Skip to comments.Childless couples denied as anonymity loss scares egg and sperm donors
Posted on 06/26/2008 7:04:12 AM PDT by Bushwacker777
"The removal of anonymity from sperm and egg donors has provoked a crisis in fertility treatment that is denying couples the chance to try for a baby.
Infertility therapy with donated sperm has collapsed to the lowest levels since records began, according to the first official figures, seen by The Times, since the Government banned anonymous donation in 2005.
The number of women treated with donated sperm fell by about 20 per cent, from 2,727 in 2005 to 2,107 in 2006, the first full year after the change. The number of donor insemination treatment cycles fell by 30 per cent over the same period.
Egg donation is also in serious decline: the number of treatments using shared eggs, offered by women in return for a discount on IVF, fell by 40 per cent between 2004 and 2006. "
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
What man is going to donate sperm if it might lead to a paternity suit and child support years down the line?
Good, when you can’t have kids naturally, God is telling you something.
I think it is good. Men need to stop and think...hey I’m making a baby.
If everything else in Nature is sacrosanct, why are we meddling in Nature’s plan that says “your genes cannot go forward into the pool?”
Not quite inclusive enough, it should read:
Good, when you cant have INSULIN naturally, God is telling you something.
“What man is going to donate sperm if it might lead to a paternity suit and child support years down the line?”
Laws in Europe and in the USA shield donors from any parental obligations whether the donation is annonomous or not. The only cases where suits have hit donors is when a woman has a friend donate to her and no legal contract exists to make sure he is not obligated as a parent.
No, you really aren’t cheating nature. If a man is sterile, and his wife isn’t, then it’s your genes and her’s going into the gene pool — his will go extinct. In that respect it could be rather eugenic.
“The removal of anonymity from sperm and egg donors has provoked a crisis in fertility treatment that is denying couples the chance to try for a baby.”
::sniffsniff:: B...b...but that is soooo unfayerrrrr!!
AWwWWwww...How can they have a BAAAAA...by?
Lord, I am so sick of whining.....
Making babies with “donated” sperm or eggs is against nature. People who can’t have a child the normal way, should not have one, except through adoption.
“Good, when you cant have kids naturally, God is telling you something.”
So what is God telling you when your thyroid goes haywire, your heart beats irregularly, your kidneys falter? I guess we should just let people like that die or suffer?
How are the Dems going to have babies if the have to depend on the balls of Conservatives?
“People who cant have a child the normal way, should not have one...”
People whose kidneys can’t clean out impurities the “normal” way, shouldn’t have dialysis. People whose hearts don’t beat the normal way, shouldn’t have pacemakers put in.
I could go on and on.
They destroyed adoption, now this.
So, you thought all those pills, antibiotics and vaccines grew on trees and herbs? I wonder if you practise what you preach...
I'm not sure that an offspring necessarily needs to meet the donor, but in this age of genetic screening, and when we are finding out more and more diseases have a genetic propensity, I think it might be a good thing for people to have access to at least their genetic history.
Two Answers. (one troll, one not troll I’ll let you figure it out).
1) Insulin doesn’t require the slaughtering of innocent human babies. IVF is one step above stem-cell research.
2) God is perfect, everything God does is perfect, God created every human being, for us to admit some human beings aren’t perfect means that God screwed up. I’m not going to tell God He screwed up - are you?
People whose bodies don’t produce insulin should not get insulin? People whose bodies cannot fight off infection should not get antibiotics? People whose bone marrow cannot produce cells should not get marrow transpants?
This poster must have a perfect body and only be willing to live on a planet with others the same.
It doesn’t help any either that the courts have ruled that the sperm donor can be sued for child support.
As a parent of two type 1’s I’m loving your sarcasm.
Sure, and usually what He's saying is seek medical intervention or adopt.
Taking your first statement at face value, if you take antibiotics you may, in fact, be saying just that.
I am wondering if loss of anonymity is not just part of the issue- the other concern being the use of your genetic material by any freak who wants to create a baby?
Conservatives like to RAISE their offspring.
I think what God is saying is adopt or find something else to do with your life. Or maybe he is saying “You should have listened to medical advice and not waited so long”.
The whole sperm bank/IVF thing is rather creepy in a society obsessed with free sex and no responsibilities.
“It doesnt help any either that the courts have ruled that the sperm donor can be sued for child support.”
Not if it is done through a clinic! Laws in the USA and Europe protect the donor — also protect the child since, if the kid becomes a rich singer at 16 a donor can’t come along and claim anything from him or her.
Only at home “turkey baster babies” situations have resulted in lawsuits against sperm donors. Doesn’t happen if through a clinic — just repeating that.
“Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner of the silly thread of the day”
Please stay FAR away from any donation centers.
But seriously, technology is going to make this a big issue in the future. Also, it’s far from being “silly” if you are an infertile couple that requires an egg or sperm to form a real family.
It might also be noted that some parents are afraid of passing a genetic defect they have onto their offspring. In such cases (rather than remain childless) donors of egg and sperm are screened to make sure they aren’t carrying any major genetic problems.
Ironically, this might mean that lesbian mothers may be having some of the healthiest and smartest kids nowadays. Wow, talk about irony.
Then I wonder what sort of legal arrangement Mellissa Etheridge and Julie Cypher made with David Crosby when they borrowed his spooge for their (presumably musically-talented) child.
Oh, God gave them children naturally, if you know what I mean...
No I don’t know what you mean.
Mary had never been with a man. Sarah was 90 and no longer making eggs.
Have you considered that you may have stepped over the line today?
When did FR become the sanctuary for the politically correct?
“When did FR become the sanctuary for the politically correct?”
So nobody can call you on something blatently silly?
Let’s expand your thoughts.
No adoption, that would be borrowing somebodies sperm, egg and womb. Obviously much worse than a sperm bank.
No treatment for disease, admitting imperfection would somehow reflect on God? All heretics caught with a prescription will be burned.
There is a difference between “Political Correctness” and common courtesy.
If your sister married a man who had cancer as a child would you tell her God thought she should never have children. Would you say that they must be bad people because God was punishing them? Would you tell them that because he had cancer, he wasn’t good enough to bring up a child?
Cancer doesn’t make one sterile.
And adoption is OK because Joseph was a step-dad.
LOL - so if your appendix is about to burst you think God is telling you something?
Cancer makes you effectively sterile if not treated, read dead. Cancer treatment can most certainly make you sterile either directly such as with orchiectomy after testicular cancer or indirectly from radiation or chemo, especially the blood cancers, lymphoma and leukemia.
You can be a step-dad without adopting.
I’ve looked up some of your previous posts. You are smarter than the average poster. I would love debating you but admit it, you were trying to be funny, then in a rather lame fashion tried to justify it.
You can’t legally be a step dad without adopting the thing.
and here’s a hint — (one troll, one not troll Ill let you figure it out).
so if your appendix is about to burst you think God is telling you something?
He sure is:”Thou shouldst get thine a$$ to a hospital!”
[At least that would be the message I would come away with....]
You are a step dad unless you adopt the thing, then you are the adoptive father. You seem to be off your game today.
I thint the hint should read, (two trolls, one not), your first post would fall under the troll banner IMO.
“The whole sperm bank/IVF thing is rather creepy in a society obsessed with free sex and no responsibilities.”
I don’t see what IVF has to do with free sex or no responsibilities. Having a child is a huge responsibility.
Um, the genes from the person you describe DON’T go to the child so produced. That’s the whole point. They get to borrow someone else’s genes and raise the kid.
Wait, wait......It’s...for the Chilrun! Finally an appropriate time to use that liberal slogan.