捐精後代發聲

 史蒂芬妮·雷梅克斯

  2016 年 2 月 3 日

史蒂芬妮·雷梅克斯 (Stephanie Raeymaekers) 是比利時捐贈者受孕兒童的倡導者。 MercatorNet 最近與她談論了她的工作。 比利時廣告業最近發起了一項支持精子捐贈的活動。 獲獎者捐贈了自己的作品來提高國家創造力。 作為一位匿名捐贈者的孩子，您對此有何看法？ 出於多種原因，我發現這是一場令人震驚的活動。 首先，他們的主張純粹是無稽之談。 創造性基因並不存在。 研究證明，一個人成長的環境更有可能促進一個人的創造力。 聲稱透過讓「有創造力」的男性捐贈精子就可以創造出有創造力的人，這完全是虛構的。 在 YouTube 影片剪輯中，您可以看到遺傳學部門的負責人支持這一虛構故事。 因此，我對她的醫院提出了正式投訴：他們實際上是在撒謊，希望吸引更多的捐贈者和客戶。

它在很多層面上都被賣光了，但在大多數情況下，它的賣光是以犧牲這些精子將要懷上的孩子為代價的。 這些孩子將不被允許知道他們的血統，他們的生活將試圖填補他們身份的空白。 他們會有別人故意造成的一個大洞。 他們將無法獲得完整的醫療記錄，也無法找到他們的親生父親以及可能的十幾個兄弟姐妹。

想像一下，您是由這些傢伙之一的精子創造的捐贈者之一。 你將不得不接受這樣的事實：你的親生父親這樣做純粹是為了獲得他五分鐘的成名。 孩子最終會進入一個知道自己的親生父親寧願把他送給完全陌生的人而不是撫養自己的孩子的家庭。

這些年輕人在為他們色彩鮮豔的胖男孩集思廣益時顯然沒有考慮清楚。 我真誠地希望他們的精子品質不夠好，無法使用。 但如果是這樣，我們已經收集了我們能找到的有關他們的所有信息，並將其放入我們的潛在捐助者資料庫中。 它至少會讓一些孩子的搜尋變得更容易。 你自己的背景是什麼？ 我叫史蒂芬妮。 我是比利時人，37 歲，透過捐贈者受孕。 我的故事從兩個人開始：我的母親和父親。 我母親想要孩子。 他們拼命嘗試懷孕。 當她們沒有懷孕時，她們去看了專家。

這位醫生診斷出我父親不育，並建議用與我父親相似的男人的精子進行「生育治療」。 他們付了很多錢並簽署了一份文件。 我的母親注射了荷爾蒙，他們被告知，如果她們真的懷孕了，就永遠不應該向孩子甚至周圍的人說出真相。

我是比利時第一家官方精子庫的「最終產品」。

我的母親於 1978 年春天受精，1979 年 1 月我出生了。 但我並不孤單：有一個兄弟和一個姊妹加入了我的行列。 我們是三胞胎。 我們常玩世不恭地開玩笑說，他們只花了一件的錢就拿到了三件。

我和父親之間總是有一段距離。 不知怎的，我無法與他聯繫。 小時候，你渴望得到父母的認可； 你想要被愛、被珍惜、被接納。 但無論出於什麼原因，我們幾乎沒有什麼共同點：我們彼此不相似，而且我們有不同的興趣。 他沒有理解我的存在，我的幽默感。 然而，我對祂的愛是無條件的。

身為一個孩子，你不會質疑父母呈現的現實。 我從來沒有質疑過我們的血統。 我甚至不知道可以用別人的精子進行治療。 這個發現一定讓你心碎……我們在 25 歲時發現了真相。這是一次超現實的經歷，這是肯定的。 那天一切都改變了，但還是一樣。 很奇怪。 正如您對生命中重要時刻所做的那樣，直到今天我仍然記得我在哪裡、誰在那裡以及那個地方是什麼樣子。

我們的父母沒有告訴我們。 這個秘密是由我們的三胞胎兄弟向我們透露的，他是因為一位阿姨向他的女朋友坦白了這個秘密而發現的。 儘管阿姨苦苦哀求女友不要說出去，她還是把這件事告訴了他。

