Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Sperm donor children win right to trace their fathers

102 replies

melsy · 21/01/2004 08:06

What are your thoughts on this .

I feel for the children that may trace their natural birth fathers, but how will it impact them if they are rejected by someone who doesnt want to be known. Or should you then not donate. It will now make a mans decision to donate that much harder. Why do families then have to suffer the consequences of loosing a child they may have waited a long time for.
I am interested in other views on this.

OP posts:
Hulababy · 21/01/2004 11:14

aloha - this isn't really about lies though is it? The child's parets should tell them the truth IMO - that they were unable to have a child without help; some wonderfully kind stranger helped them by donating sperm; ansd this helped them to create the child. There is no lies involved - just a medical procedure.

twiglett · 21/01/2004 11:17

message withdrawn

twiglett · 21/01/2004 11:18

message withdrawn

Hulababy · 21/01/2004 11:19

I think nature and burtue play huge parts BUT still feel that we have to draw a line somewhere. If this law goes ahead, whos to say the next step will be to introduce responsibilities too - once these children find themselves constantly rejected by their "fathers", will more be required of the law then? At what point do we stop?

FairyMum · 21/01/2004 11:22

I fail to see any similarities between adoption and sperm donation.

twiglett · 21/01/2004 11:23

message withdrawn

FairyMum · 21/01/2004 11:29

Like I said in one of my earlier posts, I am not so sure that it would be in the child's best interest to find the sperm donor. I don't think it's always in the adopted child's interest either. Not always. I think for a lot of adopted children it has been a rather horrid experience to find their biological parent.( That's not to say I am against the right for adopted children to find their bio parent. )

FairyMum · 21/01/2004 11:31

Aloha, sorry, but I can't get to your link......Not sure what I am doing wrong....

bundle · 21/01/2004 11:32

just out of interest, does the same apply to egg donors?

aloha · 21/01/2004 11:39

Sadly there are lots of lies involved. It is thought that most families do not tell their children, but there are studies showing that many children do feel 'odd' in their families. They may look very different or just feel like strangers.
As I said before, 80% of adopted kids eventually try to seek out their bio-parents, and of those 85% say the experience was positive - even if contact isn't maintained. Finding answers is important for people, it just is, and I don't think it is for us to demand they tell us why. Hulababy, the law was only changed on adoption in 1975. The bio-parents can reject kids but there has been no call to reverse the legislation or to extend the rights of children or the responsibilities of bio-parents. I don't see why it would be different with sperm donors. And if the children want to know and they are now legally adults, I don't think it is society's job to stop them knowing for their own good. I think it is honestly up to them to decide what will be best for them, not anyone else. Lots of DI children do want to know and do see a strong correlation between their situation and adopted people pre-1975 - though, of course, certainly not all. I think their rights come first. Though I agree, not retrospectively. I think the consent has to be all round. I think that's a fair compromise. Anyway, it looks like it's going to happen and in 18 -20 years time we'll see if it leads to greater happiness or greater unhappiness. It will definitely lead to greater openness in teh affected families.

aloha · 21/01/2004 11:40

Fairymum, I'm sure you aren't doing anything wrong, I'm just rubbish at this!

aloha · 21/01/2004 11:43

Fairymum, I'm sure you aren't doing anything wrong, I'm just rubbish at this!

aloha · 21/01/2004 11:43

Sadly there are lots of lies involved. It is thought that most families do not tell their children, but there are studies showing that many children do feel 'odd' in their families. They may look very different or just feel like strangers.
As I said before, 80% of adopted kids eventually try to seek out their bio-parents, and of those 85% say the experience was positive - even if contact isn't maintained. Finding answers is important for people, it just is, and I don't think it is for us to demand they tell us why. Hulababy, the law was only changed on adoption in 1975. The bio-parents can reject kids but there has been no call to reverse the legislation or to extend the rights of children or the responsibilities of bio-parents. I don't see why it would be different with sperm donors. And if the children want to know and they are now legally adults, I don't think it is society's job to stop them knowing for their own good. I think it is honestly up to them to decide what will be best for them, not anyone else. Lots of DI children do want to know and do see a strong correlation between their situation and adopted people pre-1975 - though, of course, certainly not all. I think their rights come first. Though I agree, not retrospectively. I think the consent has to be all round. I think that's a fair compromise. Anyway, it looks like it's going to happen and in 18 -20 years time we'll see if it leads to greater happiness or greater unhappiness. It will definitely lead to greater openness in teh affected families.

