The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > What gay couples need to hear about 'donor' conceived children > Comments

What gay couples need to hear about 'donor' conceived children : Comments

By Maggie Millar, published 11/7/2011

No-one has a right to have a child, and the perception of such a right would be very damaging for some children.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Bearing in mind his advice to Bernard about constructing a survey on national service, Sir Humphrey would have found The Institute for American Values' Centre for Marriage and Families report "sound". My issue is the commentary, whose prose when not purple is too frequently heliotrope.

Nevertheless, this from page 63 is straightforward…

"For starters, well over half of the donor offspring say they favor the practice of donor conception. When asked, “What is your opinion of the practice of donor conception?” 61% say they favor it, compared to 39% of adopted adults and 38% raised by their biological parents.[See note]
For their thinking on donor conception and reproductive technologies in general, take a look at their responses to the following four statements:
I think every person has a right to a child: 76% of donor conceived, 52% of adopted, and 54% of those raised by biological parents agree.
Artificial reproductive technologies are good for children because the children are wanted: 76% of donor conceived, 65% of adopted, and 61% of those raised by biological parents agree.
Our society should encourage people to donate their sperm or eggs to other people who want them: 73% of donor conceived, 50% of adopted, and 42% of those raised by biological parents agree.
Health insurance plans and government policies should make it easier for people to have babies with donated sperm or eggs: 76% of donor conceived, 60% of adopted, and 54% of those raised by biological parents agree.
In response to each of these statements, a large majority of the donor conceived adults - around three-quarters - support strong assertions of the rights of adults to access reproductive technologies, including donor conception, and they support the strengthening of laws and policies to help them do so."

[My note: cf. those opposed: 7% donor conceived, 15% adopted 18% raised by biological parents]

My conclusion is that this survey representing the "only unconsulted part[ies] to the interaction, the eventual offspring" is running 3 to one against the article's contentions.

As Ian Robinson reminds us, "It is very difficult to argue with hard facts."
Posted by WmTrevor, Saturday, 30 July 2011 10:35:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister wrote: "...but because of well intentioned idiots that imposed so many regulations and requirements on donors at clinics that the supply of donors has dwindled to a trickle, and the treatments are very expensive.

These websites are unregulated and essentially free. For same sex couples, they get a child with none of the expense and government required red tape, so the choice is easy."

I have to assume that you are not from the United States. In the USA there are no regulations or restrictions on who buys the product, the only restrictions on who sells the product is based on sperm motility and genetic testing. Other than that, there are no limits on the number of people produced, no tracking on how many people are produced, no ability for those people to know who their biological father, half siblings, grandparents, aunts/uncles/nieces/nephews/cousins, no mandates on disclosure, no mandates on counseling for intended parent(s) or 'donors'. All you need is a little bit of cash to chose the genetic material of your dreams from a catalogue. That's it.

I suppose you might think the USA free market approach is a better way. Well, it's not. It's a mess.

Also, the removal of anonymity in the UK did not result in a loss of donors (http://www.hfea.gov.uk/3411.html)
Posted by donor conceived, Saturday, 30 July 2011 12:55:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WmTrevor: It's great that that data is available for you and everyone to view for themselves and it is easy to cherry pick results that support a specific POV but to be truly open minded and scrutinizing we all need to look at the full picture. There are many results that are very concerning and the commentary on this report attempts to address those concerns.
Posted by donor conceived, Saturday, 30 July 2011 1:01:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DC,

Actually there are a shortage of donors in the UK for the very same reason as here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/health/12iht-12sperm.17742155.html

The result both here and the UK is that the tight regulation has driven sperm donation away from the clinics to the DIY sector. As what people are doing is between 2 consenting adults it is impossible to ban.

Another example of the law of unintended consequences, where ill thought through legislation has the opposite effect of what it intended.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 31 July 2011 8:35:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister:
The NY Times is gravely misinformed. It is amazing actually that *they* allow writers to spread this kind of misinformation. The true experts tell another story, such as Eric Blyth in this BioNews article:

"Reply to 'Gamete donation in the UK: Time to think again'

13 April 2010

By Professor Eric Blyth
Professor of Social Work, University of Huddersfield and Visiting Professor, Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Appeared in BioNews 554
The Bridge Centre's plea to 'think again' about arrangements for gamete donation in the UK (1) takes yet another ill-founded and unsubstantiated swipe at the lifting of donor anonymity and its impact on donor services. The Bridge Centre also indicts the removal of anonymity, together with donor compensation arrangements, as responsible for the 'explosive growth of fertility tourism'. A healthy debate on these issues is always welcome, but it seems that some people at least do not want to hear messages that conflict with their own entrenched assumptions."

For those who are interested in truth (without agenda), read the full article here: http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_58427.asp
Posted by donor conceived, Tuesday, 9 August 2011 10:41:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DC,

The NY times article refects other articles in the UK and Australia, for example:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/central/web-to-lure-sperm-donors/story-fn8m0qb4-1226104273655

"He said donations dropped off dramatically after a licensing requirement was introduced in 2005 which meant donors could be identified at the child's request once they turned 18."

It is also a matter of simple logic. Some donors want anonymity some don't. If you exclude one category, the availability will be less. That there is an extreme shortage in Australia is also not in doubt. Secondly, there are recipients that also prefer anonymity, for whom these donors would be perfect.

Eric Blyth does not contradict the shortage of donors, only questions the reasons for wanting to reverse the law.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 9 August 2011 11:31:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy