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

[Kim]

Originally Posted by rpgdemon

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.

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.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by NonCon

which is a totally understandable thing to want to know

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.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Krylo

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.

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.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by NonCon

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.

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.

[Premmy]

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.

[rpgdemon]

Originally Posted by NonCon

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.

The whole argument is whether it's a need to know thing though, as far as I can see.

If someone donates anonymously, with the understanding that they will remain anonymous, you should only break that confidence when it is a need to know case. As I see it then, is that if you break the anonymousy of the donator, it is because it's a need to know situation. And to say that the child -needs- to know their biological father, to the point that you break the anonymous contract that they signed, is indeed a slight to the person that raised them. And from what I read, that's what the ruling is saying.


Edit: It's not even like I have -any- reason to be invested in this at all, so the "strawman" arguments that I gave were actually just terrible logic and terribly worded. I'm just saying that it seems like the law is saying that this -is- a need to know thing for children, such that they're breaking a contract and possibly upsetting people who thought that they'd donate anonymously.