Ever since 1884, when Professor William Pencoast of Philadelphia's Jefferson Medical College requested a semen sample of his "best looking" medical student in order to impregnate the child-seeking wife of a sterile Quaker merchant, sperm donation has held out the promise of parenting to infertile spouses, choice mothers and lesbian couples. Unfortunately, a misguided offshoot of the men's rights movement has recently started to assert paternal rights for sperm donors. This effort, which threatens both to undermine the stability of families conceived with donor sperm and to deter other would-be parents from availing themselves of such opportunities, has slowly chipped away at the established legal and ethical principle that sperm donors, while they may provide the biological material for conception, are not fathers. Now the Irish Supreme Court -- in a ruling that defies both reason and modernity -- has set family law back a generation by granting de facto parental rights to one such sperm donor. Vigilance is needed to make sure that this noxious jurisprudential seed does not spread.
The Irish case pitted a forty-two-year-old unidentified man against a lesbian couple whom he had earlier provided with sperm. At the time of his contribution, he apparently did not express any desire to retain parental rights. Instead, he was to be a favored "uncle" -- without any formal privileges or responsibilities. Later, after his friendship with the child's mothers deteriorated, he changed his mind. When the women attempted to move to Australia with their now three-year-old son, the sperm donor sued and obtained an injunction to keep the child in the country while he fought for his alleged rights as a biological parent. High Court Justice John Hedigan initially rejected his claims. However, on December 10, the Supreme Court's Susan Denham overturned Hedigan's verdict. Mustering a specious argument that could be used to reject virtually every case of lesbian parenting, Denham wrote: "There is benefit to a child, in general, to have the society of his father....I am satisfied that the learned High Court judge gave insufficient weight to this factor." Her decision, which awarded the sperm donor visitation rights while the larger issues of guardianship are resolved, is a slap in the face to lesbian parents everywhere. But its implications extend well beyond same-sex families. Any single female parent who has accepted donor sperm -- even one widowed or divorced -- is now vulnerable to the fatherhood claim of a stranger whose only prior parental contribution has been masturbating into a plastic cup.
American courts have so far generally resisted similar assertions. As early as 1993, a Manhattan Family Court ruled that a sperm donor, Thomas Steel, had no legal right to visit the daughter of lesbian parents Sandra Russo and Robin Young -- even though he had supplied half of her DNA. At that time, Judge Edward Kaufman seminally declared that Steel's efforts had "already caused [the child] anxiety, nightmares and psychological harm" and that, for the girl, "a declaration of paternity would be a statement that her family is other than what she knows it to be and needs it to be." In short, interpersonal and emotional bonds -- not genetic connections -- are what define families. Although that approach is now widely accepted, disgruntled donors have continued to press their cases.
The most widely publicized effort of a sperm donor to assert parental rights in the United States was a suit brought by Kansan Daryl Hendrix against his former friend, Samantha Harrington, who had given birth to twins using his excess sperm. A divided state supreme court ruled 4-2 that, in the absence of a written agreement, sperm donors were not legal parents. Yet Hendrix pursued his case all the way to the United States Supreme Court -- which refused to hear it -- and, in the process, became a darling of a faction of the American men's rights movement. Similar cases are working their way through the court system in other states. These efforts pose a genuine challenge to reproductive freedom and familial integrity.
The sperm donors' rights movement is the bastard stepchild of two strange ideological bedfellows. One group that has furthered such efforts are Christian conservatives who either oppose all forms of artificial reproduction or the single- and same-sex parental arrangements that can arise from them. These opponents of artificial insemination conflate the so-called "natural" with the desirable. (In child-rearing matters, however, they are often "naturalists" of convenience: Infant mortality, after all, is natural; vaccination and medicine are direct challenges to nature.) The other advocates for sperm donors' rights are men who, for various reasons, have missed the fatherhood train. Some have already played a limited role in the lives of the offspring they later attempt to claim -- but they often seek the benefits of fatherhood when they have earlier eschewed the responsibilities. Do not shed to many tears for them. If they had wanted the responsibilities of parenthood, as well as the pleasures, they could have had children of their own. Most still can. Instead, they have cast their lot with the most reactionary elements in the reproductive policy arena. Advancing the antiquated argument that every child should have a father, these forces have succeeded in preventing anonymous donation in Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand. Great Britain and Canada no longer allow donors to be compensated. As a result, semen sources are drying up. The unfortunate consequence is that, without sperm, would-be mothers will not be able to conceive.
