Reproductive donor laws in NSW (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

Donors could get right to direct sperm, eggs

Donors could get right to direct sperm, eggs
By Bruce McDougall
November 28, 2007 01:00am


A BIZARRE row is set to erupt over claims that reproductive donors will be given the right to direct their sperm or eggs not go to certain groups such as Muslims, Jews, single mothers or lesbians.

Critics believe the NSW Iemma Government's Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill allows sperm and egg donors to specifically discriminate against ethnic, religious and other minorities.

The Bill, due to be debated in the NSW Legislative Council, is primarily aimed at allowing donor-conceived children to access information about the donor parent when they turn 18.

But Greens MP John Kaye said yesterday there was widespread concern the Bill, as currently drafted, allowed donors to nominate classes of people to whom their sperm or eggs may not be given.

"Granting legal sanction to bigotry and prejudice sends an appalling message that it is acceptable to discriminate on grounds that are irrelevant," Mr Kaye said.

Under the Bill, the names of donors in NSW will be recorded on a compulsory central register to guarantee they can be found by their offspring.

But Health Minister Reba Meagher has said the legislation will not oblige donors to have contact with their offspring or make them legally or financially responsible for the children.

Discriminatory donor bill protects children: Iemma
Sperm donor bill 'institutionalises bigotry'
Claims NSW reproductive donor laws discriminatory

What are your thoughts on the matter of reproductive donors (men and women) being able to determine the type of people they deem to be suitable recipients?

Though I'm with the Greens on this matter (one freely donates their reproductive material for the benefit of others, not for their own future gain), I have to admit that the blanket removal of a donor's anonymity (a good thing, I believe) gives some weight to the Premier's argument.

 

[bshoc]

Reproductive donation should be mostly illegal, if it is legal, then people have the right to direct the use of their own "property" any way they wish.

Certainly women who have the ability to reproduce naturally should be denied access.

 

[katie_tully]

Contentious issue. They had something like this on 60 Minutes a while back, where there was a database that allowed people to see how many other women their donor was impregnating and then the 6 different mothers were having little 'get togethers' with the six half brothers/sisters. That to me is extremely odd and probably quite a confusing situation for a kid to be. Try getting your head around not knowing your dad but knowing you've got 6 half brothers/sisters. :s

Back on track.

If you're going to donate your sperm/egg why would you even care who it goes to? What possible benefit do you gain from restricting the type of people who access your bits?

I don't agree with this compulsory central register either. I know it still abstains them from any form of responsibility, but what are you going to say when 18 years later some kid rocks up on your doorstep?

 

[katie_tully]

Reproductive donation should be mostly illegal, if it is legal, then people have the right to direct the use of their own "property" any way they wish.

The words property and donation conflict though. You're donating it dude, it's not yours anymore.

 

[banco55]

Single mothers shouldn't have access to donor material in any case. If they are going to take away the donor's anonmymity they should limit the number of children one donor can produce.

 

[jimmayyy]

if you choose to donate your sperm, you should have some say in where it goes, or on the other hand, where it cannot go.

 

[katie_tully]

if you choose to donate your sperm, you should have some say in where it goes, or on the other hand, where it cannot go.

Oh hay. I've come to donate my sperm so that a childless couple can have a child. In return for my generosity;
1. The recipient donors must not be black, asian, jewish, muslim or have any family history of mental illness.
2. They must also not own a cat
3. They must earn $90,000+

Oh, I also am absolving myself from any legal or financial responsibilities.

k thx.

 

[katie_tully]

Although I guess this isn't much different from the recipients having preferences about the geneology of their donator...

 

[Josie]

Oh hay. I've come to donate my sperm so that a childless couple can have a child. In return for my generosity;
1. The recipient donors must not be black, asian, jewish, muslim or have any family history of mental illness.
2. They must also not own a cat
3. They must earn $90,000+

Oh, I also am absolving myself from any legal or financial responsibilities.

k thx.

Yes, but a donor can make those exact same choices when physically depositing that sperm in someone else... why not now?

 

[katie_tully]

Yes, but a donor can make those exact same choices when physically depositing that sperm in someone else... why not now?

Because when they're depositing their sperm physically, they're not generally doing so with the intention of donating their sperm to a childless couple. You're donating it for gods sake, if you're so worried about where your jizz goes, maybe you shouldn't donate in the first place. It's like when you donate money to a charity, you don't stand there and say 'k, im donating money cept i dont want any black people to get it'.

