This is continued from the thread on father's rights at link , there is more background there in case you need more context.
quote: Dagonee:
quote: Mucus: Second, consider the case of sperm donor fathers. In these cases, the resulting child has no right to demand support from the sperm donor.
I've considered it at length. I consider it a deprivation of the child's rights, one unfortunately encoded into law.
quote: Dagonee:
quote: Mucus: For the second, society definitely does not act like such a right has been established. The more I think about it, the sperm donor system seems to be a big example. Despite you think that it is immoral, many do think it is moral, and the system is protected by law. Any logical consequences should be explored fully.
So? Seriously, if you want to talk about how society does a terrible job of protecting the rights of children, we can. But that's not really the topic, is it?
Sure, I'll call you on that, thread topics often spawn new threads. I'll also address this to the general audience. But first, I do not accept your leading question. The questions should really be "Does the sperm donor system do a good job of protecting the rights of children? Should the system exist or not?"
My view is that modern society is increasingly inhabited by a large number of single, successful, intelligent, older, career-minded women that nevertheless wish to start a family. Same with same-sex couples.
Overseas adoption is often completely closed to single women, local adoption tends to favour couples. In any case, in both cases as explored in other threads, the supply is much smaller than demand. The sperm donor system is an effective and efficient solution to this need. These women can now start families. However, some claim that the system is immoral (and I suspect, but I could be wrong, think that it should end).
As a general question, what would your solution to this dilemma be and how would it (or does it) increase protection of children's rights?
quote:
quote:This would bring us to the third question. What if a child did have a right to support from their parents? The sperm donor system would collapse, no one would donate sperm if they could be forced legally to support their children.
First, that's not true - I know of several examples of sperm donors who are involved in their child's life, usually in an "uncle" kind of role with two lesbian mothers. But, more importantly, I don't care if irresponsible fathers-to-be are discouraged from donating.
In fact, I believe that is admirable. I applaud them, but I do not feel that is the only appropriate course. In any case, that is also sidestepping the real issue. Being involved in their child's life is far from being legally liable for financial support. Many sperm donors do it for the financial rewards. The average payment is only $60-$70 and as this would show, only 8% of donors act out of purely altruistic reasons. For the rest, if the donor was held liable for support, it would clearly dwarf that meagre payment.
Consider:
quote: "Most donors do not seem to feel any close relationship to donor offspring and at least 60% found anonymity to be essential for their further functioning as donors ... (Pedersen et al., 1994)
quote: Moreover, a recent survey of UK centres licensed for infertility treatment involving donated spermatozoa showed that almost all centres (97%) paid donors, and that 88% of centres surveyed believed that they would lose at least 80% of donors if payment was to be withdrawn"
This is just if payment or anonymity was withdrawn, imagine if they were also held liable for support, financial or otherwise? The system would collapse for sure.
As another general question, consider those single women or same-sex couples using the system, they wish to start families. Is it moral for them to use the sperm donor system? Is a system that allows the male to shed responsibility whether financial or in terms of identity moral? Should such a system exist?
[ April 07, 2007, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think in general that creating a child is nothing compared to raising and caring for that person. So if people that want to raise and care for a kid need help in the creation process, I don't see a problem. While I think it'd be preferable if it could be somebody that the child could have a relationship with during their life, I have trouble seeing this be mandated in any way.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Sure it should exist! People want and need it, so it should.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I don't have a problem with sperm donation. The moral responsibilites involved are vastly different than those involved in unprotected sex.
The biological father in this case is not responsible for the creation of the child, both in the sense that he was not the actor who brought it into being, nor is it his duty to be a means of substantial support. (I use that wording to avoid the argument that everyone is responsible at some level for the care of our society's young.)
In the same sense, consider a man who has sex with a woman while wearing a condom. He throws it out, but after he leaves, she uses it to impregnate herself. I'd have a hard time considering this man responsible for the child without some pretty serious extenuating circumstances.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Right, but wouldn't the behemoth of our legal system force the man into supporting the child anyway?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: In the same sense, consider a man who has sex with a woman while wearing a condom. He throws it out, but after he leaves, she uses it to impregnate herself. I'd have a hard time considering this man responsible for the child without some pretty serious extenuating circumstances.
I could be wrong, but I think I remember that actually happening. And the unwilling father getting stuck by the courts with child support. Or maybe it was a battle over frozen sperm during a divorce. Either way, it's difficult to google without courting a tidal wave of porn.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
How about successful, single women that want to start families get married and do it the way it has been done for thousands of years?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:How about successful, single women that want to start families get married and do it the way it has been done for thousands of years?
