tto think it should be illegal to travel abroad for anonymous egg/sperm donation?

Misanthropy? I like people as much as anyone else, but the fact is we are not necessary. The universe existed before us and will exist after us.

The humans who aren’t conceived after we cease to exist also won’t be suffering in any way.

How would you know? If it was illegal people would just be going on holiday or to visit relatives. Nobodies business really.

I don’t share your bleak misanthropy.

It doesn’t matter in the least if the species continues. The planet will survive just fine without us.

You can’t truthfully assert that. It’s just a neat idea with no actual proof, to make people feel better if they either don’t want to make the necessary sacrifices to be parents, or because they want to enter into a conspiracy with other adults to fabricate a human being with very unnatural levels of secrecy and intervention.

A vaguely plausible-sounding ‘gotcha’:

“It’s deprioritising the needs of the child to divorce them from their genetic heritage”

”Well isn’t all conception de-prioritising the needs of the child anyway?”.

Er no. It isn’t.

But that is overwhelmingly not the reason people have children. They have them because they want them, for their own fulfilment and satisfaction. I.e selfish reasons.

You don’t need to have people ‘waiting to exist’ to make it an unselfish thing to sacrifice your time, money and attention for a sizeable chunk of your life for raising the next generation.

Some people need to have kids for the species to continue.

That’s just silly. Unborn children aren’t floating around the atmosphere waiting for someone to do them the favour of conceiving them- they just don’t exist.

Yes once you have one then good parents end up making sacrifices for them, but no one cares if they aren’t conceived, because they don’t exist to care! People have babies because they want babies, not for the sake of the non existent un conceived child!

Neither you nor me would have suffered in any way had we not been conceived.

I really disagree with this. It’s a huge stretch of the meaning of being self-centred. It’s a huge self-sacrifice where you put your own needs to one side. A person deciding to not have children, in order that they can spend all their own time, money and attention on themselves and not share it with any children, is self-centered, especially considering all the ancestors who made that sacrifice for them.

Having a child is not generally selfish in the way people usually use that phrase- depriving others of something or causing them harm for your benefit, but it is entirely self centred- you are only pleasing yourself and following your own desires.

It's already happening @Boohbooh.
https://timesofsandiego.com/crime/2020/09/16/san-diego-woman-sues-doctor-for-alleged-artificial-insemination-with-own-sperm/

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/dec/01/baby-god-dna-testing-fertility-fraud-quincy-fortier-nevada

Sorry to go off topic slightly but won't the proliferation of online sites like 23 and mewhich use DNA matched allow children of anonymous doners to meet each other and then perhaps the actual personal children of the donor, or close family, ultimately outing them? It's something I've wondered about. I don't think donor anonymity will stand much longer.

@Iwasafool justifying something purely on the basis that it is a bit more positive than something else is a very precarious position.

It should be the in the best interests of the person being conceived, regardless of anything else you compare it to.

It makes for some very difficult and honest reflection, on the part of people who really want to become parents, with the very best of intentions, who want to love and nurture their children, but can’t conceive without a donor.

It’s something you can only really understand if you’ve been there and faced that dilemma.

But no matter how confronting it is for the adults, the number one priority has to be the children… who will later grow up and have questions about their biological roots.

Otherwise, we are essentially saying that we can justify not acting in the best interests of a person, on the basis that we wanted to love and nurture them. There’s a contradiction there that needs some further reflection.

This debate will affect a lot of different couples and individuals who want to start families. If the only argument put forward is, “My choice of how to conceive isn’t in the best interest of my child, but… it’s better that a one night stand.” Etc etc… Are we really setting high enough standards for ourselves?

I find that quite offensive, because I agree that that those going to such great lengths to conceive, absolutely do want to love and nurture their children… and I believe they would make dedicated and loving parents… who will have given it a hell of a lot more thought than the average person… So why suggest that they wouldn’t be responsible enough to give this issue as much thought and careful consideration?

To gloss over this part of the process would be irresponsible and I don’t believe people who are struggling to conceive are irresponsible- they just face some incredibly difficult and confronting issues.

