Sperm donor anonymity overturned by B.C. court

[Machjo]

So, a right to know would trump right to privacy?

Hard to say, but I think I lean more in the direction of right to know. After all, we are talking about your own biological parent.

 

[JLM]

Sorry, I disagree. The person donating the sperm should have the right to privacy, since when he donated the sperm the contract stated that it would be anonymous. He is not a father figure at all. He donated his sperm, he did not choose to have anything else to do with any child begot by that donation.

And saying that just because the donor chooses to be anonymous he isn't open-minded or honest? That isn't a very open-minded comment either.

The donor is NOT a father, so why would he want to make a close new friend with the person(people) that were conceived by his sperm? Calling him a father could open him to child support claims among other things. It's ridiculous. The donor suddenly doesn't have any say in the matter?

So the donor shouldn't matter at all? Privacy is privacy. If I was born from donated sperm I would just count my lucky stars that someone donated, otherwise I wouldn't even be around to bitch and moan about how I don't know who the donor was and how it is so unfair.



So, a right to know would trump right to privacy?

I can't see where there is any argument, it's the offspring who has to live with who he is, not the donor.

 

[Kreskin]

Lots of people are treated differently everyday over a myriad of issues. I do not see where this breaches the right to liberty or security. She is just as free as anyone else to do as she pleases with her life and just a secure as anyone else. The judge clearly made an erroneous conjunction between someone wanting to know something and their safety and freedom. The litmus test for any application of the charter is will it deny others of their rights and this clearly does. She did not make this ruling on any precedent or legal foundation that I can see and I question her sobriety and ability to hold a seat on the bench. There will be 2 possible results of this ruling, either the SCC will strike it down as they should if it is challenged or sperm donation will become non-existent and many couples will not get to have the children they want.


Does the poor boo-boo need a hanky? We all have crosses to bear, get over it.


The situations are not the same. In adoption we are talking about a single child who is being given up for whatever personal reason. In donation we could be talking about many children who are here because somebody wanted to help those who could not otherwise have children. One act is selfish and the other selfless. That is a huge difference. You are quite mistaken in assuming we have a legal right to know anything about our past.

The circumstances or intentions of the parents aren't at issue.

 

[shadowshiv]

I can't see where there is any argument, it's the offspring who has to live with who he is, not the donor.

The offspring would not even exist had it not been for the donor, so the donor should definitely have some say in the matter. Any medical issues should be known, but the identity of the donor should remain anonymous. If the donor wishes for his identity to be known in the future, that's one thing. To have it forced out is not right.

 

[Kreskin]

I think where they're going in the future is clear; no anonymous donation. Not sure about the status of previous anonymous donations.

At least in BC. But I hear other Provinces who do allow it are under the same pressure to stop anonymous donation.

 

[JLM]

The offspring would not even exist had it not been for the donor, so the donor should definitely have some say in the matter. Any medical issues should be known, but the identity of the donor should remain anonymous. If the donor wishes for his identity to be known in the future, that's one thing. To have it forced out is not right.

I have no problem with his name being anonymous, but his ethnicity, his occupation................the more facts that are known might just be helpful in making decisions down the road. It's just plain and simple, people like to know why they are the way they are.

 

[gerryh]

my question would be where is this possibly heading to. Would it be possible for the child to sue the donor for support down the road? Can't afford to pay for University....go after the donor.

 

[Kreskin]

If the info isn't disclosed until the child is an adult then there would be no child support for an adult.

 

[JLM]

my question would be where is this possibly heading to. Would it be possible for the child to sue the donor for support down the road? Can't afford to pay for University....go after the donor.

Not a problem, Gerry, the kid signs a waiver before he/she gets any information.

 

[talloola]

Sorry, I disagree. The person donating the sperm should have the right to privacy, since when he donated the sperm the contract stated that it would be anonymous. He is not a father figure at all. He donated his sperm, he did not choose to have anything else to do with any child begot by that donation.

