• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Sperm Donation: Oddities; Legalities; Marketing; Etc.

Wintermoon posted
Why harp on about no men involved when, when parents split it's 99 % the father that goes AWOL? Why not discuss issues like that?
The number of guys I know who were pushed out by their partners, for no reason other than the woman fancied a change is depressingly high. In almost every case the women move in new guys within weeks and make visiting rights nigh on impossible. If the fathers push hard enough plans to move to some remote place are announced by the new 'family'.
No they weren't abusive or drunks etc. Their respective partners just felt differently about them once a family came along and they changed into family man.
Just my experience, with an obviously tiny sample rate of the world.
No one can claim a moral high ground for any group, sex or lifestyle. Just my paltry contribution.:(
 
I'm coming at this issue from a purely personal angle. I am not in the slightest homophobic, let's get that straight from the start, I think gay people should be allowed to adopt, marry etc. etc.

But I have a very complicated parentage in that I had no real contact with my natural or my legal father (as I say it's complicated). I grew up surrounded by love but part of me is always missing because i don't have that 'father' in my background. It hasn't made me into a psycho or a self-pitying idiot I'm a very well-adjusted person who just gets on with life but i think it's cruel intentionally depriving a child of half it's heritage on emotional and practical medical grounds........sorry, that may offend but it's how i feel about the issue.

I agree with tha above post (schnor i think), nobody has a right to have a child and I fear we are turning children into commodities, it's another post altogether but my blood boiled recently over that silly woman who had 4 healthy sons but had undergone treatment to conceive a daughter, life ain't fair sometimes.

Ok, I've calmed down now.
 
I was concerned about the rights and wrongs of this issue (although broadly in favour of same sex couples having the right to start a family this way), but then I found out it's £50 a go for a donation........fifty quid for a quick one off the wrist!

Where do I sign up?!
 
I think the right of a person to have a child versus the desire to have one is the crux of the issue.
I too am not homophobic and have long since desisted from getting into arguments with homophobic bigots on whether gay people even have the right to live themselves. It's a sad, tiresome waste of energy.

But the notion of going out and buying seed I find repulsive, like the installation of a new washing machine if the price is right. And this queasiness I feel is reserved for both straight and gay people who think a child is a status symbol brought for cash rather than the result of a loving relationship.
There are many single parents out there but the majority start off with the intention of a family unit, it's just that circumstances conspire and people are left alone.
And the artifice of buying sperm rather than the owner making a willing donation will always leave a gulf of difference between my idea of right and wrong.
The same goes for women who go to sperm donors. I have sympathy if time is running out and mister right hasn't been found. But again they are putting their own needs before a childs. Many people thrive with wonderful single parents. But the ideal will always be the Ying and Yang of mother and father who at one time loved one another.
3 ish years ago I had a pretty close friend who was crazy about a certain man. He was kewl, good looking, popular and well off. He wasn't interested in her and she confided in 2 of us that she wanted his baby. We laughed and didn't take her seriously. It took over a year of hard work but she eventually got a one or two night stand with him and surprise surprise, got pregnant. And this is what she wanted - a part of his life, which was somewhat more glamorous than her own. For her, it was the nearest thing she could get to having a relationship with this man and the poor resultant child has to endure a mother, who out of spite and stupidity, dangles the kid like a carrot whenever she thinks this poor lumbered bloke should give her attention. The guy may have been foolish for not wearing a condom (who knows what conversation took place in the bedroom) but I think he's been wronged as much as the child, having to tolerate a stupid clinging woman if he wants part of the childs life. My long friendship with her didn't stop me from being utterly disgusted with her actions and I know have more sympathy with the father and his new partner than her.
 
I don't think that kids raised by two girls or two boys are any more or less likely to be screwed up than kids raised by a boy and a girl or just a boy or just a girl. it's the quality rather than the gender of the parenting that's the issue.

My family is about as complicated as it gets, but as my baby sister is growing up, she doesn't find it odd that we share a mum and she shares a dad with my stepsisters (who are adopted, complicated n'est pas?.

