Children donor awareness: Your views Watch

Have Your Say
Badges: 0
#1
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#1
Should the details of children born through donor conception be recorded on their birth certificates?

At the moment, a child conceived using donated sperm or eggs can grow up not knowing this fact, if his or her parents choose not to reveal it.

However, a committee of MPs and peers claim that adding this information to the birth certificate will encourage parents to discuss the topic before children find out themselves.

The recommendation by the cross-party group forms part of a review of the draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill which is expected to be included in the Queen's Speech in November.

Should parents be given the choice over whether to reveal this information? Does a child have the right to know? Could such a move discourage future donations? Are you the parent of a donor conceived child? Send us your experiences.

Click here to read the main story (on the BBC website)

Click here if you have any other story ideas (on the BBC website)
reply
SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 11 years ago
#2
I don't think it should be on birth certificates, but I think that once the child becomes and adult,there should be means by which they can confirm their parentage.
0
reply
ForumFreak
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#3
Report 11 years ago
#3
I think putting this on a birth certificate is going too far. Lots of people, schools, banks etc get to see your birth certificate and a person might want to keep things like this private.
0
reply
Eubacterium
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4
Report 11 years ago
#4
It should be on their birth certificate as it is their right to know. It should also have the identity of the donor parent. I'm actually against donating eggs and sperm because it is giving away children but arranging it in advance. There are plenty of already born children who desperately need parents.
0
reply
Vesta
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report 11 years ago
#5
No I think the parents should definitely have the choice whether to reveal that to the child. Some children have no desire to contact their biological parents. And as far as I see it, the 'real' parents have brought the child up, fed them, clothed them, loved them - so whom the egg is from really isn't relevant.

Perhaps I'd feel differently if I were said child, but this is from an 'outside' view.
0
reply
silverbolt
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 11 years ago
#6
can jsut imagine teh convo now.

"hey mom hey dad how are you this morning."
"son sit down."
"what is it?"
"your real parents are a petri dish and a test tube."

What possible usage does putting it on the birth cert have. The parents should tell the children in thier own time
0
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 11 years ago
#7
Birth certificates have to be used everywhere, why dont they just tattoo 'I was concieved with a turkey baster' on their forehead? (Aside from their not being enough space).
0
reply
grammar_king
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#8
Report 11 years ago
#8
I think putting it on the birth certificate is a step too far. It would be better to wait until the child is old enough to understand properly, and then maybe make it compulsory for the parents to tell them.

I do not believe the identities of the donors should be given out except in emergency circumstances such as medical histories being required in strange medical situations. Giving it out as standard procedure would reduce the number of donors.

Personally I don't see the difference if you're born using donated sperm or eggs or not. The people who raise you are your parents, it doesn't matter what your DNA says. I plan to adopt anyway, there are plenty of kids out there with no parents, no point in just making another kid and leaving another in care or whatever.
0
reply
generalebriety
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 11 years ago
#9
(Original post by grammar_king)
Personally I don't see the difference if you're born using donated sperm or eggs or not. The people who raise you are your parents, it doesn't matter what your DNA says. I plan to adopt anyway, there are plenty of kids out there with no parents, no point in just making another kid and leaving another in care or whatever.
(St. Anselm's? Oh dear. :p:)

There is a huge difference between having a kid yourself and adopting. Surely sperm donation also includes artificial insemination? If the woman wants to carry the baby for 9 months in order to bond with it then that's her choice, and isn't much to do with how many kids there are waiting to be adopted. Having a baby isn't just like getting a dog. I hate to sound rude, but you make it sound like having a baby is just a case of literally acquiring a kid. The bond between a mother and her child is very important too, and I'd say there's not many cases where a woman would prefer to adopt rather than carry their own baby. As for test tube babies... surely this is just the two parents wanting their baby to be their own baby, genetically, rather than someone else's baby?
0
reply
grammar_king
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report 11 years ago
#10
(Original post by generalebriety)
(St. Anselm's? Oh dear. :p:)

There is a huge difference between having a kid yourself and adopting. Surely sperm donation also includes artificial insemination? If the woman wants to carry the baby for 9 months in order to bond with it then that's her choice, and isn't much to do with how many kids there are waiting to be adopted. Having a baby isn't just like getting a dog. I hate to sound rude, but you make it sound like having a baby is just a case of literally acquiring a kid. The bond between a mother and her child is very important too, and I'd say there's not many cases where a woman would prefer to adopt rather than carry their own baby. As for test tube babies... surely this is just the two parents wanting their baby to be their own baby, genetically, rather than someone else's baby?
(you'd better not be one of those posh prats up the hill :P)

I understand, I just don't take that view myself. A baby is your baby whether or not it contains your DNA, and I think you can still have a mother's bond whether or not you've born the baby yourself. I suppose it all comes down to that age-old nature vs nurture argument.
0
reply
generalebriety
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 11 years ago
#11
(Original post by grammar_king)
(you'd better not be one of those posh prats up the hill :P)

I understand, I just don't take that view myself. A baby is your baby whether or not it contains your DNA, and I think you can still have a mother's bond whether or not you've born the baby yourself. I suppose it all comes down to that age-old nature vs nurture argument.
(Heh, 'fraid I was. :p: Not any more though.)

Fair enough, I just think it's perfectly fair to give the mother the right to have her own baby if this is how she feels. I'm not saying it's my opinion, I don't really have strong opinions on this topic, but it'd be perfectly understandable for most women who wanted kids to take this opinion (and I guess they already do). I agree with a lot of what you said and think it's a matter of personal choice, and I respect your choice to adopt - far too few people doing that nowadays.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (58)
75.32%
Leave (19)
24.68%

Watched Threads

View All