TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Dear Abby: Brother Donating Sperm to Brother

huskerbb · Guru

I don't see the big deal. Any children from IVF are not the responsibility of the sperm donor.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I think the whole situation sounds icky. I mean, he did it once for the first wife and that marriage didn't work out. And, fine that is past. But, for the LW, these children are going to be bio sibs to their children, so she does have some right to give her opinion in this as well. And, I think she should be on board with this before going forward.

huskerbb · Guru

But it's silly she's not.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I don't know. He couldn't hold his first marriage together.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

And, wanting to keep it a big secret is idiotic. I wouldn't go along with that either.

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
And, wanting to keep it a big secret is idiotic. I wouldn't go along with that either.

Well that's dumb.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Yeah, because her children will be their siblings. They have a right to know that. And this new child should also know that and understand who his biological father is. What is it with people and all their secrets? Just be matter of fact. People can accept facts. Kids can accept facts. They can't accept secrets. As if that is something to be ashamed of or whatever.

TrudyML · Guru

Go get donated sperm.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

And, wanting to keep it a secret seems like brother isn't very mature.

huskerbb · Guru

TrudyML wrote:
Go get donated sperm.

Why? This way yiur kids do share your DNA If you are the sterile brother.

Sounds like a good solution. LW is being unreasionable.

Ohfour · Hooker

Oh hell no. No way.

huskerbb · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
Oh hell no. No way.

Why not?

If if a woman wanted to donate an egg to her infertile sister, people would be defending that.

Ohfour · Hooker

huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Oh hell no. No way.
Why not?

If if a woman wanted to donate an egg to her infertile sister, people would be defending that.

I wouldn't do that either.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Every family is different. If it's not okay with the wife, that presents a problem.

I'm sure we've all seen stories where a mother is the surrogate for her daughter.

flan

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Every family is different. If it's not okay with the wife, that presents a problem.

I'm sure we've all seen stories where a mother is the surrogate for her daughter.

flan

But everyone would say "her body, her choice" if the situation were reversed.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Every family is different. If it's not okay with the wife, that presents a problem.

I'm sure we've all seen stories where a mother is the surrogate for her daughter.

flan
But everyone would say "her body, her choice" if the situation were reversed.

No, husker, they actually wouldn't.

flan

huskerbb · Guru

Yeah, they would.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
Yeah, they would.

Well, I could agree, but then we'd both be wrong... evileye

flan

huskerbb · Guru

We had a similar thread kind of in reverse months and months ago--or maybe on the old GT.

Wife wanted to be a surrogate for her sister. Most posters on here said it was her body, her choice in reaction to her husband having some concerns.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
We had a similar thread kind of in reverse months and months ago--or maybe on the old GT.

Wife wanted to be a surrogate for her sister. Most posters on here said it was her body, her choice in reaction to her husband having some concerns.

Maybe. I don't remember, though.

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

huskerbb wrote:
We had a similar thread kind of in reverse months and months ago--or maybe on the old GT.

Wife wanted to be a surrogate for her sister. Most posters on here said it was her body, her choice in reaction to her husband having some concerns.

A surrogate is a totally different thing.

Honeys_Mom · Mod & Permanent Board Sweetheart

I know it absolutely is a different thing, but I can't help thinking of a friend of my ex whose dad was also his grandfather...

weltschmerz · Guru

, you know the historuyTrudyML wrote:
Go get donated sperm.

Why get a stranger's sperm? A stranger who may pass along inherited genetic defects, maybe psychiatric abnormalities, and having a baby that will look nothing like you.

At last this way, you're keeping it in the family, you know the medical history and there's a greater chance that the baby will resemble the parents. That's important to some people.

Ohfour · Hooker

I would always see the child as mine. Or my husband's. I wouldn't be able to disconnect.

Dona Worry Be Happy · Vette's SS!!

Much ado about nothing. Geez.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

I wouldn't have a problem with this. The child would genetically be family to the sterile father.

