Fascinating stuff, BOAZ-David, your mentioning of levirate marriage obligations in ancient Israel in the context of personal identity, biological paternity, and limitation as to the extent of any census. King David's experience with this last comes to mind. Fascinating, too, that the first named component of your user name was the successor to a repudiated levirate marriage right: you know, the spitting in the shoe with regard to Ruth, and all that. Halitzah.

I have a question for you.

In the posterity of Josiah (one of the kings in the Davidic line of ancient Israel, for the benefit of those readers not familiar with the Book, their genealogy, or both), and in the light of the institution of levirate marriage, who's son was Jehoiachin? Make sure your answer is consistent with the implications of I Chronicles 3:15 and does not require any alteration thereto.

Tip: I Chronicles 3:15 cites Shallum, who when placed upon the throne immediately after the death of Josiah by the people of Judah was given the throne-name of Jehoahaz, as the fourth son of Josiah. In relation to the chronological order of the births of the sons of Josiah, recorded in various other places in the scriptural account, this statement appears to be incorrect.

You have me intrigued with the second-last line of your second post on this thread. Without outing him (and by definition the poster must be male) give us some more clues. I can think of at least one who's name fits, and another who's actions and record in fulfilling the function are absolutely outstanding. I love a good mystery, the key to the solving of which is often the asking of oneself the right questions. The most penetrating and incisive questions. But I need more information.

Don't keep us in suspenders, BOAZ-David! More clues please.

Bugsy and Stg

firstly...I've not had trouble reproducing naturally. I have 3 children of my own and my wife.
YES..I do understand the position of those who have not been able to do likewise.

NO, I don't deny them the opportunity to seek other options of a legal nature, but....... THE POINT I'm making here, is that of 'connection'.

HOW can we deny our children who have a biological father ... (his sperm) the knowledge of that person?

CLEARLY.. children born of sperm donation DO want to have that sense of connection... they do... it's undeniable. So, why not simply give it to them ?

To do so does not detract from all the qualities of father/mother hood and family that the non biological parents will experience.. everyone knows they are a kind of adoptive situation anyway.
But to deny the sense of biological connection to those who long for it.. is well.. no comment.

This raises a question. "Should infertile men allow their wives eggs to be fertilized by the sperm of another man" ?

SECULAR VIEW.. "probably yes"

CHILDS VIEW...."maybe ok as long as I know who my biological father is"

RELIGIOUS VIEW.. On this, I can only speak as a Christian. The closest parallel in the old testament is this, that a man whos brother dies before he has children, was expected to produce a child FOR his brother with the widow. That way, the biological connection would still be within the genes of the immediate family.

So, perhaps, at a stretch, the sperm of the brother (if any) of the infertile father, might be admissable in such a case. The child then would have a closer sense of family connection.

I'm really raising questions here more than providing answers, and this is a 'work in progress' for sure.
So all input is valued.

What about the donor's right to anonymity? This is what many donors want and studies have plainly shown that without the guarantee of anonymity donations will drop. But recipients feel that they will benefit..

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/11/3022

So, there is definitely a legal point of view to protect the rights of previous donors who gave their sperm under the condition of anonymity.

But "stolen generation"? You can get over that, doesn't Christianity constantly go on about humans being much more than mere genes? Where is the logic in this whole thing? If you believe in souls and that humans are the product of their upbringing and spiritual development and not merely meatbags, then you have no leg to stand on regarding the idea that you have to know the identity and have a connection with your biological parent. Isn't your spiritual parent much more important?

The drive for knowing the identity of a parent is really just a curiosity thing, one that anyone can get over. It is not a deeply spiritual scar that will last their lifetimes. Believe me, I do know.

I agree. I am not interested in this from a religious point of view, which you full well know. But I am glad somebody has raised this.

It isn't something that has affected me, but it is a major problem for many others. It is too easy to suggest that they should 'move on'. Some cannot. They may love and value their parents but are driven by the need to know who fathered them.

The other aspect is the multi-donor. This is a crazy situation. It is ludicrous that there can be many siblings out there that are unaware that they are so.

I have to concede that this situation IS the result of a society that will go after what it wants; whatever the cost.

So, in a nutshell Boaz, you would deny these kids the right to exist.

I assume that, to be consistent, you are also pro-abortion?

I do wonder how much of Boazzy's intent is about concern for the well being of kids growing up not knowing who their biological father is and how much a diversion from whack a mossie with a whack a makitupasyougosecularist (although I won't be surprised if whack a mossie shows soon).

The issues that spring to mind on the stated topic
- The situation described by BD is nothing like the horror faced by those forcible removed from families based on racial or social bias.
- The need to know about biological medical history is genuinely important and can make a difference in detection and early treatment of many issues.
- The desire to know about family can be a significant priority for some people. Not being allowed to know may make that even worse.
- I suspect that some people who's fathers were donors might have some concerns if donors were able to locate them without prior consent.
- Donors may have good reason for wanting their privacy protected at the time of donation and later when their circumstances may have changed significantly. I could be very harmfull to existing relationships if previously unknown and unannounced children or siblings were able to track down donors and their families without consent.
- Personally I'm of the view that a medical procedure raises significantly less moral and ethical issues than a roll in the hay with the sister in law. Maybe that was the best option at the time but science has given us some better options.

R0bert