8 ms·

"8. Anonymous sperm and egg donors could become a thing of the past." As someone conceived with donor gametes who used Ancestry/23andme to find and build a rel

"8. Anonymous sperm and egg donors could become a thing of the past." As someone conceived with donor gametes who used Ancestry/23andme to find and build a relationship with my biological father - this is a WONDERFUL thing. Depriving people of their genetic history is a terrible byproduct of the multi-billion-dollar fertility industry, and I personally know hundreds of people that have been terribly hurt by the pain caused by anonymous donations. Only thing to correct - anonymous donations very much now ARE a thing of the past, not "could be." Any fertility clinic promising anonymity is knowingly lying to prospective donors and/or recipient parents.

kodt 7y ago
Aren't there concerns of the state going after doners to pay child support in cases where the legal guardians have some hardship/separate etc? Or should that just be "in the fine print" when you donate?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tylersmith 7y ago
  The laws should be fixed to not allow those kinds of ridiculous cases.
  - creeble 7y ago
    Yes they should, and others too (see my GP response above). Anonymity, such as it was, helped prevent risk. Now we need a law to limit the liability of a donor. Are there already such laws?
    - robhunter 7y ago
      Anonymity created many, many risks. There are documented cases of genetic half-siblings having a sexual relationship because they did not know they were donor conceived. There are documented cases of suicides from adults finding out they were conceived from anonymous sperm donation and that "their Dad was not their Dad." 90% of donor conceived adults do not know they are donor conceived - and so all have provided incorrect medical history information to their doctors. Does that not seem like a risk?
      - SkyBelow 7y ago
        Now how to apply such a law that wouldn't also apply to people who reproduced in the standard fashion but don't want to disclose whom they did so with?
      - opportune 7y ago
        Case three doesn't have much to do with anonymity. Even a non-anonymous donation doesn't mean your parents would tell you about it while still a child
        robhunter 7y ago
        They're more related than it might immediately appear - purposefully choosing an anonymous donor over an open ID donor is often correlated with shame and secrecy around infertility, whereas choosing an open ID donor signifies acceptance, empathy, and a lack of shame/secrecy. A much higher % of people conceived with an open ID donor are told of their origins.
- cgriswald 7y ago
  It isn't a concern for adoption, so I don't know why it would be a concern here. Courts care about the legal parents of a child, not the genetic parents.
- robhunter 7y ago
  No, absolutely not - there have been hundreds of thousands of people conceived this way and not one documented case of child support when an actual fertility clinic has been used to conceive.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    Laws with far more precedence than this have been changed by courts. Such a change should come with a significant amount of forewarning, but given the situation there isn't much one can do even with sufficient forewarning.
- delecti 7y ago
  There was a case of that happening with a lesbian couple who split up, but the donor and couple in that case didn't go through the proper channels. They basically went the turkey baster route rather than finding a donor through a sperm bank. I don't think there are any examples of someone donating reproductive material through proper channels later being on the hook for child support.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Really the way to fix that isn't enforced ignorance but proper and ironclad severence that says - no donors have no parental rights or responsibilities unless they agree to adopt/marry in later. No matter how convenient it would be to bill the donor instead.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    AH yes... the 'punish the poor men' argument. In reality, such laws will lead to powerful men able to abscond their paternal responsibilities by having a good lawyer, while poor men remain indebted to their offspring (as they should be of course).
