Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Alchemist
Original Poster
#1 Old 11th Nov 2013 at 4:28 PM Last edited by Original_Sim : 9th Jun 2021 at 10:15 AM.
Default Purge this account
Discuss.
Advertisement
Top Secret Researcher
#2 Old 11th Nov 2013 at 5:06 PM
I recently researched becoming an egg donor. The pay was enticing, but I'd have to inject myself with hormones daily. *shudders* I don't trust myself with a needle.

Donors cannot be forced to pay child support. Before the insemination or implanting, the recipient has to sign a form absolving the donor of all legal ties to the child. Should they? No. Getting fertility help costs a lot of money. If the parents can afford that, then they can afford to take care of a kid for 18+ years. Plus, it's not really the donor's child, since they likely won't be raising it or have any say in how it's raised. Unless they have a right to custody, then no.

Donors can leave their files open if they want the kid to contact them in the future, but some places require closed-file. But if they want to remain anonymous, there are legal ways of staying that way. Should they remain anonymous? Why shouldn't they? Should their wish to remain anonymous be trumped by the kid's desire to know, especially when granting the kid's wish is an invasion of privacy? However, if they need to provide something like a bone marrow or kidney donation, there are ways to put them in contact with the parents.
(I will say that it's a good idea to keep tabs on the kids, though. Having a bunch of half-siblings running around without the Westermarck effect? Things could get disturbing.)

Egg donors, at least, have to go through a thorough genetic profiling to test for common diseases, including getting medical history several generation back. This information is made available to the parent(s) before anything final is done. If they have a risk of passing on a genetic disease, then they're not selected. I imagine the same is true of sperm donors, where undesirable sperm is diverted to medical research. I mean, even plasma donation requires a battery of health questions and checkups every time you donate.

Basically, I don't think that the donor should have to do any of the things you described. Medical history shouldn't affect the kid. And as for privacy? It's their choice.
Theorist
#3 Old 11th Nov 2013 at 5:35 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Original_Sim
Should sperm and egg donors be allowed to remain anonymous?


They should be required to remain anonymous.

Quote: Originally posted by Original_Sim
What is the ideal solution to children tracking down their biological parents in a donor scenario (e.g. The Kids Are All Right)?


That the information is impossible for them to find and that there are criminal legal consequences for anyone who might invade the donor's privacy, or vice versa.

Quote: Originally posted by Original_Sim
Should donors be granted the right to their privacy?


You're repeating yourself. It's a medical procedure, the only possible way to break into the anonymity of the medical procedure should be a court order predicated by a public health concern ie your sperm is patient zero for the zombie baby virus, so the CDC says to hell with your privacy to kill you and all of your demon-spawn.

Or to put another way, always, no exceptions.

Quote: Originally posted by Original_Sim
Is it fair to demand that they pay child support for a child that all parties agreed would be raised by the parents asking for such a donation (e.g. same-sex couples, infertile couples, single women)?


No.

Quote: Originally posted by Original_Sim
What about medical history? Is it necessary to disclose everything about the donor just to provide information on possible diseases that could be inherited?


The people assuming the responsibility for the donated genetic material should have a complete medical history so as to vet out zombie virus donors, or more reasonably folks with shitty genetics in general, but that doesn't mean that the people on the other end (the baby) have a right to anyone's medical histories. The liability stops at the agency, not the donor, because I don't know about you but I've got no clue what all of the possible DNA stew I've got going on in my baby batter except in the most broad of terms. The doctors who collect such thing as a service? Presumably they're considerably more expert, therefore it's their responsibility to vet out issues.
Top Secret Researcher
#4 Old 11th Nov 2013 at 5:55 PM
To the children yes unless there is no way from hiding it. To everyone else it should be optional if they want to know there identity or not.

"I know, and it breaks my heart to do it, but we must remain vigilant. If you cannot tell me another way, do not brand me a tyrant!" - knight commander Meredith (dragon age 2)

