If its a health issue then the law totally shouldn't matter at all. If someone is in danger then totally track down their parent for health records. If its just for sake of knowing who your parent is, but they don't want you to know them, then keep them incognito.

Not really. It's kind of the same thing, saying, "If you don't know who your biological parents are, you're missing out on this important thing", and saying that your parents raising you don't mean much if you don't know who your biological parents are. Both are just wrong statements to make.

All (should be, in most cases) on file, except the donor thing. In which case, yeah maybe a doctor could contact the biological father. They test for all kinds of congenital diseases and what not before using the sperm.

I don't see where this compares to adoption though. It's an entirely different ball park. If you were adopted your biological parents actually conceived you, maybe one or both of them had reasons beyond just not wanting a child, for putting you up for adoption.

With sperm donation it's usually just some guy wanted the fifty bucks. In cases where that ISN'T true, it's a situation where the family raising the child knew the donor, anyway.

There's no reason besides health that the anonymity should be compromised. And the only time health becomes a reason, with all the tests that you have to have available when you donate sperm, is when you need a transplant. And for some reason your biological sperm donor father is the only person available.

Beyond all that, you also have to consider that one donation can make anywhere from 10-20 kids. It seems pretty unfair to expect some guy who donated sperm once to deal with 10-20 people showing up at his doorstep, potentially complicating the fuck out of his life, just for that.

I just have to seriously question why anyone would need to know this badly enough to compromise someone else's right to anonymity.

For peeps don't get it: All caps don't mean yelling here. Kind of a monotone emphasis
 

BUT NOBODY IS SAYING EITHER OF THOSE THINGS

The only thing that's being said is that if a kid wants to know who their biological parent is, which is a totally understandable thing to want to know, they have a right to find out. That's it. That's all of it. We're not offering any commentary on whether it's a need-to-know thing, except to the extent that it could be useful regarding health stuff, which it would be.

It also mentions those are all paid donation states which is a completely different model- you are relying in part on people's greed as well as on their charity, compared to a system where they are entirely based on charity.
Surely these examples are not really applicable..
I acnowledge it is completely speculative but it is something that should be considered and beyond using examples which are equally speculative in their applicabilty.

Re the health thing- surely donors have full and extensive medical checks and all that information is on the file. Lie if they need to find their donor for some health reason their is no way they should be stopped but that is a different case and most of that could be solved by having health information of the donor on the file.

And I still don't now why the child's right to know trumps the parents right to privacy.

Why?

Again: Health stuff should mostly be available without compromising anonymity of the donor.

So why is it an understandable thing to want to know? At least to the extent that this over rides someone else's understandable want to remain anonymous to a child that he (or she, there are egg donors too) had absolutely nothing to do with at any point beyond going to a medical facility and donating reproductive cells to give an infertile couple the chance at having a child/to get some quick cash.

Edit: It wouldn't even be a thing except that these people donated under the promise of anonymity. If such a promise wasn't made, it wouldn't be an issue, just an understood extra thing that can happen when you donate sperm. As it wasn't, it's unfair to the donors to expect them to deal with the loss of anonymity.

This second statement being, again, an exaggerated strawman argument that nobody is actually making.

Why don't you try coming up with an argument that someone might actually make, and base your views on that instead?

Like for example

"hey parents who raised me, I totally love and respect both of you, but would also like to know who my birth father is"

Huh look at that, that is totally understandable and not at all objectionable.

I am pretty sure Noncon already agreed with your view that these fathers should be allowed to remain anonymous, which, while not a viewpoint I agree with, is also not a viewpoint that anyone needs to agree with hugely unsympathetic and wildly exaggerated fictions about the people asking for this information to arrive at.

I was explaining what the argument was, because RPG was strawmanning it like hella to the max. Also: I wasn't commenting on whether their desire to know over rides the donor's desire for anonymity, in fact I argued earlier on that if they did it under the assumption of anonymity they should be able to keep said anonymity. I was explaining what the argument was. That's all. Because did you seriously read what RPG was saying? It was pretty ridic.

@Fifth: I'm kinda either way on whether donation should be anonymous. I need more time to think on it, and will probably keep reading people's arguments on the matter. I'm just saying that the ones who did donate under the premise that it would be anonymous shouldn't be forced to lose their anonymity for whatever reason. It's a breach of contract, basically. You can argue whether or not they should be anonymous from this point forward, but I think arguing against their right to something they were told they would have going into this isn't exactly fair.

Agreed, and I know.

The why was directed more at anyone in general than just you.

I don't see it, again, with health records on file, as being more than a curiosity thing. And a person's curiosity shouldn't over ride another person's right to privacy by itself.

I don't know about Canada, maybe they don't keep good health records on file or test for everything, but in the US there's a whole bunch of stuff tested for on donors before they're accepted, as regulated by the FDA.