我哥哥立即決定告訴我們。 你看，我們都曾因與父親之間莫名的距離而痛苦不堪。 我們總是認為這是因為我們不夠好，不夠聰明，不夠善良，不值得他的愛。 我們感覺自己好像出了什麼問題。 它影響了我們的自尊和與他人的關係。

我的身分被部分粉碎了……你意識到你錯誤地將自己認定為一個與你沒有血緣關係的人，一個一生都對他的孩子撒謊讓我們相信我們有血緣關係的人。 它揭示了你最信任的兩個人隱藏的關於你自己的基本真相。

有很多東西需要接受，並且花了一些時間來接受。 我很高興我知道這一點，因為它給了我一個大問題的答案（為什麼我父親不能愛我）​​，但它又產生了很多其他問題。 您創建了一個組織，為捐贈者孕育的孩子提供網站和部落格。 您能告訴我們您想實現什麼目標嗎？ 早在 2012 年，最初的想法是為比利時捐贈受孕的男性和女性創建第一個安全的平台，讓他們能夠相互聯繫。 在我們的小組中，我發現與他人的聯繫可以讓人們談論他們的感受和問題。 他們中的大多數人無法自由談論自己是捐贈者受孕的，因為他們不想傷害父母，或者他們的父母無法應對孩子提出的問題。 有很多人是偶然發現的，但他們不被允許談論這件事，因為其他兄弟姐妹或家庭其他成員不知道真相。 但群體中也有從一開始就知道真相的人。

我和其他人一起開始做很多研究。 我很快就意識到，一個產業是當前不道德行為背後的蓬勃發展力量。 六十多年來，沒有人費心去質疑他們。

多年來，我們建立了一個遊說團體。 我們非常積極地提高人們對這個問題及其對兒童和家長以及捐助者的影響的認識。

我想改變我們國家的法律。 我想要徹底改革。 我希望孩子們能夠獲得他們需要的所有資訊。 它為他們提供了現在沒有的選擇。

我想要一個國家和國際登記冊。 我希望政客們對這些孩子承擔責任，並減少診所和醫生的權力。 但我也希望提高認識，以便更正確地解決這個複雜的問題，為所有相關方提供工具。 你一定見過很多有相似背景的人。 當他們成年後，他們的感受如何？ 接受？ 生氣的？ 我認識很多捐贈者受孕的人。 有些年輕人，有些年老，來自世界各地，那些從一開始就被告知的人，那些後來才知道的人，來自各種不同類型的家庭。

直到今天，當我第一次見到這些人時，我仍然覺得很奇怪，我們的問題和問題是多麼相似。 我們小組中有一些透過捐贈者受孕的人，他們對於透過捐贈受孕沒有任何問題。 他們中的一些人確實對可能的兄弟姐妹感到好奇。 但我們也有很多人因為他們是用未知人的遺傳物質創造的事實而受到巨大影響。

他們中的大多數人默默地承受著痛苦，因為沒有人認真對待他們。 我們經常會收到行業創建的術語，這樣我們就可以遠離這個問題。

但事情就是這樣：故意創造出帶有某人遺傳物質的人，而這些人不會撫養他的孩子，也不會成為他們生活的一部分。 醫生和家長都忽略了有第三方參與的事實。 在一個人的實際存在中做出同等貢獻的人。 刪除他或她對他們來說可能更方便，但這並不意味著孩子不會想念這個人，或者有基本需求知道那個人是誰。

他們常說，捐贈者懷上的孩子是如此被渴望、渴望和珍惜……如果是這樣，為什麼我們故意忽視它安慰父母的需要？ 這裡面沒有任何愛，也沒有正義。 您如何看待像 Cryos 這樣的企業，這家丹麥公司向世界各地運送「維京精子」？ 他們認為，大多數捐贈者懷上的孩子都是幸福的，他們應該對自己的出生心存感激……去年夏天，我在根特的一次會議上見到了 Cryos 的總經理 Ole Schou。 他的演講正是你所期望的一個有男子氣概的商人。