I do think all individuals would need to be on the same page though, in regards to how they think of the relationships.

IMHO, LW needs to get over herself. If DH wants to do this for his brother, shut up.

Ohfour · Hooker

just Czech wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with this. The child would genetically be family to the sterile father.

I do think all individuals would need to be on the same page though, in regards to how they think of the relationships.

IMHO, LW needs to get over herself. If DH wants to do this for his brother, shut up.

I disagree. I can't imagine going along with something like this.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I don't have a problem with donating but don't keep it a secret. And the wife needs to get on board.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

I think if a husband or a wife wants to donate an egg or sperm to a family member, that should be their choice. However, I think it is much different if a wife is going to be a surrogate and CARRY a child, being pregnant for ten months and giving birth. In that case, I think BOTH need to be on board b/c it is going to affect the marriage.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I think choices should be made together in a marriage. And if she isn't on board then no.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
I think choices should be made together in a marriage. And if she isn't on board then no.

This. I would never do something that my husband was so against. Neither would he.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Me neither. Respect your spouse.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

When do her wants become more important then his wants?

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Because this is a child that is bio related to her husband. Duh. Neither should a woman be a surrogate if dad isn't on board.

Ohfour · Hooker

just Czech wrote:
When do her wants become more important then his wants?

They (probably) have a good marriage now. Why would you want to do something to jeopardize that. She does NOT want this. Doing something this drastic without both parties happy about it will cause trouble.

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Because this is a child that is bio related to her husband. Duh. Neither should a woman be a surrogate if dad isn't on board.

??? WTF??? If the brother wasn't sterile and had his own kid--that kid would still be bio related to her husband. Duh.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

Let me just say ick. I would not be on board with my husband donating sperm. Nor would I donate an egg.

FNW · Guru

I think it should remain anonymous. Sure, it would be nice to keep the genes in the family, but psychologically, it would be better to go with a bank.

The wife of a friend's ex donated her eggs several times. She underwent tons of tests and provided her medical & psychological history and her parents' and grandparents' as well as her siblings' histories. The recipient knows the history and background before choosing the donor.

Sometimes it's better to go with a donor who is not related, to reduce the possibility of carrying down medical problems that exist within the family. The DIL of my BFF underwent IVF with her husband. They had twins. One was born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. This is caused when both parents carry some gene or enzyme or something. It's rare because the odds that both parents have it is slim. Had they gone with a donor, this would not have happened. Going with an anonymous donor can be a good thing.

Whether or not the parents disclose is a decision that the parents should make together. No one needs to know. But if they do disclose to other family members or friends, then the children should know at some point as well.

-- Edited by FNW on Thursday 17th of March 2016 03:29:14 PM

huskerbb · Guru

FNW wrote:
I think it should remain anonymous. Sure, it would be nice to keep the genes in the family, but psychologically, it would be better to go with a bank.

The wife of a friend's ex donated her eggs several times. She underwent tons of tests and provided her medical & psychological history and her parents' and grandparents' as well as her siblings' histories. The recipient knows the history and background before choosing the donor.

Sometimes it's better to go with a donor who is not related, to reduce the possibility of carrying down medical problems that exist within the family. The DIL of my BFF underwent IVF with her husband. They had twins. One was born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. This is caused when both parents carry some gene or enzyme or something. It's rare because the odds that both parents have it is slim. Had they gone with a donor, this would not have happened. Going with an anonymous donor can be a good thing.

Whether or not the parents disclose is a decision that the parents should make together. No one needs to know. But if they do disclose to other family members or friends, then the children should know at some point as well.

-- Edited by FNW on Thursday 17th of March 2016 03:29:14 PM

No, it would not. This would be way better psychologically. Like adopted children, many kids from sperm donations want to know their family history. This way, their history would be that of their parent.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
FNW wrote:
I think it should remain anonymous. Sure, it would be nice to keep the genes in the family, but psychologically, it would be better to go with a bank.