The irony of the sperm donors' rights movement is that it has undermined the rights of those donors -- the vast majority -- who do not want any contact with their biological spawn: Children are now pressuring sperm banks to identify their genetic "fathers" and several women have even succeeded in holding their sperm donors liable for child support. These trends also threaten to undermine the "no-strings-attached" policies that make altruistic sperm donation possible. Who in their right mind is going to donate sperm to a stranger when they risk being saddled with college tuition 18 years later -- as was one Long Island "father"? The result of these child-support efforts will not be men taking responsibility for such children. The result will be men refusing to sire such children at all. Unlike sexual intercourse, masturbating into a plastic cup has few concomitant benefits.
A handful of rare cases may exist where the identities of sperm donors need to be unmasked for medical reasons -- such as when a donor discovers that he has a fatal genetic disease that could not be tested for at the time of his donation. In all other cases, the identities of donors should be perpetually concealed. Moreover, these donors should not be granted any more rights or privileges than they arranged for at the outset. Our society would do best to view them no differently than the altruistic donors of other tissues and organs. If I donate my blood or even my kidney to a stranger, that affords me no right to socialize with him in the future and creates no legally recognizable relationship. As a recent divorce case in New York State clarified, I cannot even demand compensation for my donated organ if the marriage that it was based upon were to be sabotaged by the recipient's concealed infidelity. Why should society treat my donation any differently simply because it contains a germ-line cell rather than somatic tissue?
A generation of progressives -- women's rights advocates, gay rights advocates, supporters of artificial reproductive technologies -- have fought to transform the definition of "family" from one based solely upon molecular biology to one based upon love and mutual respect. In order to protect this progress, legislation is needed -- either at the state or national level -- to guarantee the rights of established families over the efforts of interloping sperm donors. The battle over sperm is just that latest fight in the ongoing struggle over reproductive freedom, yet we risk losing it even before we know that it is being fought. We should all get our Irish up.
No one has a "right" to a child. No one has the right to procure a child in a way that violates the rights of the child as an individual, autonomous human being. No entity has the right to facilitate the creation of children by means which will later absolutely strip the offspring of their ability to acheive emotional wholeness, medical safety and the basic human right to original identity and biological heritage. Humans are not property, humans are not commodities, and human rights should not be undermined due to someone elses' goal of parenting. Helping people become parents does not need to involve such great moral chaos.
If you're going to be a parent, don't try to rely on some cold bureaucracy to protect your identity from your own offspring. If that's how you feel about it, just don't be a parent.
If you feel helpless and you give up the child for adoption, and then you feel shame and you don't want to face your child, again, I have no sympathy for your petty reason for hiding your identity. I have sympathy for your child to get the chance to face you.
It's very easy for men to disseminate their DNA far and wide, impregnating hundreds of women, thanks to dubious "miracle" of modern science. Most people don't want to ride that crazy train at such a high rate of speed, with no negotiation. I'm not talking about "father's rights", I think a mere sperm donor has already shown his indifference and has no such rights. I'm talking about individual's rights to any available information on their ancestry.
Anonymous sperm donorship (1) robs the offspring of half of their biological heritage and original identity--both of these things are BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. (2) lack of an on-going family medical history can be an absolute death sentence. (3) facilities, such as sperm banks, that are influential in family planning have a duty to uphold ethical values. The use of a man for his sperm and then casting him away without so much consideration for what the offspring may want or need down the line is extremely unethical. If a man wants to have sex to get someone pregnant and walk away, that is the choice between him and the concenting partner. To have an entity facilitate this between two people and it be enforced as a matter of law, completely disregarding the rights of the offspring created and making agreements on behalf of the offspring which they cannot consent to but will be held do later on down the road, is a grave moral injustice. Anonymous sperm donation should be illegal.
First of all, the claims that sperm donors should remain anonymous because they were promised anonymity is to hold to the ever-so-flawed metaethical code of "Consequentialism." Most philosophers agree that a "good ending" does not morally justify the means by which a "good ending" (e.g. a woman becoming pregnant or a family having a child) was obtained. In addition, the "good intentions" by which sperm donation and resulting impregnation are based upon are also not a basis to justify the "end" which in the situation of anonymous sperm donation is clearly devoid of any sort of human decency or morality.
