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

[ZoeCM]

If the government can ban people from travelling outside the UK for FGM, why can't they ban this? It's absolutely appalling that clinics will destroy all records of a child's biological parent in this day and age. Yes, the child can potentially trace their parents through companies such as AncestryDNA, but there's no guarantee they'll be successful. It's a massive abuse of power.

Anonymous donation is all about what's best for the recipients and the donor, never the child. AIBU to think it should be illegal to travel abroad for this purpose?

And you also don't go round declaring it is horrifying and suggesting parents have made choices that will definitely damage their child based on an anecdotal experience

But why do people think they have changed the rules re anonymity, not for shits and giggles.

In the old days adoption was all about the couples who wanted to be parents, no consideration for birth parent or child. Now it is all about the child, quite rightly.

It is much more understood that many (not all) children either via adoption or egg/sperm donation want to be able to trace their genetic link. And that should be their right to choose, not their eventual parents. I also the ONS scenarios, the deadbeat dads having ever more children to many women, complicated blended families all need to look at themselves and think is this what is best for eventual children

I'm the adult child of an anonymous sperm donor (conceived in the uk before anonymity was lifted).
I am honestly not that bothered. I have joined 23 and me out of interest but no close relatives showed up. If I were ever to meet him I would shake his hand and thank him for the tadpole. He gave me life! What a beautiful gift! But I don't need or expect a relationship from him. I suppose the expectation of that from donor conceived people is something which may put potential donors off.

I haven’t. Go and read what I have said.

Then go and have a read of the information posted to the thread on the experiences of some donor conceived people.

There is no advantage to anonymous donation for the child but there is the potential for harm to them.

No, I wasn’t talking ‘arguments’. I was talking real world facts about what’s involved in conceiving a child if you need to use a donor egg or sperm. You don’t appear to know much about it, you just seem to be reacting to your friend’s distress. And it seems you want people to collude with your high-pitch of emotion over your friend’s situation, instead of gathering a range of views.

It might be worth you re-reading this when you’re feeling a it less emotional about it if you’re interested in helping your friend deal with her feelings. You can’t go back in time and make her donor give his details. What’s done is done. You could, however, help her come to terms with the situation and make the best of it and move on.

I attached in another post a recent research paper showing the negative impacts that are being seen and felt by donor children.

No, it isn’t a slippery slope.

On the other hand ‘my child is happy to be alive’ isn’t a useful argument in this case- it isn’t like saying ‘they are happy so they shouldn’t be killed’ because un conceived people don’t exist-conceiving babies doesn’t do them a favour, they literally didn’t exist in any sense before, so they are not sad or harmed by not being conceived.

Parents conceive children because they themselves want children, not for the sake of the non existent child.

If you, or I or any donor conceived child had never been conceived we would all be non the wiser.

It’s great for you that you are happy with your situation and don’t feel any need to find your genetic history- you should have the right to make that choice.

Donor conceived children should also have the right to choose differently to you and trace their genetic background.

If all donors were known then each person could make the best decision for themselves.

As others have told you upthread, fertility treatments in the Uk are disproportionately expensive compared to other European countries and there’s a serious lack of donors, precisely because of the lack of anonymity. For many, travelling to Europe and using donor sperm or egg will be the only way they can have a child. If you don’t get that because it’s outside of your experience I would suggest you think yourself lucky.

Fertility treatments in other European countries are much less regulated than they are in the UK. They are not as bound by ethical considerations. They can do things that would be considered quite beyond the pale ethically here, such as getting a 65 year old mother of 13 and grandmother of seven pregnant with quads.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/15/science-65-year-old-mum-quads-danger-mother-foetuses

I don’t disagree, but my point was they are far cheaper. However good the reasons why, the fact remains that treatment in the UK is eye-wateringly expensive and out of reach for many. That is often why they go abroad for treatment. Even with flights and accommodation it can work out to half the cost and for many people it’s the only way they can do it.

Firstly BunfightBetty, you are confusing me with someone else. Secondly, there’s nothing ‘high-pitched’ about what I am saying. I am refuting certain arguments.

If the ‘existence’ of people who would not exist any other way, justifies any means of conception, then Frizl could say his grandchildren would never exist if he hadn’t locked Elizabeth in the cellar, therefore his selfish cruelty was justified.

