# Should sperm donors be anonymous



## hohodicestu

Hi everyone,

According to my knowledge, sperm donors have to be anonymous. I think the reasons that they do that are because the biological parents don't want to have any kind of problems related to the kids; such problems could be financial, educational, and others. On the other hand, I think that all of us have the rights to know where we come from. Those kids have the need to know their biological parents.  What do you think? Why or why not sperm donors should be anonymous?

Thanks


----------



## Alxmrphi

Imagine you found out your Dad wanted a bit of cash so he donated some sperm, didn't mind being anonymous and knew that you could easily become a baby and grow up and wouldn't mind, or try to find you or to love you.

I think that's why.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

For me I think it’s good that they are anonymus ‘cause as it is said “padre no es el que engendra sino el que cria” “father it’s not the one who “created you?” the one it’s who raises you” so if your mother wanted to raise you alone, she will be always your mother and that’s it, On the other hand maybe child would have problems if the mother would lie to him/her about who was his father but maybe if the mother has enough bravery and she opens herself to her children(obviously when the child will be mature enough to cope with) , things would change and the child wouldn’t have problems. He will understand it,


----------



## timpeac

hohodicestu said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> According to my knowledge, sperm donors have to be anonymous. I think the reasons that they do that are because the biological parents don't want to have any kind of problems related to the kids; such problems could be financial, educational, and others. On the other hand, I think that all of us have the rights to know where we come from. Those kids have the need to know their biological parents. What do you think? Why or why not sperm donors should be anonymous?
> 
> Thanks


I think they should be anonymous (or have the right to be anonymous) otherwise no one in their right mind would do it!! I imagine that someone that donates sperm today because they need the hundred dollars (or whatever they get paid, I've no idea (honest!!)) is unlikely to relish being presented with a bill for several thousands of back charges for upkeep 18 years later. If they knew they might be tracked down you'd run out of donors.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

timpeac said:


> I think they should be anonymous (or have the right to be anonymous) otherwise no one in their right mind would do it!! I imagine that someone that donates sperm today because they need the hundred dollars (or whatever they get paid, I've no idea (honest!!)) is unlikely to relish being presented with a bill for several thousands of back charges for upkeep 18 years later. If they knew they might be tracked down you'd run out of donors.


Very good point my friend!!!! But now I have a question, Are they anonymous just on their names, right? I mean when a woman goes for some sperm (that’s sounds weird!) she knows the physical characteristics of the sperm’s owner or she doesn’t know?


----------



## timpeac

Miguelillo 87 said:


> Very good point my friend!!!! But now I have a question, Are they anonymous just on their names, right? I mean when a woman goes for some sperm (that’s sounds weird!) she knows the physical characteristics of the sperm’s owner or she doesn’t know?


I can only presume yes. I'd guess you might not only choose race but perhaps eye colour (or whatever) within that race, and further on I'd guess you'd pay more for sperm from a professional person such as a doctor or perhaps from a male model. Quite an interesting ethical angle on it, since it seems that this is not much different from "mail order catalogue babies" if you look at it like that.


----------



## lauranazario

hohodicestu said:


> On the other hand, I think that all of us have the rights to know where we come from.


No doubt about it... but it's up to the parent(s) raising the child (the one/s who opted for fertilization using sperm donation) to tell their children that they are the result of THAT procedure, as specific information on the sperm donor will not have been made available to them (the parents).


hohodicestu said:


> Those kids have the need to know their biological parents.


I'm no expert in reproductive law, but I believe that the offspring of sperm donors have no 'rights' in terms of going back to the sperm bank and somehow 'demanding' its administration to divulge the identity of the man who donated the sperm used to give them life.

Even if we're talking about a life-threatening situation (the kid has leukemia and needs the parent's bone marrow for a possible life-saving transplant treatment), I still believe the sperm bank cannot be compelled to divulge the identity of the donor. At least that's what I think...



hohodicestu said:


> What do you think? Why or why not sperm donors should be anonymous?


Fully anonymous, unquestionably anonymous.

