Donor limitations in most donor banks are not set and instead of completely ending sperm and egg donation there should be limits established. In most banks there are no limits. A solution would be to set limits instead of making a drastic change by diminishing all donation banks. Another argument naysayers have is not only do donors donate for the money but also for their well being and as well as the desire to spread their seed or eggs (Bleyer par. 4). Why would naysayers want to limit a process that makes individuals happy? The opposition says no one has the right to diminish happiness from another individual. Instead of looking at it from a negative perspective, the opposition says look at it from a different point of view. After donating, people feel good about themselves and what they have given life to. Theresa Boyle a writer for the Toronto Star states, “Outreach has told the federal government it plans to work with the Seattle bank to re-qualify donors using a new questionnaire addressing deficiencies in initial screening questionnaires. It's also creating and revising standard operating procedures” (Boyle par. 18). Some places, such as Seattle, are using different ways trying to limit the amount of donations. This is a start but it will take time to be successful. In America, different entities of one business sell their product in many different ways to be successful in their line of work. Just like other businesses it is hard for the government and major banks to control donations because banks have different stipulations and rules for the amount of donations; therefore the donations are not limited, but are soon trying to be.
An excessive amount of society only donates sperm or eggs for money, which can be illegal and, therefore, should be another reason to end donor banks. Many citizens who donate do not care what they do; the donors just do it for the money they will receive. While the naysayers say some do it for the good feeling, a vast amount of individuals mainly donate for the money. Tom Blackwell, writer for the National Post says one study suggested, “One was given a car, another money for college tuition, others cold hard cash. Most Canadian women who donate eggs for fertility treatment receive payment above their expenses, even though this violates the country's controversial fertility law…” (Blackwell par. 1). Handing out and receiving illegal possessions is dangerous and can become a jeopardous job. Donors giving to sperm and egg banks can collect up to $12,000 a year from donations (Bleyer par. 17). That amount of revenue should not be coming from a option that can be considered illegal. In certain cases it is not about the money but the amount of lives one donor can give. Society in agreeance with the opposing view may say what is wrong with giving individuals life. The fact is one person can conceive hundreds of kids, yet not meet one. Although this may seem of concern to only a small group of people, it should in fact concern anyone who cares about anonymous egg and sperm donation. Everyone who donates also puts their body and the body of the conceived in danger.
An excessive amount of society only donates sperm or eggs for money, which can be illegal and, therefore, should be another reason to end donor banks. Many citizens who donate do not care what they do; the donors just do it for the money they will receive. While the naysayers say some do it for the good feeling, a vast amount of individuals mainly donate for the money. Tom Blackwell, writer for the National Post says one study suggested, “One was given a car, another money for college tuition, others cold hard cash. Most Canadian women who donate eggs for fertility treatment receive payment above their expenses, even though this violates the country's controversial fertility law…” (Blackwell par. 1). Handing out and receiving illegal possessions is dangerous and can become a jeopardous job. Donors giving to sperm and egg banks can collect up to $12,000 a year from donations (Bleyer par. 17). That amount of revenue should not be coming from a option that can be considered illegal. In certain cases it is not about the money but the amount of lives one donor can give. Society in agreeance with the opposing view may say what is wrong with giving individuals life. The fact is one person can conceive hundreds of kids, yet not meet one. Although this may seem of concern to only a small group of people, it should in fact concern anyone who cares about anonymous egg and sperm donation. Everyone who donates also puts their body and the body of the conceived in danger.