Good intentions, bad laws, bad results.

[Fiannan]

I remember a John Stossel special dealing with legislators making bad laws with the best intentions. One example cited was the issue of mandating that infants should have their own seat and seatbelt on air flights. Sounds like a good idea, right? Not really. As he pointed out, such a requirement would force many young families to opt out of flying due to having to pay for an extra seat and they might drive long distances for vacatins or family get-togethers instead -- which would subject the small children to a much more dangerous mode of travel than flying. The result would be more children injured and killed than without such a law being approved -- so far, I believe there has been no such law enacted.

Now here's another issue -- insemination. Recently in the UK the government approved allowing single women and lesbians to be inseminated.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3972376.ece

There is a problem though -- there is already a shortage of donors in the UK since there is no longer anonimity of the donors. The UK Parliament made a law that they felt would be fair for children of donors -- the idea they have a right to know who their biological parent is but by doing so many donors opted out of the system. Now you have legislators expanding the demand while the supply is already critically low.

UK hit by sperm donor crisis | The Register

The same is happening in Sweden. The Riksdag recently made a law that lesbian couples could get inseminated. Now they are considering allowing single women such a right -- I will note that in Sweden there are no private egg/sperm clinics allowed and the state basically controls the system. There you cannot be paid for donating (so much for getting very many egg donors) and there too there is no gaurantee of anonimity anymore. So you have a two year waiting list for insemination (not sure about egg implantation) already and (in the name of equality) the government is probably going to create a greater shortage.

The results already are that couples are having to go to countries in Europe that don't have such laws -- it's called "fertility tourism". One interesting story recently was about British couples going to Spain (which has laws similar to the USA in regards to...well, letting individuals decide) but the British couples generaly don't want Spanish donors. So clinics take out adds for male and female donors in Russian and Polish immigrant neighborhoods where you can get donors who are blond and have more northern European facial characteristics.

So it is interesting that just because lawmakers have really good intentions they may create laws that actually hurt the people they are trying to help. This is something people really need to keep in mind whenever someone says "There 'outa be a law".

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Not that I'm a big doomsayer, but I'm sure a lot of people will agree if I suggest that passing such laws that allow single women and lesbian couples to get artificially inseminated is part of Satan's attack on the sanctity of the family. The lawmakers at work here probably don't even have a clue what they're doing in that regard.

:edit:
My point being - sometimes the laws they pass trying to help people can cause as much spiritual harm as they can physical harm.

[Jbs2763]

They could just briefly date an NFL or NBA star...there are a few guys in those leages with 9-10 kids each with 9-10 differtn baby mamas......

[ml66uk]

Originally Posted by Fiannan

There is a problem though -- there is already a shortage of donors in the UK since there is no longer anonimity of the donors. The UK Parliament made a law that they felt would be fair for children of donors -- the idea they have a right to know who their biological parent is but by doing so many donors opted out of the system. Now you have legislators expanding the demand while the supply is already critically low.

UK hit by sperm donor crisis | The Register

According to the figures of the HFEA (which regulates fertility treatment in the UK), the numbers of sperm donors have gone up in the two years since the ending of anonymity, thus reversing a three year decline.

HFEA - Number of sperm and egg donors
HFEA - Number of sperm donors up following anonymity law changes

The ending of anonymity was long overdue. I suspect that some clinics are exaggerating the difficulties because they were against the rule changes, and also that some NHS clinics are citing the donor shortage when the real reason is that they don't have enough money to treat everyone (NHS treatment is government-funded). The longer they make the waiting list, the more couples pay for treatment at a private clinic, and many lesbian couples will turn to private donors. Some married couples will get pregnant by themselves after two years of trying. That all means less work and more money saved for the NHS.

Private clinics in the UK seem to have no problems obtaining donor sperm.

[WANDERER]

Ummm, I understand the sadness as my sister isn't able to have children (fertility treatment doesn't work out for everybody and the costs can be horrendous whether you have repeated fertility treatments or look at international adoption in hope and for a while they looked at adopting a special needs child). She ended up going the foster child route with her hubby...it was rather gruelling for her to lose the children after three years of pursuing it, navigating the issues of parental rights and 5 years of having them as her family and pouring her heart into it.

Fostering is an option for single people here to some degree, but adoption is not. Considering that many couples wish to adopt and can't, that is life.

I think donors for singles are an option....and fertility treatments are an option, but goodness knows in what countries and statistics for single motherhood are increasing. It is interesting that they have legislated for female lesbian couples before legislating for single women in Sweden as such. Men are discluded from any such options. And what of the children's rights? Growing up in a single family unit or for that matter, a 'different' family unit has impacts. Not that I don't think that single motherhood can't produce wonderful results...just that it isn't the ideal. It's difficult on both the parent and the children involved. Is it more difficult than a fractured, abusive or disfunctional family unit...?

And then there are heaps of kids growing up and moving from one foster situation to another without any stability to their lives. It is for the best intentions as the legal decision is there to support the rights of biological parents and to retain that involvement on the children's behalf (they're going to want to know and it avoids the identity issues of finding adoptive parents later on in life...but it's not always the healthiest of results).

On the other hand, there can be health issues involved for the children of fertility treatments.

A very complicated issue. Lots of things wrong in the world...and legislation isn't the start of it.

[RachelleDrew]

I wish that the government would just keep their hands off fertility issues to begin with. It would save a lot of hassle.

[Hemidakota]

Looking at the donors, I would not bother since they will not be able to verify the donor background as to a clean GENE POOL donation. Risk taking here.

[Fiannan]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

Looking at the donors, I would not bother since they will not be able to verify the donor background as to a clean GENE POOL donation. Risk taking here.

Don't quite understand your point here. I would assume that in the USA donors have to supply medical records. I think that in places with a national ID (like Sweden and maybe England) an individual's medical records are as close as a computer terminal. I would hope that donors in England are far better in genetic quality that the average Joe at a pub and in Sweden better than what you could find on an overnight trip on one of the party ferries crossing the Baltic.

[Hemidakota]

I was referring to third world nations. Record keeping is not the greatest attribute.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Genetic quality is far different from health quality. While a person in a third world nation might have a much lower quality of health, their genetic code is of the same quality as anyone from a rich nation. At least according to modernism. While finding a donor in an alley might increase the risk of disease, the risk of any genetic complication is exactly the same as any other donor.