Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
Why ?

Do you support a system where some people have more rights than others ?
Click to expand...

your shifting the argument away from what you said was your core opposition in the first place.

But, I would think that children don't have any "right" to inheritance, the inheritance will be distributed as the last will and testimony of the deceased states.

if you tried to muddy the waters and say you are entitled to inheritance from you biological parents, then you would also have to say that your not really entitled to inheritance from the non related family that raised you, you would have biological children getting inheritance while any adopted or non biological siblings didn't get anything, I can't see how this would reduce stress in these situations.
 
then you would also have to say that your not really entitled to inheritance from the non related family that raised you
Click to expand...

non sequitor

Why would I have to say that ? People can inherit from more than one person.

By wiping out the rights of a certain class of person you create a divided society. People who know their biological parents and those who don't. It's unfair to put one group at a disadvantage to others.
 
SirRumpole said:
By wiping out the rights of a certain class of person you create a divided society. People who know their biological parents and those who don't. It's unfair to put one group at a disadvantage to others.
Click to expand...

I don't think its that dramatic,
 
Value Collector said:
When a person donates either sperm or an egg to a couple who can't conceive by themselves, that person has rights also. I have no problem with the two parties meeting if thats what both sides want, But if it came down to forcing a donor to meet some one, I am not sure whether that would work, How productive is it going to be to force someone to meet someone.
Click to expand...
Completely unproductive, probably. But it should just be like any other sort of agreement where the parties sign up for the mutually acceptable terms, including the revelation or not of the sperm or egg donor.
Once that agreement is concluded, there should be no right for any resulting child to try to hunt down the donor if that was not originally agreed to.

Also, when people say "Children, the big losers", I don't like that heading, because it causes an emotional response
Click to expand...
Agree. It's a poor argument that needs to fall back on emotive language.

If their donor hadn't had the right to keep his/hers identity secret, he may never have made the donation, and hence that person never have existed.
Click to expand...
Yep, exactly so.

SirRumpole said:
Knowing that a biological parent has rejected you and never wants to see you must be a worse fate than never existing at all.
Click to expand...
Good heavens, that's a huge bit of overreach, Rumpole. If someone's life is not worth living just because some adult has made a particular decision, then it wasn't worth that much in the first place imo.
It's not a parent, but I discovered at age 20 ish that I had a half brother. As an only child, I was absolutely delighted, and asked a family member to take a letter from me asking for a meeting to this newly found sibling.
Response was a flat "NO". Zero interest. Bugger off.
Yes, I was disappointed, but that's his right. We all have different reasons for the decisions we make. My wish for a 'real sibling' didn't constitute any obligation on him to fulfil that wish.
It is what it is. Accept it.

Trying to ensure that those that are born have loving biological parents is more important than encouraging more people to be born just because some parents are trying to fulfill their own perceived needs for offspring by any means possible even if it means a detriment to the children.
Click to expand...
Of course no guarantee that a biological origin means parents will be loving. I can think of dozens of accidental pregnancies where, sure, the parents have stayed together, but the subsequent disharmony would be more harmful to the child than if he/she had been with one calm, loving parent.

But I do agree about some selfish individuals going to extraordinary lengths , eg buying babies via foreign surrogacy etc, being an undesirable practice. Seems to me yet another symptom of the current prevailing attitude of "if I want something I will find a way to get it". Millions of people who have never reproduced by whatever means have still enjoyed positive, fruitful and constructive lives.


SirRumpole said:
It's a lot more likely if children are born into family whose biological parents are together in a good relationship than if a father gave a bit of sperm for money and has no interest in what results from it.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's right, Rumpole. I don't think you can really generalise like that. Some people are so desperate to have a child that if they can achieve that, then they will fall over themselves to be good parents, unlike some who just accidentally conceive. People are what they are.

SirRumpole said:
The problem is that a lot of IVF children spend years trying to to find a biological parent, so the need to do is very strong. I don't see a reason to put them through that trauma and deny them the knowledge that you and I take for granted. If they don't have that right then they have less rights than you or I and that is unacceptable.

If sperm donor's identities are by law available to to their children, that should be a minimum requirement. If it turns people off donating sperm, too bad.
Click to expand...
That seems a short sighted and rather thoughtless view. I also find your suggestion that a donor-created person should have inheritance rights very bizarre. Why should they? We all have the choice of to whom to leave our estates. Given the woeful money management of some people, not to mention whether their behaviour has ever deemed them deserving of an inheritance, a bequest to a good charity is often a better option imo.

SirRumpole said:
No, but you can give them the same rights as other children of that person, eg inheritance
Click to expand...
 
That seems a short sighted and rather thoughtless view. I also find your suggestion that a donor-created person should have inheritance rights very bizarre. Why should they? We all have the choice of to whom to leave our estates.
Click to expand...

Yes we do, but that can sometimes be overturned by courts where children are obviously discriminated against.

All this talk of "contracts" when creating children seems rather mercenary don't you think ? I doubt if I would like it if I was created for a few bucks that someone got for ejaculating into a bottle. How cheap.

If their donor hadn't had the right to keep his/hers identity secret, he may never have made the donation, and hence that person never have existed.

Yep, exactly so.
Click to expand...

So what ? Billions of potential people never exist, but if they do they should have the same rights to know their biological parents as anyone else.

Julia said:
That seems a short sighted and rather thoughtless view.
Click to expand...

Could you expand on that ?