The wife of a friend's ex donated her eggs several times. She underwent tons of tests and provided her medical & psychological history and her parents' and grandparents' as well as her siblings' histories. The recipient knows the history and background before choosing the donor.

Sometimes it's better to go with a donor who is not related, to reduce the possibility of carrying down medical problems that exist within the family. The DIL of my BFF underwent IVF with her husband. They had twins. One was born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. This is caused when both parents carry some gene or enzyme or something. It's rare because the odds that both parents have it is slim. Had they gone with a donor, this would not have happened. Going with an anonymous donor can be a good thing.

Whether or not the parents disclose is a decision that the parents should make together. No one needs to know. But if they do disclose to other family members or friends, then the children should know at some point as well.

-- Edited by FNW on Thursday 17th of March 2016 03:29:14 PM
No, it would not. This would be way better psychologically. Like adopted children, many kids from sperm donations want to know their family history. This way, their history would be that of their parent.

The whole world doesn't need to know, though, and the child can be told when they are older and ask. Or MAYBE, they will choose not to tell the kid.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
FNW wrote:
I think it should remain anonymous. Sure, it would be nice to keep the genes in the family, but psychologically, it would be better to go with a bank.

The wife of a friend's ex donated her eggs several times. She underwent tons of tests and provided her medical & psychological history and her parents' and grandparents' as well as her siblings' histories. The recipient knows the history and background before choosing the donor.

Sometimes it's better to go with a donor who is not related, to reduce the possibility of carrying down medical problems that exist within the family. The DIL of my BFF underwent IVF with her husband. They had twins. One was born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. This is caused when both parents carry some gene or enzyme or something. It's rare because the odds that both parents have it is slim. Had they gone with a donor, this would not have happened. Going with an anonymous donor can be a good thing.

Whether or not the parents disclose is a decision that the parents should make together. No one needs to know. But if they do disclose to other family members or friends, then the children should know at some point as well.

-- Edited by FNW on Thursday 17th of March 2016 03:29:14 PM
No, it would not. This would be way better psychologically. Like adopted children, many kids from sperm donations want to know their family history. This way, their history would be that of their parent.
The whole world doesn't need to know, though, and the child can be told when they are older and ask. Or MAYBE, they will choose not to tell the kid.

It will be easier to NOT tell if the DNA is similar.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Because this is a child that is bio related to her husband. Duh. Neither should a woman be a surrogate if dad isn't on board.
??? WTF??? If the brother wasn't sterile and had his own kid--that kid would still be bio related to her husband. Duh.

WTF what? Yeah, I know. But, big difference between it being HIS child. Duh. And, Double Duh.

weltschmerz · Guru

FNW wrote:
I think it should remain anonymous. Sure, it would be nice to keep the genes in the family, but psychologically, it would be better to go with a bank.

The wife of a friend's ex donated her eggs several times. She underwent tons of tests and provided her medical & psychological history and her parents' and grandparents' as well as her siblings' histories. The recipient knows the history and background before choosing the donor.

Sometimes it's better to go with a donor who is not related, to reduce the possibility of carrying down medical problems that exist within the family. The DIL of my BFF underwent IVF with her husband. They had twins. One was born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. This is caused when both parents carry some gene or enzyme or something. It's rare because the odds that both parents have it is slim. Had they gone with a donor, this would not have happened. Going with an anonymous donor can be a good thing.

Whether or not the parents disclose is a decision that the parents should make together. No one needs to know. But if they do disclose to other family members or friends, then the children should know at some point as well.

-- Edited by FNW on Thursday 17th of March 2016 03:29:14 PM

You're talking about egg donors.

