but not actual names and address etc. This was to allow a child some understanding of the person that supplied the sperm but not allowing them rights to the persons details directly. I think this was because there was a fear that sperm donors would become a rare thing if allowed, however i am not sure if that is still the ruling they brought out
Moll Flanders shagged her brother.
That was nothing to do with sperm donation.
Maybe it was the British government playing god.
Thank you woofgang and twiglet4frog for your good points regarding to my question, and for Curious_M or pointing out that link (bloody hell). But badams, I feel you are off on your own agenda. I was not discussing the rights to a child, which, however I feel that we have as we are born with the equipment and most ar born with the inclination to make children.
Some are not born with the ability to, and I will help those who want to with sperm donations, as long as I don't get hunted down by my kiddie.
I know someone who is waiting to adopt a child. They deserved a child. If anyone should have a child - if anyone has earned the right to a child - it was them, but they are unable.
Oh sorry - I thought you actually wanted to discuss the pros and cons of this difficult situation - I see now I was wrong! Your real interest is making sure you don't end up with someone arriving on your doorstep in 18 years time, to have to be told that you don't want to know them, and couldn't care less about them. Or worse still that you might have some financial obligations in the shorter term! And you expect us to believe that you are really a caring person who's only interest is the welfare of these poor childless parents?
In answer to your question:-
"As a result, on 1 April 2005 a new law came into effect, which allows people conceived through donation to find out who the donor was, once they reach 18."...
"Because the new law gives donor-conceived people the right to know your identity once they reach 18, they could contact you."
"You have no legal obligations to any child created from your donation. The person who received your donation (and their partner if they have one) will be the child�s legal and social parent(s). You will not be named on the birth certificate and have no rights over how the child is brought up, nor will you have to contribute financially."[The children] may also wonder why you decided to donate and whether you have children of your own. The form we send out to clinics aims to answer these and other questions. The details we ask for include: * Your name * The name you were born with if this is different to your current name * Your date and place of birth * Your NHS or passport number....."
Source - HFEA
I find your facetious remarks quite annoying inre: having someone turn up at your doorstep... that you couldn't care less... and the financial obligations in the shorter term.
In the shorter term? Bringing up children isn't just whacking a few quid into their national savings, and it's more than just pocket money each week!
But, no I would care somewhat about the child, if a child came to be. In fact I would be very interested, but I would not feel a connection, they would be someone else's children, just like if I had given them away for adoption, but with giving a stranger the priveledge (because it isn't a right) to carry the baby.
But some other people might not. Feeling rejected from a sperm donor is probably less huring than bing turned away from someon who has given you away for adoption, or was your father from a one night stand. But it seemed, at the time of writing, that this could b quite hurtful for someone geared up to meet their 'real' father.
I like the idea of the anonymity, and though it is a worthwhile thing to do in my mind, it isn't like starting your own family, at least not to me. It is just like helping someone else start theirs.
Although, I must finally say, that despite your ethical objections you have sorted me out with my answer. Thank you badams.
flashpig
I have read through your answer yet again. It is very, very rude.
No, I was not after a debate on the pros/cons of sperm donation. No, I was not discussing 'the right to a child'.
My friends are the nicest of people. They have known me and my two younger siblings since we were knee, waist, and shoulder high. They have nephews and nieces who they adore, and they are just the most wonderful people. I feel there would be no better parents, if it were based on their ability, and the type of person they were, they would have earned the right.
IVF is a really, really expensive procedure. They went through it several times, demolishing the money left to one of them from a close family member.
Your suggestion about adoption has premptivly been heeded; is a hugely long process, they have been vetted, or whatever the term is, for over a year. It could be much over a year, maybe closer to two, maybe more, but for a long time they have had social workers popping round, interviewing them, their family, friends, ex-partners, and all of that bumf. And now they are on a waiting list for a child.
I was asking about sprm donation. This, I believe, is another way for people who cannot have a child to have a child. However, I have heard that there has ben some new legislation making it less popular. This was my rallying cry. I have been meaning to give both blood and sperm for some time, and one of them was obviously more appealing, but I wondered about the consequences of this new law.
You have NOT at all focussed on the question. I was NOT asking about the ethics of sperm donation. And I most certainly was NOT after snide remarks from someone who MISINTERPRETED the question and cannot stand to be corrected.
flashpig - you should know that threads on this forum, like most on the web, rarely stay entirely on track for any length of time, and frequently deal with associated topics within only a few posts. In that respect, I don't think my answer was too far off track.
However, having re-read my own response, I can see how you would interpret it as being rude, and for that I offer my sincere apologies.
If you are interested in further investigating this subject, you can find a lot of information on this site:-
Again, my sincere apologies for any offence I may have caused.
i think much upset is caused in situations like this because the question is not proporly explained and this one was not. however for my humble opinio i will say that perhaps i dissagreewith sperm donation becaue aprt from being unatural it does leave many loose ends to tie up and for goodness sake where is society gioing to land up. many people seem to forget that they have a right to NOTHING from nature and should be thankful for what they do have i mean just look at 100 or more years ago it was normal for 30-60 % of children to die young and it was exepted it was i suppose you could call natural selction but nowadays we grow up and think that we have being gravly wrong to have missed out on something. for example i was born with a har-lip and clef pallet and if i had of been born 70+ yrs ago i would have died and so i can say thank you that i am alive and wont think to badly if my children have this same problem because it is known to be hereditary and i will not certainly demand to have a sane child. we cannot govern nature but must make the most of it and i frankly beleive that the human race will medically destroy itself if it does not technologically because as years go by we appear to be able to solve all these problems. people that would have once died because of a malformality (like myself) survive to create more people with the same problem that may have also other problems inherited from other relatives and so we will end up being a race of very week beings as it is there r people that have multiple serious problems and i beleive things will get worse.
i think actually that maybe the egyptian feros hit the nail on the head in marrying in the family but that is considered today and imoral and illigal.
note i am not promoting imorality (incest) and am not here concered with the moral veiws (nature does not take heed to them that is certain) and perhaps i should be the last to speak as i am alive because nature was defied!
1 to 13 of 13
