no, really:

Samples are delivered to the insemination clinic via… sperm bike
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13460455

More seriously the article covers a point that I think illustrates a terrible mistake we’ve made in this country.

Taking the cloak of anonymity away from potential donors must have seriously reduced the number of willing candidates*. And I make no apologies for being a little un-pc about this, it will be those from higher social groups that would value the protection of anonymity, and it’s from these groups that donors with some of the most sought after characteristics come from. &&

Whether a women’s sperm donor selection on such criteria is “wrong” is an interesting argument though. Should the information about the donor that the woman/couple can select by be wholly only physical characteristics and not social?

* as a donor would you relaly want to run the risk of being looked up by your offspring later in life, possibly disrupting your family life, and maybe even a risk of providing child support?

&&

“We were originally looking for David Beckham,” she says, “but we also wanted someone with lots of academic qualifications.”

In fact, they know a surprising amount about the man who is their children’s biological father: his age, weight, the fact that he is a medical student, and what he looks like.

Most intriguingly for them, they know what he sounds like as an audio recording was available of him explaining why he was donating – his principal motivation was money – and they thought he sounded like a nice person.

Although I dont count Beckham as higher social group 😉

If I was a doner I’d want to know the Womans provenance before letting her loose with my “swimmers”

Can i just send them an old sock?

i wouldn’t donate now its lost its anonymity. especially seeing as i’d be the most desirable donor on the list, lots of mini-phils about the place…. unfair on the other kids growing up knowing they’ll never achieve as much

I saw this on the BBC’s website and was wondering when it would make it onto here.

I’ve seen this thing before. There was a website called ‘man not included’ once upon a time for example.

I find the whole thing really offensive to the concept of ‘fatherhood’ as well as parenthood in general. That you would deliberately engineer a child to be ‘fatherless’ (although of course that’s never quite true is it) is awful both to the child and to fathers.

Kids need fathers and society needs fathers to actually be fathers.

Can i just send them an old sock?

every little helps..

it will be those from higher social groups that would value the protection of anonymity, and it’s from these groups that donors with some of the most sought after characteristics come from.

While I’m reluctant to agree with your eugenics theory ;-), I do agree that anonymity is something that should have been retained.

So all the chinless, socially malajusted alcoholics from poorer families are the result of donor insemination?
Explains a lot 🙂

That looks rather like cynic-al’s bikenstein that he was on about…..

Dont think I’d donate out of principle anyway, but the lack of anonymity would stop me even if I did want to donate.

I am disappointed stoner, I was expecting:

I think in Norway anonymity has for has some time not existed, preferring to see things from the child’s prospective, as some children (not all) have strong feelings around needing to know who their biological parents are!

I suppose there are emotional implications in having a teenage child claim you as their father … and that seems to be the minefield everyone is scared of and the reason for anonymity.

Though it may cause less donors to come forward, maybe would it be better if those that do accept that by becoming part of the process which may result in a person being born, and that person may one day want to know who you are! And that it is more about being comfortable with this, than remaining anonymous.

This is only another view point BTW 😉

Men should not be given the opportunity to avoid their duties as a father, in any way shape or form.

And similarly, women shouldn’t be allowed to deliberately exclude the father from the life of a child.

And further, children should always have a right to know who their parents really are.

it will be those from higher social groups that would value the protection of anonymity, and it’s from these groups that donors with some of the most sought after characteristics come from

This is an interesting statement; There is a perception amongst many people that high intelligence is inherited, rather than a result of individual ability or environment. Whilst some scientific studies have provided ‘evidence’ that this may be the case, I think it would be foolish to claim this was definitely the case.

And as for ‘higher social groups’; things like nutrition and health are very often at a more optimum level amongst people with sufficient economic resources to be able to afford good food and healthcare, but as for other characteristics, I’m at a loss to understand why else having the genes of someone from a ‘higher social’ background would make any difference at all. I think this does smack somewhat of Biological Determinism, and the false perception that someone from a ‘better’ background would make a better parent on purely genetic grounds. I think it’s got more to do with snobbery and a skewed understanding of Nature:Nurture than any real difference.

And for that reason I believe the anonymity of the donors should be preserved.

And further, children should always have a right to know who their parents really are.

Interesting. If you give blood, you do so anonymously. This is so that a donee cannot be in a position to discriminate against the doner.

Granted, there is a difference between the type of bodily fluids, but if someone wants to donate their sperm (or eggs) in order that someone else can experience the joy of parenthood, then why should they not have the ‘right’ to do so anonymously?

And further, children should always have a right to know who their parents really are.

I wouldn’t use an anonymous donor, but I’d respect his wishes if he didn’t want a child to know who he was. Surely a Childs parents are the people that bring him/her up?

Interesting. If you give blood, you do so anonymously. This is so that a donee cannot be in a position to discriminate against the doner.

Is that really true or just an Elfism? Anyway, if someone wants to discriminate against me by refusing my magnificent blood let ’em. Why would I care?