他在會議上表示，大多數捐贈者及其家人都很高興。 他告訴我們，孩子不是商品，他只是為想要孩子的人服務。

之後我們被允許提問。 我自我介紹並告訴他，並非所有捐贈者都對自己的狀況感到滿意。 我提到了冷凍捐贈者7042的案例。這是一位患有遺傳疾病的精子捐贈者。 我告訴他，我是揭露這醜聞中比利時部分的人。

（第一個被診斷出的嬰兒是比利時嬰兒。比利時診所向Cryo 銀行發出了警報。但是，他們決定不通知所有其他診所，因為他們認為缺陷是在子宮內造成的，而不是由精子捐贈者造成的。由於其他診斷世界各地的嬰兒，Cryo銀行決定對捐贈者進行檢查。事實證明，捐贈者是NF1基因的攜帶者，在收到第一例病例的六個月後，其他診所接到通知，精子被銷毀。你需要知道在那六個月裡，其他婦女用這種精子懷上了孩子。）

我告訴他，至少有 50 名兒童及其父母的生活因這種可怕的疾病而支離破碎。 他的「每個人都幸福」的論點是一個非論據，用來證明當存在一個給那些以這種方式孕育的人帶來根本痛苦的製度時所造成的不公正是合理的。

我還告訴他，當他說他不認為孩子是商品時，他是在說謊。 我提到了 Cryos 網站，您可以在那裡購買精子，就像在網上尋找一雙新鞋一樣。 瀏覽潛在親生父親的嬰兒照片目錄、身高和智力統計數據、膚色、眼睛、頭髮等。 當您認為找到了完美的搭配時，您可以將您的選擇放入一個籃子中，該籃子是嬰兒車的象徵。

只需刷一下信用卡，您就可以在線訂購精子並將其運送到您家中。 當你把生孩子完全商業化並且拒絕對他們承擔任何責任時，說你不把孩子當作商品是虛偽的。 在英國等一些司法管轄區，捐贈者匿名已被廢除，孩子們在年滿 18 歲後可以聯繫其親生父親（或母親）。這是一個解決方案嗎？ 乍一看，英國的政策似乎是一個完美的例子，可以幫助我國和其他國家最終現代化，同時也使現行政策人性化。 他們似乎一切都井然有序：了解父母的權利、登記冊、DNA 資料庫、龐大的支持網絡、研究、對兒童、父母和捐贈者、捐贈家庭的更好指導…

但它仍然不足以應對捐贈者受孕不可避免的後果。 例如：一個人從生命一開始就開始建立自己的身分。 你真的能接受或證明那個人必須等到 18 歲才能獲得本應自然獲得的東西嗎？

捐助者的構想建立在一堆矛盾之上，並透過其他相關方的利益維繫在一起。

眾所周知，孩子由其親生父母或家庭撫養長大符合其最大利益。 捐贈者受孕與這種特定利益產生了直接衝突，因為它故意剝奪孩子由其親生父母撫養的可能性，並否認他或她與他們建立有意義的關係的可能性。

捐贈受孕的出現是由於渴望生育孩子的準父母的需求以及從中賺錢的行業的需求。 由於兒童的最大利益不可避免地受到損害，因此存在巨大的利益衝突。

在英國，法律認可捐贈受孕者的血統權利，但不會自動授予或保證。 父母可以隱瞞孩子的真實出身。 如果不告訴孩子，他知道的機會就很小。 這是不公平和不公正的。 政府有責任向透過捐贈配子進行生育治療而產生的孩子提供有關其起源的真相。 出生證明並不能反映孩子出身的真相。 未填寫全部、不正確或部分資料均屬於偽造行為。

不孕症或無法生育所帶來的痛苦已得到官方承認。 透過私人倡議和醫院建立了一個巨大的支持網絡。 政府為其中一些提供財政支持。 另一方面，捐贈者受孕的人所遭受的痛苦仍然沒有被認識，也沒有做出努力來承認這一點或實際上對此採取行動。