More debate and discussion needs to be had, ensuring the experiences of donor conceived people are placed at the centre of the process. And no matter what they have to say, no matter how it affects people who wish to be parents, we need to listen.

This notion that becoming parents is essentially a selfish thing is just nonsense.

Nothing squeezes your wants and needs to the margins of your life quite like parenthood. Many people are conscious of the sacrifice that their ancestors made which they benefit from.

Enough of this absurd argument of “child-centeredness” to try to draw a parallel between going to lengths to obtain anonymous gametes (which is not in the child’s best interests) for the parents’ convenience and budget, with conceiving children naturally - a process that is an essential part of the continuation of any species and doesn’t require any conscious planning or design to happen.

Many people don’t think ‘I want children’. They just assume they will have them some day.

When people are talking about ‘only adults’ wishes’ and the child’s interests being left out of the equation, they are talking about the gamete donors’ wish to remain anonymous from their own genetic children, the parents’ wish to obtain the anonymous gametes and create a baby because it is affordable and they are plentiful, the fertility industry profiting as a facilitator of anonymous conception between the genetic parent/s and birth parents, but among all these adults colluding for their own mutual benefits- whose rights and interests are not being considered? The child of course.

This is a big deal. It is a silly argument to draw a comparison between this elaborate scheme of contracts being signed and legally binding agreements made which will impact upon a person’s life, before they are even conceived, and any natural process.

I'd say there are 1000s more cases where the adoptive parents say the child shouldn't see the birth parents than were they actually shouldn't.
There are also a small number where there is perhaps SOME risk but a very high likelihood that the child will see the birth parents as a teen anyway, so it's better to mitigate that risk by having supported contact in childhood with professional supervision etc.

"Even if the outcome is the same, the intention involved is different. Our intentions matter because they demonstrate how we view and interpret our lives and the wishes we have for our loved ones."

Well presumably the intention to have a child with a donated egg/sperm is to love and nurture a child which is a bit more positive than the intention to have a quick ONS when you are drunk after a night out.

I think your first sentence is needlessly rude when you consider I made no claim to know anything about it.

So are you saying there are no cases where a child shouldn't see their birth parents? If as you say it is rare then it does happen doesn't it so maintaining that relationship isn't always the best thing.

lol did you not know that a sexual relationship could result in offspring 😂. How unwitting and ethical/
childcentred of you.

It's clear that you don't know anything about adoption in today's world, no.
These cases are extremely rare and even if adoptive parents say there is a risk it is often over cautious.
Even in such cases children frequently find their birth parents, unsupported, in their teens via social media. It is much safer to have regulated contact before this.

I haven’t got a fully formed opinion on all aspects of this but I do believe the rights of the hypothetical donor conceived person should trump the rights of people hoping to become parents.

Everyone is unique and there will always be differing perspectives, but I think there is a difference between paying for (and specifically choosing to create) a family where there will be a barrier between your son/daughter and their biological mother or father versus a barrier that is there accidentally (unplanned pregnancy) or perhaps choosing to adopt someone, for whom a separation has already happened, and is due to a completely unrelated set of circumstances- not because you chose it for them.

Even if the outcome is the same, the intention involved is different. Our intentions matter because they demonstrate how we view and interpret our lives and the wishes we have for our loved ones.

I started an AMA about this exact scenario the other day.

I think donor conceived people should be consulted and their views should inform legislation.

I've never adopted or looked into doing it so no expert on adoption but what about cases where the birth parents have been so abusive that they aren't allowed contact and the children's name are changed to avoid them being traced. I've read people on here who don't allow the school to use their child in photos in case they are traced. They can't have open adoption can they and in their case that is surely for the best. It isn't always black and white is it and it isn't always best for the child I know that isn't the same as egg donation but I think it is important to be clear about examples we use.

Just realised i expressed that post above badly- I meant heroin related offences exist, but we don't criminalise usage, possession etc specifically for being pregnant. The criminal law position is the same whether pregnant or not.

But the OP is talking about making some behaviours illegal. Worth noting that we don't criminalise any of the things you mention, because it would be an absolutely phenomenally stupid and unworkable idea.

I don't believe there's a country in the world where egg donation is carried out with no rules whatsoever around it. The regulations may be different, but they exist.