My sims stories: Witch queen
Nocturnal Dawn
Mad Poster
#5 Old 11th Nov 2013 at 6:45 PM
I think donors should take full responsibility for their contribution to bringing into the world of children who did not ask to be born. Without their deliberate contribution they would not exist so they shouldn't be able to eschew their parental obligations. Technically they are not much different from drunken one night stands so I don't see why the different standard just because the woman actually wants to get pregnant. It also prevents guys from having 50 kids in 25 countries just because they wrote on their profile that they are "handsome and smart".
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#6 Old 11th Nov 2013 at 7:20 PM
Here, in the UK, it is not permissable for the donor to be anonymous. This is because the right of any child to know its genetic origins is placed higher than an adult's need for anonymity. Personally, I think that's the right way round though it does mean a lower rate of donation. It should be said that the information is not made public knowledge - only the child has a right to know.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Mad Poster
#7 Old 11th Nov 2013 at 7:25 PM
Well, you've asked for people's opinions, I've given mine. People who go out of their way to visit a fertility clinic do so because they don't want to risk health complications from a one night stand with a total stranger or legal complications from fathering a child with an aquaintance. So, instead they go shopping. It's safe and regulated but it's still shopping.
Mad Poster
#8 Old 11th Nov 2013 at 7:43 PM
Most fair, least complicated way, imo:
The donor donates the egg or sperm and provides as complete a family health/medical history as possible along with it, to pass on if needed, and that ought to be the end of it forever, if that's the way the donor wants it.
Theorist
#9 Old 11th Nov 2013 at 8:20 PM
Quote: Originally posted by maxon
Here, in the UK, it is not permissable for the donor to be anonymous. This is because the right of any child to know its genetic origins is placed higher than an adult's need for anonymity. Personally, I think that's the right way round though it does mean a lower rate of donation. It should be said that the information is not made public knowledge - only the child has a right to know.


I have no idea how sperm or egg donations work in the US or anywhere for that matter, so my opinion might be completely stupid and unrealistic, but hey, it's mine so I'll own it. I do believe there's great value and importance in a child knowing its genetic origin, especially for purposes of medical history. However, I also believe the donor should have right to privacy. So I think the child should have access to anything it will want to know about its biological parent and relatives except for personally identifiable information. Name, exact DOB, address, city, state, country, employer, etc. should be off limits whereas medical history, allergies, personality type, height, weight, approximate age, general career description (i.e. musician, artist, politician), and anything else that does not personally identify the donor should be available.

I also think there should be some way that if both donor and child have a mutual interest to know about each other, there should be a way for this mutual interest to be conveyed. If there is no interest on the side of either party, then no one is any the wiser. I'm picturing something like that "Bang With Friends" app that was in the news, but for allowing donors and their offspring to express interest anonymously.

I absolutely believe the donor has no financial responsibility to the child; that's the responsibility of the parents who have accepted the donation.

Resident wet blanket.
Mad Poster
#10 Old 11th Nov 2013 at 8:22 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Original_Sim
People decide to use sperm and egg donations for many reasons:

Anonymity is one of them. The person seeking a child does not have to know the biological father or mother of their child. This can be comforting to those who are single and do not want to deal with custody issues. For couples, one parent will obviously not be the biological parent of the child, but it doesn't make him or her less of a parent. It would be less of a hassle if the donor were out of the equation.

A one-night stand cannot offer the same level of anonymity as an anonymous donation.

Infertility is another reason. Couples that cannot conceive because one partner is infertile may decide to visit a fertility clinic. Same-sex couples may also choose to take this route.

Besides medical history, I don't see a great need for a donor-conceived child to meet the sperm or egg donor. They should take comfort in the fact that they were wanted. Many children grow up with both parents that never wanted them to begin with. I personally find knocking on the donor's door and telling them you are his or her child to be very intrusive.



Well, if you already have your mind made up don't see why you're asking people for their opinion. Do you want confirmation that your opinion agrees with the others?
Personally, I don't like the idea of conceiving children with people you know nothing about. Single people who want to bring up children by themselves are selfish, so are same sex partners. After a one night stand you can at least tell your kid that his father was a guy you found attractive enough to have a one night of steamy sex with. As for donation, well, you're helping create a child, it's not like you're donating blood, people should be more responsible with their "donation activities" because their small donation is going to have a life, dreams, aspirations, needs and very often questions that need answers. The child has no obligation to respect the donor's door and not knock on it.



Quote: Originally posted by GnatGoSplat
Name, exact DOB, address, city, state, country, employer, etc. should be off limits whereas medical history, allergies, personality type, height, weight, approximate age, general career description (i.e. musician, artist, politician), and anything else that does not personally identify the donor should be available.



Most donors are young, their medical history is going to change over time, and children only have access to the information that was provided when their parents bought the sperm/eggs. And that is assuming they gave out true information.
Mad Poster
#11 Old 11th Nov 2013 at 8:38 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Original_Sim
It's a debate.

If I wanted feedback and advice for my personal life, I'd post under Off Topic Discussion, which I already do.



