Most people who agree to donate their sperm or eggs agree knowing their identity does not have to be given to the recipient or child conceived. According to Oliva Gordon writer for a Canadian newspaper, some individuals claim they were looking for a figure to be present in the person's life when the donor wanted to keep the relationship distant (Gordon par. 16). For most individuals, keeping distant would be hard to hear from someone important in his or her life. For the opposing view, the negative effect that could happen to the conceived children from donors, after finding out, is a reason to stay anonymous. The ways children can react to how they were born are endless. Jennifer Bleyer writer for Psychology Today reports, “Mahlstedt found that 33 percent had a ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ attitude about their means of conception…25 percent of the donor-conceived feel totally neutral about their donor-conceived status…” (Bleyer par. 30). After seeing the prior percent, the rest of the donor-conceived individuals had a positive attitude but were still curious about their genetic background. What some people may feel after finding out about who their biological parents are, another kid may be reacting the opposite. Research from “Vics to Get to Sperm Donor Info with Consent” and published by Sirs Issue explains the process began anonymous and the citizens who want to keep their information confidential should be able to today (“Vics to Get Sperm Donor Info with Consent” par. 5). The naysayers recognize issues coming from running donor banks and realize there is nothing they can do to change it. Donor’s privacy should be protected. The concept of the process has not changed, so if the makers had reasons for keeping donors anonymous, those should still stand and the businesses should not be changed.
Donor-conceived children have the right to know their biological background. In most places where parents go, the banks acquire either the sperm or eggs necessary to fertile a child. Once the child is born they are not allowed to find out who their biological parents are. Some citizens are able to find out once the kid turns eighteen, others never receive that information. Gordon refutes the claim by saying, “In 2005…anonymity for sperm (and egg) donors -- guaranteed by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority when it was set up in 1991 -- was removed and DC children were given the right to identify their genetic parents once they reached 18” (Gordon par. 5). Certain donor banks still determine if the individual who was conceived by the donor could have a chance of receiving information of his or her biological parents. After this law was changed, the amount of banks who follow it is hard to determine. Another argument explained by Camille Bains, writer for Globe and Mail is against keeping donors anonymous for adoptions. Government agencies can acquire the information about the donors once the conceived child turns 19 years old (Bains par. 9). For many individuals, the law makes sense to accept adopted and donor children in the same way. Neither children are biologically matched with their legal parents. Supporters say the donor-conceived individuals can be afraid of having relations with another individual whom they are inadvertently related to (Gordon par. 13). Once a child is born, he or she’s choices are not just up to the the donor’s right, the conceived citizens should also have a say in their life. Saying those children do not have rights is comparable to choosing certain adults to not have rights. Little problems with anonymous donors may seem small but they add up, and the only way to solve them is to get rid of donations completely.
Donor-conceived children have the right to know their biological background. In most places where parents go, the banks acquire either the sperm or eggs necessary to fertile a child. Once the child is born they are not allowed to find out who their biological parents are. Some citizens are able to find out once the kid turns eighteen, others never receive that information. Gordon refutes the claim by saying, “In 2005…anonymity for sperm (and egg) donors -- guaranteed by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority when it was set up in 1991 -- was removed and DC children were given the right to identify their genetic parents once they reached 18” (Gordon par. 5). Certain donor banks still determine if the individual who was conceived by the donor could have a chance of receiving information of his or her biological parents. After this law was changed, the amount of banks who follow it is hard to determine. Another argument explained by Camille Bains, writer for Globe and Mail is against keeping donors anonymous for adoptions. Government agencies can acquire the information about the donors once the conceived child turns 19 years old (Bains par. 9). For many individuals, the law makes sense to accept adopted and donor children in the same way. Neither children are biologically matched with their legal parents. Supporters say the donor-conceived individuals can be afraid of having relations with another individual whom they are inadvertently related to (Gordon par. 13). Once a child is born, he or she’s choices are not just up to the the donor’s right, the conceived citizens should also have a say in their life. Saying those children do not have rights is comparable to choosing certain adults to not have rights. Little problems with anonymous donors may seem small but they add up, and the only way to solve them is to get rid of donations completely.