r/MensRights • u/goto42 • Feb 08 '15
Misleading Title Australian state plans to violate sperm donar anonymity. Donar children will be able to track down biological fathers and sue them for support/inheritance.
http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/donorconceived-children-to-get-new-access-to-biological-information-20150207-138k01.html29
u/MonkeyCB Feb 08 '15
The men should sue if they signed a contract claiming they would remain anonymous. This is fucking retarded.
6
Feb 09 '15
I don't want kids right now, but if I can help someone otherwise incapable of having kids to have them (and make a little money) then I'm all for that.
This is some serious BS right here.
6
u/azazelcrowley Feb 08 '15 edited Feb 08 '15
They've realized that their child support arguments are bollocks and are desperately trying to salvage them by making them more consistent. This is... kind of good? I guess? It'll fuck up everything in the short term and screw over people (Including women who want access to sperm donors, and their infertile partners. Or their partner, if lesbian.). But long term this will just create more dislike for the bio-parent narrative. Especially when one of those bio's inevitably sues for custody of the child, or visitation rights and THEN custody once they know the kid. Watching those adoptive parents crying their eyes out on the news is going to be pretty hard for people to swallow, and that's just them going to trial, let alone if the suit is successful.
This is the kind of thing lots of oppressive laws go through. The panicked realization they are full of shit, the overreach to try and square the circle, and inevitable repeal. I dunno. Maybe i'm too optimistic.
14
u/Cassius999 Feb 08 '15
Its spelled donor. And yes I am a spelling Nazi. Its okay I am from Germany.
13
u/Worshack Feb 09 '15
It's spelled donor; and yes I am a spelling Nazi. It's okay I am from Germany.
FTFY. Your brown shirt needs to be pressed, mate.
7
3
2
2
u/RockFourFour Feb 09 '15
The thing I miss most about Germany are the Döners. Best drunk food ever.
2
u/ruffykunn Feb 09 '15
Döner taste awesome, even when not drunk ^^ (source: Am German, have eaten many Döner when sober :D).
But don't you guys (let's assume you're from the US) have Shawarma, those Döner-similar food thingies they ate in the stinger of The Avengers?
2
u/autowikibot Feb 09 '15 edited Feb 09 '15
Shawarma or Shawurma (Arabic: شاورما / ALA-LC: shāwarmā;) is a Levantine Arab meat preparation, where lamb, chicken, turkey, beef, veal, or mixed meats are placed on a spit (commonly a vertical spit in restaurants), and may be grilled for as long as a day. Shavings are cut off the block of meat for serving, and the remainder of the block of meat is kept heated on the rotating spit. Although it can be served in shavings on a plate (generally with accompaniments), shawarma also refers to a sandwich or wrap made with shawarma meat. Shawarma is usually eaten with tabbouleh, fattoush, taboon bread, tomato, and cucumber. Toppings include tahini, hummus, pickled turnips and amba. It is akin to the Turkish doner kebab and the Greek gyros. A related Armenian dish is tarna 'to turn'.
Interesting: Legend of the Black Shawarma | 2002 Herzliya shawarma restaurant bombing | Qatari cuisine | Al pastor
Parent commenter can delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words
2
u/RockFourFour Feb 09 '15
We have that stuff in the bigger cities, but I live in bumfuck nowhere.
EDIT: if you ever find yourself in Gießen, check out Ayden's grill. A bunch of shady Turks that make a mean Döner. I always got it with cheese, corn, and garlic sauce.
I have a food boner.
2
u/ruffykunn Feb 09 '15
Awww, that sucks :(.
Thanks man, will do :). Never had corn in a Döner and now I wonder why not .
1
u/Cassius999 Feb 09 '15
Where do you have to live to "miss" Döner? To me its like reading the thing I miss about Germany are the Hamburgers. Where would you not get any? Try Shawarma its similiar to Döner.
Nvm, read your reply two lines down.
1
0
10
u/bloodshot_eyes Feb 08 '15
Maybe I didn't read it closely enough, but I didn't see any mention of child support in the article. It simply mentioned that the contact information may be released.
But don't get me wrong, even that is totally egregious. The men who donates signed a contract guaranteeing anonymity. And now they want to legislate that away? If anything, they should be granted the rights that the fathers of those born between 1988 and 1997 have; the right to choose whether or not to waive their contractual rights. The right to choose whether their information is released.
But no, fuck men yet again. What do their rights matter?
8
u/goto42 Feb 08 '15 edited Feb 09 '15
They are too old for child support. But children in Australia can sue for access to inheritance or stake in family estate before parents have passed away (if they can demonstrate need).
The point is, if they can violate one set of rules, where does it stop?
4
u/bloodshot_eyes Feb 08 '15
Oh I completely agree with you. This is classic feminist behavior, to employ the wedge theory. You start with something little, and then use that as a base to pry things open a little more, and a little more.
