Posted on 02/16/2007 6:43:00 AM PST by NYer
As family reunions go, it is sure to rank among the less conventional. Six teenagers across America conceived from the same sperm donor have finally met their biological father after he decided to reveal his identity.
Jeffrey Harrison, whose offerings once ranked among California Cryobank’s most sought-after specimens, made himself known after reading a newspaper article about two teenage girls who had found out they had both been conceived with sperm from “Donor 150” – and wanted to get in touch with the man in question.
With a profile billing him as a blue-eyed, 6-feet-tall lover of philosophy, music and drama, Mr Harrison, now 50, made $400 (£200) a month as Donor 150 with his twice-a-week donations in the late 1980s.
But 15 months ago he “choked on his coffee” when he read an article in The New York Times carrying the headline: “Hello, I’m Your Sister, Our Father Is Donor 150.”
Initially, Mr Harrison was reluctant to come forward, fearing that his newly-found offspring would be disappointed by his unconventional lifestyle and humble existence living with his four dogs in a motorhome near Venice, Los Angeles, where he earns a “meagre living” doing odd jobs.
And in any case, he says, he hit a stumbling block, with California Cryobank – which promises anonymity to its customers and donors - not responding to his requests for help when he first read the article.
But this year, as Valentine’s Day neared closer, he finally went online to the Donor Sibling Registry website, where Danielle Pagano and JoEllen Marsh had met, only to discover that four more teenagers conceived with Donor 150’s samples had since surfaced.
“It’s a short life and these children need to have some kind of resolution,” Mr Harrison told The New York Times. “I thought I could send a little Valentine, kind of, to everyone, just saying hello.”
On Saturday, he confirmed his identity to the website, which helps donor-conceived offspring find their sibilings, leading daughters Danielle and JoEllen to call him together the next day.
He met a third daughter, Ryann, in Los Angeles yesterday, and has been in touch with his other children by e-mail, finding out that they shared a love of animals and a distinctive forehead.
“The first thing he said was, ’Holy moly’,” Danielle, 17 told the newspaper. “He’s sort of a free spirit, and I don’t care what career he has. I got to talk to his dogs.” She has since spent several hours on the phone to her newly-discovered father.
Mr Harrison has also been able to enlighten his children, who live in Colorado, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania, with some paternal family history. Their grandfather was an Ivy League-educated retired financial executive, while their grandmother used to be volunteer president for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Wendy Kramer, founder of the Donor Sibling Registry, said that several dozen donors had contacted offspring via her website, but until now none had been brave enough to take on such a large group of teenagers.
“You don’t know what to expect,” she said. “How do we define this family, and what are we to each other?”
The story may not end there. It is possible that Mr Harrison has other children, because women who buy sperm are not required to report when they have a baby.
I read another story about this guy and it said he lives in his car with four dogs.
I'm guessing they would rather be in this situation, than not having been born...
I would in no way dispute that, but the children are victims nonetheless and will be effected by the ambiguity and uncertainty of their situation for their entire lives. Some will, no doubt, deal with it better than others but they will metaphysically wrestle with it for the rest of their lives. Indeed the more at ease and accepting of their circumstance, the more likely they will be to perpetuate and normalize the behavior.
Finally, I'm not saying there aren't certain applications for the technology (i.e. a sterile male in a stable couple who want children) but the wholesale practice without a system of ethics is not good for society.
Who'd want such a loser for a father to your children?
Seems like it was a personal choice to me, not necessarily societies concern.
It's not a "personal" choice when other lives are effected...
ahem.....we have a niece conceived in this manner....Mommy, between divorces....er ... marriages...decided she wanted another baby.....so she went "shopping" YES, SHOPPING. We heard from another source that she could choose the eye color, hair color, etc from the "catalog".....this child is now 19 years old.....Mom has since been married AND divorced again....
I don't know. Considering the alternative, they wouldn't be here.
On the other hand, these specific precious lives would not exist if not for modern science. Interesting conundrum.
Given how long ago they were conceived, before "two mommies" and such was popular, my bet is regular couples where the guy was infertile.
And you do?
LOL! That qualifies for FR Quote of the Month.
It seems, that when the mother chose this method of fertilization, she couldn't be sure she would conceive, so at the time, it must have been personal. Not much different of a choice than the old fashioned way of fertilization. Is the choice to have children a personal choice, or societal choice?
If one intentionally opts to defy societal convention and have a child, with the expectation of raising it as a single parent, I would argue it ultimately has an adverse oimpact on society. I know lots of single parents, and they struggle, even as they try to do everything right by their kid...kids raised within the framework of a healthy, normative two parent household have twice the parental resources, security, and role modeling to draw upon. Children with two parents grow up with a better expectation of what to look for in a mate and with healthier conceptualizations of relationships between the sexes. In any single parent household, the child will seek that other 50% elsewhere, be it from a teacher, coach, aunt, uncle, or classmate...to deliberately start a family as a Murphy Brown single parent does indeed effect society.
OK, we see things differently.
Oedipus Redux. V's wife.
I recall a few years ago, a young lady tracked down her (sperm donor) father and GMA arranged for a video meeting. The young girl was so excited at the prospect of finally meeting her 'Dad'. And then the big moment came. He appeared on the screen, standing next to his wife and two children. The girl excitedly blushed. The GMA hostes eventually asked the question everyone was pondering. "Do you have any other offspring as a result of your donations?" Indeed he did; the sperm bank estimated that he had several hundred progeny. Immediately the girl's smile deflated as the realization set in. She was no more important in his life than any other of those offspring.
The Encyclical Humanae Vitae, expresses this well.
“Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.”
And I respect your point of view...I would merely contend that what is "normal" is not always, "healthy," and vicea versa. Depending on what studies you look at, the general conclusion is that single parent households are now the "norm," in our country. That may be, but I would argue that is not necessarily what is best for our nation as a whole, or for the individual kids who find themselves in those circumstances. Obviously, I would not begrudge a spouse leaving an abusive relationship, and of course, the death of a spouse leaves a number of single parents for whom the lifestyle is not a choice. But, to knowingly and intentionally bring a child into a single parent family is ultimately unfair to, and victimizes the child.
I agree, that is why I see it as a personal choice...not necessarily a good one...but then again, I believe everything happens for a reason.
Your opinion won't sit well with those who say we need to produce more offspring to keep up with the Muslims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.