In these days where divorce is fairly common, kids just adapt. I'm sure you still get the kids who tease other kids because their parents are still together, or have split up, or aren't around, but kids just do that. You don't get teased because you're ginger or are brought to school by two women, yo're teased because some kids are just little nazis on power-trips, same story for millions of years, probably.

Kids just don't find the family structure in which they were raised particularly weird, it's just how things are. If anything, kids raised in 'interesting' family structures are likely to be more rounded and more tolerant, as Wintermoon says, gay parents are much more aware of parenting issues and may well make more of an effort to listen to their children, take umbrage if they are bullied, that sort of thing. Just as any caring parent would. But being brought up in a situation which isn't culturally 'normal' will make them more accepting of other things which aren't culturally normal, because they're more open-minded.

Nobody needs a licence to have kids (yada yada) and I reckon that if you're a well-rounded person and you want to help introduce a new person into the world, then why shouldn't you. It makes far more sense than poorly-educated girls barely in their teens being parents.

I think the thing to be pushing for is better education and better support for new parents. Society ought to be educating people who don't want to be parents how not to be and supporting those who do by providing more information and services such as parenting skills classes, that sort of thing, rather than giving them benefits and free council houses.

I'm trying to get pregnant at the moment (well, not right now, there would be more typos if that were the case) and that is hard enough without needing to worry whether I'm able to impress some stranger and demonstrate that I have the right qualities to be a parent. Why should the case be different if I chose to share a home with someone with boobs? I don't think it's going to cause the disintegration of society.

Kitty.
 
I think the whole idea of buying sperm is sick. There are children out there being aborted or abandonned left, right and centre. What's wrong with adoption?
 
Am I being sensitive or does that hint at latent hatred of my gender?

Yes you are being sensitive. I assume that like me, you are a straight white male living in a Western country. This makes you part of a very privileged elite on any absolute scale. Personally I'm big and ugly enough for this sort of thing not to bother me.
If you want to know about gender debasement with people's bodies reduced to commodities type 'teens' into Google.

If those commentators who say we must protect children really mean that then is is the sort of family they should encourage. After all, the largest category of child sexual abusers are the fathers, not strangers, sports coaches or 'pervs'. Simple fact, not advocating the destruction of the traditional family, just pointing out that nothing is black and white.

I actually know some lesbian parents, one couple who had the help of a friend (and insisted on doing things the 'natural' way:eek: ) one couple who used a donor service and a single mum who asked a friend for a sample. The last one now has a son who's headed off to do an architecture degree at Cambridge.

Single parent families and problem children: yes studies have found an association. First rule of statistics - a statistical association proves nothing . The nature of the relationship between the variables has to be understood. In this case you have to take account that single parent families are more common in deprived groups/ areas. I think single parent families in these cases are more a symptom than the cause.

Oh and quite agree with IJ about all the attention being focussed on IVF etc. when there are many kids that need adoption. Unfortunately people seem to prefer ickle babies to surly teenagers for some reason.
 
Bollocks. There are children all over the place who are in desperate need of being rescued from their current situation. Are they better off in some home- probably with at least one paedophile on the staff, it would seem- or with people who want a child but can't have one?
'Fuck them! We want to make a political gesture 'cos we're homosexual!'
Newsflash, ladies: we don't care.
 
Unfortunately, it's not easy to adopt a child if you're in a gay relationship. In fact, it's pretty difficult if you're a smoker as well!
 
It's still a damn sight better than killing unwanted ones and replacing them with artificial ones, whatever you say.
 
Even if it is a twisted and unnatural laboratory creation. :mad:
 
Yes, but seeing as how we are talking about the creation of human beings here, I fail to see how it's relevant.
 
Emperor Zombie said:
Sadly nobody adopts with a view in mind to adopt a handicapped child, a child with missing limbs or a club foot. What EVERYONE wants when they want a child is a healthy child.
How many people do you know who have given away their child when they found out there was something wrong with it? And how many people do you know who brought up all their children as best they could despite illnesses or deformities? My stepsisters are adopted and neither of them has any physical defect or serious illness.

If I have a fertility problem, I would much rather help bring up a child who wasn't able to live with its natural parents for whatever reason than borrow someone else's eggs or someone else's sperm. That's just what's important to me, but I still think that other people should have other options. Same as I wouldn't personally have an abortion but I still think that people have the right to choose.