I wouldn’t use an anonymous donor, but I’d respect his wishes if he didn’t want a child to know who he was.

Sure, you say that now, but you don’t know how things will be in 18 years time. I’ve always said that the only way of achieving anonymity, is with a blindfold and a few friends.

Is that really true or just an Elfism?

No it’s true. If you receive a blood transfusion, you just receive blood. You don’t get to know who the donor was, what colour they were, and definitely not their background.

Why would those things be relevant anyway? I mean, fair enough I can understand a white couple wanting a baby that looks like them, but blood is blood is blood…

Surely a Childs parents are the people that bring him/her up?

They are the ones doing the ‘parenting’; it can be a little different to being the actual parents and a whole world away from a situation where you set out to deliberately remove the ‘father’ from the equation. Not that you can ever really do that other than semantically; kids will always have fathers, it’s just that some may not have the chance to know who they are or even be excluded from knowing who they are/having a relationship with them.

Elfin are you really seriously trying to draw a comparisson between blood donation and sperm donation?

Have you got kids?

No I’m not. I’m just pointing out that blood donation is done anonymously, for good reasons.

Don’t sperm donors have the right to anonymity then? Why not?

What’s me having kids got to do with owt?

Elfin are you really seriously trying to draw a comparisson between blood donation and sperm donation?

Have you got blood?

No I actually run on Pure Evil.

Don’t sperm donors have the right to anonymity then? Why not?

In my view, for several reasons. When children are adopted the biological parents are not granted anonymity so why should sperm donors? Yes the child doesn’t have the right to be given contact details but they do have the right to know who their biological parents are.

I can only imagine how difficult it must be to not know who you really are and this is something that you regularly hear reported by adopted children. I am sure that this is the reason why the law was changed to allow all adopted children to be given the information about their biological parents; because society understands that for as loving and caring as your adoptive parents might be, we are still flesh and blood, born of someone else’s flesh and blood and that very material connection is deeply ingrained in our psyche (unless you’re John Lennon or live in North Korea.)

People have a need to know their origin; to feel ‘attached’ and have meaning in their lives. Which is why sperm donors, who don’t even have the position of a potentially misfortunate or terrible set of circumstances to justifiably excuse their decision, shouldn’t be given anonymity.

Why does your having children make a difference? Because if you had children, I wouldn’t have to explain any of this. You’d just know it.

Why does your having children make a difference? Because if you had children, I wouldn’t have to explain any of this. You’d just know it.

Oh right. yeah. Of course.

People have a need to know their origin; to feel ‘attached’ and have meaning in their lives

Do they? Really? Why?

As for the adoption thing; one girl I knew at Uni was devastated when the Law changed, and through an administrative slip up, discovered her ‘parents’ weren’t really her parents. They hadn’t ever told her, and it was only because a letter was mistakenly sent to her informing her of her ‘right’ to know who her biological parents were, that she found out. She was left in a situation with her relationship with the people she’d loved as her mum and dad permanently damaged, and wishing she’d never known the truth.

Two friends of mine have just adopted a beautiful, gorgeous baby girl, as they couldn’t have kids of their own. If they love, care for and nurture that child (which I know they will), don’t they then earn the right to be that child’s ‘real’ parents?

And also, don’t the biological parents have the right to remain anonymous themselves? Why not?

Elfin, blood samples are anonymous becasue they’re often mixed; a recipient can have blood or extracts thereof, from many donors in a single session.

However, GT72’s comments are bunkum in the context of sperm donation, where the biological father is helping another person become a parent against the odds. In this context the “father” is the partner of the recipient.

In this context the “father” is the partner of the recipient.

Yeah except if you read the original story, you’ll find that the vast majority of the clients for the company marketing this service are single women who set out with no intention of having any father involved, which is where I was originally coming from in the argument (interesting that it should be ‘Moses’, the original patriarch, who challenges the supposition!)

As for the adoption thing; one girl I knew at Uni was devastated when the Law changed, and through an administrative slip up, discovered her ‘parents’ weren’t really her parents.

Doesn’t that just highlight the issue though? The girl was devestated because she’d always assumed that her parents were also her biological parents.

If this concept wern’t so important, as you contest, then surely finding out that your adopted wouldn’t make any difference.

It would be interesting to really understand where her trauma came from; was it because she was lied to, was it because she then had less of a sense of who she was, was her relationship with her adoptive parents damaged because of both these things?

I dunno; you’re a parent, you tell me…

Well if you’re goon get biblical, remember that Moses was in fact (or fiction) adopted as a baby.

But

Men should not be given the opportunity to avoid their duties as a father

And further, children should always have a right to know who their parents really are.

If you’re giving sperm, then you are not being a father, you’re just providing a biological hand, as it were.

And WHY should children have that right? Many of us don’t and many of us have the wrong information, like the girl above. It’s a bit of a Pandora’s Box.

And WHY should children have that right?

‘We hold these truths to be self evident’

Some things just are. Why should all people be treated equally, why should all people be free, why should any of us have any rights?