該行業投入了數百萬英鎊/歐元/美元：生育技術、父母諮詢、善後護理、選擇、研究…但在英國，捐贈受孕的人只能獲得 2.5 小時的諮詢時間。 換句話說：有錢可以創造捐贈者受孕的孩子，但當涉及到對直接後果承擔責任或承擔責任時，人們就會兩手一攤。 您對代孕有何看法？ 同性伴侶生孩子似乎是一種社會必需品。 代孕是一個新的水平，使那些缺乏子宮和/或自己的卵子精子的人有可能生出孩子。 「治療」不僅以孩子為代價，也以代理孕母為代價。 泰拉·班克斯、莎拉·傑西卡·帕克和瑞奇·馬丁等異性戀夫婦和單身人士也使用代孕。

我反對一切形式的代孕，甚至是所謂的利他性代孕。 這只是另一個不願承認透過拼命試圖違背道德、自然和司法法律來追求個人慾望的實現是有限的事實。

去年我去了布魯塞爾的一個代孕展覽會，那裡一切都在出售：精子、卵子、代孕者、律師、性別選擇……你只需下訂單並起草一份設定條件的合約。 租用婦女的身體和生下一個或多個孩子都是要付費的。 這是一項將人的生命簡化為物品、將人簡化為服務的商業交易。 這是我們祖先為之奮鬥的道德價值的非人化。

代孕應該被禁止，而不是監管或便利。 從金錢交換的那一刻起，即使是以費用的形式，這也是懷孕的外包，最終是孩子的交易。 接下來會發生什麼：出售和交易年齡較大的兒童？ 或者我們只繼續銷售較小和較年輕的產品？

如果有人真的想要孩子，為什麼他們自己不生孩子呢？ 他們應該考慮子宮移植。 如果他們不願意這樣做，他們怎麼敢讓朋友或陌生人承擔所有的風險？ 如果取消匿名捐精，單身女性和女同性戀者生育孩子將變得非常困難。 難道人沒有生孩子的權利嗎？ 說廢除匿名精子捐贈會導致精子短缺的說法是不正確的。 在英國，當他們改變法律時，捐贈者的數量增加。

不存在所謂有權利或有權利生孩子這樣的事情。 我能理解想要成為父母的願望。 但不知怎的，當他們開始改變他們的推理時，社會就改變了。 不過，這很簡單：這就是大自然。 大自然提供了有關生育的法則。 我們開始改變這些規則來滿足個人願望。

然而，你永遠不能通過聲稱你遭受了自稱的不公正，並且作為一個不育、單身、女同性戀或男同性戀的人，對無辜的人造成實際的錯誤是可以接受的。這。 你並不能透過故意製造更大的不公正來消除不公正。

如果你沒有考慮到孩子的所有利益，那麼它就不是關於那個孩子的，而只是關於個人以自我為中心的渴望。 真正的養育方式在於您能夠將孩子的需求放在第一位。 大多數時候我都將此歸咎於業界。 他們告訴準父母，愛就是孩子所需要的一切。 他們在生命中非常脆弱的階段誤導了他們。 他們告訴他們可以用匿名配子尋求治療，或者讓他們相信透過遵循他們的指導，他們會得到一個孩子。

美國單口喜劇演員比爾希克斯曾說：「我們是穿著鞋子的病毒」。 好吧，當錢可以從別人的絕望中賺錢，而讓孩子來買單時，我們就是一種更大的病毒。 你現在有兩個自己的孩子了。 養育家庭的經驗如何影響了您對生育產業的看法？ 對我來說，成為母親是我的不歸路。 首先你需要知道我和我的伴侶很難懷孕。 我們確實用自己的遺傳物質進行了生育治療。 這非常困難，但它讓我了解到當你真正想成為父母時，你最終會經歷怎樣的情感過山車。

我們對此類治療設定了個人限制，對我們來說，使用別人的精子或卵子從來都不是一種選擇。 如果我們自己的精卵沒有成功，我們就會接受沒有孩子的生活。

最終我懷孕了。 對我來說很奇怪，因為這是我第一次在另一個人身上看到自己。 我添加這張圖片，以便您了解我所看到的。 看著我的孩子們，一切都變得如此明顯。 這是大自然用最清晰的聲音在說話。 這讓我缺少的部分無可否認地顯現出來。