To me, a sperm donor is just a "facilitator"... someone who has shared one of his bodily fluids to 'help' someone in need (in this case, the need for viable or fertile sperm for egg fertilization).

To me, it's _almost_ like being a blood donor. You share your blood to 'help' someone else out (whether you get paid for the donation or not!) We don't expect to have a 'right' to know whose _precise blood_ is running through our veins after an operation —so I guess expecting to have a 'right' to know whose sperm was used to give us life is on the same general ballpark.

Saludos,
LN


----------



## maxiogee

So how - with DNA profiling available - can anonymity be maintained?

What happens when it is discovered that the donor was an unwitting carrier of a genetic 'fault' which only manifests late in life, if at all?

Can one just 'dump' a child and disclaim _any_ responsibility towards it?


----------



## Miguelillo 87

maxiogee said:


> So how - with DNA profiling available - can anonymity be maintained?
> 
> What happens when it is discovered that the donor was an unwitting carrier of a genetic 'fault' which only manifests late in life, if at all?
> 
> Can one just 'dump' a child and disclaim _any_ responsibility towards it?


supposed here teh enterprises which make this kind of labor, has to make first studies to the sperm in order to avoid that, I mean it could be a genetic problem, but also sickness as AIDS or other could br presents there? So I supposed labs has to hava a special rules about that


----------



## danielfranco

I would hope sperm banks have some kind of process to filter out infected or contagious donations.
I think the donors should remain anonymous, but with some kind of recourse for the child in question in case any genetically inherited disease might present itself either at birth or later on in his life. As for any responsability towards the child, I believe the person(s) who took the decision of giving birth to him should be the ones solely responsible for him.

But I've been wrong before.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Another question is "CAN sperm donors be anonymous?"

Almost a year ago, a fifteen-year-old in England tracked down his biological father.  The man had not provided a DNA sample, but had provided the date and place of his birth.

Here's the article, if you're interested.


----------



## Brioche

I don't see why sperm donors should be anonymous.

The child has a right to know where her genes came from.

I don't see why a man who makes a donation to a sperm bank, which then passes it on to a woman, should be treated any differently from a man who cuts out the double handling and makes a donation directly to the woman.

Adopted children should have the right to know that they are adopted, and to know who their biological parents are.


----------



## zena168

Ummm...  There's plenty of people who do genetic mapping nowadays to avoid genetic defects or abnormalities.  If the donor is anonymous how can a woman make sure she's not reproducing at risk?  I won't care who the donor is but I'd really like to have the entire gene history of the donor.  There’s always some sort of genetic disease that’s more prevalent in one’s family that one should watch out for.   Problems like breast cancer, schizophrenic, or anemia can be greatly reduced if the donor’s gene (family) history is provided.  There are families who are also unable to reproduce because they need the healthier dominant genes to override their negative genes.  And shouldn’t the parents have a clue about what sort of family diseases to expect when raising their child?


----------



## timpeac

Brioche said:


> I don't see why sperm donors should be anonymous.


One reason is that people would stop donating otherwise


Brioche said:


> The child has a right to know where her genes came from.


Why? According to who? Is this some sort of universal right? How will you enforce it? What will be the penalty for not? What do we do with a women who's not sure which of several lovers is her child's father, perhaps she doesn't even remember their names. How long should we put her in prison for? How has humanity survived for so long until late last century when it became possible to know where your genes came from for sure? Why don't other animals need to know?


Brioche said:


> I don't see why a man who makes a donation to a sperm bank, which then passes it on to a woman, should be treated any differently from a man who cuts out the double handling and makes a donation directly to the woman.


- Because he is quite clearly saying that he has no interest in any resultant child. There is no shared responsibility implicit in the eventual artificial insemination of the woman.
- He is giving the sperm on the understanding that this does not present a problem to the woman.
- He could theoretically father in infinite number of children this way, not so the natural way.


Brioche said:


> Adopted children should have the right to know that they are adopted, and to know who their biological parents are.


This isn't related to this question.