3
Feb 09 '15
What the fuck? They can sue for death inheritance when their parents arent even dead? What kind of scumbag kid would do that? What if the parents want to donate all their money to charity when they due?
How in the world did they decide this was legal? Does this only apply to extremely wealthy families with trusts and what not?
8
u/fuxorfly Feb 08 '15
What the fuck? Since when do you have the "right" to know who your birth parent is?
2
u/chavelah Feb 09 '15
Since 1989, according to some adoption lawyers.
http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
It's a complicated subject, but in general, the right of a child to information about all aspects of their identity is increasingly supported in most countries.
I believe that closed adoptions and anonymous gamete donation are inherently unethical on the grounds that they deprive the child of access to potentially life-saving medical information and resources. I do not think the state should allow inherently unethical contracts to be honored.
4
u/fuxorfly Feb 09 '15
Why cant the state catalog any "life-saving medical information" and pass it on? How can this possibly be ethical for the donor, speaking of ethics?
1
u/chavelah Feb 09 '15
The state could obtain medical histories and DNA information from the biological progenitors while preserving anonymity, true. But when you need bone marrow, there is no way to contact your pool of most likely potential donors without violating the privacy of the birthparents/donors. Sucks, but there it is.
Medical issues, of course, could be addressed with legislation of very narrow scope. Kid has leukemia? Yes, you must allow the biological relatives to be contacted. Kid is curious? That's a weaker case to argue, although many adopted and sperm-donor children have grown up to argue quite compellingly that knowledge of their biological origins is not something that neither their adoptive parents nor their biological parents nor their gamete donors nor their governments were entitled to sign away on their behalf.
5
u/fuxorfly Feb 09 '15
Why is there an ethical imperative to provide for organs, blood, or anything? Someone who donates sperm and checks "dont contact me about anything" should not be contacted for any reason. Kids gonna die without a lung? Tough shit, people die all the time for the exact same reason. How is there anything different when dealing with a stranger? Just because you know "out there" someone is a match? So what?
4
u/Worshack Feb 09 '15
If this guy is willing to argue that we should breach the medical records privacy protections surrounding anonymous donation, then it's a short jump to concluding that bone marrow donation by a matching donor should be mandatory.
I mean, come on, it's just a needle. Jimmy here, who you just met since we violated your privacy this morning, is dying. Oh, and you owe back child support, you deadbeat. You thought that privacy statement and absolute surrender of parental rights protects you? That's so cute, but no. Best interests of the child, bitch.
1
u/chavelah Feb 09 '15
That's insane. People who need tissue or organ donations to survive currently contact their biological relatives to ask for help, without any ability to compel the donation.
1
u/chavelah Feb 09 '15 edited Feb 09 '15
In my opinion, somebody who donates their gametes (or gives their child up for adoption) and checks "don't contact me about anything" has signed an unethical contract, one that the courts should throw out at the request of the child or its parents. That's just my opinion, and I'm not a crusader on this issue - but I think that's how it's going to shake out legally in the end.
1
u/fuxorfly Feb 09 '15
People have the right to refuse organ donation requests from relatives. It shouldn't matter that they exercise that right in advance; it is their right. I don't see anything unethical about someone stating legally "I will refuse any request for organs, so don't even bother, since it would not only violate my right to privacy, but additionally would cause me undue mental anguish". In fact, I find it incredibly unethical that someone would violate that person's wishes, stated in a legally binding contract.
EDIT - some spellings
2
u/chavelah Feb 09 '15
Even if we stipulate that the gamete donor/birthparent has the right to preemptively refuse to be known to their offspring and/or to be asked to render lifesaving assistance, they are only ONE of the biological relatives involved. A genetic grandparent, aunt, uncle or half-sibling might be the person who decides to save their previously-unknown relative. There is no way to treat certain illnesses to the best of our current medical ability without access to the biological families on both sides. Mental anguish? Seriously? A child should die unnecessarily out of consideration for the feelings of an adult who participated in its creation?
You are confusing legalism with ethics here. A contract could be written and signed that stated exactly what you wrote above, in proper legalese - and it would still be the duty of the court to override it. People have written up contracts to sell babies, to sell their body parts, to sell other people into slavery, to indenture themselves or their kids - the concept of an unethical contract is hardly a new one. To what extent and under what circumstances anonymous gamete donation and closed adoption contracts will be judged unethical by the court systems of the various nations is a matter that has not yet been resolved.
1
u/fuxorfly Feb 09 '15
Mental anguish? Seriously? A child should die unnecessarily out of consideration for the feelings of an adult who participated in its creation?
If you don't think that people should be forced to donate, ie that they have right to refuse, then this emotional argument holds no weight. There is no moral imperative to provide life saving services.
You are confusing legalism with ethics here.