上圖中，左上角是我先生小時候的照片。 右邊你可以看到我們女兒的照片。 在左下角你可以看到我們兒子的照片。 他的旁邊有一張我小時候的照片。

成為母親也讓我意識到，捐贈受孕不僅影響我這個人，也影響我的孩子、我的人際關係、我的家庭，當我的孩子有了孩子時，它也會影響我的孫子。

我的孩子也應該有權利認識他們的親生祖父； 他也是他們的一部分。 他們還應該被允許獲得重要的醫療資訊。 人們也應該意識到另一件事：我的孩子可能會遇到其他孩子的後代，這些孩子是同一捐贈者的後代的捐贈者的後代。 我的孩子和他們的伴侶將接受測試，看看他們是否沒有血緣關係。 身為一個媽媽，我不能冒這個險。

我的孩子現在九歲和七歲。 他們知道我正在做的工作。 有時很難解釋我們所生活的世界。但我盡力教導他們人類的價值觀：自由生活，而不是以犧牲他人為代價。 Stephanie Raeymaekers 居住在比利時，負責經營 Donor Kinderen 網站、部落格和 Facebook 頁面。

Stephanie Raeymaekers

STEPHANIE RAEYMAEKERS

 February 03, 2016 

Stephanie Raeymaekers is an advocate for donor-conceived children in Belgium. MercatorNet spoke with her recently about her work. The Belgian advertising industry recently launched a campaign to support sperm donation. Award-winning men donated theirs to boost national creativity. As the child of an anonymous donor, what did you think of it? I found it an appalling campaign for many reasons. In the first place, their claim is pure nonsense. A creative gene does not exist. Studies prove that the environment where one grows up is more likely to contribute to one’s creativity. Stating that you can create creative people by letting “creative” men donate their sperm is utter fiction. In a YouTube video clip you can see the head of a genetics department supporting this fiction. Because of this I filed an official complaint against her hospital: they are actually lying in the hope of attracting more donors and clients.

It is selling out on so many levels but up mostly it is a sell-out at the expense of the children that are going to be conceived by this sperm. Those children will not be allowed to know whom they descent from and will live their lives trying to fill the gaps in their identity. They will have a huge hole deliberately inflicted by others. They will have no access to their full medical record and will have no means to track down their biological father and potentially a dozen siblings. 

Imagine you are one of the donor-conceived persons that was created by one of this guys’ sperm. You will have to live with the knowledge that your biological father did this purely to get his five minutes of fame. The child will end up in a family knowing that his own biological father preferred to give him away to total strangers than to raise his own child. 

These young guys clearly didn’t think it through whilst brainstorming on their bright coloured Fat Boys. I sincerely hope their sperm wasn’t good enough to be used. But if so, we have gathered all the information we could find on them and put it in our database of potential donors. It will at least make the search of some children that much easier.   What is your own background? My name is Stephanie. I am Belgian, 37 years old and donor-conceived. My story starts with two persons: my mother and father. My mother wanted to have children. They desperately tried to conceive. When they didn’t get pregnant they went to see a specialist.

This doctor diagnosed infertility in my father and suggested a “fertility treatment” with the sperm of a man who resembled my father. They paid a lot of money and signed a document. My mother got hormones and they were told that if they did conceive, they should never to tell the truth to the child and even the people around them.

I am an “end product” of the first official sperm bank in Belgium.

My mother was inseminated in the spring of 1978 and in January 1979 I was born. But I wasn’t alone: a brother and a sister joined me. We are triplets. We often cynically joke that they got three for the price of one.

I always experienced a distance between my father and myself. Somehow I could not connect with him. As child you long for the acknowledgement of your parents; you want to be loved, cherished and accepted. But for whatever reason we had very little in common: we didn’t resemble each other and we had different interests. He didn’t grasp my being, my sense of humour. The love I felt for him, however, was unconditional.

