They really should do away with sperm donation. Sorry if you can't conceive naturally but we really should be looking at curbing population growth now.
Indeed. I think the last thing we need is more offspring, globally speaking.
I think the move to end anonymity was quite absurd really. A number of organisations warned that this current scenario would happen and it's done exactly that.
It's a shame really, as it could potentially help a lot of childless couples. I'd certainly have no qualms in doing it if it was anonymous.
I think the move to end anonymity was quite absurd really. A number of organisations warned that this current scenario would happen and it's done exactly that.
It's a shame really, as it could potentially help a lot of childless couples. I'd certainly have no qualms in doing it if it was anonymous.
Sorry for the sensible answer.
with the interest in genealogy these days it seems like a lot of people want to know about their roots. Why should these children be denied that?
Not that simple as far as i'm aware. I think both scenarios aren't simple to do, obviously, but i think the number of hoops you have to jump through to be approved for adoption is significantly more than that of using donor sperm.
with the interest in genealogy these days it seems like a lot of people want to know about their roots. Why should these children be denied that?
To be honest, I don't have an answer for that. I can certainly understand the notion behind wanting to know your biological parents if you were given up for adoption because you'd likely want to know why they gave you up, but if found out you were conceived with donated sperm, would you want to go through all that trouble to meet your biological father only to find out he didn't want anything to do with you ?
Not that simple as far as i'm aware. I think both scenarios aren't simple to do, obviously, but i think the number of hoops you have to jump through to be approved for adoption is significantly more than that of using donor sperm.
There are enough kids out there needing homes without would-be parents needing to go through donors at all. It's a practice that needs to be abolished, IMO, and has less to with how 'simple' it is and more to do with how irresponsible it is.
The new lack of anonymity rule stifled numbers: no-one wants to donate knowing a random kid could come looking for them a decade or two later.
And..
Men must attend the clinic twice a week for three or four months and have a wide range of tests, she said.
And it's in Birmingham. So a bit suprised they've only had 9 volunteers as I'd always thought Birmingham was full of w.. volunteers.
(Sorry Brummies)
But it's not just a random kid-
"Nine donors at this stage can help 90 families, which is 90 families who otherwise would have had to go abroad," she said.
So potentially 10+ per donor bearing in mind AI can lead to multi-sprog dropping. So kinda 90 families with not much in the way of genetic diversity.. Reminds me a bit of Norfolk as well..
... So potentially 10+ per donor bearing in mind AI can lead to multi-sprog dropping. ...
I was wondering what the tests were - I hope one of them is for intelligence or Idiocracy will be just around the corner!
Though the bit about diversity had also struck me - presumably the recipients don't know about other recipients and therefore they and their kids won't ever have any way of knowing about any potential 'common parent' pairings. I've no idea how that could work without people having the right to find out who their donor father (or mother) was and that actually they are from donor 'x' and the OH is from donor 'y' and so they can relax a bit...
OK so the chances are pretty slim but not impossible, and even ensuring geographical dispersion isn't a guarantee.
*thought to have led to a droop in volunteers*...I would have said definitely been the reason.
The sheer ludicrous irony is that the law was brought in 'for the human rights of those conceived via IVF to be able to have the right to find who their 'real' father was.
When this came into law I thought - they've been given a life...isn't that enough for them? And ironically, the law has meant many people not having the chance of existing due to the lack of donors...what about their 'human rights'? Yes, I know someone who has never existed can't have human rights but I'm sure you get the jist of what I am saying.
Introduce anonymity and numbers will increase again.
The desire children have to know their parentage is so common it's a norm.
"Ms Witjens said financial reward was not a good way to boost recruitment. "We might get more donors if we paid £50 or £100 per donation, but money corrupts. If you feel you can make £200 a week for four months, you might hide things about your health.""
Makes one wonder what all the tests are for:
"Men must attend the clinic twice a week for three or four months and have a wide range of tests....Potential donors must be screened for any genetic abnormalities that could be passed onto offspring and must also be checked for any infectious diseases, such as HIV"
Because the people donating would rather not be identified.
As a result, a lot of these children won't even be born in the first place because it's put so many people off.
I think I would be the complete opposite. It's not something which I have ever given much thought to but I wouldn't ever do it as the idea of being a biological parent to a child and not having involvement with them seems alien and completely off putting to me.
There are any number of reasons where at the very least, it would be useful for either party to know who each other are.
They really should do away with sperm donation. Sorry if you can't conceive naturally but we really should be looking at curbing population growth now.
