adUnits.push({
code: ‘Rpp_mundo_europa_Nota_Interna1’,
mediaTypes: {
banner: {
sizes: (navigator.userAgent.match(/iPhone|android|iPod/i)) ? [[300, 250], [320, 460], [320, 480], [320, 50], [300, 100], [320, 100]] : [[300, 250], [320, 460], [320, 480], [320, 50], [300, 100], [320, 100], [635, 90]]
}
},
bids: [{
bidder: ‘appnexus’,
params: {
placementId: ‘14149971’
}
},{
bidder: ‘rubicon’,
params: {
accountId: ‘19264’,
siteId: ‘314342’,
zoneId: ‘1604128’
}
},{
bidder: ‘amx’,
params: {
tagId: ‘MTUybWVkaWEuY29t’
}
},{
bidder: ‘oftmedia’,
params: {
placementId: navigator.userAgent.match(/iPhone|android|iPod/i) ? ‘22617692’: ‘22617693’
}
}]
});
The Dutch court ruled Jonathan M.donor sperm who admits he has at least 550 biological children, to stop giving their sperm to prospective parents in order to protect children from the “negative psychosocial consequences” of having “hundreds of half-siblings who didn’t choose.”
This Friday, a court in the Dutch city of The Hague ruled in this controversial case brought by a mother who gave birth using sperm. Jonathan M. and the Donorkind Foundation, which initiated summary proceedings to stop the donor, alleging that he was “unnecessarily putting” their children at risk.
“Essentially, this case concerns a conflict of fundamental rights. On the one hand, the right to privacy of parents and children of donors, protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and, on the other hand, the same right donor. The court considers that the interests of children born by donation and their parents outweigh the interest of the donor to continue donating sperm to new future parents, ”the court ruled.
release of rights
The applicants claimed that Jonathan M. he refuses to stop the practice, despite rules prohibiting him from having more than 25 children through donation, which violates various rights, including the right to privacy, of parents and children.
It was easy for him to circumvent the rules because Dutch clinics do not share data among themselves and there is no information about agreements reached privately between interested parties and men who offer their sperm through online platforms and social networks, which Jonathan also did to M. , who also donated sperm in other countries.
At the court session on April 13, they assured that the actions Jonathan M.41 are dangerous “given the scientifically proven risk of inbreeding, incest and negative psychosocial consequences for children born by donation”, and interferes with the sexual freedom of “children”, since they must check whether a potential partner is his half-brother.
From my side, Jonathan M. He invoked his “right to freely decide whether to continue with sperm donation” and defended that he was “acting not in his own interest, but in the interest of future parents whom he wants to help”, thus denying that it “harms” these children and the parents themselves.
The donor assured that the risk of incest is “very small” because his children can know who their father is without being an anonymous donor, and regretted being “the face of those who donate sperm on a large scale” in the Netherlands.
“I am presented as if I am some kind of rabid bull with a procreative drive. I’m not like that. I don’t believe in evolution, but in creation,” he defended himself in the audience. (EFE)
Source: RPP
I’m a passionate and motivated journalist with a focus on world news. My experience spans across various media outlets, including Buna Times where I serve as an author. Over the years, I have become well-versed in researching and reporting on global topics, ranging from international politics to current events.