----------



## Brioche

timpeac said:


> Why? According to who?
> 
> _According to *me*, obviously!_
> _The original question asks for opinions. Those are mine._
> 
> Is this some sort of universal right?
> _According to me it *should* be._
> _Children* ought* to have the right to know, whenever possible, who their biological parents are_.
> 
> How will you enforce it? What will be the penalty for not? What do we do with a women who's not sure which of several lovers is her child's father, perhaps she doesn't even remember their names. How long should we put her in prison for?
> _Is this a serious question? __Is such an outburst warranted?_
> 
> How has humanity survived for so long until late last century when it became possible to know where your genes came from for sure?
> _Since human beings worked out where babies come from - which was well before 1980 - faithful couples have always known where their children's genes have come from._
> 
> Why don't other animals need to know?
> _I believe that such knowledge is beyond the intellectual capacity of animals. _
> 
> - Because he is quite clearly saying that he has no interest in any resultant child. There is no shared responsibility implicit in the eventual artificial insemination of the woman.
> _As many a woman left 'holding the baby' knows, there are many, many men out there who are preparted to give a sperm donation with a complete lack of responsibility! Men can be just as irresponsible as the hypothetical woman you mentioned, who cannot remember the names of her lovers._
> 
> - He could theoretically father in infinite number of children this way, not so the natural way.
> _Being completely pedantic, no male of any species can produce an *infinite* number of children._
> 
> This isn't related to this question.
> _IMHO is it. AID is frequently an alternative to adoption these days, because there are so few babies available for adoption._
> _To me, the right, [which a child should have] to know who her parents are applies equally to the AID or adopted child._


----------



## timpeac

Why? According to who? 

_According to *me*, obviously!_
_The original question asks for opinions. Those are mine._

Yes opinions were asked for but there is a big difference between the bald statement of fact you made and making it clear that this is pure opinion. You meant "in my opinion they *should* have the right to know where their genes come from", but you've made that clear now. You answered the question "should sperm donors be anonymous" with the basic answer "no because all children have the right to know where their genes come from". As a bald statement without back up that is a rather shaky argument since it boils down to "coz I say so", and surprises me from you, to be honest, since I normally find your arguments excellently built.

Is this some sort of universal right? 
_According to me it *should* be._
_Children* ought* to have the right to know, whenever possible, who their biological parents are_.
Ok, "whenever possible" and *ought* and *should*, so we have further nuancing of the original bald statement of fact, and this leads me to react less strongly against what you are saying.

How will you enforce it? What will be the penalty for not? What do we do with a women who's not sure which of several lovers is her child's father, perhaps she doesn't even remember their names. How long should we put her in prison for? 
_Is this a serious question? __Is such an outburst warranted?_
This was no outburst, I was trying to take your argument ad absurdam to show that the initial premise is faulty, there was no "outburst" intended. If a person *has* a right then it is logical to ask how you would punish those who remove that right from that person. The question still stands.

How has humanity survived for so long until late last century when it became possible to know where your genes came from for sure? 
_Since human beings worked out where babies come from - which was well before 1980 - faithful couples have always known where their children's genes have come from._ You say a baby has a right to know where its genes come from. How can a baby possibly know for sure its parents were 100% faithful? (How can each parent even know that).

Why don't other animals need to know?
_I believe that such knowledge is beyond the intellectual capacity of animals. _I agree, and they manage just fine without it, so I wonder why you think knowledge of parenthood is a fundamental right of humans?

- Because he is quite clearly saying that he has no interest in any resultant child. There is no shared responsibility implicit in the eventual artificial insemination of the woman.
_As many a woman left 'holding the baby' knows, there are many, many men out there who are preparted to give a sperm donation with a complete lack of responsibility! Men can be just as irresponsible as the hypothetical woman you mentioned, who cannot remember the names of her lovers._
I don't disupute a word of this but can't see how it answers my point. Yes a lot of men are s**ts and sleep around etc. Why does that mean that a man who donates sperm so that people who need that service can conceive on the proviso that his part of the act is over should be tarred with the same brush? If two people have sex sure they should have equal responsibility. I can't see how you are linking this to a man leaving a pot of sperm and saying "use it if you wish but I'm out of the picture now".