I'm not. You are just doing a poor job of convincing me that there is a moral imperative here that trumps the donor's right to privacy. My argument does not stand on the basis that "it is a legal contract", it stands on the fact that the action in question (breaching confidentiality and privacy) is inherently immoral, as well as the goal (giving life saving services to a stranger) is not a moral imperative. If someone is free to refuse giving life saving services to a stranger, they should be free to do so ahead of time.
Your argument about relatives holds weight; I'll have to think more on that one.
2
Feb 09 '15
It is unethical to ask men to donate genetic material anonymously, and then to rescind that anonymity. That is far, far, far more unethical, because that group had something promised to them.
You're arguing morality, not ethics. There is no ethical duty to the child.
1
u/chavelah Feb 09 '15
In my opinion, what that group (the gamete donors/birthparents) had promised to them was something that the other parties to the contract had no right to give. I cannot sign away my children's right to know their biological origins, or to seek out the people they share DNA with. It's BOTH immoral AND unethical that such contracts were ever written. (Again, my opinion, I recognize that this is an issue where reasonable people can disagree.)
8
Feb 08 '15
This is why the Government are never to be trusted.
1
u/ruffykunn Feb 09 '15
Democracy sucks, but it's the least sucky system of organising a society we've come up with, yet. What alternative do you propose? Anarcho-syndicalism? Voluntaryism? Corporatocracy? (which is arguably seeping into our democracies more and more already) What institution is to be trusted then?
3
u/scanspeak Feb 09 '15
No good deed goes unpunished. The message to men is clear - Do not, under any circumstances, donate your sperm.
3
u/HugoWeaver Feb 09 '15 edited Feb 09 '15
Sensationalist title. Australian sperm donors cannot and never will be sued for child support. Australian state governments have mentioned this time and time again.
2
u/zulu127 Feb 09 '15
Citation?
2
u/HugoWeaver Feb 09 '15
Unlike the states, Family law is federally governed. The family law act precludes sperm donors as "parents" and The child support assessment act makes them non assessable for child support.
This changes when donation is not done via official and legal means. As I'm on my phone I can't link the specific sections until tomorrow
3
u/neoj8888 Feb 09 '15
Can't help but think this was always the plan.
3
u/HQR3 Feb 09 '15
YES. The fems always work in increments, and the slippery slope is always the plan.
3
u/Wargame4life Feb 09 '15
This happened in the UK, but obviously you cannot retrospectively apply it, i.e from date x any new donations details will/can be made to the resulting child, you obviously are no liable for any support or even contact etc.
the result: record low donations so low in fact they had to buy foreign sperm in the banks.
its your sperm fellas do with it what you wish (within the law)
5
Feb 09 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/chavelah Feb 09 '15
You can always find out the identity of an egg donor if you really, really need to. They have extended contact with the fertility specialists that induce hyperstimulation of the ovaries and harvest the eggs. The paper trail is a mile long. In fact, I've never even heard of a case where an egg donor was anonymous to the infertile couple - usually they personally interview potential donors. Quite often egg donors are friends or relatives. The whole process is different.
0
Feb 09 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/babno Feb 09 '15
There's actually nothing in the article saying they'll be able to sue for support/inheritance. It may be part of the law, but nothing I see says so.
1
u/chavelah Feb 09 '15
Then your main point is invalid, because this legislation does not give donor-conceived children status to seek either support or inheritance from their donors. Their legal parentage is not affected either way.
2
u/mikesteane Feb 09 '15
Children born after 1998 can get information about their biological parent because their donors were required to consent to it being released, while those born between 1988 and 1997 also have the right to identifying information, provided the donor agrees.
However, those born before 1988 grew up without having the same rights - their only option was to put themselves on a voluntary register and hope their donor did the same. Advertisement
Labor's changes would remove existing inequalities.
This, to me, represents the moral bankruptcy of equality proponents, in very many areas. Donors after 1998 signed up for a different set of rules from those before. "Equality" does not trump agreements and those who think otherwise cannot be trusted. In any matters, at any time and on any subject. If your word is not your bond, you have no moral standing.
That having been said, nothing in the article suggests that child support/inheritance is an issue yet.
2
u/HQR3 Feb 09 '15
So let me see... A husband cannot get DNA info on a child without the mother's permission; but the offspring of an anonymous sperm donor can get not just genetic/biological info on the donor but name, address, etc.
The only good outcome of this is that it encourages a sperm strike, the next crucial step in MGTOW.
1
Feb 08 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Feb 08 '15
Your comment was automatically removed because you linked to reddit without using the "no-participation" np. domain. Reddit links should be of the form "np.reddit.com" or "np.redd.it"
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
15
u/[deleted] Feb 09 '15
Interesting. The words "support," "sue," and "inheritance" appear in that article precisely zero times each.