Moral obligation of sperm and egg donors

[RocksteadyDotNet]

In Australia they passed a law that says children are legally entited the identity of the doner. The doner cannot remain anonymous, even if they want to.

LOL.

Donations have literally ceased. hahaha.

 

[Texashiker]

In Australia they passed a law that says children are legally entited the identity of the doner. The doner cannot remain anonymous, even if they want to.

LOL.

Donations have literally ceased.

What does that say about the character of the donors?

 

[ussfletcher]

What makes those parents any better then animals?

Is there a real difference between someone making a donation at a clinic, and a male dog hooking up with a female dog in heat? Both males do their thing, leave, and have no moral obligation to the offspring.

Even in the animal world, some species share the rearing of the offspring. Should the penguin hold more respect then someone who donates at a clinic? Penguins take turns holding the egg on their feet so the mom and dad can take breaks to go eat. That is more then some human parents will ever do for their children.

But in one case there is a party that wants children but cannot have children on their own and they need a donation of sperm to accomplish this goal. The man who donates his sperm has no legal or moral obligation to anything, as he has given an anonymous gift to another party, who chose to use his sperm to fertilize an egg. No man law, no random one night stand argument, just because it is genetically similar to you does not truly make it your 'child'.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

What does that say about the character of the donors?

Err, absolutely nothing.

They want to donate spern to help people out. They dont want some kid they never wanted knockin on they door when they turn 18.

 

[Texashiker]

They want to donate spern to help people out. They dont want some kid they never wanted knockin on they door when they turn 18.

I am sure there are people who donate to "help others out".

Others might donate for money.

I am also sure some donate because they want children with no moral obligation.

Its the people who shun responsibility that bother me.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

I am sure there are people who donate to "help others out".

Others might donate for money.

I am also sure some donate because they want children with no moral obligation.

Its the people who shun responsibility that bother me.

How is it shunning responsibility?

That's like saying if I lend someone my car, and they go DWI and kill someone, I should share the responsiblity?

Are you retarded or something?

 

[senseamp]

As is, no warranty!

 

[pcgeek11]

What makes those parents any better then animals?

1.) Is there a real difference between someone making a donation at a clinic, and a male dog hooking up with a female dog in heat? Both males do their thing, leave, and have no moral obligation to the offspring.

2.) Even in the animal world, some species share the rearing of the offspring. Should the penguin hold more respect then someone who donates at a clinic? Penguins take turns holding the egg on their feet so the mom and dad can take breaks to go eat. That is more then some human parents will ever do for their children.

1.) You really don't see a difference here? Really.

2.) There is a lot of difference between holding an egg on your feet for a while and paying child support for 18 years or giving away half of your liver. Let me know when you see a Penguin giving his offspring half of his liver.

 

[bononos]

I am sure there are people who donate to "help others out".

Others might donate for money.

I am also sure some donate because they want children with no moral obligation.

Its the people who shun responsibility that bother me.

The no-contact issue can be turned around - can the sperm donor dad track down his kids who turned out well and panhandle from them? Ask them for a organ transplant? Its the moral obligation of children to look after their parents, is it not?

 

[bononos]

In Australia they passed a law that says children are legally entited the identity of the doner. The doner cannot remain anonymous, even if they want to.

LOL.

Donations have literally ceased. hahaha.

Which is the right thing to do. Children have the right to their genetic history. They should have the more knowledge of their backgrounds and whether they are susceptible to illnesses etc than the medical practitioners/lawyers/bureacrats who are working in the sperm-egg mixing industry.

 

[Texashiker]

1.) You really don't see a difference here? Really.

Are you retarded or something?

Yes, I can see the difference.

No, I am not retarded.

I am looking for an intelligent debate, that is all.

 

[pcgeek11]

Yes, I can see the difference.

No, I am not retarded.

I am looking for an intelligent debate, that is all.

There is no debate to be had. What you are trying to make two ( or three ) unequal things equal.

 

[Texashiker]

There is no debate to be had.

Sure there is. When you get a day off in the week, go visit a child support office court hearing. Most states have special courts and judges setup for child support, so they might see a hundred cases a day.