You think sperm donors don't lie? Many donate just for some quick cash.

weltschmerz · Guru

Sometimes it's better to go with a donor who is not related, to reduce the possibility of carrying down medical problems that exist within the family.
------------------
There's absolutely no more possibility of this than the danger to the offspring of couple #1, or the offspring of couple #2, had the brother not been sterile. It's not like the kids will be interbreeding.
Unless you feel that every couple should have a child from a third party, it doesn't make sense. The third party, however, will pass down his own familial genetic deficiencies.
There's no interbreeding here.

-- Edited by weltschmerz on Thursday 17th of March 2016 08:19:45 PM

FNW · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
FNW wrote:
I think it should remain anonymous. Sure, it would be nice to keep the genes in the family, but psychologically, it would be better to go with a bank.

The wife of a friend's ex donated her eggs several times. She underwent tons of tests and provided her medical & psychological history and her parents' and grandparents' as well as her siblings' histories. The recipient knows the history and background before choosing the donor.

Sometimes it's better to go with a donor who is not related, to reduce the possibility of carrying down medical problems that exist within the family. The DIL of my BFF underwent IVF with her husband. They had twins. One was born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. This is caused when both parents carry some gene or enzyme or something. It's rare because the odds that both parents have it is slim. Had they gone with a donor, this would not have happened. Going with an anonymous donor can be a good thing.

Whether or not the parents disclose is a decision that the parents should make together. No one needs to know. But if they do disclose to other family members or friends, then the children should know at some point as well.

-- Edited by FNW on Thursday 17th of March 2016 03:29:14 PM
You're talking about egg donors.
You think sperm donors don't lie? Many donate just for some quick cash.

What would be the point? They are going to take the sperm anyway. It's up to the recipient to chose based on the information provided, and by that point, the donor already got his money and is long gone.

weltschmerz · Guru

FNW wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
FNW wrote:
I think it should remain anonymous. Sure, it would be nice to keep the genes in the family, but psychologically, it would be better to go with a bank.

The wife of a friend's ex donated her eggs several times. She underwent tons of tests and provided her medical & psychological history and her parents' and grandparents' as well as her siblings' histories. The recipient knows the history and background before choosing the donor.

Sometimes it's better to go with a donor who is not related, to reduce the possibility of carrying down medical problems that exist within the family. The DIL of my BFF underwent IVF with her husband. They had twins. One was born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. This is caused when both parents carry some gene or enzyme or something. It's rare because the odds that both parents have it is slim. Had they gone with a donor, this would not have happened. Going with an anonymous donor can be a good thing.

Whether or not the parents disclose is a decision that the parents should make together. No one needs to know. But if they do disclose to other family members or friends, then the children should know at some point as well.

-- Edited by FNW on Thursday 17th of March 2016 03:29:14 PM
You're talking about egg donors.
You think sperm donors don't lie? Many donate just for some quick cash.
What would be the point? They are going to take the sperm anyway. It's up to the recipient to chose based on the information provided, and by that point, the donor already got his money and is long gone.

"No, I'm not a cokehead. No, I don't have any addictions. Yes, this is my real noise, and I wasn't born with a missive honker.

No, dwarfism doesn't run in my family."

I'm saying that egg donors are thoroughly vetted and medically checked.

Sperm donors? Not so much. You don't have any way of knowing what kind of crappola you`re getting.

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Because this is a child that is bio related to her husband. Duh. Neither should a woman be a surrogate if dad isn't on board.
??? WTF??? If the brother wasn't sterile and had his own kid--that kid would still be bio related to her husband. Duh.

WTF what? Yeah, I know. But, big difference between it being HIS child. Duh. And, Double Duh.

That's not what you said. You said bio related--which any child would be, with either of their sperm.

huskerbb · Guru

The comment about going with sperm outside the family to reduce the possibility of genetic disease is stupid.

The brother and the SIL are not related. You don't get the same DNA through marriage.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Bio related to the point that it is HIS child. That is different than if the brother wasn't sterile. No kidding. The wife isn't coil with it. So they should sit down and all discuss it together.