No Sperm for You

Right after the good news from Australia’s national elections comes the more worrisome news that the New South Wales upper house will likely approve legislation allowing reproductive donors “to demand their sperm or eggs only go to certain religious, ethnic or cultural groups or be reserved for heterosexual couples.” The bill would also require sperm donors to register their names so that when children turn 18, they could make contact with the donors. The office of the Health Minister, who supports the bill, said “it will not be in the child’s best interests to discover later in life that their genetic parent has a fundamental objection to their existence or the social and cultural circumstances in which they were raised.”

Ugh. Discrimination (if not eugenics) couched in the “best interests of the child.” Those who feel strongly about who should get their genetic material should be known donors for someone, not anonymous ones, or shouldn’t donate in the first place. Yes, it could be hard on someone to find out their genetic parent objects to their existence or upbringing—but those who seek out their donors have to be prepared for such situations. Otherwise, why stop at the categories above? There are a thousand other things in “the social and cultural circumstances” of a child’s upbringing to which a donor could object. “Your mother let you eat meat?” “She didn’t breastfeed you for at least six months?” “She let you play what kind of music?” “And why are you going to art school instead of becoming a doctor?” If we let donors choose some of the circumstances, why not let them choose all?

I also balk at requiring donors to permit contact upon the child’s majority. I’m all for such contact as long as both the child and donor have agreed—but think it should be a matter of choice for each of them. Not requiring contact does make it harder for those who want a willing-to-be-known donor, but I think it would lead to a drop in the number of donors—and more donors mean a more diverse gene pool. Yes, let’s encourage donors who are willing to be known, and let’s educate prospective parents about how using such a donor impacts their children, but let’s not turn away those who want to remain forever anonymous. (See also my interview (Part I and Part II) with Sherron Mills of Pacific Reproductive Services, which has the largest selection of known donors in the U.S., for Mills’ perspective on the benefits of willing-to-be known donors.)

I imagine some of you have views on the matter. Please share in the comments.

(Thanks to PageOneQ for the link.)