What makes the people that dodge the responsibility to their child any different then people that donate at a clinic to avoid having a responsibility?

I see a difference in someone that donates "to help out another family", and someone who wants children but does not want the responsibility.

What you are trying to make two ( or three ) unequal things equal.

Maybe the word I am looking for is cuckoo - as in the cuckoo bird.

The cuckoo bird lays its eggs in other birds nest. The unsuspecting bird takes care of a chick that is not its own. Instead of the cuckoo bird laying its eggs in the nest of another bird, why not build its own nest, and raise its own chicks? But raising its own chicks would take effort.

The no-contact issue can be turned around - can the sperm donor dad track down his kids who turned out well and panhandle from them? Ask them for a organ transplant? Its the moral obligation of children to look after their parents, is it not?

That can be a complicated question.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

If someone forcefully removed your sperm against your will and inseminated themselves with it, would you feel responsible?

What if someone stole your germ cells (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8988011/Scientists-grow-sperm-in-laboratory-dish.html), and had a factory pumping out TexasHiker sperm and gave it away on the street. Would you feel compelling to send all those kids to college on your dime?

Also, I am confused, should humans NOT be like animals (post 16), or SHOULD we be like penguins (post 50)? Your weak argument from morality has grown tiresome.

The mere suggestion that someone would donate sperm to be a parent without the responsibilities is downright laughable. Really, it just completely undermines what little credibility you had. You can't have an intelligent debate without the intelligent part.

And for the last time, DNA does not make a family.

 

[Texashiker]

If someone forcefully removed your sperm against your will and inseminated themselves with it, would you feel responsible?

What if someone stole your germ cells (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8988011/Scientists-grow-sperm-in-laboratory-dish.html), and had a factory pumping out TexasHiker sperm and gave it away on the street. Would you feel compelling to send all those kids to college on your dime?

I do not understand where the topic of forcing someone to be a parent entered into the discussion? Are you referring to the article about the blow job?

If someone willingly donates, should that person be responsible?

If someone does not willing donate, should the person be responsible?

There was a case awhile back where the man argued if a woman can have an abortion to avoid having a child, why cant the man have the same rights? Instead of forcing the woman to have an abortion, why can't the men opt out of having to support the child?

The judge did not agree with the mans argument and he was ordered to pay support to the mother and child.

It seems there is a double standard, donate directly to a woman, and the man is responsible. Donate to a clinic, and the man is not responsible.

Your weak argument from morality has grown tiresome.

Nobody is forcing you to read, much less reply to this thread. If you find it "tiresome", please excuse yourself from the discussion.

 

[mattpegher]

The system of donor organs, this includes sperm and eggs, must abide by a good samaritan clause, or else the system does not work. If I donate blood, or sperm, it is the responsibility of the facility collecting it to deem it safe. I could possibly be held liable for endanging another if I knowingly falsified records about known diseases.

As for the obligation to be financially or emotionally responsible for the children produced, that distroys the system. If as you suggest they should be obligated to care for these children, then no one would donate.

If you wish to include financial responsibility, you would need to do so with an insurance policy, this would make the product even more expensive. Who would this hurt - the potential patients that wish to concieve.

 

[KMFJD]

It seems there is a double standard, donate directly to a woman, and the man is responsible. Donate to a clinic, and the man is not responsible.

Since the donor never meets the woman or has any contact with her, why would he be held responsible for another person's decision? When you donate directly to the woman as you said then both parties should accept the risk, but when you donate anonymously and never meet the recipient, how could you be held liable?

 

[zinfamous]

Sperm banks provide a valuable service for those that could not otherwise have children. Adding any kind of legal or even moral obligation to the donor is a sure way to kill sperm banks.

seriously.

are people here actually trying to argue that there should be some sort of moral/legal obligation to sperm or egg donors? (outside of disease, of course)

wtfman.

 

[sandorski]

The only Obligation would be to inform the Sperm Bank of any discovered Hereditary Diseases. Beyond that is too much.

 

[0roo0roo]

What does that say about the character of the donors?

Nothing at all as said already.

People just don't want interference from "family" which might pop out at any time and cause trouble. If you want the option to be found thats fine, but the uk and australia and such have created perverse laws where only morons will donate sperm.