If you're that desperate for a kid, adopt.
The best way to curb population growth is the education of women from cultures where having large families is still common, as David Attenborough has said..
I'm afraid the British Muslims, British Somalis and British Chavs having 3 or more children is a bigger problem than a couple having 1 or 2 children via IVF..
In parts of Japan, they've got the opposite problem - not enough babies being born thanks to working women and - oddly - young Japanese men having more interest in their computers and virtual worlds than real women.
"Ms Witjens said financial reward was not a good way to boost recruitment. "We might get more donors if we paid £50 or £100 per donation, but money corrupts. If you feel you can make £200 a week for four months, you might hide things about your health.""
Makes one wonder what all the tests are for:
"Men must attend the clinic twice a week for three or four months and have a wide range of tests....Potential donors must be screened for any genetic abnormalities that could be passed onto offspring and must also be checked for any infectious diseases, such as HIV"
Does seem weird considering the level of testing - it's not like you can hide having HIV i suppose. I'd certainly do it for that kind of money though.
Comments
Indeed. I think the last thing we need is more offspring, globally speaking.
It's a shame really, as it could potentially help a lot of childless couples. I'd certainly have no qualms in doing it if it was anonymous.
Sorry for the sensible answer.
with the interest in genealogy these days it seems like a lot of people want to know about their roots. Why should these children be denied that?
Because the people donating would rather not be identified.
As a result, a lot of these children won't even be born in the first place because it's put so many people off.
Not that simple as far as i'm aware. I think both scenarios aren't simple to do, obviously, but i think the number of hoops you have to jump through to be approved for adoption is significantly more than that of using donor sperm.
To be honest, I don't have an answer for that. I can certainly understand the notion behind wanting to know your biological parents if you were given up for adoption because you'd likely want to know why they gave you up, but if found out you were conceived with donated sperm, would you want to go through all that trouble to meet your biological father only to find out he didn't want anything to do with you ?
And..
Men must attend the clinic twice a week for three or four months and have a wide range of tests, she said.
And it's in Birmingham. So a bit suprised they've only had 9 volunteers as I'd always thought Birmingham was full of w.. volunteers.
(Sorry Brummies)
But it's not just a random kid-
"Nine donors at this stage can help 90 families, which is 90 families who otherwise would have had to go abroad," she said.
So potentially 10+ per donor bearing in mind AI can lead to multi-sprog dropping. So kinda 90 families with not much in the way of genetic diversity.. Reminds me a bit of Norfolk as well..
(Sorry Nor.. folk?)
Though the bit about diversity had also struck me - presumably the recipients don't know about other recipients and therefore they and their kids won't ever have any way of knowing about any potential 'common parent' pairings. I've no idea how that could work without people having the right to find out who their donor father (or mother) was and that actually they are from donor 'x' and the OH is from donor 'y' and so they can relax a bit...
OK so the chances are pretty slim but not impossible, and even ensuring geographical dispersion isn't a guarantee.
Although why they had to call the police when I asked about evening classes in it at my local college, I don't know?
Can they hold their breath that long?
It's not a random kid - it's theirs.
The desire children have to know their parentage is so common it's a norm.
"Ms Witjens said financial reward was not a good way to boost recruitment. "We might get more donors if we paid £50 or £100 per donation, but money corrupts. If you feel you can make £200 a week for four months, you might hide things about your health.""
Makes one wonder what all the tests are for:
"Men must attend the clinic twice a week for three or four months and have a wide range of tests....Potential donors must be screened for any genetic abnormalities that could be passed onto offspring and must also be checked for any infectious diseases, such as HIV"
I think I would be the complete opposite. It's not something which I have ever given much thought to but I wouldn't ever do it as the idea of being a biological parent to a child and not having involvement with them seems alien and completely off putting to me.
There are any number of reasons where at the very least, it would be useful for either party to know who each other are.
The best way to curb population growth is the education of women from cultures where having large families is still common, as David Attenborough has said..
I'm afraid the British Muslims, British Somalis and British Chavs having 3 or more children is a bigger problem than a couple having 1 or 2 children via IVF..
In parts of Japan, they've got the opposite problem - not enough babies being born thanks to working women and - oddly - young Japanese men having more interest in their computers and virtual worlds than real women.
Does seem weird considering the level of testing - it's not like you can hide having HIV i suppose. I'd certainly do it for that kind of money though.
I'd pay you not to.
(I jest)
Cheeky bugger
I'm only jokin' ;-)
I have some but it's not mine