It's less anger and frustration about my own situation, and more about the lived experiences of hundreds of people I've engaged with and learned from over the years.
tl;dr based on all of their collective experience - please, please, please do not donate sperm if you are not open to contact with the offspring.
> risk mitigation is something an anonymous donation helps with.
No. It doesn't. The law is incredibly clear on this. Sperm donation (anonymous or open ID) is treated the same and no one has a claim to your assets. I would consider this argument if you could find me one such case where a donor conceived individual (conceived through a formal fertility clinic) makes a claim on the estate of their donor - no such example exists.
> These decisions they make for you carry over and affect your life, and there's very little you can do to change that.
But why allow for the intentional deprivation of the knowledge of their genetic origins? You're suggesting we just accept negative, harmful circumstances without attempting to make positive changes?
> are adopted children less worthy than children born and raised by biological parents?
As you may be aware, closed/previously anonymous adoption records have been unsealed in many jurisdictions across the world. Society/the law has determined that intentional secrecy around genetic origins is a bad thing for human beings. I see similar things happening with donor conception (the records were opened in Australia, for instance).
> You also have to disclose your medical records.
You'd be surprised at how lax many clinics are on this issue. It is first and foremost a for-profit business. Many documented cases of severe mental health issues with donors - and even more with parents being outright lied to about the specifics in a donor's profile.
> So with regards to restrictions, I think that a reasonable solution would be along the lines of requiring companies like FamilyTreeDNA or 23andMe check with a database run by clinics if a person is a result of a donation
No such database exists. We have been advocating for such a database for 20+ years here in Canada. 90% of offspring of heterosexual social parents that are donor conceived do not know they are donor conceived. Are you proposing that someone would submit their DNA to 23andme, but not be able to receive their results back if they were donor conceived? What if they didn't know they were donor conceived, and found out as a result of your policy? Does that sound like a good idea?
> As for my 3rd cousins, and even more distant relatives (some of whom I'm in closer contact with than my 1st cousins) the assumption I never met them is ridiculous.
I think you misunderstood my point here.
Do you know all of your third cousins? I think most people do not know all of their 3rd cousins. If you're the rare exception to that, my apologies.
My point is that a hypothetical offspring can easily identify you if there is anyone within 3 generations removed from you that has happened to be on one of these sites.
Rather than prevent offspring (who, again, have no agency here) from using these sites, why not prevent any relative within 3 generations of sperm donors from using 23andme? How about a database of donors, and anyone within 3 generations is not able to have their information listed on 23andme?
Given that donors have agency in this (they are choosing to donate sperm) and offspring do not, that would seem to be a fairer way to accomplish your objectives for privacy.
tl;dr based on all of their collective experience - please, please, please do not donate sperm if you are not open to contact with the offspring.
> risk mitigation is something an anonymous donation helps with.
No. It doesn't. The law is incredibly clear on this. Sperm donation (anonymous or open ID) is treated the same and no one has a claim to your assets. I would consider this argument if you could find me one such case where a donor conceived individual (conceived through a formal fertility clinic) makes a claim on the estate of their donor - no such example exists.
> These decisions they make for you carry over and affect your life, and there's very little you can do to change that.
But why allow for the intentional deprivation of the knowledge of their genetic origins? You're suggesting we just accept negative, harmful circumstances without attempting to make positive changes?
> are adopted children less worthy than children born and raised by biological parents?
As you may be aware, closed/previously anonymous adoption records have been unsealed in many jurisdictions across the world. Society/the law has determined that intentional secrecy around genetic origins is a bad thing for human beings. I see similar things happening with donor conception (the records were opened in Australia, for instance).
> You also have to disclose your medical records.
You'd be surprised at how lax many clinics are on this issue. It is first and foremost a for-profit business. Many documented cases of severe mental health issues with donors - and even more with parents being outright lied to about the specifics in a donor's profile.
> So with regards to restrictions, I think that a reasonable solution would be along the lines of requiring companies like FamilyTreeDNA or 23andMe check with a database run by clinics if a person is a result of a donation
No such database exists. We have been advocating for such a database for 20+ years here in Canada. 90% of offspring of heterosexual social parents that are donor conceived do not know they are donor conceived. Are you proposing that someone would submit their DNA to 23andme, but not be able to receive their results back if they were donor conceived? What if they didn't know they were donor conceived, and found out as a result of your policy? Does that sound like a good idea?
> As for my 3rd cousins, and even more distant relatives (some of whom I'm in closer contact with than my 1st cousins) the assumption I never met them is ridiculous.
I think you misunderstood my point here.
Do you know all of your third cousins? I think most people do not know all of their 3rd cousins. If you're the rare exception to that, my apologies.
My point is that a hypothetical offspring can easily identify you if there is anyone within 3 generations removed from you that has happened to be on one of these sites.
Rather than prevent offspring (who, again, have no agency here) from using these sites, why not prevent any relative within 3 generations of sperm donors from using 23andme? How about a database of donors, and anyone within 3 generations is not able to have their information listed on 23andme?
Given that donors have agency in this (they are choosing to donate sperm) and offspring do not, that would seem to be a fairer way to accomplish your objectives for privacy.