"Inseminated People Given Same Rights As Adopted People" or "Why Wasn't This Law?" - Page 4

Professor Smarmiarty · 06-01-2011, 05:23 PM

Sitcom waiting to happen!

Kerensky287 · 06-01-2011, 05:58 PM

I can understand that a child born by sperm donor might want to know who their biological father is, but the interests of the father matter too. Perhaps there should be a little tick-box saying "Yes, I wish to remain anonymous to any people who are technically my offspring in the future"?

Because there are probably a lot of people who are okay with making 50 bucks, but not okay with knowing that they have a kid. It's the "maybe" aspect that makes a lot of difference to some people.

Like, you go donate some sperm, you walk out, cool. Maybe they never use it. Maybe there's nobody out there who ends up being related to you. Maybe there is, but you don't know. It's not terribly important to you. But what if, some day, a kid shows up saying "Hey, you're my daddy"? Suddenly you've got parental instincts kicking in, you feel a heaping helping of responsibility toward the kid that may or may not be necessary, and you might be in the situation where finding out you're a parent is REALLY not something you need at the time.

The argument can be made for kids learning information about their biological parent - stuff like the parent's job, their interests, that sort of thing, to help make an emotional connection even if a personal one is not possible - but even then, I can imagine that you'd have some stalkerkids who devote their lives to finding out EVERYTHING about their fathers and doing the best they can to meet them in the end.

Assuming this sort of child has had a good upbringing - (a) parent(s) that did not neglect them, for example - I'm not sure why it'd be necessary, outside of interest reasons, for the child to know their biological father, and I can think of many reasons why the father's identity shouldn't necessarily be allowed to be given to the child.

Magus · 06-01-2011, 06:43 PM

I don't think they could legally retroactively lift anonymity but going forward they would just have to not promise anonymity for donors. In which case it's not going to help anybody currently the product of anonymous artificial insemination, but would in the future.

If the new decision does retroactively take away anonymity I'd say it's a wrong move.

Krylo · 06-01-2011, 08:05 PM

I also don't think the judge was right in comparing it to adoptions.

In an adoption someone else gave birth to you and then decided to give you away. This can have an effect on a child's emotional state. They can be left wondering why their original parents didn't love them. Why they didn't keep them. Etc. etc.

There's a lot of very valid questions that an adopted child might want to ask their biological parents, that could even impact their psychological health if they can't.

The same isn't true of a sperm or egg donor. You aren't left wondering why mommy and daddy didn't love you and shipped you off to some other family. Because that never happened.

Raiden · 06-01-2011, 10:33 PM

Serious Part:

Honestly, I'm for keeping the anonymity of the donor. There's tons of reasons why someone would want to donate sperm, whether financial or charitable or any other reasons that would cause them to go through all the testing required to put your sperm in a tub. Maybe someone who knows he has no intent to ever have kids decided to put his man-goo to man-good use and help others have kids if they needed it, or if a man ALREADY HAS A FAMILY and just did it for some extra bucks. If they signed up to remain anonymous, then they never intend to hear about the donation after the exchange has been done. And suddenly a decade or so later, they're told their child is now showing up.

Now, there is never a "Oh, you're my dad? Cool, I'll go back to never seeing you again". If a kid went out of their way to find you, they'll likely want to have you included in their life. Which, ultimately, most donors won't want.

Yes, full medical records and histories SHOULD be on file, so if something comes up they can go back and check (though from what I've heard of the testing process, if you DO have a strong trend of genetic illness in your family the banks won't take your donation so that's really not that huge a problem).

For a compromise? If a child is truly interested, have them ask the bank. The bank can then send a message to the donor and see if he would like to meet the child. If he says no, then that's the end of the exchange. The answer had been given, and frankly the child will just have to accept that.

Sarcasm part:

Honestly, the bigger problem is hoping the kid doesn't grow up to be into older men while their father is a cradle robber.

