After getting nothing from the public hospital that made me, the private IVF giant that now owns that hospital’s work, the government and individuals in medicine who literally created me and should have known better – I used DNA to find my biological father. Along the way, I found out one of my friends is my sister. So, I know who my biological father is. A basic human right, one would have thought, in a society where we have for-profit baby factories, but at least I managed to wrest answers from the void.
If that’s a basic human right then all those men who’ve raised a child not their own – unknowingly – get a refund, right? Further, no woman gets to refuse to allow them to find out……
No it isn’t a basic human right.
Where did she get that idea ?
She was the result of a commercial contract and as such the donor is the one who has the rights – to anonymity.
eg If she has some terrible congenital disease, then that is the fault of the hospital for not screening properly.
Her only human right here is that we do not burn her at the stake for being a witch.
Would she prefer no ‘for profit baby factories’ existed? In her case that would have had some peculiar consequences…
My father died when I was 11.
60 years later, i think about him every day.
And I agree, a child has a right to know his/her father.
She calls for biological dads to be involved in every aspect of life.
How about being involved in a decision to go for abortion? Somehow I think that will be different.
You’re only a “good” donor if you are involved in your kids’ lives right from the start, on an ongoing basis.
She seems incapable of spelling father. As her mother was equally incapable of finding one issues now arising are down to mum’s life-creating lifestyle choice.
If she was genuinely concerned about men not facing up to parental responsibilities there are obvious targets to write about. But that would be un-guardian and more importantly not all about meeeeee.
John:’She seems incapable of spelling father. As her mother was equally incapable of finding one issues now arising are down to mum’s life-creating lifestyle choice.’
Spot on! It’s all depressingly one-way with these types, isn’t it? If she has issues, it’s not with the 50% DNA contributor she wants us to believe it is…
“The doctors asked for my family medical history”: to which I usually say “Damned if I know, my parents didn’t discuss that sort of thing.”
Ah – a delusionist.
“Along the way, I found out one of my friends is my sister.”
Next week in the fascinating, ethical dilemma ridden world of the Guardian:
“I sat on my brother’s face at a party because I didn’t know who my dad was.”
Mandatory DNA testing at birth has been the topic of serious debate in the USA. You can hear the shrieks of the women from across the Atlantic. Statistics reveal that about one third of babies tested are not the progeny of the husband/partner.
Anything I want is a “basic human right”!
“one third of babies tested”: observe the selection bias.
@ Mr Womby
I seem to recall that some widespread testing of blood types within families which was done in the UK in the 1970s was stopped after it showed an alarming number of children who couldn’t have been the husband’s.
If, for example, the husband was type O and the wife type A then a type B or AB child showed…er…outside influences. A type AB husband can’t produce a type O child and other combinations.
That of course was just blood types.
@dearieme
That’s why I was at pains to include the qualifier.
Fair point, Womby, old fruit.
Separately: if I may sing an old song there is no such thing as a human right. We get no rights by virtue of being a human. We are social animals so our rights are social rights/civil rights.
In Heinlein’s Howard Families the record keepers keep genealogical records, but closely confidential, the only allowed access is “am I too related to proposed mate” and the sole answer is “yes” or “no”; the quid pro quo being all Howard Families members must record true records of parenthood of progency, regardless of legal status. Non-reproductive sex is irrelevant for their records, and is ignored, as it’s set up as a breeding programme, not a social control programme.
An incentive is that liars don’t benefit from the financial incentives the Howard Trust was set up to provide.
jgh
Such a scheme actually exists in Iceland, available as an app on your phone. I’ve no idea how accurate it is. (Better safe than sorry may reverse to better sorry than safe in some cases.)
Might we adopt it for some section of the population of Britain? $ave the NHS!
philip: I was trying to remember a existing real-world version, I had a vague memory of certain Jewish communities in East Coast USA.