Woman uses DNA test, finds sperm donor – and pays a "devastating" price

www.cbsnews.com ^ | January 31, 2019, 7:37 AM

[Mrs. Don-o]

"But deliberately conceiving children without a father is an abuse of medical science and of the children themselves, and she should be prepared to accept the consequences."

Thank you. It bears repeating.

[Alas Babylon!]

Maybe they already destroyed that sperm.

So in this case, Doctor FrankenSTEEN should send EYE-gor to get some more, and he would come back with Abby Normal’s sample.

[Mrs. Don-o]

" bring a child purposely into this world without a Father is evil in my mind."

It is evil. Not just evil in your mind, but objectively evil. Deprives the child of a hugely important natural right.

Children may be fatherless by chance. (Father dies.)

Babies should NEVER be fatherless by choice.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Not quite about "nothing."

More like, "If you're in the market for a cold cash transaction, don't be surprised when it's treated like a cold cash transaction."

[Mrs. Don-o]

Artificial reproductive technologies ought to be banned. Sale of eggs and sperm ought to be banned.

Man + Woman, PIV intercourse, with the Man and Woman being married and staying married, supplies something the child has a natural right to: a full-fledged double-constellation of natural kinship ties, a secure natural identity, and a secure mom-day environment to grow up in. That corresponds to what the child needs.

No other system does.

Sometimes, God knows, this pattern breaks down in a no-fault way. Dad dies, mom dies, both die, whatever. Then others have to step in to supply what they can, as well as they can. As in adoption.

But it's wrong to intentionally bring a child into being, into a preplanned broken situation. As in these morally defective gametes-for-sale schemes.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I would say the goal is equal responsibility, not equal irresponsibility.

Don't "harvest" eggs and sperm for commercial transactions. Men, women: don't sell gametes for reproduction.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"My issue with donation, either eggs or sperm, is it is the commodification of the children that result."

Exactly.

Well, almost exactly. I'd change one thing.

It's not "donation," it's "vending." These are not eg/sperm donors. They are egg/sperm vendors.

[goodnesswins]

Thank you...I think that’s why my tears were so spontaneous at the time...this was @32 years ago...

[Mrs. Don-o]

What you did was, in some ways, analogous to adoption. It was a rescue. Few would object. (As you know, I'm an adoptive mother myself.)

But what the people who created and then froze that embryo did, was child abandonment.

You got involved to save the child. You treated the child as a child. Lord love your good heart!.

But the genetic parents treated the child as a frozen kidsicle. Their choice was not noble. It was morally objectioable, because they intentionally exposed the child to risk, disposal, extinction.

[gracie1]

You “get it”. Most nonadopted, nondonor conceived don’t “get it”. Most fall for the “love is all you need”, “DNA doesn’t matter” bs.

[Yaelle]

I agree that third party reproduction comes with great moral responsibility. So do a lot of things where children are involved. But the family from whom we got her embryos I cannot say one negative thing about. They treated their left over embryos with the greatest possible respect as the potential human begins they are. (They are only potential because as we know many fertilized embryos are aneuploid and not going to become babies or even fetuses.) They made sure each one got a chance at life.

Thanks for your lovely compliments. It is a wonderful way to add to or start a family for infertile couples. It is adoption, in a way, but you also get to carry and nurse the baby, which for infertile woman is life changing and satisfying.

[Mrs. Don-o]

With all due respect, the genetic parents' objective action does not merit due respect. The genetic parents didn't treat their kids with "the greatest possible respect" when they froze them.

The legal and practical reality of that hits you when you read that there are over 1,000,000 frozen embryos in this country, and in most states they have no more legal worth than a prized pet.

Once human life is created in a laboratory, in bulk, ownership ---and disposal ---is suddenly an issue. So who owns human embryos once they are created? The people who commissioned their existence. But what happens when those people disagree on how to dispose of their “property”?

I remember the landmark Marysville TN frozen human embryo case: two divorced genetic parents, Davis Vs Davis, wrangling over who gets the ownership of their offspring-on-ice. When they are wanted, they are more priceless and precious than anything in the world; when they are unwanted, they are like half a can of paint in the back of the garage: a disposal problem.

That's what happens when these tiny embryonic humans are generated anywhere but in their mother's womb.

It's not a matter of feelings. t's a matter of fact.

[mdmathis6]

Any inheritance questions?....that would be my first thought when faced with such insistence that I be DNA tested. You can begin to ascertain motive if your husband says to his sister...”You know...it might be interesting to find out my DNA markers but I’m not telling you what those results are!” It might get her to shut up about the whole thing.

Better yet, he pretends to have done it and tells her that he seems to be related to a Kenyan and a Caucasian female of Irish descent.....;)!

Cheers!

[riri]

That is what I was thinking. This sounds like a person who likes drama and attention.

Poor kid.

[HollyB]

Twice now she has over stepped the privacy and legal boundaries.
Then she acts like a victim and contacts the media to try and guilt trip the donor. Because that is what she is doing. Rationalizing and guilt tripping.

Using her daughters photo shows just how little common sense she has. She had no business having any other children with this behavior.

I’m sure she’s been banned from every donor bank around.

[HollyB]

It sounds like the sperm bank will return the $, but not the sperm.

[HollyB]

It was a business transaction which the mother freely and desired to partake in. No one raped her.

[HollyB]

Don’t argue with him. Some people feel big and tough saying ‘they should be shot’ to back up their opinion. This is his opinion. But, he doesn’t make the rules or the laws, so he’s wrong. Period.

[HollyB]

Well said. She probably hoping to be one big happy family - smh.

[mom of young patriots]

What really would have been ‘shocking’ would have been if the anonymous donor was HER immediate relative!................

---

Not to mention that little Zoe might meet the man of her dreams one day who turns out to be a half brother. I’ll bet the mom never thought about that either.