Julia said:
But it should just be like any other sort of agreement where the parties sign up for the mutually acceptable terms, including the revelation or not of the sperm or egg donor.
Once that agreement is concluded, there should be no right for any resulting child to try to hunt down the donor if that was not originally agreed to.
Click to expand...

All you seem interested in are the rights of the donors/parents. The child is a commodity with no rights according to you. Very easy for people who are/were able to contact their own parents to say that others should not have that right.

How arrogant.
 
SirRumpole said:
All this talk of "contracts" when creating children seems rather mercenary don't you think ? I doubt if I would like it if I was created for a few bucks that someone got for ejaculating into a bottle. How cheap.
Click to expand...
Better to be pragmatic and sensible than get carried away by emotive argument. So the life of your supposed deprived life is devalued just because you perceive yourself not to have been created by a few moments of hormone driven lust?

Could you expand on that ?
Click to expand...
No. I've said all I'm interested in saying. Judging by the extraordinary persistence and endurance displayed by you and VC in this and other threads, you can go on perpetuating an argument for the sake of it for ever.
I have no interest in doing likewise.

All you seem interested in are the rights of the donors/parents. The child is a commodity with no rights according to you. Very easy for people who are/were able to contact their own parents to say that others should not have that right.

How arrogant.
Click to expand...
You may deem it whatever you like. I just look for the pragmatic best option, least likely to cause grief all round.
If people don't want to engage in an agreement that the created person should be able to contact either 'parent' then they can word their contract accordingly. And vice versa. Don't bring governments or anyone else into it.
If people are going to get involved in all this stuff, then it's up to each individual to agree on the rules surrounding the arrangement. No need for all your emotive stuff unless that is what the 'parents' agree matters to them and the proposed offspring.
 
Julia said:
So the life of your supposed deprived life is devalued just because you perceive yourself not to have been created by a few moments of hormone driven lust?
Click to expand...

If my rights have been diminished by not being able to know my family history like anyone else, then the answer is YES.


Julia said:
Don't bring governments or anyone else into it.
Click to expand...

Governments and others have to be bought into it to stand up for the rights of the products of these "contracts".

If you want to stick to the mercenary line, contracts are only binding on those who are a party to them, and have informed consent to agree to the conditions of that contract. That can hardly apply to a sperm. The sperm and the children/adults they grow into are not bound by the contract of confidentiality and should be able to get access to information about their ancestors and medical history if necessary, like anyone else, and if the prospect of that disturbs potential donors, then they have the option not to donate.
 
SirRumpole said:
All this talk of "contracts" when creating children seems rather mercenary don't you think ?.
Click to expand...

Making children almost always involves contracts, verbal mainly even if they are just inferred, Most women want a promise that the man is going to be around to help her raise the child, when he promises he will always be there, that's I form of verbal contract.

He might even promise to move her into a bigger house etc during discussions.

Maybe that's not what you mean, but contracts are always involved.

I doubt if I would like it if I was created for a few bucks that someone got for ejaculating into a bottle. How cheap.
Click to expand...

so a drunk night seems better? Really it doesn't matter does it, your parents wanted you so much they went to extraordinary lengths to get you.

So what ? Billions of potential people never exist, but if they do they should have the same rights to know their biological parents as anyone else.
Click to expand...

Do people have the right to meet someone whom doesn't want to met them?
 
I actually learnt a bit about the relevant legislation and policy this year.

1. I agree that it's outrageous to retrospectively change legislation to allow children to access the identity of donors, who gave their donation based on legislative anonymity. That's just not ok.

2. The crucial point which Rumpole is getting at (among others) is that the child has not given consent to be raised in an environment where s/he does not know the identity of their biological parent(s). Accordingly, although it's all well and good for the parents to reach an agreement, it's not entirely up to them - arguably the child should have some say in the matter as well. While it is problematic to remove anonymity (as it may discourage donations, etc), I do think that the right of the child to know shouldn't be entirely decided by parents.

A much more interesting issue is providing financial incentives for donations...

I'm all for it. Negates any issues of sperm shortage, for one.
 
herzy said:
Accordingly, although it's all well and good for the parents to reach an agreement, it's not entirely up to them - arguably the child should have some say in the matter as well. While it is problematic to remove anonymity (as it may discourage donations, etc), I do think that the right of the child to know shouldn't be entirely decided by parents.

.
Click to expand...

I think the best you could hope for is to provide a report with all the necessary family background and medical history etc, and then when the child is 18 if the decide the want to meet the biological mother or father, have that person contacted to ask whether they are ok with that, if they are pass on the info, if they aren't, leave them be.

You can not force some one into a meeting.
 
I would suggest that there are a lot more children from broken homes or other adverse circumstances who would benefit from adoption/fostering without creating a whole new wonderland for lawyers with ivf and surrogacy and the legal and moral issues that these so called "solutions" to perceived problems create.
 
Chris45 said:
I suggest you watch:

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/customuniverse/

Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".

To see the problem, imagine playing God with the cosmos. Before you is a designer machine that lets you tinker with the basics of physics. Twiddle this knob and you make all electrons a bit lighter, twiddle that one and you make gravity a bit stronger, and so on. It happens that you need to set thirtysomething knobs to fully describe the world about us. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile.

Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn't exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleuses and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life. Like Baby Bear's porridge in the story of Goldilocks, the universe seems to be just right for life.”
― Paul Davies


http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1876666.Paul_Davies

Food for thought.
Click to expand...

Great post, Chris.

They had a show last night, which sadly I only saw half, that said similar, that it was all well structured.
 
Top