If only it were that simple. Believe it or not, many successful single women would prefer to get married and do it the way it has been done for thousands of years, they just don't have that option.
It should also be noted that significant fraction of sperm donations go to heterosexual married couples where the man is infertile. There are also women who donate eggs to couples where the woman is infertile. Do you find these objectionable?
[ April 08, 2007, 02:57 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
stihl1: Why would marriage help? There's no guarantee that they'd marry a man.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:There's no guarantee that they'd marry a man.
Under the prevailing laws today there is.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Again with the over-generalisation. Only under the prevailing laws today in the *US*. I never limited the discussion to the US.
Your assertion would not be the case in Denmark, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, and Spain. In addition, civil unions are available in 23 countries and six or seven states.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
A marriage of convenience, with the main reason to sire a child. That sounds like a healthy situation for all involved Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: stihl1: Why would marriage help? There's no guarantee that they'd marry a man.
See, I read this as there's no guarantee that they'd marry a Real Man(tm). Which is so true, without the gay marriage thing being an issue.
-pH
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: See, I read this as there's no guarantee that they'd marry a Real Man(tm). Which is so true, without the gay marriage thing being an issue.
-pH
Sorry ladies, I'm already spoken for Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by Morbo: I could be wrong, but I think I remember that actually happening. And the unwilling father getting stuck by the courts with child support. Or maybe it was a battle over frozen sperm during a divorce. Either way, it's difficult to google without courting a tidal wave of porn.
I also seem to recall that happening. As I remember it involved a rather famous basketball player and a woman claiming to have given birth to a child by him. He alleged that she had inseminated herself after the fact.
Whatever the legal outcome, I really don't think it changes the moral implications of such a scenario. If the point is that in such situations it's difficult to prove empirically exactly what happened (and who is responsible for what), then I have to agree. I wouldn't, however, expect such difficulties to apply to the sperm donation system.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm not in favor of sperm banks and anonymous egg donation.
I know, that sounds harsh coming from someone who went through infertility herself, but of the people I know who did do artificial insemination with someone else's egg, they were donated eggs by someone the patient knew. In one case it was a woman's sister who donated an egg to her. Eliminating anonymously donated eggs and sperm does not eliminate the ability for infertile couples to have children, there is still the possibility of using sperm and ova donated by someone with full knowledge of what is happening.
I just think a child should be created by two people who know what they're doing and are both going to be committed to helping raise that child. The idea that one can just cavalierly leave their genetic material for the purposes of creating a child and then walk away with 50 bucks and no responsibility for that child leaves me uneasy.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:I just think a child should be created by two people who know what they're doing and are both going to be committed to helping raise that child. The idea that one can just cavalierly leave their genetic material for the purposes of creating a child and then walk away with 50 bucks and no responsibility for that child leaves me uneasy.
These two things are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The idea that one can just cavalierly leave their genetic material for the purposes of creating a child and then walk away with 50 bucks and no responsibility for that child leaves me uneasy.
Out of interest, why?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Theoretically, the woman being artificially inseminated is going into the process well aware that the sperm donor has no responsibility and may never even be aware of the child's existence. If an adult chooses to have a child on her own, who are we to tell her that she doesn't have that choice?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
One question for a doctor, for anonymous sperm donation, are records kept and sealed (akin to closed adoption) or destroyed/never kept at all?
When dealing with the possibility of a disease or disorder with a hereditary component, do doctors have the authority to open closed adoption records in order to obtain a medical history? If the answer to the first question was the former, do they have the authority to open anonymous sperm records?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Tom, I probably don't have a satisfactory answer for you. To me, the creation of a child is something sacred and something that God has ordained should take place within marriage. Circumventing what God has ordained, and doing it for money, well, that's going to make me uneasy.
I know that there are probably some very good reasons why sperm banks exist to help infertile couples, and I'm sure that my unease with the situation isn't entirely logical, but that's why I called it unease - it's an emotional response, based in my faith and personal beliefs. I believe children should be brought into the world by two people who are married and committed to each other and to the child they are creating.
Now, that's my ideal world. I know that unplanned pregnancies happen, and sometimes marriages fall apart after a child is born...I know. There is no such thing as a perfect situation that a child is born into because there are no perfect people. I just think we have a better chance of it being closer to perfect if both parents are active participants in the conception, pregnancy, birth and most importantly rearing of the child.
Again, probably not satisfactory, especially to someone who doesn't share my faith and personal belief of what God has ordained for the family, but there it is. Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Perhaps I should clarify that I don't consider the act of sperm donation to be creating a child, but rather allowing for the creation of a child. Preferably by two loving, economically stable people.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Is the adoption wait list shorter when not trying to adopt a baby? I have little sympathy when there are so many children 5 and up that need homes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I believe children should be brought into the world by two people who are married and committed to each other and to the child they are creating.