Kitty.
 
Re: there I was thinking you were talking about twisted &amp

Emperor Zombie said:
it's just that cows and bovines are artificially inseminated and judging by your discust for such things I just wondered if you were one of these types that sort of went all the way with their beliefs. evidently not. ;)

Those are cows. For eating and wearing. What applies to us doesn't have to apply to them.
Human beings, even as eggs or sperm, should not be bought like a commodity and created in tubes. That this is considered acceptable by anyone is just one more sign that our society is screwed almost beyond repair.
 
I should be so lucky. A last, shining haven of sanity in a world gone screaming mad.
 
First baby born from sperm bought over the internet
20 August 2003


The birth of the first baby in Britain conceived from sperm bought over the internet was announced yesterday by a website set up to cater to lesbian women.

ManNotIncluded.com, the website that arranged the cyber-sperm donation, said the healthy 10lb 2oz boy had been born in the past few days. Family campaigners and health experts have condemned the site, which they say carries medical and moral risks.

Despite the website being marketed at lesbian and single women, its first baby has been born to a married, heterosexual couple. The family, who come from the South-east of England, insist on remaining anonymous. Mother and child are said to be doing well.

ManNotIncluded has been at the centre of controversy since it was launched last year. The site charges for access to a list of 5,000 anonymous sperm donors, with details of their ethnicity, height, characteristics and qualifications. Women pay £1,200 for fresh samples of selected sperm to be delivered to their home for self-insemination. The buying process can be conducted online without even a phone call to the internet site or the need for a doctor.

It is the first such website to operate in Britain. Medical experts say it is dangerous because a loophole in the law means it is not regulated by the fertility watchdog, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Fresh sperm donation is not covered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, so ManNotIncluded is not required to hold an operating licence from the HFEA or abide by its strict rules on screening samples for potentially fatal infections.

HFEA guidelines recommend donated sperm should be quarantined for at least 180 days to detect any infections. Some diseases, such as HIV, have an incubation period of up to three months, meaning fresh sperm could be donated and infection not picked up in tests. The HFEA has also warned that men who donate fresh sperm to such sites risk being sued for maintenance.

Men who donate to licensed clinics are not regarded as the legal parents of any children they father, and therefore cannot be pursued for money. But donors to unlicensed clinics may not be entitled to the same legal exemption.

Suzi Leather, chairwoman of the HFEA, said: "The HFEA cannot guarantee good laboratory practices and safe testing of donated sperm from unlicensed donation services. Women wishing to use donated sperm are advised to do so through an HFEA licensed clinic where donated sperm is thoroughly tested and legal parentage is set down in law."

John Gonzalez, founder of the website, said all donors were subject to rigorous testing and the company abided by HFEA regulations although it was not regulated by the watchdog. He said the site offered the chance of motherhood to lesbian and single women who might be turned down for treatment at traditional clinics.

Why the married couple turned to the website is not clear, although it is cheaper than conventional IVF, which costs £2,500 for each attempt. Mr Gonzalez said: "We are delighted at the fantastic news that the first baby has been born as a direct result of using our ground-breaking service. MNI is about giving all women the chance to have children without fear of prejudice or discrimination." He says a further 13 lesbians are pregnant, and 3,000 more women have registered on his website.

Robert Whelan, director of the pressure group Family and Youth Concern said: "This is an appalling indictment of our consumer society. You should not be able to order children off the internet, as if they are just goods. It is a form of eugenics and it is frankly terrifying."
 
AMPHIARAUS said:
The number of guys I know who were pushed out by their partners, for no reason ...Their respective partners just felt differently about them once a family came along and they changed into family man.

Oh I can maybe shed some light on this little mystery!! Off thread a bit but it has to do with parenting and man hating and that seems to be the subject...

Many's a woman who has endured endless selfishness and irresponsibility from a man and stayed (pardon the pun) mum. But once there's a child or children that have to be cared for, fed and clothed, taught an example of proper behaviour...then the prospect of trying not only to support and cook for and clean up after this selfish pig but also having to offset the bad example he sets for the children...it becomes unendurable and out he goes.