Lumenskir · 06-01-2011, 11:49 PM

What hath The Kids Are All Right wrought?

Quote:

What if a 20 year old donates his sperm, lives for another 20 years and meets a 20 year old hottie who's into old dudes? >_>

Quote:

Honestly, the bigger problem is hoping the kid doesn't grow up to be into older men while their father is a cradle robber.

Ugh, late-era Scrubs flashback.

Premmy · 06-02-2011, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krylo

Why?

The only reasons I can come up with involve personal philosophy or religion(not mine, exactly, but just those topics)
Being of the mind that it has some significance to your cosmic place in the universe and all that jazz. Which, of course I don't think the law should have any say in, but there's a suggestion for why someone might want to know on a level that's neither medical or child-relationship development/parentally related.

Seil · 02-20-2012, 03:52 AM

Link

People're fightin' the bill:

Quote:

The B.C. government was in court Tuesday seeking to overturn a ruling that paves the way for people born through anonymous sperm donors to find out information about their parents.

Two such people born in B.C. - Olivia Prat-ten and Shelley Deacon - filed affidavits arguing that their rights were violated because they couldn't get access to the information.

In May last year, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elaine Adair struck down as unconstitutional provisions of the Adoption Act.

The judge noted that the law allows adopted children to access information about their birth parents but not those conceived through sperm donors.

Adair suspended her ruling for six months to give the government a chance to amend the Adoption Act.

But instead of passing a new law, the government appealed the ruling.

Two government lawyers appeared in the B.C. Court of Appeal on Tuesday claiming that the trial judge made a number of errors.

The thing is... they're still arguing about it. I'll try to find more info as I go on, but I retain my previous viewpoint... which Fifth summed up nicely:

Quote:

Phrasing the perfectly valid desire of a child to know something about / meet their biological father using poor spelling and multiple exclamation marks (and a number 1) certainly is an effective criticism.

I know that I for one have suddenly lost any sympathy for an uncertain young person maybe wanting to know a bit more about themselves and where they came from.

Though here is a link to the rights of sperm donors, if anyone wants to know.

Magus · 02-20-2012, 01:20 PM

All I can say is they may end up facing a shortage of sperm donors if it passes.

ZARAK · 02-21-2012, 06:28 PM

What bothers me is the deliberate sexism of these kinds of legislation and the arguments surrounding it, which most people won't give a second thought about. Why is it only male donors are being targeted? What about the women who donate their eggs (which carry greater compensation, by the way)? Doesn't anyone want to track down their biological mothers? Can't go 'round having those unexpected Oedipus incidents, right?

What if the child is produced from the genetic samples of two donors? Then what? The courts move in to hit these people up for back child support? I wouldn't be surprised if that's the direction they're headed in.

06-01-2011, 06:43 PM	#33
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	I don't think they could legally retroactively lift anonymity but going forward they would just have to not promise anonymity for donors. In which case it's not going to help anybody currently the product of anonymous artificial insemination, but would in the future. If the new decision does retroactively take away anonymity I'd say it's a wrong move. __________________ The Valiant Review

06-01-2011, 08:05 PM	#34
Krylo The Straightest Shota Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: It's a secret to everybody. Posts: 17,789	I also don't think the judge was right in comparing it to adoptions. In an adoption someone else gave birth to you and then decided to give you away. This can have an effect on a child's emotional state. They can be left wondering why their original parents didn't love them. Why they didn't keep them. Etc. etc. There's a lot of very valid questions that an adopted child might want to ask their biological parents, that could even impact their psychological health if they can't. The same isn't true of a sperm or egg donor. You aren't left wondering why mommy and daddy didn't love you and shipped you off to some other family. Because that never happened. __________________ I am very tired.

