The last post was primarily about homologous artificial conception techniques. These are techniques in which egg and sperm are obtained from the spouses who will raise the hoped-for child, so that the child that results from such a conception is the biological son or daughter of the spouses who undergo the procedure.
Heterologous artificial conception raises problems additional to those brought about by homologous artificial conception. From Donum Vitae again:
Heterologous artificial fertilization violates the rights of the child; it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personal identity. Furthermore, it offends the common vocation of the spouses who are called to fatherhood and motherhood: it objectively deprives conjugal fruitfulness of its unity and integrity; it brings about and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational parenthood and responsibility for upbringing. Such damage to the personal relationships within the family has repercussions on civil society: what threatens the unity and stability of the family is a source of dissension, disorder and injustice in the whole of social life.
This article in today’s Star Tribune is about heterologous artificial conception. To read it is to see the effects described in the above paragraph.
The children described in the article were all conceived artificially using sperm from the same anonymous donor. They are, therefore, biological half-siblings.
"Every once in a while I have to sit back and laugh at the brave new world we’re in," said Ager, who lives in Chetek, Wis., 360 miles from Forsberg’s home in Luverne, Minn. "Just the idea that my son was conceived by an egg that matured in 2002 and sperm that had been donated in 1992, exactly 10 years before."
…In preschool, every time she drew pictures of her family, she painstakingly penned 21 babies in diapers, despite the fact that Zach was her only sibling. At the time, Forsberg had no idea that Zoe might be right.
For a long time Ager calculated that Donor 1047 had at least 21 offspring, mostly in the Upper Midwest. But when she took a closer look at CLI data, she has come to believe that his offspring could number more than 100.
"This guy was prolific. He was like Robo Donor," Ager said.
How strange.
The children react in ways that seem telling to me:
Zach, who reads at college level but has a hard time expressing feelings, got a zero on a seventh-grade English assignment to write about his family tree. He hadn’t turned in the assignment because he didn’t know about his donor’s family and refused to list [the family of the father who raises him.]
[UPDATE. Zach’s mom wrote in the comments to give an explanation for this—be sure to read what she has to say.] Here, as in other places, more confusion between "gift" and "sale:"
Both women are endlessly grateful for what they consider Donor 1047’s selfless gift.
But, as the article notes, Donor 1047 was paid more than $150 for each session of masturbation. It’s supposedly illegal to pay such that "the monetary incentive… is the prime factor" for a "donor," probably to keep up the illusion that this is donation, not trafficking. Yet men with desirable genetic traits are paid more for their sperm compensated more generously for their time. Hm. Sounds like the money’s for the goods, not the service.
Whew. If you really want to be amazed at this brave new world, Google "sperm donor" and read some of the stuff that’s out there, especially the ads coaxing people to sell their genetic material.
UPDATE. Be sure to read the comments for some perspectives from some parents who’ve gone this route.
UPDATE, II. More on the same article linked through here.
bearing blog 