Yes, yes. I know. He's your mate, he's a lovely bloke, can always buy a round at the pub, blah blah blah. But anyone who is not INSIDE a relationship does not know the whole of what goes on.
 
revived...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3416055.stm

IVF 'father figure' law attacked

Women should get IVF treatment without having to fulfil a legal requirement that the child has a father figure, says the UK's fertility regulator.
Suzi Leather, chairman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, says that the clause is "nonsense".

She claims that it discriminates against single and lesbian women - and out of step with "changes in society."

But Jack O'Sullivan, of Fathers Direct, said studies showed the benefits of the presence of a male figure.

At present, doctors are required to take account of the "need of the child for a father" prior to allowing women to go ahead with fertility treatment.

Welfare work

The HFEA is planning a major review of this and other child welfare "conditions" placed on would-be parents.

It is calling for an update of the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which is perceived as "outdated" on several fronts.

In a speech to the authority's annual conference on Wednesday, Ms Leather set out how she thinks such clauses should be brought into line to tally with modern society.

She said: "It is absolutely clear if you think about the changes in society and the different ways that families can be constituted that it is anachronistic for the law to include the statement about a child's need for a father.

"It seems to me a bit of nonsense to have that still in the legislation."

No discrimination

She said that one in four families was now headed by a single parent - and that the government had moved to recognise gay marriages.

She said it was more important to assess women on their medical and social circumstances than the exact arrangement of their relationships.

"I don't think single and lesbian women should be excluded on those grounds," she said.

Some clinics do currently offer fertility treatment to lesbian women - although to fulfil the letter of the law, the women have to show that some form of father figure, such as an uncle or grandparent, will be available to the child.

But Ms Leather warned the current legislation might push some women to seek sperm on the internet.

She said: "That is a dangerous thing that carries greater risks both for the women involved and indeed is a disadvantage for the children created."

Welcomed

Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris agreed with the proposed change.

He said: "This would be a welcome step, since the evidence is now absolutely clear that children brought up by lesbian couples develop normally and just as well adjusted as children brought up by mixed gender parents.

"Also, single women can do a perfectly satisfactory job on raising children especially when compared to two-parent families with the same income.

"There is, therefore, no longer any reasonable basis for a legal requirement that consideration of the welfare of the child should specifically refer to the need for a father" .

Jack O'Sullivan, whose Fathers Direct group campaigns for the rights of fathers, said that while discrimination against single and lesbian women was wrong, the benefits of a father figure were proven by scientific studies.

He said: "Fathers matter and it would be a mistake to downgrade that important role."

A spokesman for the charity Life said: "Suzi Leather's comments that a child's need for a father is somehow outdated is a slap in the face for all men who have campaigned for so long in favour of equal recognition for the vital role that the father plays in the upbringing of a child."

Also: http://www.mannotincluded.com/
 
Hear hear, Ms Angel!

I put up with the turd-like ex for a mind-boggling 20 years because it was the right thing to do.... for the children....kids need a dad..... :rolleyes:

Now we're separated and he can't use them to push me around any more, he treats them like sh*t. He's hurt the youngest one immeasurably. What a tw*t he is. :mad:

Not as if my kids had any shortage of male role models either as I have brothers, a father, responsible male neighbours/workmates/milkmen etc.

All together now-

I wish - that - I knew what I know now
when I was younger
I wish - that - I knew what I know now
when I was stronger.
I wish - that - I knew what I know now
when I was younger
I wish - that - I knew what I know now
when I was stronger.

Ooh la la Ooh la la yeah yeah,
Ooh la la Ooh la la yeah yeah yeah yeah
Ooh La la Ooh la La
Ooh la la yeah yeah yeah yeah

Ooh la la
 
Only speaking from personal experience but I missed having a dad. I never knew my father really and I had a wonderful role model in my grandfather who was good, kind and gentle and everything you could wish for in a man and I called him 'dad' because my mother called him that.

But until my mid-20's the sight of a little girl walking along the street with her father made me a little jealous inside. Sometimes having a father is nice........but on the other side of the coin here I am bringing up two children being father and mother and it feels good, exhausting but good. Their role model is their grandfather (plus ca change). :)
 
Fallen Angel said:
Yes, yes. I know. He's your mate, he's a lovely bloke, can always buy a round at the pub, blah blah blah. But anyone who is not INSIDE a relationship does not know the whole of what goes on.