- He could theoretically father in infinite number of children this way, not so the natural way.
_Being completely pedantic, no male of any species can produce an *infinite* number of sperm, never mind an infinite number of children._
As you say, a completely pedantic point, but since you took time to make it I shall answer - of course I meant he could father a huge number of children, and far more than he could ever feasibly father the usual way.

This isn't related to this question.
_IMHO is it. AID is frequently an alternative to adoption these days, because there are so few babies available for adoption._
_To me, the right, [which a child should have] to know who her parents are applies equally to the AID or adopted child._Well, you didn't make any link the first time, so I didn't want to presume your thought process (which I normally find very clear and fine).


----------



## Brioche

timpeac said:


> This was no outburst, I was trying to take your argument ad absurdam to show that the initial premise is faulty, there was no "outburst" intended. If a person *has* a right then it is logical to ask how you would punish those who remove that right from that person. The question still stands.
> _I don't see it as my job to create a whole "Code Brioche" with classifications of crimes, and lists of punishments, for the various things which I think ought to be done, or not done. _
> 
> You say a baby has a right to know where it's genes come from. How can a baby possibly know for sure its parents were 100% faithful? (How can each parent even know that).
> _It is in deed a wise child who know his father, but the woman knows whether she's been faithful._
> 
> So I wonder why you think knowledge of parenthood is a fundamental right of humans?
> _I didn't say fundamental!_
> _ In Australia [and I suppose other countries] there are organisations to help adopted children discover who their biological parents are. Some adopted children don't care, but some feel that a whole slice of their being is missing until they get that information._
> 
> _I don't see children as being some product that adults have a right to. _
> _In the best of all possible worlds, children would be created by loving parents who catered for the best interest of the child.  That obviously does not happen in many cases, but the state, the law and technology should facilitate only what is best for the child._


----------



## timpeac

I think that if sperm donors were forced to be revealed then the number of sperm donors would plummet. This is because they would be legally liable to maintenance for those children, and this would scare the majority of donors away, not to count the emotional investment they would also perhaps not be willing to make. In addition to this the remaining few would also probably specify that their sperm can only be used once or twice (or whatever they feel they can afford). Those donating may also ask to be remunerated to cover future maintenance payments. These factors, or a combination of them, would force up the cost of artificial insemination from a sperm bank by a huge amount putting it out of reach of the pocket of most people. So most people who would have used such sperm to conceive a child now could not.

Do you think that the "right" a child has to know its biological father is so important that they should not be born if it cannot be guaranteed?


----------



## geve

timpeac said:


> - Because he is quite clearly saying that he has no interest in any resultant child. There is no shared responsibility implicit in the eventual artificial insemination of the woman.


I agree with that - he's actually being a good citizen: "Don't throw it away, recycle!" 



zena168 said:


> Ummm... There's plenty of people who do genetic mapping nowadays to avoid genetic defects or abnormalities. If the donor is anonymous how can a woman make sure she's not reproducing at risk?


If you search for information on the topic, you'll find that there is a whole process to be completed before actually becoming a sperm donor. Some even ask for the medical history of the family for 4 generations! I doubt that many women among those who fertilize the "natural way" selected the father this way... Imagine the first date: "So tell me all about you, Mr Mysterious. <batting eyelashes> What is the cancer history in your family?"
I don't even know the medical history of my own great-grandparents... not to mention my great-great-grandparents.
And of course they search for a whole list of diseases. A donation must be left 6 months before being used, to be sure there is no infection.
This site is an interesting read for US citizens who would wish to "wank their way" to sperm donation, or anyone interested in learning interesting facts such as that "the sperm of young men are better at defrosting than old man sperm" (isn't that a good line? "Hey honey, did ya know that my sperm defrosts better than the sperm of any of these wealthy old men?" If someone could supply figures that would be even better! )



hohodicestu said:


> According to my knowledge, sperm donors have to be anonymous.


