Jeffrey Harrison, once a highly requested sperm donor, with a biological daughter, Ryann M., in Los Angeles, and two of his dogs.
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.
Yep...bad consequences generally happen because of poor decisions. In the situation we're talking about, of course, the pro-aborts would use the "quality of life" argument to justify getting rid of the unborn child. I would never sanction as much, because, placing an ultimate value on life, I would argue that life under pretty much any circumstance is better than the alternative....but much like an abortion, an IV pregnancy procured by a single, unattached female is merely a matter of convenience and selfishness which victimizes the child.
How so?
You are implying that a single person should not have a child. I am not saying you are right or wrong.
There are those on FR who feel America is lost since the Muslim birthrate is higher than that of the US. They also believe if a couple does not have more than 2 children, they are dooming America.
Too lazy to do a link to the FR posts. If I get time tonight, I'll link it.
I'm implying no such thing. If you look at other things I've typed here, I fully recognize that there are situations where that's an unavoidable circumstance, and I don't begrudge a single parent who has left an abusive relationship, has been outright abandoned, or has suffered the death of their spouse...
...I also recognize that those parents are raising their children under far more difficult circumstances than in a two parent household, and the child only has the benefit of 50% of the parental influence, guidance, mentorship and love that the child in a traditional family would have. That there are single parent families due to various circumstances is a fact of life, and "opposing" single parenthood would be as useful as opposing the sun rising in the east. On the other hand, deliberately and knowingly creating those circumstances and placing a child in that situation is an act of selfishness and a very poor moral choice which effects more than just the parent and child.
I have more... but I like my posting privileges around here.
I think he fibbed a bit on the resume ...
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007070791,00.html
The ends don't justify the means.
I never said that and I never thought it. But the people creating these situations are not taking anything into account except their own selfish needs.
Exactly.
What would be the alternative? Having a mother and father known to the children?
Amen!
The alternative would be not being born and never to have existed.
Given the choice I know which one I would have preferred.
I was recalling the scene where Barney is coming out of the sperm bank, belching. And several women are seen carrying little belching babies. Then, the camera pulls back, and we hear little belches echoing all over Springfield.
So instead of a child being born with a Mother and a Father a child was born with only one parent. I don't see your point because abortion was never discussed in this matter and was never an alternative in this situation.
Given the choice I would rather be born having a Mother and Father.
That already happened for one child.
The woman choose that the child that would have had a mother and father known to her was not be born.
Rather, the woman choose that the child that would only have one parent, would be born.
"So instead of a child being born with a Mother and a Father a child was born with only one parent."
You do realize there are married couples who use donated sperm because the man is in capable of impregnating the woman? I know such a couple and they have two wonderful children. Are they also wrong? If so, why?
OK.
Lets start at the beginning. Before a baby is born, the sperm must enter the egg. If the sperm does not enter the egg, a baby is never born.
In this case, a sperm donor was used to inseminate the egg artificially. If this sperm donation did not occur, the egg would never be fertilized, hence the person would never had existed. No need for an abortion if the egg wasn't fertilized.
As I said before, the TWO CHOICES are to have one parent who used a sperm donor or to have never existed.
What would you have chosen. I would have chosen to be born.
Abortion is never an issue.
I'm talking about this particular situation related to the original posting. Please do not assume that I am talking about all situations especially the type of situation that you mentioned.
Lets start at the beginning. Before a baby is born, the sperm must enter the egg. If the sperm does not enter the egg, a baby is never born.
Agreed
In this case, a sperm donor was used to inseminate the egg artificially.
Here lies the first ethical/moral fault in this circumstance
If this sperm donation did not occur, the egg would never be fertilized, hence the person would never had existed.
And because of the fertilization in this method the child that would have been born to the woman had she gone the morally and ethically correct route, via a Father, another child never came into existence.
No need for an abortion if the egg wasn't fertilized.
You can drop the abortion discussion because neither one of us is speaking to it.
As I said before, the TWO CHOICES are to have one parent who used a sperm donor or to have never existed.
Those aren't the only two choices in this circumstance. There is another choice which was never ruled out by the article. The choice of the woman to have a real Father in the life of the child.
What would you have chosen. I would have chosen to be born.
Like I said before, I would chosen to have a Mother and a Father.
Abortion is never an issue option.
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.