And saying that just because the donor chooses to be anonymous he isn't open-minded or honest? That isn't a very open-minded comment either.

The donor is NOT a father, so why would he want to make a close new friend with the person(people) that were conceived by his sperm? Calling him a father could open him to child support claims among other things. It's ridiculous. The donor suddenly doesn't have any say in the matter?

So the donor shouldn't matter at all? Privacy is privacy. If I was born from donated sperm I would just count my lucky stars that someone donated, otherwise
QUOTE

I wouldn't even be around to bitch and moan about how I don't know who the donor was and how it is so unfair.

he's not just donating sperm, its half of a human being, and no, there doesn't have to be laws open
to the biological father paying anything, and the contract must be changed so their it is NOT
anomynous, simple.


the law only has to be open for the donor offspring to know who he is and his background and his
relatives and ancestry, and nothing else.

If the law is overturned then all is as it was.

 

[gerryh]

If the info isn't disclosed until the child is an adult then there would be no child support for an adult.

wrong

 

[talloola]

Not a problem, Gerry, the kid signs a waiver before he/she gets any information.

exactly, information on oneself, the only thing offered, and yes, a waiver would do it.

 

[gerryh]

Not a problem, Gerry, the kid signs a waiver before he/she gets any information.

and you don't think that won't be challenged?

 

[Said1]

I think the entire concept of being so desperate to have a child that you would buy sperm, and the fact that there is sperm to buy just crazy. Just sayin.....

 

[gerryh]

he's not just donating sperm, its half of a human being,

This is rich, coming from someone that supports abortion and would use abortion over adoption. The killing of a WHOLE human being.

 

[talloola]

The offspring would not even exist had it not been for the donor, so the donor should definitely have some say in the matter. Any medical issues should be known, but the identity of the donor should remain anonymous. If the donor wishes for his identity to be known in the future, that's one thing. To have it forced out is not right.

of course the offspring would not exist, and this thread would not exist either if no one donated,
but they do, and they can't have so much control they are handcuffing their future offspring, not
fair, you can't do that to anyone, very arrogant, get rid of the donors who 'don't' want to be
identified, what is the point of that, something to hide?

there is nothing to be ashamed of, donor doesn't have to hide the fact that he donated, and if he
does, then don't donate.
don't force anything from the donor, if he doesn't want to donate, then don't take
his donation.
For those who need the information on biological parents who have allready donated,
so be it, can't cancel those situations, just change the rules for the future,
donate with full agreement for child to have 'his/her' information given him/her
at appropriate time, (if they want it, and apply for it).

what is there to hide, they would know that 'no' other information or responsibility would be put
on them, just let the kid know who you are, and who the other relatives are, and the ancestors.

I agree with the ruling, hope it sticks, hmmmm is that a pun? lol

 

[JLM]

and you don't think that won't be challenged?

If there are any doubts get it notorized.

[/COLOR]


This is rich, coming from someone that supports abortion and would use abortion over adoption. The killing of a WHOLE human being.

Two completely different arguments.

 

[Kreskin]

wrong

Wrong what?

 

[PoliticalNick]

If the info isn't disclosed until the child is an adult then there would be no child support for an adult.

I don't know about other provinces but in BC when a person reaches 18 they have 2 years to file for retro- child support against a parent. It has already been ruled that it doesn't matter if the mother didn't want or ask for support the child still can go after the father for 18 years worth of support if nothing was ever paid for whatever reason there was. There have been a couple of cases already where someone tracked down a one-night stand who never knew they had fathered a child and were awarded many thousands of dollars.

I would assume that this law is now open to children who are from donors as it has to be applied consistently.

 

[gerryh]

If there are any doubts get it notorized.

Really, so if the donors had had the anonymity agreement notarized then they would have been ok?

Two completely different arguments.

Really, it was her that said a sperm cell was half a human. I know I have never made that claim.