Actually this depends on the country.
Apparently two major aspects vary from country to country: whether the donor gets paid, and the anonymity principle.
Wikipedia lists Germany, Austria, Sweden, Switzerland and more recently Netherlands and Great Britain as countries that refuse the anonymity. In Spain and Norway it's anonymous. In France too (and you need your girlfriend's authorization!!) 
Donors can't get paid in most European countries. In the USA you can get paid (to attract more donors as it seems that in most countries demand is greater than supply), and then there are private companies that sell sperm for a high price over the internet, to future parents who would like to make a choice based on a variety of criterias such as hair colour or what mark the donor had when he was in first grade.

The way I see it, is that anonymity goes both ways - it means that the donor cannot claim a right on the child, too.


----------



## timpeac

So in the UK, for example, you are named as the donor _and_ you don't get paid??!! Why does anyone do it I wonder...


----------



## Poetic Device

The donor does have a right to be anonymous.  That fact might aid in making things less complicated.  However, I feel that if they want to be annonymous then they have no right to see the child they helped to create.  However, I do feel that the identity of the donor should be revealed for special cases (i.e.  The progeny needs some form of medical assistance like a blood transfusion or a kidney.  You never know when things like that come about.)  I am not sure about nowadays, but in the past the donation establishment would give the woman that was looking to recieve a "package" a discription of the donors.  That is, they would be able to see physical descriptions and things of that nature, but never whether the dononr had a PHD or what have you.


----------



## geve

timpeac said:


> So in the UK, for example, you are named as the donor _and_ you don't get paid??!! Why does anyone do it I wonder...


According to this website sperm donation is paid in the UK - or at least it was 10 years ago when Pierrick was there... (I'll let you do the checking on UK websites, I feel too lazy now to search in English  )


> « Si ça se trouve, je suis papa de pleins de petits collégiens anglais ! ». Pierrick, 32 ans et toujours célibataire, rigole encore en se souvenant de son arrivée en Angleterre il y a dix ans. « Je vivais de petits boulots et j'avais trouvé le moyen d'arrondir mes fins de mois en vendant ma semence dans une banque de sperme à Londres », se souvient le frenchy. « Dix pounds la masturbation (15 €) ce n'est pas beaucoup mais, franchement, qui va se plaindre d'être payé pour se faire du bien ? », ajoute-t-il goguenard.


----------



## timpeac

At £10 a pop he is insane - let's hope he's invested it well to pay for the 10 years of maintenance when they catch up with him - and what will he do if he has several kids??


----------



## geve

timpeac said:


> At £10 a pop he is insane - let's hope he's invested it well to pay for the 10 years of maintenance when they catch up with him - and what will he do if he has several kids??


Well first of all this won't happen to Pierrick since the law is not retroactive, or at least I read this earlier today - yes, here (I didn't post the link earlier because I find the article rather poorly written): it only applies to children conceived after April 2005. Ok, you were probably not referring only to Pierrick's case   

But then, a child can ask for the name of his progenitor only when he/she gets 18 years old - and is old enough to earn his/her own living! How convenient! Then you get to share a beer with your offspring without having had to go through the milk period first. Maybe that idea would have appealed to Pierrick.


----------



## timpeac

geve said:


> But then, a child can ask for the name of his progenitor only when he/she gets 18 years old - and is old enough to earn his/her own living! How convenient! Then you get to share a beer with your offspring without having had to go through the milk period first. Maybe that idea would have appealed to Pierrick.


Doesn't matter, I think - if the sperm donor father is viewed as being liable for his children in the eyes of the law then there would be nothing to stop the mother suing for back payment of support (well I think so anyway, I'm not a lawyer). Maybe Pierrick would be ok if the law is not retrospective, but some people might be getting some large bills in 17 years time...


----------



## geve

timpeac said:


> Doesn't matter, I think - if the sperm donor father is viewed as being liable for his children in the eyes of the law then there would be nothing to stop the mother suing for back payment of support (well I think so anyway, I'm not a lawyer). Maybe Pierrick would be ok if the law is not retrospective, but some people might be getting some large bills in 17 years time...


