It isn,t worth taking your comment seriously as clearly you appear to think children's fundamental rights and needs for a financially and mentally stable mother and a father (preferably their genetic parents if possible) are "problematic and offensive" and in its place you falsely believe that adults misperceived rights to have children is important.
There is no such thing as adults fundamental rights to have children. There are no special adults who have the right to have children more than other adults .
Adoption again fulfils children's needs and rights.
Thats all there is to "unpack".
---
Katy Faust did not come up the basic principles I outlined-whoever she is. I do not think I would find her an interesting person. There has been widespread knowledge of the psychological damage and distress experienced by children who were the product of extramarital affairs, long before "sperm donation" was in existence. There are lots of different types of people who object to sperm donation, egg donation and surrogacy, it isn,t confined to people of her type. Ms Faust did not back up her statements with sources., although it would appear to be "completely valid."
The following sample survey shows a significant number of adult people who were donor conceived experienced psychological distress when they found out they were donor conceived.
As DNA testing becomes more easily accessible, users ought to think carefully about the decision to learn the nature of their conception
bioethics.hms.harvard.edu
Its not likely that donor conceived children who always knew that they were donor conceived all of their lives will not be distressed once they become adults and understand what being donor conceived means. A significant number of people who come from married parents which that they had never been brought into existence , so somehow it is thought that people who come from donor conception/ science experiment would not be or never be distressed/psychologically harmed by it??!!
There is no such thing as adult rights over children's instinctual needs and rights.
This is also discussion.
---
In no way did I condone adoption where the natural mother or both natural parents did not choose or consent to give their child up for adoption. The reason why I mentioned international adoption is because there is a shortage of children in Britain available for adoption. "picking a child up out of their home and culture" . People of different races and ethnicities share British culture whether you like it or not-its 2023. No culture is more important than being rescued from chronic poverty. Adoption is not problematic because it is about the children's rights and needs for a mother and father , not adults wanting to have their own bloodline.
The fact that no one consented to exist does not in any way justify the use of donor eggs and sperm or women being exploited for surrogacy. In fact it bolsters the argument against donor eggs and sperm and a lot of surrogacy, because plenty of people -even from married parents of a father and mother, for a variety of reasons-wish that they did not exist. So if lots of people who knew both their biological parents wold rather not have existed, the chances of donoir conceived people resenting their existence and biological and non-biological parent is far likely to be much higher and that is the reality. It is your type of thinking "every adult has the right to have a child"that leads to a situation like Bryony.
Bryony does not do her pad business anymore and thinks that she can make enough money off youtube as far as I know and from what other people have said.
Your comments about adoption are bigoted . Vast amount of people in society and adoptees themselves see no problem with international adoption.