So they may not know that the woman is a selfish, malicious bitch, for example?
Men aren't given anything like enough legal protection.
 
Anonymous sperm donor traced on internet
03 November 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Alison Motluk
LATE last year, a 15-year-old boy rubbed a swab along the inside of his cheek, popped it into a vial and sent it off to an online genealogy DNA-testing service. But unlike most people who contact the service, he was not interested in sketching the far reaches of his family tree. His mother had conceived using donor sperm and he wanted to track down his genetic father.

That the boy succeeded using only the DNA test, genealogical records and some internet searches has huge implications for the hundreds of thousands of people who were conceived using donor sperm. With the explosion of information about genetic inheritance, any man who has donated sperm could potentially be found by his biological offspring. Absent and unknown fathers will also become easier to trace.

The teenager tracked down his father from his Y chromosome. The Y is passed from father to son virtually unchanged, like a surname. So the pattern of gene variants it carries can help identify which paternal line an individual has descended from and can also be linked to a man's surname.

The boy paid FamilyTreeDNA.com $289 for the service. His genetic father had never supplied his DNA to the site, but all that was needed was for someone in the same paternal line to be on file. After nine months of waiting and having agreed to have his contact details available to other clients, the boy was contacted by two men with Y chromosomes closely matching his own. The two did not know each other, but the similarity between their Y chromosomes suggested there was a 50 per cent chance that all three had the same father, grandfather or great-grandfather.

Importantly, the men both had the same last name, albeit with different spellings. This was the vital clue the boy needed to start his search in earnest. Though his donor had been anonymous, his mother had been told the man's date and place of birth and his college degree. Using another online service, Omnitrace.com, he purchased the names of everyone that had been born in the same place on the same day. Only one man had the surname he was looking for, and within 10 days he had made contact.

"This is the first time that I know of it being done," says Bryan Sykes, a geneticist at the University of Oxford and chairman of OxfordAncestors.com, a genetic genealogy service. The case raises serious questions about whether past promises of anonymity can be honoured, he says.

Around 1 in 800 births in 2002 and 2003 in the UK were the product of donor sperm, according to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, a public body that regulates fertility technologies. And an estimated 25,000 people have been born from donated sperm in the UK in the past 15 years. Also, around 90,000 donor inseminations take place in the US annually, although not all result in pregnancies.

In the UK and various other countries, sperm donors must now allow their identity to be revealed to their children once they reach a certain age, but in the US most sperm donors are still anonymous. "Sperm banks are recruiting donors and promising them anonymity," says Wendy Kramer, the mother of a donor child and founder of DonorSiblingRegistry.com, an online service that matches donor offspring with their half-siblings. "I don't think that's a valid promise any more."

As more genetic information becomes available online, finding a donor father can only get easier. FamilyTreeDNA.com is running 2400 projects to trace particular surnames and has a database of over 45,000 Y chromosome signatures. The Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, based in Salt Lake City, Utah, promises to go even further. It is recruiting people from around the world and hopes to compile a database of about 500,000 representative individuals, with confirmed pedigrees going back at least four generations. The foundation will keep a database of information on Y chromosome markers, mitochondrial DNA (passed down through the maternal line) and 170 other genetic markers.

The news will be especially unsettling for men who donated anonymously before the power of genetics was fully appreciated. Donors were often college students who traded their sperm for beer money. Many have not told their wives or children and have never considered the implications of having a dozen offspring suddenly wanting to meet them. "The case shows that there are ethical and social concerns about assisted reproduction that we did not think about," says Trudo Lemmens, a bioethicist at the University of Toronto, Canada.

