The shortage of couples who are able to conceive naturally (either through choice, medical reasons or marrying later in life) has caused there to be a concern about the number of babies being born. The situation has also been exasperated by the number of same-sex couples who want children in their relationship.
In response to this demand, it was reported in August 2014 that the UK would be setting up a publicly-funded sperm bank as there was a shortage of donors as legislation now states that children (when they reach the age of 18 years) can discover the identity of the male donor.
At the cost of approximately £300 (very much cheaper than the private sector), a woman could use the services, which includes searching the online database and choosing an anonymous donor on the basis of his ethnicity, height, profession and hobbies.
Laura Witjens, the Chief Executive of NGDT (the National Gamete Donation Trust, which will run the scheme based in Birmingham), stated: ‘There are people who are medically infertile or practically infertile – they want to use donation services in the UK but can’t do so because there isn’t enough donated sperm.
‘The [demand from] same-sex couples and single women has grown exponentially…’
She continued; ‘The aim is that we will have enough surplus sperm so that we will be able to set up a service for people like single women and same-sex couples, describing this group as ‘customers rather than patients’.’
She denied that a lack of a father figure has detrimental effects on children. She commented: ‘There is no evidence to suggest that children are better off with or without a father. There’s never been a call – from us or the Department of Health – to reduce the access to sperm for same-sex or single women. That’s a non-issue.’
The problem with this last statement is that there is proof that children living without a father are affected detrimentally, as several articles on this website can testify. There is statistical proof produced by the Department for Education under the previous Government that children achieve best when living with married parents.
Indeed, the Rt. Rev Michael Nazir-Ali (the former Bishop of Rochester) has raised questions about the new venture: ‘The most important thing to say is that the needs of any child must be primary. It is the upbringing, welfare and education of the child that should be the prior consideration. It is not enough to ‘want’ a child, let alone one with particular characteristics.
‘This bank will allow women to choose from profiles of donors, which will include educational attainment and ‘attractiveness’ criteria, raising the spectre of ‘designer babies,’ born to parents’ specifications.
‘What if the process of pregnancy and birth ‘interferes’ with the desired outcomes? Will such babies then be rejected?’
The situation is that, because UK regulations on sperm donation allow sperm from one donor to be used in ten different families and so resulting in extended families of half-brothers and half-sisters for some donors, there are serious ethical issues especially if half-siblings are not aware to whom they are related.
In records released by the HFEA (Human Fertility and Embryology Authority), it was revealed that five hundred sperm donors had fathered over 6,200 children between them, which is an average of 12.4 children per man.
Fifteen of these donors have 20 or more offspring.
This latter point is highlighted in Leviticus chapter 18 where there is a prohibition on marrying a brother or sister, if they are also the result of your father’s actions.
It is the role of man and woman to come together in marriage in order to procreate and raise children, as God has commanded. It is recognised that this is the best way and studies have confirmed this fact.
There also has to be recognition that there are couples who cannot or have chosen not to have children (as has been our experience due to medical reasons). However, their lives can be fulfilling in other ways as having or not having a child is one of the ways that God can direct our paths.
Comments