Well this would need to be checked (hint, hint  ) but I'm not sure that giving out the progenitor's name makes him accountable for anything...


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

geve said:


> Well this would need to be checked (hint, hint  ) but I'm not sure that giving out the progenitor's name makes him accountable for anything...


It would surprised me if so... as the mother knows for sure from where the sperm came... I mean, from an anonymous donor, not from a "one night man" (how do you say that?).


----------



## Brioche

KaRiNe_Fr said:


> It would surprised me if so... as the mother knows for sure from where the sperm came... I mean, from an anonymous donor, not from a "one night man" (how do you say that?).


 

In English we call it a "one-night stand". _She got pregnant after a one-night stand._


Anyway, back on track.
A little background.
When my mother was a little girl she was taught to believe in Father Christmas. When she eventually discovered that he was not true, she was very upset that her parents had lied to her. Those same parents who had told her that it was wrong to lie - they had lied to her.
She decided that she was not going to lie to her children.
She said that if your children realise that you lie to them, why should they trust you about anything else you have assured them is true.

Actively encouraging a child - either AID or adopted - to believe that you and your partner are her biological parents is telling her lies. And in my very humble opinion is wrong.

Children are entitled to the truth about their origins.


----------



## geve

Brioche said:


> In English we call it a "one-night stand". _She got pregnant after a one-night stand._
> 
> 
> Anyway, back on track.
> A little background.
> When my mother was a little girl she was taught to believe in Father Christmas. When she eventually discovered that he was not true, she was very upset that her parents had lied to her. Those same parents who had told her that it was wrong to lie - they had lied to her.
> She decided that she was not going to lie to her children.
> She said that if your children realise that you lie to them, why should they trust you about anything else you have assured them is true.
> 
> Actively encouraging a child - either AID or adopted - to believe that you and your partner are her biological parents is telling her lies. And in my very humble opinion is wrong.
> 
> Children are entitled to the truth about their origins.


My parents never "lied" to us about the Père Noël either - but then, the other parents were not very glad when my older sister went around telling everyone in her class that Santa was just-a-myth-for-God's-sake!  
Anyway - back on tracks. I don't see how this is connected to the topic: parents can very well tell their children the truth, even if they can't put a name on genes? "Son, you were conceived through artificial insemination" - surely this isn't a lie, and does not require to hand out names and adresses?


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

> "Son, you were conceived through artificial insemination"


 This is not enough. You have to precise "and with someone's else sperm than the one of your father" (I mean the father who brought him/her up). If not it would be a lie as well... by omission.


----------



## geve

KaRiNe_Fr said:


> This is not enough. You have to precise "and with someone's else sperm than the one of your father" (I mean the father who brought him/her up). If not it would be a lie as well... by omission.


Alright. But you still don't have to "actively encourage the child to believe that you and your partner are her biological parents".


----------



## Victoria32

timpeac said:


> Doesn't matter, I think - if the sperm donor father is viewed as being liable for his children in the eyes of the law then there would be nothing to stop the mother suing for back payment of support (well I think so anyway, I'm not a lawyer). Maybe Pierrick would be ok if the law is not retrospective, but some people might be getting some large bills in 17 years time...


I just asked my son who is a student nurse, for information but he is not sure... No matter what American law says (and I don't know),  New Zealand law states that sperm donors should _preferably_ be open to being named - and they are *definitely not at any risk of being asked for monetary support! In fact, the act of donating sperm through a fertility clinic, precludes any demand for support. *

My brother-in-law was a sperm donor back in the 1980s.


----------



## cuchuflete

From the BBC, today:



> Semen 'may fuel cervical cancer'           *The growth of cervical and womb cancers may be fuelled by a hormone-like molecule in semen, a study suggests.*



This might give potential donors yet another reason to prefer, or demand anonymity.


----------



## Poetic Device

In absolute no offense, but in my opinion I don't see why the donor should be sued for child support.  Yes, it is his seed, but the woman sought out his seed and SOLELY made the decision to have the child.


