The opposition says as doctors become advanced in their knowledge the choice should not be up to them to decide whether a family should receive donor sperm or eggs. The doctors do have a say whether they personally do the surgery or not, but the overall decision to do one certain patients surgery is not possible. For those who cannot have kids, the decision is unfair for doctors to choose whether they can have a family or not. There have been studies conducted that say around 1 million children have been born through the use of donor banks (Bleyer par. 9). That is the number of effective pregnancies that have worked. The number is also not counting the underground or illegal banks who worked for citizens as well. The opposition's arguments may sound disgraceful but all have a meaning as to why they do what they do. For homosexuals to have kids, a surrogate or getting sperm and egg donation is the only they can have children. Doctors and other individuals may think these kinds of donations are dangerous but for some, this is the only way to have kids. These families would risk the unsafe donation to have their family grow or to have their family begin. While writing for the Globe and Mail, Camille Bains explained that she thought it was unfair the government will not give them the same rights as adopted people (Bains par. 4). Bains probably meant this statement as a wide range of issues, but her statement falls true for this argument. Certain places are beginning to fight for the rights to be able to use anonymous sperm and eggs and concerns that come with the argument as a whole.
Donor-conceived children may benefit the families who cannot have kids but overall the amount of dangerous or unsuccessful births and defects children can have outway the positives. There are many problems with this process. Some dangers come during the process of extracting the eggs or the knowledge of the doctor that is doing the surgery. The process for semen is a man who masterbates in a cup. For women, they have surgery to extract the eggs. In some cases the surgery can leave the donor in a way that she can never have kids herself. Proponents of the other side of the argument are right to argue some citizens can never have their own biological kids, for whatever reason. But they exaggerate when they claim there is no other option. Families may only see this option but there is always adoption for those who cannot have their own kids as well. Although parents may not want to adopt, it is the safest option. A writer for the Toronto Star, Theresa Boyle wrote, “Canada's largest importer of donor sperm has repeatedly brought semen into the country…not fully screened for infectious diseases…and distributed it to physicians and fertility clinics to use on patients trying to get pregnant…” (Boyle par. 1). This is one way society spreads diseases is because of importing semen that has not been tested. On the other hand, after surgery there could be problems with the woman who is pregnant or even the baby before or after it is born. Using anonymous sperm and eggs may not be harmful during birth but later the child or mother may develop medical defects. A family may pay an excessive amount of money for in vitro but there is a possibility the in vitro may not be successful. If the in vitro does work the result may cause disease or worse. Not only can this process be physically challenging but also emotionally. The parents and child are susceptible to emotional state issues (Bleyer par. 13). Effects parents do not recognize occur when a baby is born but not through natural conception. Ultimately, there are many dangers to using anonymous sperm and eggs, and that is something the parent will have to consider these factors when the child is born.
Donor-conceived children may benefit the families who cannot have kids but overall the amount of dangerous or unsuccessful births and defects children can have outway the positives. There are many problems with this process. Some dangers come during the process of extracting the eggs or the knowledge of the doctor that is doing the surgery. The process for semen is a man who masterbates in a cup. For women, they have surgery to extract the eggs. In some cases the surgery can leave the donor in a way that she can never have kids herself. Proponents of the other side of the argument are right to argue some citizens can never have their own biological kids, for whatever reason. But they exaggerate when they claim there is no other option. Families may only see this option but there is always adoption for those who cannot have their own kids as well. Although parents may not want to adopt, it is the safest option. A writer for the Toronto Star, Theresa Boyle wrote, “Canada's largest importer of donor sperm has repeatedly brought semen into the country…not fully screened for infectious diseases…and distributed it to physicians and fertility clinics to use on patients trying to get pregnant…” (Boyle par. 1). This is one way society spreads diseases is because of importing semen that has not been tested. On the other hand, after surgery there could be problems with the woman who is pregnant or even the baby before or after it is born. Using anonymous sperm and eggs may not be harmful during birth but later the child or mother may develop medical defects. A family may pay an excessive amount of money for in vitro but there is a possibility the in vitro may not be successful. If the in vitro does work the result may cause disease or worse. Not only can this process be physically challenging but also emotionally. The parents and child are susceptible to emotional state issues (Bleyer par. 13). Effects parents do not recognize occur when a baby is born but not through natural conception. Ultimately, there are many dangers to using anonymous sperm and eggs, and that is something the parent will have to consider these factors when the child is born.