fcuk

An extremely fundamentalist Christian and I were trying to have a discussion about people who donate sperm and eggs. The conversation sprung up from a magazine article where a woman regularly donated her eggs in order to pay off massive credit card debt.

I mentioned that this was the most fool-proof way to spawn the Anti-Christ (a virgin named Mary could easily be inseminated and there was no need for sexual involvement) and was immediately jumped on. My Christian friend informed me that in order for a baby to be a "child of God" it must be conceived in a natural fashion, which is ironic to me considering Jesus was not conceived naturally. This further confused me because of the whole sin of origin thing: I thought sin of origin was something bad, and yet this Christian tells me it is necessary to be a child of God (damned if you do, damned if you don't).

Anyway, I got sick and tired of the conversation and finally told my friend that the only immorality could be found within the constraints of religion. I for one can't find any non-religious reasons why sperm/egg donation is morally wrong.

jlowder

One possible reason for morally condemning the donation of sperm and eggs is that it would enable otherwise infertile couples to have children. If one believes that the world is already overpopulated and that contributing to or worsening the problem of overpopulation is morally wrong, then one might conclude that donating sperm or eggs is morally wrong.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

False.

If one believes that the world is already overpopulated, then this argues for limiting the number of children couples can have. However, that limit should be the same for all couples and independent of the means of conception.

There is no justification, based on population, for saying that one (peaceful) mens of conception is permitted while another is to be prohibited.

jlowder

Alonzo,

I hope it was clear from my post I was merely suggesting one possible non-religious reason for opposing sperm/egg donation. I wasn't saying that I personally hold such a view.

If one believes that the world is already overpopulated and if one believes that further increasing the population is morally wrong, then this would merely entail opposing any action that increases the population. One would need additional premises, besides the two premises I have mentioned (the fact of overpopulation and the alleged moral principle against further increasing the population) to justify the view that the "limit should be the same for all couples and independent of the means of conception." I'm not even saying that the additional premise can't be found. I'm just saying that the conclusion you outline doesn't follow from the premises I supplied.

Again, I'm not arguing for this position, but one could argue that any act that increases (or has the potential to increase) the population in an overpopulated world is wrong, and hence donating sperm/eggs is morally wrong. One could also that while it is difficult to enforce a limit on the number of children on fertile couples, it is quite easy to enforce a limit on the number of children on sterile couples, by blocking fertility services, including the donation of sperm and eggs.

That would be a justification, but the quality of that justification is definitely open to debate. Again, I don't hold this position. I'm merely saying that this describes one possible (nonreligious) reason for opposing the donation of sperm or eggs.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Vesica

Not a perfect example but:

In light of the number of children worldwide available for adoption, in all types of situations, one could argue that using donated sperm and eggs to produce a child that is partially-biologically yours is an immoral act. You are purposely depriving those other children shelter and sustinance so you can bear 'your own' child.