And the implications go beyond offspring searching for their genetic fathers. "The DNA could have come from a crime scene," says Sykes. Police could perform similar searches to identify a criminal's surname, giving vital leads in a case. "There are tremendous forensic ramifications," he adds.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex ... 4.200.html

Related Articles
Editorial: Egg and sperm donating dilemma
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 524903.400
12 March 2005
DNA-based genealogy test reveals infertility
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 624983.200
07 May 2005
Comment and analysis: Meet the ancestors
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3381
12 February 2003
Weblinks
FamilyTreeDNA.com
http://www.familytreedna.com
Omnitrace.com
http://www.omnitrace.com
OxfordAncestors.com
http://www.oxfordancestors.com
DonorSiblingRegistry.com
http:///www.donorsiblingregistry.com
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex ... 4.200.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ban on the sale of 'fresh' sperm over the internet
By Marie Woolf, Political Editor
Published: 27 August 2006

The sale of fresh sperm over the internet is to be banned following a government clampdown. Ministers will outlaw anonymous donations and introduce new rules forcing all sperm samples to be frozen and screened.

The Department of Health will this week write to internet sperm providers telling them they will face strict new rules forcing them to freeze sperm for six months and screen it for viruses, including HIV.

The government action follows complaints that the internet sperm donations are not fully regulated and that some samples, biked by courier to women's homes, are old or may not always match the requirements of clients for physical type or background.

The new rules, which will come into force next year, will mean that fresh sperm will no longer be able to available to women by mail order.

A source at the Department of Health said: "We are saying they will not be able to sell fresh sperm direct. They will have to guarantee it has been screened for six months, the same way as clinics do. They will be subject to the same rules and will have to freeze sperm."

Internet sperm sites charge up to £2,000 for sperm donated by men which, they say, is of good quality and is subjected to rigorous screening. The anonymous service, provided by websites operating in the UK and abroad, has helped thousands of women, many of whom are single or in lesbian relationships, to conceive.

Under the new rules, internet sperm will be subject to the same rules governing UK sperm banks and fertility clinics. They have to freeze sperm for six months, the incubation period for HIV, to ensure that it is safe to use. They also check that the sperm is sufficiently strong and mobile to survive the freezing and rethawing process and enable women to conceive.

The change in the law will be welcomed by fertility groups which have called for stricter rules on internet sperm sites. "We are not happy with the use of fresh sperm. It's good that this loophole will be closed," said Allan Pacey, secretary of the British Fertility Society. "It's a good idea to change the law because at the moment there are real safety issues."

The change in the law will also end the right of internet sperm donors to remain anonymous.

There has been a huge increase in demand for fresh sperm via the internet since the Government introduced new rules affecting fertility clinics in the UK. Clinics have complained that they have been unable to persuade men to donate sperm after the Government withdrew the right of donors to keep their identity secret.

Currently children conceived using donated sperm at a clinic have the right to contact their father when they reach 18. But internet sites are not currently governed by these rules and can take donations from men who will remain anonymous when their offspring grow up.

"Currently the health concerns from internet sites are very significant because the sperm is not screened for months. There is a very big worry," said Josephine Quintaville, director of Comment on Reproductive Ethics. " We would welcome getting rid of anonymity."

The Government will this week tell the internet sites they will have until April 2007 to comply with the law. The Government will tell them that an EU directive governing the use of human tissues will mean they can no longer be exempt from the same rules governing sperm banks and fertility clinics that do not operate online.

The clampdown follows a consultation on reform of of fertility laws where concerns about internet sites were raised. The new rules are likely to mean that frozen sperm will in future be biked round to women's homes and can be kept in the freezer before self-insemination.

CASE STUDY: 'We were both worried by the risk of disease'

Lesbian couple Eve Carlile and Ros Hudson discussed having their own child for nine years before they decided to use a sperm donor.

Following private treatment at a fertility clinic in London, they now have a one-year-old son, Jude. Ms Carlile, 30, a solicitor, said they eventually decided against ordering sperm through the internet.

"We didn't use [the sperm donor website] Man Not Included because we were worried about the safety aspect and sexually transmitted diseases. That was really a major reason; doing that is incredibly risky," she said .

She and Ms Hudson, 31, an accountant, were clear from the beginning that they did not want contact with the father of the child. The couple do know that their son's biological father was of Macedonian descent, and his profession ­ a physiotherapist ­ but no more than that. "The thing is, if you wanted a donor who was 6ft tall with red hair, and the sperm is turning up on the back of a motorbike courier, how do you know if the donor really was 6ft tall with red hair?" asked Ms Carlile.