You can't have a debate if everyone has a similar view on the subject so stop making it out like my opinions are not quite right. I'm not going to change them.
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#12 Old 11th Nov 2013 at 8:47 PM
Quote: Originally posted by GnatGoSplat
I have no idea how sperm or egg donations work in the US or anywhere for that matter, so my opinion might be completely stupid and unrealistic, but hey, it's mine so I'll own it. I do believe there's great value and importance in a child knowing its genetic origin, especially for purposes of medical history. However, I also believe the donor should have right to privacy.

Mhmm - well, I agree, there is a balance to be struck. I believe that the way it is handled here is quite controlled in that the child can ask for information about medical issues, personal appearance and so on and then can request more personal information if they want to and even request a meeting. The more personal information (etc) is subject to agreement with the donor (that consent can be given at the time of the donation or later). What I'm saying is that the information isn't just handed out willy-nilly - that would obviously be wrong. The process is outlined in the relevant parliamentary act and I'd (or you'd) have to check that to get the actual limits and checks and balances. What is clear though is that the donor has to leave that personal information on file and it is held by the relevant authorities. They can't just make the donation and disappear into the ether. This, as I said, has led to a decrease in volunteers.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Mad Poster
#13 Old 11th Nov 2013 at 8:54 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Original_Sim
I think you mean anyone who wants to bring a child into this world is selfish. Even married heterosexual couples who decide to have children the old fashioned way are selfish. They're not doing it for the hypothetical child because the hypothetical child doesn't exist. Adoption is another matter. In way, it can be compared to "saving" a life as opposed to making one for your own benefit.



Actually, the easiest way to have a child is to make your own. People don't adopt because they want to save a life, they do it because they have the selfish desire to have a baby but cannot have one the old fashioned way and adoption is the easiest/cheapest route for them. When I said selfish I meant it as compared to the needs of the child. It's when you have 9 kids but you can only afford 2, when you refuse to give your kid a mother or a father because you want to be a single parent, that kind of selfishness, like a really bad gardner.
Inventor
#14 Old 11th Nov 2013 at 11:36 PM
Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
Actually, the easiest way to have a child is to make your own. People don't adopt because they want to save a life, they do it because they have the selfish desire to have a baby but cannot have one the old fashioned way and adoption is the easiest/cheapest route for them. When I said selfish I meant it as compared to the needs of the child. It's when you have 9 kids but you can only afford 2, when you refuse to give your kid a mother or a father because you want to be a single parent, that kind of selfishness, like a really bad gardner.

So what you're saying is that people who want to adopt children are selfish? I don't get it. Bear in mind that these children are orphaned, meaning that they have no parents. This could mean that their parents didn't want them or their parents died in some way or even a myriad of other reasons. They didn't choose to be parentless. It's hard being an orphan- I'm not one, but imagine spending your whole life fending for yourself for yourself, being in and out of foster homes, some of which just foster in children for the money.

Let's make a scenario. Child A is 12 years old. Their parents died in a horrific car crash when they were only a baby, so child A has no memory of them. Today, child A gets adopted by a lovely young couple who showers child A with love and gives child A a new sense of hope and a feeling that they are loved. Child A leads a happy life knowing that he/she has someone who loves him/her.

Yet, somehow, child A's adopted parents are cruel and selfish.

Mhm, yeah, makes sense. (it doesn't)
Top Secret Researcher
#15 Old 11th Nov 2013 at 11:48 PM
Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
I think donors should take full responsibility for their contribution to bringing into the world of children who did not ask to be born. Without their deliberate contribution they would not exist so they shouldn't be able to eschew their parental obligations. Technically they are not much different from drunken one night stands so I don't see why the different standard just because the woman actually wants to get pregnant. It also prevents guys from having 50 kids in 25 countries just because they wrote on their profile that they are "handsome and smart".


Uh, fertility clinics are very different from one night stands. Firstly, a fertility clinic doesn't involve sex. Second, they're capable of verifying a lot of information about the donor which you can't do with a one-night stand. Like whether the guy has Parkinson's, Huntington's, or another genetic disease. Or the woman herself might have a genetic disease that she doesn't want to pass on. Are you saying a woman is selfish for wanting her child to be free of genetic diseases?

And I don't get your last sentence. Having a one-night stand prevents men from having children in 25 countries? You're not legally allowed to share sperm between countries with those clinics.

Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
Well, you've asked for people's opinions, I've given mine. People who go out of their way to visit a fertility clinic do so because they don't want to risk health complications from a one night stand with a total stranger or legal complications from fathering a child with an aquaintance. So, instead they go shopping. It's safe and regulated but it's still shopping.


No, they do not. In fertility clinics, this is often the last place women go to. Why spend thousands to get a sample of sperm or eggs when it's as easy as poking holes in a condom? For that matter, there was one woman who brought in a condom and asked to be inseminated with it.

And most women who receive eggs are usually exercising a last resort. First, they get their bodies pumped full of chemicals, then get invasive procedures done to check the state of their ovaries. They may have even lost their ovaries to cancer. Are you saying a woman who went through cancer is selfish to want to experience childbirth?

Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
Well, if you already have your mind made up don't see why you're asking people for their opinion. Do you want confirmation that your opinion agrees with the others?
Personally, I don't like the idea of conceiving children with people you know nothing about.


This is a perfectly fine opinion. You want to know who you're having kids with. This does not affect other people's motivations.

Quote:
Single people who want to bring up children by themselves are selfish, so are same sex partners.


This is not. You're speculating on the motives of other people. You could say that anyone who wants a kid is selfish. I mean, they want to bring a kid into the world. So why aren't married couples having a biobaby with each other equally selfish?

Also, I was raised by a single mom. And I really never missed having a dad. Don't tell me that I'm nothing but the product of one woman's selfish desire to have a kid.

Quote:
After a one night stand you can at least tell your kid that his father was a guy you found attractive enough to have a one night of steamy sex with. As for donation, well, you're helping create a child, it's not like you're donating blood, people should be more responsible with their "donation activities" because their small donation is going to have a life, dreams, aspirations, needs and very often questions that need answers. The child has no obligation to respect the donor's door and not knock on it.


And the donor is also a life with dreams, aspirations, needs, and a need to privacy. Do you think one person's needs trump another when their needs are invasive to the other person?

Quote:
Most donors are young, their medical history is going to change over time, and children only have access to the information that was provided when their parents bought the sperm/eggs. And that is assuming they gave out true information.


Oh, you can't fake your medical information with them. They give you a thorough vetting before you're allowed to donate. You're tested for every disease out there, and they can pull medical records from any hospital or clinic you've been to. Try lying to them, and you'll get kicked out before you can protest.

Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
You can't have a debate if everyone has a similar view on the subject so stop making it out like my opinions are not quite right. I'm not going to change them.


You're assuming other peoples' motivations are selfish. If they aren't selfish, then your opinions are wrong. And guess what? You're wrong. Stop assuming other peoples' motivations and we'll stop saying you're wrong.

Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
Actually, the easiest way to have a child is to make your own. People don't adopt because they want to save a life, they do it because they have the selfish desire to have a baby but cannot have one the old fashioned way and adoption is the easiest/cheapest route for them. When I said selfish I meant it as compared to the needs of the child. It's when you have 9 kids but you can only afford 2, when you refuse to give your kid a mother or a father because you want to be a single parent, that kind of selfishness, like a really bad gardner.


And you know what? Single people and same-sex couples often aren't allowed to adopt. Only het married couples can in some places. So if you're legally unable to adopt a child, getting fertility treatments is actually easier.

Again, as a child of a single parent, what is your problem with single parents? I didn't need a father growing up. And as someone infinitely more qualified to speak about my mom than you are, her desire to have me was no more selfish than a woman who was married. Because you know what? She was married. My parents divorced when I was four. And if I believed in a deity, I would thank it for that. I can only imagine how miserable I would have been if they'd stayed together. Frankly, I would rather have a single mom than a horrifying relationship modeled to me.

So shut the fuck up about single parents. Or same sex couples.
Inventor
#16 Old 12th Nov 2013 at 4:15 AM
I did want to reply to crocobaura's posts, but they make such little sense (by little, I mean none at all) that I'm not sure what to say. Parents who adopt are selfish, seriously? I would love to adopt in the future, so I must really be selfish. Actually there is one thing I want to say, but there is no nice or respectful way to say it, so I'm not going to.


I think sperm and egg donors being anonymous should be up to the donor. However, the clinic where they donated should have their information and be able to contact them for medical history/information. Also if a child wants to contact his/her donor then maybe they can have the clinic contact the donor to see if the donor will meet with them someway.
Top Secret Researcher
#17 Old 12th Nov 2013 at 3:06 PM
Quote: Originally posted by leo06girl
I did want to reply to crocobaura's posts, but they make such little sense (by little, I mean none at all) that I'm not sure what to say. Parents who adopt are selfish, seriously? I would love to adopt in the future, so I must really be selfish. Actually there is one thing I want to say, but there is no nice or respectful way to say it, so I'm not going to.