As a child you don’t question the reality that is presented by your parents. I never questioned our ancestry. I even wasn’t aware that a treatment with the sperm of someone else was possible.   The discovery must have been shattering for you... We uncovered the truth when we were 25. It was a surreal experience, that is for sure. Everything changed that day, yet it also stayed the same. It was weird. And as you do regarding significant moments in your life, to this day I can still remember where was I was, who was there and what the place looked like.

Our parents didn’t tell us. The secret was broken to us by our triplet brother who had found out because an aunt had confessed it to his girlfriend. Although the aunt had begged the girlfriend never to tell, she informed him about it.

My brother immediately decided to tell us. You see, we all had suffered from that inexplicable distance from our father.  We always assumed that it was because we were not good enough, or smart enough or kind enough to deserve his love. We felt like there was something wrong with us. It has affected our self-esteem and relationships with others.

My identity was partly shattered … you realize that you have falsely identified yourself with someone who you are not biologically related to, someone who lied his whole life to his children making us believe we were related. It was uncovering a fundamental truth about yourself which had been hidden by the two people whom you trusted the most.

It was a lot to take in, and it took some time to come to terms with. I am glad that I know because it gave me an answer to one big question I had (why my father couldn’t love me) but it generated a whole lot of other questions. You have founded an organisation with a website and blog for donor-conceived children. Can you tell us what you want to achieve? Back in 2012 the original idea was to create the first safe platform for donor-conceived men and women in Belgium to get in touch with each other. In our group I see that connecting with others enables people to talk about their feelings and issues. Most of them are not able to speak freely about being donor-conceived because they don’t want hurt their parents, or their parents can’t cope with the questions their children are asking. There are a lot of people who found out by accident who are not allowed to talk about it because the other siblings or the rest of the family don’t know the truth. But within the group there are also who have known the truth from the beginning.

With others I started to do a lot of research. I realized soon enough that an industry is the thriving force behind current unethical practices. For over 60 years nobody had bothered to question them.

Over the years we started a lobby.  We are very active in creating awareness about the issue and about the implications for the children and the parents but also for the donors.

I want to change the law in our country. I want a total reform. I want ways children can access all the information they need. It is offering them the choice they don’t have now.

I want a national and international register. I want politicians to take their responsibility towards these children and to reduce the power that clinics and doctors have.  But I also want to achieve greater awareness so that this complex issue can be addressed more correctly, offering tools for all parties involved. You must have met many people with a similar background. How do they feel after they have become adults? Accepting? Angry? I know a lot of donor-conceived people. Some young, some old(er), from all over the world, those who were told from the beginning, those who found out at a later age and from all different types of families.

Till this day I find it still strange when I meet these people for the first time, how similar our questions and issues are. We have donor-conceived people in our group who have no issues about being donor-conceived. Some of them do experience a curiosity about possible siblings. But we also have a number of people who are tremendously affected by the fact they were created with the genetic material of an unknown person.

Most of them suffer in silence, because nobody takes them seriously. We often get presented the terms the industry has created so we can distance ourselves from the issue.

But it is what it is: the deliberate creation of people with the genetic material of someone who will not raise his children nor be a part of their lives. Doctors, but also parents, overlook the fact that there was a third party involved. Someone who contributed an equal part in the actual existence of a person. Erasing him or her can be more convenient for them, but that doesn’t mean that the child does not miss this person or has a fundamental need to know who that person is.

They often state that a donor-conceived child is so deeply wanted, longed for and cherished … if so, why do we intentionally ignored its needs to comfort its parents? There is no love, or justice in that whatsoever. What do you think of businesses like Cryos, the Danish company which ships “Viking sperm” around the world? They argue that most donor-conceived children are happy and that they should be grateful for having been born… I saw Ole Schou, the managing director of Cryos, at a conference last summer in Ghent. His presentation was what you expect from a macho businessman.

At the conference he said that most donor-conceived people and their families are happy. He told us that children were not commodities and that he was only offering a service to those who wanted a child.