sis · 21/01/2004 11:43

Yet again, I agree with Aloha, although her points are, as always better researched and more eloquently put than I could ever do.

aloha · 21/01/2004 11:45

Sorry, go to the Guardian website (www.guardian.co.uk) and type in sperm donation in the search box and then look for a feature by Mary Braid called My Daddy Was A Donor - lot of other interesting stuff there if you are interested in the ethics of it all.

mears · 21/01/2004 11:56

I agree with Aloha.

Here is an intersting story

mears · 21/01/2004 12:03

By the way Aloha - Zebra is looking for your input on the how many weeks were you when you had your first baby.

JanH · 21/01/2004 12:09

I haven't got to your story yet, aloha, but there are lots of others that came up:

named sperm means no sperm (from July 02)
hope for sperm donor offspring
sperm donors lose right to stay anonymous (from 12 months ago!)
Marcel Berlins (one-time donor)
David Aaronovitch (almost one-time donor)

Hulababy · 21/01/2004 12:11

I think that if it comes law (as looks likely) then fair enough - all parties involved are agreed to it.

I just think that it will bring down a reduction in donors (we already have a shortage anyway)and I really feel for those people who will be unable to have the miracle of their own child as a result.

There are losers which ever way it goes really.

Regards the lying - I don't see how the law will change that at all. It is the parents who are doing the lying about the situation anyway and that continues in adoption cases, etc. too.

Hulababy · 21/01/2004 12:14

From mear's link: "However, there are risks in concealing the truth. For one, each donor is responsible for the conception of children in up to 10 families ? they're all of similar age, from the same state and there's a frightening, albeit unlikely, chance that they could potentially grow up and form relationships with a half brother or sister"

Does this mean that all the children will need the right to be aware of each other, who they are, etc? As I said before - when does it stop?

JanH · 21/01/2004 12:14

David Aaronvitch agrees exactly with Fairymum!

He also says "Of course, one consequence of this will be that the supply of donors dries up, so to speak. The Swedes have changed the law in favour of disclosure, and now their citizens have to travel to clinics in Denmark to top up on their sperm supply."

Anybody have statistics one way or the other?

aloha · 21/01/2004 12:15

The diff is that it will be on the birth cert I think so parents won't be able to get away with not telling the truth. It will, I think cause a sea change in how parents handle it and take away some of the stigma.

aloha · 21/01/2004 12:17

Well, I have to say, I tend to disagree with D Aaronovitch anyway on most things. He is IMO a clearly terrified former sperm donor but has actually nothing to fear from teh proposed legislation. And who is he to tell another person how to feel and what she should regard as her heritage?

prufrock · 21/01/2004 12:30

The only people who really think that genetic heritage is a pedantic, inconsequentail thing are those who have grown up knowing all about theirs

lilibet · 21/01/2004 12:41

One point that always occurs to me about sperm and egg donation, is what are the chances of interbreeding? If a man can father 10 children thru donation and then perhaps have some with his partner, what happens if two of these children meet up and have children of their own?

Prufrock, I am adopted and am one of the 20% who won't find their biological parents, as I really have no interest in them at all. If I ever met them I would thank them for giving me to the most fantastic two people in the world to bring me up and reassure them if they ever had any doubts that they did absolutley the right thing, but honestly can live the rest of my life without knowing anything about them. But would never critisize anyone who felt differently to me, or call them a pedant!