To explain what crocobaura is saying, you must get in the right mindset. *puts dunce cap on* Mindset achieved.
See, Civilized Life is like a card-collectors' club. To get in, you need to collect certain kinds of cards, like getting one of each kind. So, parents are collectible cards and you need to Collect Them All!
Single or same-sex parents are like one of those parents who pushes their kids at everything. Trying to induct them into Civilized Life is like a parent trying to sign a one-legged kid up for a soccer team. What possible reason could someone have for that besides selfishness? Also, gay people are icky because crocobaura says so.
And if you adopt, then obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster has determined that you can't have kids so you're spitting in the face of your god. Which is obviously selfish.

However, people trying to have mini-thems in an abusive or loveless heterosexual marriage are A-OK, because their privates have been approved by the FSM and their child has Collected All The Parental Units!

*takes dunce cap off* Hey, has anyone ever noticed that princess hats look like dunce caps, but with pinkness and glittery strings? And if children need at least one parent of each gender, wouldn't it be even better for them if they had two sets of each? Polygamy ahoy!

Right now, I'm trying to think of other scenarios where life was created, but the people involved weren't identified. The closest case I can think of is Dolly, who technically had three mothers: the sheep her DNA came from, another sheep whose egg was injected with the DNA, and one to bring the zygote to term. But they're sheep, so identifying them is kind of silly.
There's also stem cell research or other kinds of donation, but they're more saving lives than creating them. Although you can donate and remain anonymous; some places actually require it. You also have adoption, where some cases are open and some are closed. You can keep a child you give up for adoption from finding out who you are, in same cases. Egg/sperm donation is actually pretty unique, though, so there isn't much precedent.
Mad Poster
#18 Old 12th Nov 2013 at 6:51 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Original_Sim
Infertile heterosexual couples and same-sex couples cannot have a child by sheer wish fulfillment. For some people, not only is it difficult, it's impossible. And if we're factoring in selfishness, the least selfish thing to do would be to adopt.

Having a married heterosexual couple do it in bed, missionary style (of course), doesn't make it any less selfish than going to a fertility clinic. They are still bringing a child into a world that is overpopulated enough as it is. Not to mention the number of parents without children. Even if parents bring just one child into this world, it's for their benefit.

They're not saving a life, they're making one.




The least selfish thing you can do is ask yourself if you can offer the best life possible to the kid, be it yours, adopted or from surrogate. There is a reason why not everyone who asks for a baby will get one from adoption agencies. This is to make sure that the babies will get a fair deal from their adoptive parents. But there are those who say "screw the system" and go have a baby in any way possible and don't care for the baby's wellbeing, like that american lady who adopted a kid from Russia and when she could no longer cope put him alone on a plane back to Moscow or the lesbian who sued the donor for child support when she broke up with her partner, or that lady in my country who had a kid at 65.
Inventor
#19 Old 13th Nov 2013 at 2:33 AM
Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
The least selfish thing you can do is ask yourself if you can offer the best life possible to the kid, be it yours, adopted or from surrogate. There is a reason why not everyone who asks for a baby will get one from adoption agencies. This is to make sure that the babies will get a fair deal from their adoptive parents. But there are those who say "screw the system" and go have a baby in any way possible and don't care for the baby's wellbeing, like that american lady who adopted a kid from Russia and when she could no longer cope put him alone on a plane back to Moscow or the lesbian who sued the donor for child support when she broke up with her partner, or that lady in my country who had a kid at 65.



You are EXTREMELY narrow minded and judgmental. That is the nicest thing I can say about you right now. Just because someone is not like you in every single way and does not live their lives exactly like you, it does NOT mean they do not care about their child's well being, it DOES NOT mean they can't/won't give their children the best life possible, it DOES NOT mean they won't be good parents. Just because there are a few bad parents who said "screw the system" and had a baby "in any way possible" it DOES NOT mean they are all like that.

You should NOT penalize everyone because of what a few people do. Just like I'm sure there are people who have adopted children who have turned out to be bad parents. Does that mean that adoption should not be allowed? NO, it does not.

Guess what? There are a LOT of parents who had children naturally who turned out to be terrible parents. Does that mean that having children naturally shouldn't be allowed? Or that parents who do, do not care about the child's well being and can't give the child the best life possible?