Afterwards we were allowed to ask questions. I introduced myself and told him that not all donor-conceived people are that happy with their status. I referred to the case of the Cryo donor 7042. This was a sperm donor who had a genetic disease. I told him that I was the one who uncovered the Belgium part in this scandal.

(The first diagnosed baby was a Belgian baby. The Belgian clinic alerted the Cryo bank. However they decided not to inform all the other clinics because they assumed the defect was created in the womb and not by the sperm donor. Due to other diagnoses of babies all over the world, the Cryo bank decided to examine the donor. It was proven that the donor was the carrier of the NF1-gene and six months after notification of the first case other clinics were informed and the sperm was destroyed. You need to know that during those six months other women conceived children with this sperm.)

I told him that at least the lives of 50 children and their parents were shattered due to this terrible disease. His “everybody is happy” argument is a non-argument to justify the injustice that is created when there is a system that inflicts a fundamental suffering on those who are being conceived that way.

I also told him that he was liar when he stated that he doesn’t consider children as commodities. I referred to the Cryos website where you can shop for sperm like you would go online to find a new pair of shoes. Browsing through a catalogue of baby pictures of potential biological fathers, stats of their height and intelligence, the colour of their skin, eyes, hair and so on. And when you think you have found your perfect match, you can add your choice in to a basket which is the symbol of a baby pushing chair.

With a swipe of a credit card, you can order your sperm online and get it delivered to your home. It is hypocritical to say that you don’t consider children as commodities when you enable a total commercialisation of having children and refusing to take any responsibility towards them. In some jurisdictions, like the United Kingdom, donor anonymity has been abolished and children can contact their biological father (or mother) after they turn 18. Is that a solution? At first glance, the policy in Britain seems a perfect example that could help my country and others to finally modernize but also humanize the current policy. They seem to have everything in order: the right to know one’s parents, a register, a DNA database, a huge support network, research, better guidance for children, parents and donors, donor families …

But still it is not good enough to counter the inevitable consequences of donor conception. For example: a person starts to build his identity from the beginning of his life. Can you really accept or justify that that person has to wait they turn 18 to be granted something that should be naturally available?

Donor conception is built on a pile of contradictions and kept together by the interest of others involved.

It is said that it is in the best interests of a child to be raised by its biological parents or family. Donor conception generates a direct conflict with this specific interest because it deliberately withholds from the child the possibility of being raised by both of its biological parents as well as denying him or her the possibility of building a meaningful relationship with them.

Donor conception comes forward due to the demand of intended parents with a desperate desire of having a child and an industry that makes money out of this. There is a huge conflict of interest due to the fact that the best interest of the child is inevitably undermined by it.

In the UK the right to lineage for donor-conceived people is endorsed in the law, but not automatically granted nor guaranteed. Parents can conceal a child’s real origins. If a child is not told, there is little chance it will ever find out. That is unfair and unjust. The government has a responsibility to grant the truth about their origins towards the children that were created through fertility treatments with donor gametes. Birth certificates do not reflect the truth about the child origins. Not putting all, incorrect or partial information on it, is a form of forgery.

The suffering of infertility or inability to procreate is officially recognised. A huge support network has been established through private initiatives and at hospitals. The government financially supports some of those. On the other hand the suffering of donor-conceived people is still not recognized, nor are efforts being made to acknowledge it or actually to do something about it.

There are millions of pounds/euros/dollars pumped into the industry: fertility techniques, counselling for parents, aftercare, choices, research … but donor-conceived people in the UK are only offered 2.5 hours with a counsellor. In other words: there is money to create donor-conceived children but when it comes to taking responsibility or accountability for the direct consequences, hands go up in the air. What do you think of surrogacy? It seems like a social necessity for gay couples to have children. Surrogacy is the next level up in making it possible for those who are short of a uterus and/or eggs sperm of their own, to have a baby. A “treatment” not only at the expense of the child, but also at the expense of the surrogate. Surrogacy is also used by heterosexual couples and singles like Tyra Banks, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Ricky Martin.