See, I don't necessarily agree that contributing sperm to a child counts as "bringing a child into the world." The couple actually raising the child are doing all the bringing, aren't they? The donor's just providing raw material.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Is the adoption wait list shorter when not trying to adopt a baby? I have little sympathy when there are so many children 5 and up that need homes.
Then by all means, go forth and adopt as many of these children as you can.
I don't know about other posters here, but I can't imagine missing out on the first five years of my daughter's lives. Maybe it's selfishness on my part, but I want those experiences, and when/if I find myself in a position to adopt a child, I want a baby.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: ... Maybe it's selfishness on my part, but I want those experiences, and when/if I find myself in a position to adopt a child, I want a baby.
Not to mention that on some level, consciously or unconsciously, at least a child that was conceived using the mother-to-be's egg and donor sperm is at least related to you.
Even if we divorce it from science, there is a strong influence in certain communities that your child continues on the family line or belongs to the same ethnicity as you.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: A marriage of convenience, with the main reason to sire a child. That sounds like a healthy situation for all involved
Who said anything about a marriage of convenience? I said go out and get married and start a family that way. Why do you assume that it is a marriage of convenience? Do you think women can't find a suitable husband to start a family? There are too many single parent familes as there is.
Furthermore, it's not a right to have a child. It's not something you deserve to have just because you've reached a certain age or monetary status. It's something that should be done in the bounds of marriage, between two people who love each other and want to create a family for the child. Too many people think they should just have the right to create life without regard for that life.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:Not to mention that on some level, consciously or unconsciously, at least a child that was conceived using the mother-to-be's egg and donor sperm is at least related to you.
I'm not understanding your point. Are you saying that my desire to adopt an infant contains some level of desire to have it be related to me on a physical level, or in the sense of nurturing and bonding?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: Who said anything about a marriage of convenience? I said go out and get married and start a family that way. Why do you assume that it is a marriage of convenience? Do you think women can't find a suitable husband to start a family? There are too many single parent familes as there is.
Furthermore, it's not a right to have a child. It's not something you deserve to have just because you've reached a certain age or monetary status. It's something that should be done in the bounds of marriage, between two people who love each other and want to create a family for the child. Too many people think they should just have the right to create life without regard for that life.
I would say that in just about every country in the free world, it is considered an absolute right that people can choose to have children as often as they are able. I don't necessarily agree with it in all cases, but it's pretty tough to tell someone not to have kids, and I would say that among the various reasons you might argue against it, being unmarried is pretty weak.
I would also suggest that it takes time to find just the right person who you want to spend the rest of your life with, and raise a family with. It isn't as though most people have "the one" all picked out, and they're just being coy and not deciding to get married.
The suggestion any woman should have no trouble finding a husband and starting a family any time she wants to seems pretty insulting to all the single women out there. Do you really think none of them are trying to find the right person?
Further, a woman who can support and raise a child in a happy, loving home should have as much right or more to have children than a married couple who doesn't want a child, and can't provide a good home for one. There are a lot of factors involved in raising a child, and while marriage can come into the picture, I think it can find its place fairly far down the list.
I know lots of people who were raised in a non-traditional home, and they turned out just fine, thank you very much.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
TheHumanTarget: I'm not saying anything about you specifically. I was using the general audience "you" I wasn't being too clear, but I did reference a mother-to-be and a sperm donor in that sentence, which does not appear to be your situation.
I'm saying that on average, most people have a desire to raise a child that is closely related to them, physically. Some people can overcome this when adopting, which is in some sense admirable. But many people could not, so adoption is not an option for them.
Looking at this from the other direction, I would argue that these same people would feel some unease if they found out that their own child was a product of an affair or some such. Aside from the affair itself, many people would look differently at the child, despite that nothing in how they raised the child has changed.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: ... It's something that should be done in the bounds of marriage, between two people who love each other and want to create a family for the child. Too many people think they should just have the right to create life without regard for that life.
You're still not dealing with the issue of same-sex marriage or even as someone else brought up, people that may very well be traditionally married but are infertile.
Posted by skeptical scientist (Member # 10369) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: I could be wrong, but I think I remember that actually happening. And the unwilling father getting stuck by the courts with child support. Or maybe it was a battle over frozen sperm during a divorce. Either way, it's difficult to google without courting a tidal wave of porn.
The closest I can find is this. A man told his at-the-time-girlfriend that he did not want to father a child before having sex, and she assured him that she was probably infertile, and on birth control just in case. Nevertheless, she became pregnant, and he sued in court to avoid paying child support. The case was dismissed.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)