"When you look at sperm donation, you want to try to replicate something and how do you know what you're really getting if you do that over the internet?"

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politi ... 222092.ece
 
No time to paste the full story:
Britain's sperm crisis: call up our boys
Drastic action is being considered in the battle to get more men to step forward and save the nation
By Marie Woolf, Political Editor
Published: 05 November 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health ... 956578.ece

(MODS: we have several Sperm threads - perhaps some squishing could be considered? ;) )
 
Time to stand up for your country...
 
I wondered how long this thread would be in coming.
 
TheCavynaut said:
I wondered how long this thread would be in coming.
A lot quicker if a pretty nurse would give me a hand... :madeyes:
 
Sperm donor pays maintenance to lesbians
By Graham Tibbetts
Last Updated: 8:42pm GMT 03/12/2007

A sperm donor who helped a lesbian couple have two children is now being forced to pay thousands of pounds for their upbringing, he said.

Andy Bathie, 37, agreed to assist Sharon and Terri Arnold - who were united in a religious blessing ceremony - after they assured him he would have no involvement in raising the boy and girl.

But after the couple split up he was tracked down by the Child Support Agency and forced to make regular maintenance payments. :shock:

Mr Bathie, a fireman from Enfield, north London, said the financial burden was preventing him from starting his own family.

"These women wanted to be parents and take on all the responsibilities that brings. I would never have agreed to this unless they had been living as a committed family. And now I can't afford to have children with my own wife - it's crippling me financially," he said.

He is now bringing a legal challenge to remove his responsibilities as a parent to the two children in a case believed to be the first of its kind.

Mr Bathie, who pays £450 a month in maintenance, cannot afford to employ a solicitor or barrister to take up his case but will approach his local MP, Joan Ryan, in the hope she can highlight his plight in the Commons.

He is seeking a retrospective change in the law that would place paternal responsibility on Sharon Arnold, who was the non-biological mother in the lesbian relationship.

Mr Bathie was approached by the couple five years ago after they had unsuccessfully asked other male friends, but no formal legal arrangement was put in place.

Last November he was astonished to be contacted by the CSA, who demanded payments and ordered him to take a £400 paternity test to prove he was the father.

He has only met his offspring on a couple of occasions.

"When they (Terri and Sharon) first approached me I did look into the legal side and understood that as a couple they would be the parents, not me. I was never 'Daddy'," he told a newspaper.

"The only reason these children are here is because they wanted children as a couple which means they should take responsibility. The CSA admit that mine is an unusual case - this is double standards and I'm having money stolen by the Government."

At the time of the donation, Mr Bathie was in a relationship with a woman who had been sterilised and was not planning to have children. He has since married another woman.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said that private sperm donors are liable financially unless they donate through a licensed clinic.

"We would warn men providing genetic material that the only time they are not the father is when they donate through a licensed fertility clinic. This does not apply to unlicensed websites or home insemination," said a spokesman.

Natalie Gamble, a fertility law expert at Lester Aldridge who advised Mr Bathie recently, said the non-biological mother in the lesbian relationship currently had no legal responsibility for the children's upbringing.

"At the moment she has no responsibility at all, which seems rather unfair. She ought to have some responsibility towards the children she has helped bring into the world," she said.

The Government is seeking to reform the legislation to give equal parenting rights to same-sex couples who form civil partnerships.

Had it been in place when Mr Bathie donated sperm it would have meant his right as a father would have passed to the non-biological mother.

Mrs Gamble said the law was becoming obsolete as a result of changes to the family structure.

"Lots of women and same-sex couples are having children through home insemination, because its cheaper, or they want somebody to have involvement in the child's upbringing or because they want to know who the father is.

"But the law is struggling to keep up with these modern scenarios. Until things go wrong it's difficult to say how the law applies."

She urged would-be parents and donors to ensure they have an agreement in place so all parties are aware of their rights and responsibilities.

Sharon and Terri Arnold could not be contacted for comment.

http://tinyurl.com/yqjjc8

What a crazy mixed-up world we live in... :(
 
Back
Top