This is meant as a reply to most of your posts in this thread, not just the one quoted.


It's getting harder to not say what I originally wanted to say and didn't because I couldn't do it nicely or respectfully.
Mad Poster
#20 Old 13th Nov 2013 at 9:58 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Original_Sim
People who turn to fertility clinics to fulfill their desire to have a child are making use of an option that is available to them. If you consider that screwing "the system", then so is driving a car to work, using a cell phone, traveling in a wheelchair and reading Braille. Just because something is unnatural doesn't mean it's wrong.

And the cases you mentioned (e.g. abandoning an adopted child, demanding child support from donor) do not apply to everyone. Not everyone who conceives with the help of a donor has an ulterior motive, just like how not all couples who conceive "naturally" are selfless saints who genuinely want a baby. Many "natural" pregnancies are unexpected (e.g. one-night stand, teen pregnancies) and unwanted (e.g. unfit parents). Personally, I am more concerned with how a parent chooses to raise a child. Not how they choose to make them.

One of the examples you mentioned is exactly why I believe donors should have the right to remain anonymous---to avoid being sued for child support. It goes against the agreement and is completely unfair to the donor. If they signed away their rights to parent a child, they should not be forced to pay child support.

Children are not the only ones that deserve to have a wonderful life.



The parent doesn't change, he/she will make decisions based on the same set of values that have guided his/her life so far. A baby may be wanted for the wrong reasons and once the baby is born there is not much you can do about it as social services only get involved in cases of serious abuse. Also, why is it that everyone is concerned about the donors' rights, the parent's rights, but nobody really cares about the children's rights?
Top Secret Researcher
#21 Old 14th Nov 2013 at 12:05 AM
Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
The parent doesn't change, he/she will make decisions based on the same set of values that have guided his/her life so far. A baby may be wanted for the wrong reasons and once the baby is born there is not much you can do about it as social services only get involved in cases of serious abuse. Also, why is it that everyone is concerned about the donors' rights, the parent's rights, but nobody really cares about the children's rights?


Do you think that having a child means that the people involved no longer have any rights? You sound as if you do, which is precisely the reason you're hearing about it.
dodgy builder
#22 Old 15th Nov 2013 at 11:11 PM
We all have rights. Potential parents who wants kids have to realize the big responsibility, and kids born have the right to know where they come from. Knowing where you come from is very important to a persons sense of belonging and for a healthy life. Claims on sperm and egg donors have to be solved by politicians in parlament, and is not that difficult if they really want to.
Top Secret Researcher
#23 Old 16th Nov 2013 at 12:05 AM
How, exactly, is knowing who your bioparents are supposed to give you a sense of belonging and healthy life if you didn't already have one? Does someone say "oh, I like to take drugs and have no idea who I am in life...wait, I can know who the person who shed a sperm to create me is? I'M HEALED! NO MORE DRUGS EVER!"

Seriously, not seeing the connection.
Sesquipedalian Pisciform
retired moderator
#24 Old 16th Nov 2013 at 12:20 AM
True story: I don't know who my biological father is/was. My mother kept that secret to her grave and I never pushed her to tell me. I look in the mirror and I am my mother's clone :D

Except - I am tall and I am thin (rest of family is heavy set and kinda short)

If you had asked me at 20 - do you want to see your father - we know who he is - I would have said YUP like a shot, and wanted to SEE him and talk to him

If you ask me now, I would say yea, I would like to know but I don't need to meet the guy - maybe it would make him feel bad to see me...

So - I think - its about the child and how they change - at 20 I thought my parents defined me, at 50(ish) I know I define me. I do not need to intrude in his life. That is his life, not mine.

NOTE: not debatey I know (sorry) but true as I see it - people change as they get older, and as they make mistakes/learn in life change too and maybe are less demanding of others.

More downloads by Leesester, BoilingOil and others at Leefish.nl | My Stuff at Leefish.nl | LeeFish RSS | Sims4 News Blog | TumblinLeefish
Site Helper
#25 Old 16th Nov 2013 at 12:52 AM
Another true story.

My father has no idea who his biological parents are. He decided against pursuing the question while his (adoptive) mother was alive, because he knew how much it would hurt her. She lived a long life and there wasn't much to go on once she died, since it was a private adoption.

Amazingly, he's had a long and successful life, even without that information. It really isn't necessary to know your biological parents. It can be helpful to know something about their health information, but he didn't even have that and he managed without it.
 
Page 1 of 2
Back to top