    - Nasrudith 7y ago
      It isn't about the men or the women. The whole point of an actual sperm or ova donation arrangement is to separate the genetics from the social in having children. Sex and rich or poor it shouldn't matter - the arrangement is specifically to aid fertility - allowing the custodial parents full rights and thus the responsibilities while giving minor compensation to the genetic donor who agrees because the cost is minor to them and they can live an undisrupted life. Without honoring the fundamentals the system breaks down. The point is proper donors should have no parental responsibilities! It should be impossible to dodge actual relationship support with it or misconduct. Dirty fertility doctors who use their own sperm for all patients? Yeah hit them with 47 counts of child support. Similarly it would be reasonable to have requirements for eligibility in exchange for the "severance" to ensure the child(ren) will be no more likely to require state support than a similiar couple reproducing directly - changes in circumstances can happen to anyone of course.
      - tathougies 7y ago
        > The whole point of an actual sperm or ova donation arrangement is to separate the genetics from the social in having children. The issue here is that I fundamentally do not believe it is at all ethical to do this.
creeble 7y ago
I think the risk is that donations in general are at risk because of the removal of anonymity. Why would anyone donate if it means taking on indeterminate risk?
- robhunter 7y ago
  The word "donate" inherently implies an element of altruism. What kind of "indeterminate risk" are you referring to? The risk that a biological son or daughter gets in touch? If a donor is not open to that, they should not be donating.
  - doomjunky 7y ago
    Money
heh 7y ago
On the flip side of the coin, I was recently considering donating sperm anonymously and now I won't, unless there's some kind of legal protection against this. I (and my wife) do not want to have our own children, but would be happy to help a random couple conceive, if this is something that would bring them joy. I wouldn't want my (and my family's) privacy and anonymity compromised however.
- robhunter 7y ago
  I think this is a very positive outcome for all involved. It seems like you would not be open to contact with your hypothetical offspring. I can't tell you how many adults I've met that have attempted to reach out to their genetic parents/donors and been met with a similar response. It's incredibly devastating for these people. I got very lucky. No one should be helping creating life if they are not open to at least basic contact with the human beings they have created.
  - lintroller 7y ago
    > No one should be helping creating life if they are not open to at least basic contact with the human beings they have created. The system is anonymous exactly because people like the one you're replying to are willing to help provide the biological material and nothing more. Requiring communication with a person that, beyond DNA, is a complete wildcard seems like a steep barrier to donation that would significantly decline overall donations.
    - robhunter 7y ago
      That's my point - providing the biological material and nothing more is inherently unethical. I would encourage you to look at some of the research - 70%+ of "anonymous" sperm donors are actually open to contact with their genetic offspring. Optimizing for the health and welfare of intended parents while ignoring the well-being of the actual human beings that are created is incredibly short-sighted. A decrease in the overall amount of donations is a significantly smaller problem than the pain and risk created by anonymous donations (that are, as I've said, no longer anonymous because of the existence of these websites).