06-01-2011, 10:33 PM	#35
Raiden Just a passing through veteran Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: On your couch. Yes? Posts: 5,327	Serious Part: Honestly, I'm for keeping the anonymity of the donor. There's tons of reasons why someone would want to donate sperm, whether financial or charitable or any other reasons that would cause them to go through all the testing required to put your sperm in a tub. Maybe someone who knows he has no intent to ever have kids decided to put his man-goo to man-good use and help others have kids if they needed it, or if a man ALREADY HAS A FAMILY and just did it for some extra bucks. If they signed up to remain anonymous, then they never intend to hear about the donation after the exchange has been done. And suddenly a decade or so later, they're told their child is now showing up. Now, there is never a "Oh, you're my dad? Cool, I'll go back to never seeing you again". If a kid went out of their way to find you, they'll likely want to have you included in their life. Which, ultimately, most donors won't want. Yes, full medical records and histories SHOULD be on file, so if something comes up they can go back and check (though from what I've heard of the testing process, if you DO have a strong trend of genetic illness in your family the banks won't take your donation so that's really not that huge a problem). For a compromise? If a child is truly interested, have them ask the bank. The bank can then send a message to the donor and see if he would like to meet the child. If he says no, then that's the end of the exchange. The answer had been given, and frankly the child will just have to accept that. Sarcasm part: Honestly, the bigger problem is hoping the kid doesn't grow up to be into older men while their father is a cradle robber. __________________ I have a signature. It's a really cool one, too. It's so awesome, you'd pull your eyes out and punch your mother. Sadly, these rules state that my signature is just too darned big. Too much awesome for such a small space. Oh well. You can still punch your mother...if you want... Fifth and Krylo made me do it. http://www.animecubed.com/billy/user...sigs/60266.jpg Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!

02-20-2012, 01:20 PM	#39
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	All I can say is they may end up facing a shortage of sperm donors if it passes. __________________ The Valiant Review

06-01-2011, 05:23 PM	#31
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	Sitcom waiting to happen!

06-01-2011, 05:58 PM	#32
Kerensky287 Just That Good Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,426	I can understand that a child born by sperm donor might want to know who their biological father is, but the interests of the father matter too. Perhaps there should be a little tick-box saying "Yes, I wish to remain anonymous to any people who are technically my offspring in the future"? Because there are probably a lot of people who are okay with making 50 bucks, but not okay with knowing that they have a kid. It's the "maybe" aspect that makes a lot of difference to some people. Like, you go donate some sperm, you walk out, cool. Maybe they never use it. Maybe there's nobody out there who ends up being related to you. Maybe there is, but you don't know. It's not terribly important to you. But what if, some day, a kid shows up saying "Hey, you're my daddy"? Suddenly you've got parental instincts kicking in, you feel a heaping helping of responsibility toward the kid that may or may not be necessary, and you might be in the situation where finding out you're a parent is REALLY not something you need at the time. The argument can be made for kids learning information about their biological parent - stuff like the parent's job, their interests, that sort of thing, to help make an emotional connection even if a personal one is not possible - but even then, I can imagine that you'd have some stalkerkids who devote their lives to finding out EVERYTHING about their fathers and doing the best they can to meet them in the end. Assuming this sort of child has had a good upbringing - (a) parent(s) that did not neglect them, for example - I'm not sure why it'd be necessary, outside of interest reasons, for the child to know their biological father, and I can think of many reasons why the father's identity shouldn't necessarily be allowed to be given to the child.

02-21-2012, 06:28 PM	#40
ZARAK Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Westmost Peninsula Posts: 61	What bothers me is the deliberate sexism of these kinds of legislation and the arguments surrounding it, which most people won't give a second thought about. Why is it only male donors are being targeted? What about the women who donate their eggs (which carry greater compensation, by the way)? Doesn't anyone want to track down their biological mothers? Can't go 'round having those unexpected Oedipus incidents, right? What if the child is produced from the genetic samples of two donors? Then what? The courts move in to hit these people up for back child support? I wouldn't be surprised if that's the direction they're headed in.