Re: Sperm donor anonymity overturned by B.C. courtMay 20th, 2011
I think every human has every right to know his/her ancestry. I did lots of genealogy in the past, and
spent months and months digging and researching my past relatives.
That is my right, to know my history, and no one has the right to deny me that information.
And, if my natural parent did not want me to know anything, too bad, I will go over his/her head and
do my own research, as it is interesting and informative and opens doors to 'who' I really am, where I
came from, and introduces me to many others who are/were connected to me.
My parents are individuals, just like me, and we all have the right to our history, and who and where
we came from.
I just received an e mail from my second cousin in england, after about 5 years of research, and she, doing
the same, (we did not know anything of each others existence), she found my inquiry, and answered me,
we exchange e mails now, our grandmothers were sisters, she knew my grandmother for many years before
she died, and I have been filled in with information I did not think I would ever have.
When donors are giving their sperm, they should be open and honest and forthright, and allow all information
concerning them as individuals along with their parents, grandparents etc., and if they don't want to do
that, 'zip' it up. They should not be donating for money, but for the betterment of someone elses life, and
if that brings them some reimbursement, so be it.
Second, they are called 'anonymous donors' because the intent is to prevent the donor from claiming biological rights over the parents and any other conflicts that may arise. Just like a lot of adoptions prevent the biological mother from contacting the child and trying to claim them from the adoptive parents.
Third, donors are not payed for the sperm in Canada, they are doing it to help couples who cannot conceive and therefore bettering someones life and allowing another life to be created. As has been mentioned earlier one donation could create dozens or even hundreds of children who could all then show up on the donors doorstep having a serious effect on his life. Why punish them this way 19 years later for doing a good deed.
Lastly, this judge is of her rocker in her ruling which clearly contradicts itself and has no foundation in the sources she claims to use as the basis. She states it is for the best interests of the child but the ruling only applies after they are an adult, contradictory if not pardoxicly insane. She classifies the current law protecting anonymity as unconstitutional yet the right to privacy is protected in the constitution whereas the right to know your biological parents is not.