kodt 7y ago

Aren't there concerns of the state going after doners to pay child support in cases where the legal guardians have some hardship/separate etc? Or should that just be "in the fine print" when you donate?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tylersmith 7y ago
The laws should be fixed to not allow those kinds of ridiculous cases.
- creeble 7y ago
  Yes they should, and others too (see my GP response above). Anonymity, such as it was, helped prevent risk. Now we need a law to limit the liability of a donor. Are there already such laws?
  - robhunter 7y ago
    Anonymity created many, many risks. There are documented cases of genetic half-siblings having a sexual relationship because they did not know they were donor conceived. There are documented cases of suicides from adults finding out they were conceived from anonymous sperm donation and that "their Dad was not their Dad." 90% of donor conceived adults do not know they are donor conceived - and so all have provided incorrect medical history information to their doctors. Does that not seem like a risk?
    - SkyBelow 7y ago
      Now how to apply such a law that wouldn't also apply to people who reproduced in the standard fashion but don't want to disclose whom they did so with?
    - opportune 7y ago
      Case three doesn't have much to do with anonymity. Even a non-anonymous donation doesn't mean your parents would tell you about it while still a child
      - robhunter 7y ago
        They're more related than it might immediately appear - purposefully choosing an anonymous donor over an open ID donor is often correlated with shame and secrecy around infertility, whereas choosing an open ID donor signifies acceptance, empathy, and a lack of shame/secrecy. A much higher % of people conceived with an open ID donor are told of their origins.
cgriswald 7y ago
It isn't a concern for adoption, so I don't know why it would be a concern here. Courts care about the legal parents of a child, not the genetic parents.
robhunter 7y ago
No, absolutely not - there have been hundreds of thousands of people conceived this way and not one documented case of child support when an actual fertility clinic has been used to conceive.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  Laws with far more precedence than this have been changed by courts. Such a change should come with a significant amount of forewarning, but given the situation there isn't much one can do even with sufficient forewarning.
delecti 7y ago
There was a case of that happening with a lesbian couple who split up, but the donor and couple in that case didn't go through the proper channels. They basically went the turkey baster route rather than finding a donor through a sperm bank. I don't think there are any examples of someone donating reproductive material through proper channels later being on the hook for child support.
Nasrudith 7y ago
Really the way to fix that isn't enforced ignorance but proper and ironclad severence that says - no donors have no parental rights or responsibilities unless they agree to adopt/marry in later. No matter how convenient it would be to bill the donor instead.
- tathougies 7y ago
  AH yes... the 'punish the poor men' argument. In reality, such laws will lead to powerful men able to abscond their paternal responsibilities by having a good lawyer, while poor men remain indebted to their offspring (as they should be of course).
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    It isn't about the men or the women. The whole point of an actual sperm or ova donation arrangement is to separate the genetics from the social in having children. Sex and rich or poor it shouldn't matter - the arrangement is specifically to aid fertility - allowing the custodial parents full rights and thus the responsibilities while giving minor compensation to the genetic donor who agrees because the cost is minor to them and they can live an undisrupted life. Without honoring the fundamentals the system breaks down. The point is proper donors should have no parental responsibilities! It should be impossible to dodge actual relationship support with it or misconduct. Dirty fertility doctors who use their own sperm for all patients? Yeah hit them with 47 counts of child support. Similarly it would be reasonable to have requirements for eligibility in exchange for the "severance" to ensure the child(ren) will be no more likely to require state support than a similiar couple reproducing directly - changes in circumstances can happen to anyone of course.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      > The whole point of an actual sperm or ova donation arrangement is to separate the genetics from the social in having children. The issue here is that I fundamentally do not believe it is at all ethical to do this.

creeble 7y ago

I think the risk is that donations in general are at risk because of the removal of anonymity. Why would anyone donate if it means taking on indeterminate risk?

robhunter 7y ago
The word "donate" inherently implies an element of altruism. What kind of "indeterminate risk" are you referring to? The risk that a biological son or daughter gets in touch? If a donor is not open to that, they should not be donating.
- doomjunky 7y ago
  Money

heh 7y ago

On the flip side of the coin, I was recently considering donating sperm anonymously and now I won't, unless there's some kind of legal protection against this. I (and my wife) do not want to have our own children, but would be happy to help a random couple conceive, if this is something that would bring them joy. I wouldn't want my (and my family's) privacy and anonymity compromised however.

robhunter 7y ago
I think this is a very positive outcome for all involved. It seems like you would not be open to contact with your hypothetical offspring. I can't tell you how many adults I've met that have attempted to reach out to their genetic parents/donors and been met with a similar response. It's incredibly devastating for these people. I got very lucky. No one should be helping creating life if they are not open to at least basic contact with the human beings they have created.
- lintroller 7y ago
  > No one should be helping creating life if they are not open to at least basic contact with the human beings they have created. The system is anonymous exactly because people like the one you're replying to are willing to help provide the biological material and nothing more. Requiring communication with a person that, beyond DNA, is a complete wildcard seems like a steep barrier to donation that would significantly decline overall donations.
  - robhunter 7y ago
    That's my point - providing the biological material and nothing more is inherently unethical. I would encourage you to look at some of the research - 70%+ of "anonymous" sperm donors are actually open to contact with their genetic offspring. Optimizing for the health and welfare of intended parents while ignoring the well-being of the actual human beings that are created is incredibly short-sighted. A decrease in the overall amount of donations is a significantly smaller problem than the pain and risk created by anonymous donations (that are, as I've said, no longer anonymous because of the existence of these websites).