----------



## maxiogee

Brioche said:


> I don't see why sperm donors should be anonymous.





timpeac said:


> One reason is that people would stop donating otherwise



Would that be "a bad thing"? You make it sound as if it would.


----------



## TonioMiguel

Poetic Device said:


> In absolute no offense, but in my opinion I don't see why the donor should be sued for child support.  Yes, it is his seed, but the woman sought out his seed and SOLELY made the decision to have the child.



I don't think the laws would ever get this rediculous.  First it is not an agreement between two mature adults.  Sex between two people is but artificial insemination is not.  There is no way a guy would ever donate sperm if this could happen and no senator, Lord etc in his or her right mind would consider a gift of genetic material liability to take care of his donation.  I think it is a kind gesture to give a sperm bank your material.  

On the other hand, if I ever donated my sperm, I feel it would be a fine thing for my biological child to want to meet me.  It's not like he ot she has rights to my blood or kidneys.  Yet, I feel if you are a donor, a child visiting you is not a bad thing.  They just want closure.  My neice  was born as a result of out of wedlock and she is excited to see her dad.  He may not be a father to her but it helps her to see that she is normal.

To me, denying the rights of a child to know their donor at existed or exists helps them to understand they were not just an experiment with a petra dish.  Yet, I do understand a guys want not to be known.


----------



## timpeac

maxiogee said:


> Would that be "a bad thing"? You make it sound as if it would.


Yes, I suppose I think that would be a bad thing. It seems to me that two types of people would want sperm from a sperm bank.
- a single woman
- a couple of cannot have children of their own (infertile man perhaps, lesbian couple), or I suppose who should not (a know genetic default in the man perhaps).

For the the first case one could wax lyrical about whether single women should deliberately get pregnant bringing a child deliberately into a one parent family etc but at the end of the day she can (probably) go out and find someone to sleep with and achieve the same end that way. Allowing her access to a sperm bank means that she knows the sperm is clear of known diseases, she knows she herself is free of diseases (sexually transmitted diseases she might have caught from a one-night stand and also she doesn't have to be disingenuous, sleeping with someone and "using" them to that end.

For the second case yes it seems clear to me that this is a valuable service for these people. 

One possible drawback, I suppose, is that children don't get adopted because the prospective parents where the woman can conceive use a sperm bank instead. Over all, though, yes I think people stopping donating to a sperm bank would be a bad thing.

Do you not?


----------



## Brioche

timpeac said:


> Yes, I suppose I think that would be a bad thing. It seems to me that two types of people would want sperm from a sperm bank.
> - a single woman
> - a couple of cannot have children of their own (infertile man perhaps, lesbian couple), or I suppose who should not (a know genetic default in the man perhaps).
> 
> For the second case yes it seems clear to me that this is a valuable service for these people.
> 
> One possible drawback, I suppose, is that children don't get adopted because the prospective parents where the woman can conceive use a sperm bank instead. Over all, though, yes I think people stopping donating to a sperm bank would be a bad thing.
> 
> Do you not?


 
There aren't any children not getting adopted because of AI.
In developed countries, there is a shortage of babies for adoption these days. 
Because unwanted pregnancies can be terminated, and welfare benefits are available for single mothers, women no longer feel the same pressure to give up babies for adoption.
This is why there is currently so much overseas adoption.

I don't consider children to be consumer durables. Nor do I believe that a woman has a 'right' to a mother, or to have a child.
No-one ever says that a man has a right to be a father, or that the state should provide him with a suitable "donor mother".

Since I feel that, in the best of all possible worlds, a child should be the result of the love between the father and the mother. Similarly, I believe that a child should have a father and a mother. Thus I don't support impregnanting single women, or lesbian couples.

Yes, it's true that some women lose their husbands, some women are widowed even before their child is born, and yes, some fathers are total shits - but that's not how it _should_ be.


----------



## timpeac

Brioche said:


> There aren't any children not getting adopted because of AI.
> In developed countries, there is a shortage of babies for adoption these days.


