Sperm donor bureaucracy introduced in the U.K. – Men walk and women get hurt

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081112160915.htm

ScienceDaily (Nov. 11, 2008) — A radical overhaul of sperm donation services is needed to address the critical shortage of sperm donors in the UK, say two fertility experts in an editorial on bmj.com today.

...

They believe that the removal of donor anonymity in 2005 may have contributed to the current shortage of donors.

...

The authors say increasing the number of families that can be created from a single donor should be considered. To prevent siblings born from donation later inadvertently having children together, UK law limits the number of families that can be created from any one donor to 10. But Hamilton and Pacey argue that this figure is arbitrary and not evidence based, and a more flexible approach is needed.

They point out that the size of the UK population is enough for a large safety margin to already exist. Interestingly, in the Netherlands, which has a smaller population than the UK, the upper limit is 25 offspring per donor, while in France it is five.

Basically remove anonymousness and reduce how many times donations can be made and you get a shortage. Wow, bureaucracy and government interference certainly helped women there didn’t it? I’m sure that Feminists will be lining up to blame men for this. How dare they be selfish enough to not put down their personal details so that they can get whacked for 10 sets of child support down the line when the next set of anti-male legislation gets passed?

Posted under: Gender Issues, Politics, Father's Rights
Posted on: Sunday, November 16, 2008 3:11 AM
« W00t - 500 subscribers! | Home | Guardians of the unborn »
Share this post: email it, bookmark It, digg It, kick It

Comments

  1. Posted by: ml66uk on 11/16/2008 2:52 PM
    Gravatar
    Ending donor anonymity was hardly "anti-male legislation". It also applies to egg donors, and the beneficiaries are the children, who are obviously of both sexes.

    According to HFEA figures, the numbers of sperm donors have gone *up* in the two years since the ending of anonymity, thus reversing a three year decline. The 307 donors in 2006 was 48 more than in 2005, and the highest figure since 2001.

    http://www.hfea.gov.uk/en/1459.html

    I don't have a huge problem with sperm donors being paid, or the numbers of children per donor being increased, but we should never go back to the days of anonymous donors. The donor-conceived are the ones who matter in this, not the parents, not the clinics, and not the donors.

    If a sperm donor wants to be anonymous, then he simply shouldn't be a sperm donor. I was a sperm donor over 20 years ago, and if I have any genetic children looking for me, I've made it as easy as possible for them to find me. I am not liable for child support.
  2. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 11/17/2008 8:46 PM
    Gravatar
    Right, until the government decides that you're a daddy and makes you pay child support. Never underestimate how fascistic they can be against men and always protectd yourself.
  3. Posted by: Casshan on 12/14/2008 8:47 AM
    Gravatar
    You know this happened a little bit ago here in the states. Lesbian couple want children, they find man who is willing to donate sperm, man signs contract that says he will not be liable for the children or pay child support with the option of him having the ability to be a role model. Few years pass and the lesbian couple split, the lesbo that got the kids then turns around and sues the man for child support. She wins. Everyone says he was a father to the kids instead of a role model......

    First, wtf. This is evidence of the first step towards forcing sperm donors to pay child support and its insane that they managed to claim he was playing father instead of role model...You could say step dad was just a role model too ,but alas I fear it will turn into "Your the child's biological father so you pay" and to be honest it isn't far fetched at all and expected.
  4. Posted by: LW on 3/20/2009 6:28 AM
    Gravatar
    I think you're going a bit too far to blame feminism for THIS? First of all, they should make a law that sperm and egg donors don't have to pay child support. But this works both ways. And child support isn't a male thing, the parent that earns more money pays child support. If they guy's broke the the woman's a CEO, there's no court that's gonna tell the guy to pay child support.

    Child support isn't anti male, the family court is probably biased, but you can't relate everything that has involved, or might involve child support to male discrimination. Again, you're going a bit too far.
  5. Posted by: Violet on 8/13/2009 11:29 PM
    Gravatar
    Kids not knowing who their father is is bad for children. This has not much to do with feminism, both male and female kids are hurt by not knowing who their father is. I understand why there is a limit on how many kids a father can make, but who not swap sperm with other countries? That way the limit could be much bigger.

    I do think a sperm donor should be protected by the law against beeing sued for child support, once againt noone gets better out of this. In the end sperm donors get carefull.

    If I were to have a kid with a woman I'd prefer a gay man over a sperm donor anyway. I've seen a great example of this.

Post your comment




(this will save your form settings for the next time you comment)
Please add 2 and 3 and type the answer here:

The umbrella in particular is remembered as the symbol of the nineteenth century’s disturbing obsession with individualism. In Bellamy’s utopia, umbrellas have been replaced with retractable canopies so that everyone is protected from the rain equally.
“In the nineteenth century,” explains a character, “when it rained, the people of Boston put up three hundred thousand umbrellas over as many heads, and in the twentieth century they put up one umbrella over all the heads.”