I am against all forms of surrogacy, even the so-called altruistic kind. It is just another way of not wanting to accept that there is a limit to pursuing fulfilment of a personal desire by desperately trying to bend ethical, natural and juridical laws.

I went to a surrogacy fair in Brussels last year where everything was up for sale: sperm, eggs, surrogates, lawyers, gender selection … You just place an order and draft a contract where conditions are set. Prices are put on renting a woman’s body and the delivery of a child or children. It is a business deal where human lives are reduced to objects and human beings to services. It is the dehumanization of the moral values our ancestors fought so hard for.

Surrogacy should be banned, not regulated or facilitated. From the moment money is exchanged, even in the form of fee for expenses, it is the outsourcing of pregnancy where at the end of the line a child is traded. What will be next: selling and trading older children? Or do we only keep selling the smaller and younger ones?

And why if someone really wants to have a child, why don’t they have it themselves? They should consider a uterus transplant. If they are not willing to do this, how can they dare to ask a friend or a stranger to take on all the risk? If anonymous sperm donation were abolished, it would be very difficult for single women and lesbians to have children. Isn’t there a right for people to have kids? It is not true to state that when abolishing anonymous sperm donation there would be a shortage. In the UK they achieved a rise in the number of donors when they changed they law.

There is no such thing as being entitled to or having a right to have kids. I can understand the desire of wanting to become a parent. But somehow society shifted when they started to shift their reasoning. It is quite simple, though: it is called nature. Nature provided laws regarding procreation. We started to bend these rules to fulfil personal desires.

However you can never justify that by claiming that you are suffering a self-proclaimed injustice and that as  a person who is infertile, single, lesbian or gay, it is all right to inflict an actual wrong on the innocent human being that comes out of this. You don’t remove an injustice by deliberately creating an even greater injustice. 

If you don’t include all the interests of the child, then it has never been about that child but only about a personal egocentric longing. Real parenting lies in the fact that you are able to put your child’s needs first. Most of the time I blame the industry for this. They are the ones who tell intended parents that love is all the child needs. They mislead them at a very vulnerable stage in their lives. They tell them it is OK to seek treatment with anonymous gametes or they make them believe that by following their guidance they will get a child out of this.

American stand-up comedian Bill Hicks once said: “We’re a virus with shoes”. Well, we are an even greater virus when money can be made out of the desperation of someone else, leaving the bill to be picked up by the children.  You have two children of your own now. How has the experience of raising a family shaped the way you feel about the fertility industry? For me, becoming a mother was my point of no return. At first you need to know that my partner and I struggled to get pregnant. We did undergo fertility treatments with our own genetic material. It was very hard and it gave me an insight into the emotional rollercoaster you end up on when you really want to become a parent.

We had set our personal limit on these kinds of treatments, and for us it was never an option to use the sperm or eggs of someone else. If it didn’t succeed with our own material we accepted that we would live a life without children.

Eventually I got pregnant. For me was very strange because it was the first time that I could see myself in another person. I am adding this picture so you will what I saw. Looking at my children made it all so obvious. It was nature speaking out in its clearest voice. It made my missing part undeniably visible.

In the image above, at the top left is a picture of my husband when he was a child. To the right you see a picture of our daughter. On the bottom left you see a picture of our son. Beside him is a picture of me when I was little.

Becoming a mother made me also realize that being donor-conceived not only affects me as a person, it also affects my children, my relationships, my family, and when my children have children, it will also affect my grandchildren.

My children should also have the right to know their biological grandfather; he is also a part of them. They also should be allowed to get access to vital medical information. And there is another thing that people should be aware of: it is possible that my children will cross the paths of other children descended from a donor-conceived person who is the offspring of the same donor. My children and their partners are going to be tested to see if they are not related. As a mum I cannot take the risk.

My children are nine and seven years old now. They are aware of the work that I am doing. It is sometimes hard to explain the world where we live in. But I do my best and try to teach them the values that makes us human: to live free and not at the expense of others. Stephanie Raeymaekers lives in Belgium and runs the Donor Kinderen website, blog and Facebook page.

https://www.mercatornet.com/a-donor-conceived-woman-speaks-out