Yes, but this is my point. I was not talking about babies. There is a glut of older children who don't find adoptive parents (yes everyone wants babies) so if they didn't have recourse to AI perhaps they'd be more likely to adopt those children.


Brioche said:


> I don't consider children to be consumer durables. Nor do I believe that a woman has a 'right' to a mother, or to have a child.
> No-one ever says that a man has a right to be a father, or that the state should provide him with a suitable "donor mother".


Did someone say that you did? As for the "donor mother" point, they are bound to get to the stage where you can carry babies to term in a laboratory, and so the playing-field will be completely level, with either men or women being able to have "test tube babies".


Brioche said:


> Since I feel that, in the best of all possible worlds, a child should be the result of the love between the father and the mother. Similarly, I believe that a child should have a father and a mother. Thus I don't support impregnanting single women, or lesbian couples.
> 
> Yes, it's true that some women lose their husbands, some women are widowed even before their child is born, and yes, some fathers are total shits - but that's not how it _should_ be.


But I don't understand your preoccupation here with how things _should _be (in your opinion). These are real people involved here, both either as parents or as children and so we have to consider the issues as they stand. As things stand single woman can become mothers and gay couples can become parents (and rightly so in my opinion, but that's not really the issue here) so within the framework that society has deemed acceptable (even if you don't agree with that framework) allowing sperm banks is the best option (it seems to me). Do you think that a child would be so maimed in some way by being brought up by a lesbian couple that it would be better for the child if it were never born at all?

By the way, Brioche, in your last post you have not come to any conclusion but rahter stated a string of unconnected beliefs (well they probably are connected, but you don't make clear the connection). I have therefore taken the liberty to assume you were arguing against sperm banks then - but if you'd like to add your own conclusion next time it would be easier all round (and I apologise if I misunderstood the thrust of what you were saying, but it is very difficult to know with no conclusion)!! How does what you say answer the question "should sperm donors be anonymous?" (or if not that, what were you answering/talking about?)


----------



## Poetic Device

I am not sure whether this was posted before or not, but I feel that before someone says a deffinate yes or no to granting the chopice to be anonymous to a donor, perhaps one should wonder/consider _why_ the person is donating and _why_ they want to be anonymous.  Perhaps then he can give stipulations for when his identity can be revealed (i.e. medical reasons).


----------



## Sallyb36

Poetic Device said:


> In absolute no offense, but in my opinion I don't see why the donor should be sued for child support.  Yes, it is his seed, but the woman sought out his seed and SOLELY made the decision to have the child.



I agree with this.  I don't see why someone doing a favour to women who can't get pregnant by their spouses, or any other way, should have to pay for it years later.  Sperm donation is a charitable act and those generous enough to donate should not be penalised for it.


----------



## divina

Well. I would want to know about any fatal genetic disorders, if any.


----------



## timpeac

divina said:


> Well. I would want to know about any fatal genetic disorders, if any.


I'm fairly sure you'd need to state those when donating.


----------



## Poetic Device

Actually, that is one of the many questions in their thorough screening.  Also, the specimens are tested for abnormalities before they are offered for donations.  Basically, the procedure is what Sandra Bullock explained in the Stallone movie "Demolition Man".


----------



## geve

geve said:


> Wikipedia lists Germany, Austria, Sweden, Switzerland and more recently Netherlands and Great Britain as countries that refuse the anonymity. In Spain and Norway it's anonymous. In France too (and you need your girlfriend's authorization!!)


I just saw in the evening news that there is currently a debate in France about implementing the same law as in UK: that the sperm donor's identity would be revealed to the child when (s)he comes of age. 
Sperm banks are indeed worried that it would lead to a shortage of donors, while the advocates of this law say that the mere fact of knowing that they can virtually get in touch any time with their genitor, would be enough for children conceived this way.


----------



## Victoria32

geve said:


> Sperm banks are indeed worried that it would lead to a shortage of donors, while the advocates of this law say that the mere fact of knowing that they can virtually get in touch any time with their genitor, would be enough for children conceived this way.


I believe that aside from medical issues, that's quite right, and all the children need!


----------