What immoral "end" and "means" am I speaking of here? A man gets to act on his benevolence and provide a child for a sterile couple and a couple gets to have a child to love and raise right? The lack of morality lies in what is often ignored but is nonetheless vital to the equasion: the lack of rights and lesser personhood of the offspring created through such a transaction.
(continued)
They DO have a right to know their genetic history, and they DO have a right to know any medical concerns that might affect them (such as diabetes, or alcoholism) but beyond that, the rights of the donor reign supreme!
Model laws from the American Bar Association and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws say that a semen donor is not a parent unless there is an agreement in writing to the contrary. That is the best policy, and the one upheld in the Kansas case you write about.
It is also the approach taken in the law that went into effect in DC earlier this year. Here's a thorough description of that law: http://beyondstraightandgaymarriage.blogspot.com/2009/07/landmark-dc-law-grants-parental-status.html
End of case. Fred pays child support. And if the DNA established paternity of the child is enough for child support, then it's also enough to support some custody rights.
Doesn't all that sound right to everyone so far? Seriously, I'm asking.
Now if Fred and the woman (Wilma), had signed some papers releasing him of all parental responsibility and relinquishing his parental rights - seems pretty standard for a sperm donor to me - then Fred would not be paying support, nor would he have any rights.
In this case, did he sign away his rights and responsibilities or not? And even if he did, was the paperwork legal and binding? I would say, the court just ruled otherwise.
Even if the paperwork was in order, surrogate moms back out on their contracts all the time. The courts seem to rule on the side of biological parents more often than not, outside of abuse cases.
So it seems to me, this is really about lawyers looking for loopholes in paperwork, paperwork which none of has reviewed, and which the court has.
Not saying you can't disagree with the court, but it seems hard to do that convincingly without reading the paperwork.
Anyone?
I did not make a determination.
I simply pointed out, there is good reason to believe a determination could be made either way.
Pointing out that we don't have enough information to make such a determination is not a BS argument. It's fact.
It's how people avoid sounding like they are talking out of their butts.
What's the problem with the argument I've just presented?
Are you saying that what I've said doesn't at least make you think about the guy's side of the story?
I'm all for disagreeing. I'm all for opposing viewpoints. But why not tell me, because I'm really asking, where did I go so crazy wrong in my line of reasoning up there? Aside from not matching up with the neon NO PARENTAL RIGHTS FOR THIS GUY sign in your head?
Do you know how many human genes would govern as complex a trait as intelligence?
Trying to claim all of that comes strictly from ONE paren's genes doesn't even pass a SMELL TEST.
RIght now, you are the only one stating it.
Considering that sperm banks are often local entities and that many local lesbian couples may obtain sperm from the same clinic, personally, if I were the daughter of a lesbian couple I would WANT to know who the donor was and to be able to identify my donor-siblings. Otherwise I might inadvertently get involved with a half-brother (assuming I turned out straight, as most kids of lesbian couples do) and boy, you don't wanna go there.
This is already a problem with sealed adoption records. Family legend tells me one of my uncles fell in love with a woman many years ago and almost married her, til he found out she was his long-lost sister. Seems my grandmother had a fling with a priest, a big no-no in that Catholic enclave... this being before Roe, she gave the baby up for adoption. Adoptions in the U.S. are almost always local affairs, and people were less mobile back then than they are now. It stood to reason the girl would grow up nearby and run into her blood kin sooner or later.
I guess they really are handing out degrees and job titles like Cracker Jack prizes these days if someone can be OK with these potential scenarios and still call himself a bioethicist. Maybe the laws against misrepresenting oneself as a physician need to be extended a bit farther to cover other professional titles. Just a thought.
But. I'm gonna say it anyway.
I'm sure you are all familiar with the homophobic notion that lesbians are lesbians because they cannot "get a real man," and hets often perceive the lesbian couple as one member of the couple being the "male" partner while the other is the "female," in role if not in biology. Understandably, lesbians resist this sort of labeling--it doesn't nearly cover the full possibilities of the lesbian relationship and it's insulting besides. No basis in the reality of sexual orientation whatsoever. Only passing resemblance to SOME lesbians' relationships, sometimes.