 

[jimmayyy]

Although I guess this isn't much different from the recipients having preferences about the geneology of their donator...

my point exactly

 

[Josie]

Because when they're depositing their sperm physically, they're not generally doing so with the intention of donating their sperm to a childless couple. You're donating it for gods sake, if you're so worried about where your jizz goes, maybe you shouldn't donate in the first place. It's like when you donate money to a charity, you don't stand there and say 'k, im donating money cept i dont want any black people to get it'.

Yeah, actually, you do.

You donate to the Smith family for poor people.
You donate to Save the Children for starving kids in Africa.
You donate to Christian based charities knowing that homosexuals probably won't get much help.

Exactly the same, yo.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

I support discrimination in all forms and in every situation... so obviously I agree with this.

 

[katie_tully]

Yeah, actually, you do.

You donate to the Smith family for poor people

No, you don't then turn around and say 'but I only want my money donated to white poor people coz they're less shit than black poor people'.

 

[katie_tully]

All I'm saying is if you're donating something like sperm and absolving yourself from any legal or financial responsibility, why should you give a shit where your spermies go. But whatever, as I said, I guess it isn't any different from recipient donors picking sperm based on the geneology of the donor.

 

[MaNiElla]

I support discrimination in all forms and in every situation... so obviously I agree with this.

Cool, thats lovely.

 

[nichhhole]

Because when they're depositing their sperm physically, they're not generally doing so with the intention of donating their sperm to a childless couple. You're donating it for gods sake, if you're so worried about where your jizz goes, maybe you shouldn't donate in the first place. It's like when you donate money to a charity, you don't stand there and say 'k, im donating money cept i dont want any black people to get it'.

People choose which Charity they want to donate to usually with some understanding of that charities emphasis....

Edit. What josie said.

 

[katie_tully]

People choose which Charity they want to donate to usually with some understanding of that charities emphasis....

And when you donate sperm you are donating it with the understanding that it is going to a childless couple, thus I think it's ridiculous that one should be able to then dictate as to who can be a possible recipient.

I know what Josie's saying, and I'm saying I disagree. Duh, if you're giving money to Smith Family you know it's going to poor people, if you donate to the cancer council you know it's going to cancer research; what you're not specifying is who can and cannot be the beneficiaries of your donation. I don't see why this is any different?

If this is about the issue of it being a bodily fluid I still think it's a void argument. When you donate blood you don't specify who can receive the blood. If you're so worried about where your sperm ends up you shouldn't be donating.

 

[katie_tully]

think it is quite different considering that the recipitant of the genetic material actually has to raise the child [they arent absolved from the legal/financiall responsibility..].. it might be important to them that the geneology of the donor is similar to their own [ie so that the kid can be raised as their own... rather than having the genetic material of a black person raised in a white/asian family which would obviously raise questions that they might like to avoid both for themselves/the child..]

Unless the child is born to a homosexual couple, in which case it's fairly obvious the kid was a turkey baster. I can see your point re: recipients picking the genetic make up of their kid. Unfortunately there is a thin line atm where people are doing it more so for the 'designer' baby aspect, ie. picking donors whose physical/mental atributes are deemed 'beautiful'.

Side note and unrelated, my cousin is a turkey baster baby. I think his tail was bent during implantation, coz he is deadset the most moronic kid I've ever met.

 

[Serius]

And when you donate sperm you are donating it with the understanding that it is going to a childless couple, thus I think it's ridiculous that one should be able to then dictate as to who can be a possible recipient.

I know what Josie's saying, and I'm saying I disagree. Duh, if you're giving money to Smith Family you know it's going to poor people, if you donate to the cancer council you know it's going to cancer research; what you're not specifying is who can and cannot be the beneficiaries of your donation. I don't see why this is any different?

If this is about the issue of it being a bodily fluid I still think it's a void argument. When you donate blood you don't specify who can receive the blood. If you're so worried about where your sperm ends up you shouldn't be donating.

Its probably got something to do with encouraging more donors. Donating sperm is kind of a big deal, sort of like when mothers give up their children for adoption. Theres fears involved, uncertaintys and ofcourse you are allways going to wonder whatever happened to your little spawn.

When questions like these are raised, donors feel better knowing that the child will be raised in a way similiar to how they would raise the kid if they werent donating. E.g a white intelectual atheist may feel unsettled if their child is going to be raised as a fundamentalist christian by bogan dumb ass parents. These fears can be absolved if there is some sort of basic control in who and who cannot receive the donation.

Again like a mother who gives up their child for adoption, they often like to check out the family to make sure the kid would have a good life and that the parents are people they approve of.


Although the issue is if its descrimination or not, i dont really see it like that. Maybe they could get rid of the religious, racial stuff and just give the sperm donor an option to meet the potential receivers. That way if the donor doesnt meet them he has nothing to complain about.[of course they wont do this, because a big part of sperm donation is no contact]