The answer is ‘for the betterment of the human condition’, which is another way of saying ‘we hold these truths to be self evident’.

Men should not be given the opportunity to avoid their duties as a father, in any way shape or form.

It’s not fun you know, donating – it’s just doing it into a pot in order to help someone else.

As for the adoption thing; one girl I knew at Uni was devastated when the Law changed, and through an administrative slip up, discovered her ‘parents’ weren’t really her parents.

Quite frankly that’s just piss poor parenting if you ask me. I believe that my aunt and uncle did the whole “two birthday” thing with their kids.

Which is why sperm donors, who don’t even have the position of a potentially misfortunate or terrible set of circumstances to justifiably excuse their decision, shouldn’t be given anonymity.

Not sure that I follow this logic. Are you saying that people who donate sprem should be afforded fewer rights than those who give up a child for adoption? I’d have to disagree if that’s the case. Personally it’s not something that I would now consider; anonymosly maybe but not now.

‘We hold these truths to be self evident’

Do we?

So, it comes down to religious morals and the constitution of the United States of America then?

Quite frankly that’s just piss poor parenting if you ask me

Why? Her parents had been the best parents she could’ve hoped for. She never felt she’d been ‘lied’ to. Her parents had brought her up as their daughter. She couldn’t have asked for a better upbringing.

What damaged the relationship was the sudden knowledge that all she believed to be true, suddenly wasn’t. That’s gotta sceew up a person’s head. But what had her parents actually done wrong?

The answer is ‘for the betterment of the human condition’

Is it? The Truth din’t better her ‘condition’…

Some important points raised here.
Who are the bio parents, Who has the right to disclose and who has the right to annonymity.
Points being objective as no one on here yet has actually been in that situation..
Unless..

Why? Her parents had been the best parents she could’ve hoped for. She never felt she’d been ‘lied’ to. Her parents had brought her up as their daughter. She couldn’t have asked for a better upbringing.

A lie by omission is still a lie. I didn’t mean to suggest that all their parenting was lacking, just on that point.

But what had her parents actually done wrong?

Well they hadn’t been completely honest with her about a fairly major fact for start. Had she grown up the fact from an early age then it may well have been different.

you lot do realise you’re getting all heated on a thread entitled ‘Spunkmobile’ 😀

That’s what I was just thinking, Binners… 🙂

Well they hadn’t been completely honest with her about a fairly major fact for start. Had she grown up the fact from an early age then it may well have been different.

What if they’d wanted to bring her up as their own daughter and no-one else’s? Maybe selfish, but why shoon’t they have that right? They’d put 20-odd years of love and kindness into raising her as their own daughter, until one day, bosh! All completely blown apart.

My point is, that in this particular case, the ‘truth’ did not serve anyone in any positive manner at all. quite the opposite.

How would you feel in such a situation? Would you want to know? Or is ignorance bliss?

How would you might feel, to learn that your ‘real’ biological parents hadn’t wanted you enough to keep you? Not saying that that is always the case at all, but if that were the truth, how would you cope knowing you were unwanted, unloved and discarded by those who you’d expect to love and cherish you as their child?

This is all subjective however, and all about individual onions. There is surely no definitive ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in this context, as each case is unique, surely?

What if they’d wanted to bring her up as their own daughter and no-one else’s?

In my experience that’s not how it works. My cousins who are adopted are as much my cousins as those to whom I share a genetic relationship. My Aunt and Uncle are their parents as much as my parents are mine. Granted there were some difficulties but they were no worse than those experienced by children who are brought up by their biological parents.

Maybe selfish, but why shoon’t they have that right?

In this situation I would say that the child’s right to know the truth overrides those of the adoptive parents.

My point is, that in this particular case, the ‘truth’ did not serve anyone in any positive manner at all. quite the opposite.

It wasn’t the truth that did the damage it was the way that it was revealed that did that. I’m sure there are many thousands of adoptees who grow up perfectly well adjusted loving their adptive parents as much as they would if they were their biological ones. The fact that someone is adopted need not cause lasting damage to a parental relationship.

How would you feel in such a situation? Would you want to know? Or is ignorance bliss?

I would want to know, but then I come to that conclusion based on the experiences gained from my extended family.

How would you might feel, to learn that your ‘real’ biological parents hadn’t wanted you enough to keep you? Not saying that that is always the case at all, but if that were the truth, how would you cope knowing you were unwanted, unloved and discarded by those who you’d expect to love and cherish you as their child?

That would indeed be a difficult thing to accept no denying it but then we all have difficult things to accept in life.

There is a perception amongst many people that high intelligence is inherited, rather than a result of individual ability or environment.

Interestingly, it seems to be a combination of nature and nurture – children subjected to ‘stress’* as they develop generally progress to being less exemplary than others. Interestingly, stress in this case was determined to mean a combination of social factors associated with lower social classes – mainly nutrition, but also quality of life, sleep, and so on.