Existence is not a valid argument to justify any method of conception.

I agree we don’t legjislate based on what a few people think but maybe when we get to larger numbers we do, ie basis of democracy alongside hopefully reasoned, research-supported arguments in courts and parliament.

I was deliberately speaking from ‘I’ not saying’everyone’ who doesn’t know their bio parents feels like this. I was putting forward my view as I feel it is under-represented.

I think that there is an understandable media bias towards people being apparently traumatised by not knowing their bio parents and that we therefore don’t hear from the people who are ok with it. Because it’s not much of a story.

Anyway complicated issues and I don’t think it helps to link it to FGM.

Anyway complicated issues and I don’t think it helps to link it to FGM.

This is definitely true.

Ive only known 3 adopted people as an adult, and their views were evenly split- one had no interest in finding out anything at all from her birth family, one did trace them and then was ambivalent about it and says now she is older she wouldn’t bother, and one found his birth mother and they now have a great relationship that enriches his life.

I don’t think ‘everyone’ feels one way or the other but I do think all donor conceived people should have the opportunity to decide for themselves.

That’s the point. They should have the option to be able to know their genetic link, and parents should not take this option away. If the child doesn’t want to find out fine, but the option should be there. It’s not for the parents to decide.

I don’t see the issue, the child’s mother is the one who grew it and then nurtured it after it was born. Not an egg donor.

@theeyeofdoe because it’s important that child has a genetic link. They might not be bothered but they should have the option

Different people have different opinions and feelings about things.

Just because a birth mother doesn’t consider it’s important for her child to know it’s genetic history it doesn’t follow that the child won’t.

@KimberleyClark in my (unfortunately vast) experience, Spain (where I convinced my child) is very highly regulated. I had to have more tests and health checks there than I did in the UK clinic. Some clinics in Eastern Europe or other countries may not be as regulated, but Spain are incredibly strict and donors and recipents are thoroughly checked and screened (physically and mentally). The vast majority of donors are rejected as they fail the criteria. My clinic also had strict age limits and the examples you have quoted would never have been allowed.

Countless generations of children have grown up not knowing who their fathers were (my own grandfather -b. 1905 - for one).

Why is this such a big deal?

It’s the difference between it happening accidentally or because of unforeseen circumstances and people planning on purpose to withhold the information from them.

Negative or possibly negative things happen to people all the time, but we don’t go out of our way to orchestrate them.

I think not knowing who your father is can for some people be different from knowing your mother and father never even met.

Ideally ,it seems like a good option for people to know something if their bio father should they choose to.

But the idea of policing women’s fertility, legislating about the terms under which they choose to conceive, turns my stomach.

Educate, spread awareness sure.

But make it illegal? Really: what would you do? Introduce forced pregnancy tests for women returning from abroad? Demand that unless they can prove a contact to a named father they snort or get taken to court?

How else would this suggested law work?

Please: explain how it would work in practice.

I don’t think you refuted it. You’d have to come up with a real life consequence to refute a proposition.

If I refuted the morally dubious argument for tourist space travel by saying that leads to humans turning into cyborgs who will come back to wipe out the entire planet, I’m not refuting anything. I’m just looking silly, and a bit tin foil hat.

To refute something morally dubious, you need to hit the mark on why it is morally dubious. So back to tourist space travel- it can be refuted by saying the carbon emissions from so many space launches will cause catastrophic climate and environmental damage.

I don’t think it’s fair to say that couples struggling with infertility are going out of their way to orchestrate a situation where their child won’t know the identity of an anonymous donor. The situation only exists because

• they are struggling with infertility and dearly want a child
• infertility treatment is rationed by the NHS and prohibitively expensive privately
• more people volunteer to be donors when they can be kept anonymous, making infertility treatment via donor cheaper in countries where this is legal

The situation is a consequence of the multiple factors above, an anonymous donor is not the raison d’etre for couples pursing fertility treatment.

@LoremIpsumCici I was replying to this ^^ argument.

Have you considered that some of these children might not exist at all if there were no anonymous donation?

It is a ‘the ends justifies the means’ argument.

And no, the ends do not justify any means, just because the ends is the existence of a person.

Edited because I @-ed the wrong poster.