So... all else being equal and lesbianism being more about relating to women than about avoiding men (or being a man), WHAT exactly about a sperm donor being known to his child is going to destroy a lesbian relationship? Do you really think keeping the donor anonymous is going to make everyone believe that Mrs. and Mrs. Smith created that baby all by themselves? Is this the new definition of "butch" now?
continued...
I find this reminding me of the influence that male bull elephants have on young male elephants. Without the male bull, the young males become unpredictable, dangerous and in some cases have to be put down. This is a well documented fact.
We have a society that embrasses the mother (provided she is not the "birth mother") and denigrates the father (provided he is not the "birth father"). We also have young men killing people in their schools and colleges.
Does the similarity not strike you as important?
An ALPHA male elephant, horse, lion, gorilla, or wolves will push away all inferior juvenile males, because they challenge his dominance, the juvenile males move in their own herd.
No male animal recognises it's progeny, that is one distinction of human beings.
But "alpha" status is for animals and for people who think like animals. Among people who are really "on the level", there is no such thing as social hierarchy. People who don't believe in social hierarchy find themselves at the top, but among others who also seek neither authority nor accept subordination, there is mutual respect.
Fathers are not "alpha males", they are the "man of the house", responsible for duties belonging to that role. This is not some kind of contrived authority, and there isn't any good reason for power struggles between parents and children. Only neurotic people have to deal with that.
Young males of the predatory species, NOT Gorillas or Horses, such as lions (who will kill a young male of another dominant male) and wolves (when there are too many in the group), will run off the young males and an over abundance of females, if they are not of the genetic line of the dominent female (wolves) or the dominent male in lion pride. For lions this is normal, since too many males would kill the pride - males do not hunt and yet eat well and usually first. Too many would create a starvation scenario.
Gorillas do not run off young males, unless they try to poach the dominent males mates and Horses are simply enforcing the pecking order.
Religious folks who claim to care so deeply to save the unborn. Are you going to go back to a birth mother who gives up a child to be adopted, that later they can make the birth mother financially responsibelfor her PARENTING?
If not how is she NOT responsible, and her sperm donor would be?
Cuz all that will acomplish is more women ABORTING.
"The sperm donors' rights movement is the bastard stepchild of two strange ideological bedfellows. One group that has furthered such efforts are Christian conservatives who either oppose all forms of artificial reproduction or the single- and same-sex parental arrangements that can arise from them."
People keep getting pushier. I read a story about "gender reassignment" of a child and it really creeped me out. Some parent was insisting their son was a girl trapped in the body of a boy and they wanted to surgically modify him and put him on hormones. I got creeped the hell out by that.
So, as long as ambitious scientists and gender-role-angstivists are going to keep pushing for more weirdness on all fronts, they're going to creep out moderates and liberals.
in case you missed the focus this is DEPRIVING lesbians from having sperm donations, and infertile couples. Take away their CIVIL RIGHTS, and then who's Rights are you going to take away? Maybe next a Little Person will be told they can't use reproduction services, or maybe an inter racial couple.
THIS is a dangerous slippery slope Religious folks need to BACK OFF!
But what if he had intercourse? If he did that and if she had one or more orgasms during intercourse, and they were not fake, then maybe he has some rights. But if it were a menage, then I don't know what to say. In general, a woman has rights over a man because women and men are not equals in the care of a young child.
I automatically favor the woman to have custody for any child unless she's incapable of proper care. The reason is because the woman bears the child in her body and then, in theory, nurses the child, and does all the other difficult work.
Seriously, sperm donation is 50% adoption, you have agreed to give up the rights to your child. Nuff said. For that matter, going after a sperm donor for child support is about the same as going after the biological parents of the child you adopted for child support.
Someone tell me how there is any difference between a father of a living child agreeing to let the mother and her new husband adopt the child, and a sperm donor agreement?
Intention is the difference. But at the same time, I do think this should be handled in the same way as and open adoption - with all the checks and balances in place - for the best interest of the child. Not for the best interests of the adults.
I donate my sperm, KNOWING that I will never know any children created from that sperm, vs I father a child KNOWING that I'm not ready to be a father, and the mother and her new mate adopt said child...
Overall to society, it's probably best to know. Usually, honesty and truth are best.