Donor-Conceived Persons Demand Their Biological Origins

February 27th, 2011

Yet more evidence that Anonymous Sperm and Egg Donation is Over (and not soon enough, if you ask me).

newsweek.com:
Currently, in the United States, you need a license to sell a condo or cut hair in a salon, but not to broker human life. The $3 billion fertility industry goes largely unregulated, offering blank pages to those searching for information where the rest of us are free to access vital statistics of public record. “I’m not a treatment, I’m a person, and those records belong to me,” says Pratten.

On top of the serious risk of inbreeding and the medical and health concerns associated with anonymous sperm and egg donation, we all should be entitled to know our biological heritage for the sake of the effect it has on our self image and identity:

At whatever point on the political, religious, or even academic spectrum these studies’ administrators fall, they do seem to agree on this point: the majority of donor-conceived adolescents are curious about their biological origins. “They want information that most of us have from birth and take for granted and that helps answer questions we all ask in the normal psychological process of developing one’s identity—who we are,” says Scheib.

Should Olivia Pratten and other donor conceived persons not have the same rights to their biological origins that the rest of us have – that even adopted persons are being accorded now days?

May she win her lawsuit, may the records of her biological heritage still be in existence when she does, and may the laws of the United States catch up with those of Canada and the rest of the civilized world as rapidly as possible. Time is of the essence. The debt of havoc being wreaked by the fertility industry in America on donor conceived persons – and the women they harvest their eggs from – is compounding every day:

As the battle for hearts and minds rages on in churches, think tanks, laboratories, and cyberspace, the practice of selling gametes is only growing. Women on elite college campuses are aggressively targeted for their eggs, and sperm donor catalogs now feature celebrity look-alikes. Stricter legislation in some countries has encouraged “reproductive tourism” in others, prompting the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology to call for a standardized code of practice on cross-border care.

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
  1. Ruth
    February 28th, 2011 at 13:41 | #1

    When a society becomes wealthy and technologically advanced, we see clearly what Christians call the “sin nature”.
    As my options (time, money, transportation, entertainment) increase, what do I choose to do with those options?

  2. February 28th, 2011 at 14:08 | #2

    It seems like a DNA profile would be able to tell you most of the things about your propensity for diseases if you were conceived artificially. Also, don’t potential parents have the right to a choice? Shouldn’t they be able to chose an anonymous donor or a known person?

  3. February 28th, 2011 at 15:13 | #3

    @be4marriage
    “Also, don’t potential parents have the right to a choice? Shouldn’t they be able to chose an anonymous donor or a known person?”

    No, potential parents do not have a right to a child at all, they only have a right to marry and have sex with their spouse. That’s it. Maybe a child will result, maybe not. They do not have a right to have a child outside the marriage at all, anonymously or not.

  4. Heidi
    February 28th, 2011 at 15:44 | #4

    “They do not have a right to have a child outside the marriage at all, anonymously or not.”

    Since when? People have the right to procreate, whether inside of marriage or not. They are called constitutional rights. Do your homework.

  5. February 28th, 2011 at 16:57 | #5

    No they don’t. Are you thinking Eisenstadt? That didn’t invalidate state fornication laws, it just said single people could prevent pregnancy, which is very different from saying they can intentionally get pregnant. And the repeal of Illegitimacy laws were based purely on the rights of the child to equal protection of the law, which the status of being illegitimate violated, not because it became a right to procreate without marrying first.

    And Lawrence confirms that marriage is, in the most technical sense, about the right to have sexual intercourse, which is the same as the right to procreate.

    The state is obligated to protect people from being created in unethical circumstances, such as to closely related people, children, and to uncommitted, not-fully-consenting couples. Some of those are worse than others, we don’t have to start punishing people who procreate out of wedlock like we punish incest or statutory rape, we can tolerate out of wedlock sex and deal with the circumstances it causes for children later, with child support wage garnishing and paternity tests. Those don’t make it a right though.

  6. Mark
    February 28th, 2011 at 18:41 | #6

    @Heidi
    Give it up, Heidi. John Howard is just really confused and mixed up with his whole “every sperm is sacred” routine.

  7. Mark
    February 28th, 2011 at 18:42 | #7

    “and may the laws of the United States catch up with those of Canada and the rest of the civilized world as rapidly as possible. ”

    Such as recognizing same sex marriage. Couldn’t agree more.

  8. Heidi
    March 1st, 2011 at 18:23 | #8

    @Mark
    Mark, you’re right. I don’t know why I bother. Sigh. Frankly, I don’t know why I bother commenting on much of this foolishness. The brainwashed cannot be easily deprogrammed. I know. I used to be one of them. My parents raised me to be anyway. They were fundamentalist/evangelical Christians. I thank God every day that I was finally able to see the proverbial light. Now I just feel sad for those trapped in this mindset–they live in a state of fear about the world (the sky is falling!) and they miss so much love and joy around them because they are too busy judging others for falling short of their ideals of righteousness. It really does make me sad for them.

  9. Ruth
    March 1st, 2011 at 19:34 | #9

    @John Howard
    Keep up the good work, John Howard.
    Thank you for your commitment to a responsible, caring society.

  10. Steverino
    March 1st, 2011 at 22:47 | #10

    John Howard’s singular focus on responsible procreation makes for a solid argument. You either embrace it – or you embrace a genetic engineered future. This is just one more nasty consequence of Same Sex Marriage that is glossed over far too often.

  11. Mark
    March 2nd, 2011 at 06:06 | #11

    @Heidi
    Thanks for your caring, insightful posts, Heidi. It keeps giving me hope that there are loving, thinking people out there.

Comments are closed.