Here we are at last, discussing something controversial that could be seen in many different ways. I’m ready for it, and I hope you are, too. This paper will explain my opinions about sperm donation for the purpose of allowing women to have children without actually meeting the father. Hopefully this won’t offend anyone, and if it does I apologize, but we all need to have our opinions known.

When I first learned about sperm donation, I definitely doubted the ethics of conceiving children through donation. As soon as the topic was broached, alarms went off in my head and I felt uneasy, knowing that the topic was the center of much controversy. The only opinions I had about sperm donation were badly informed and founded mostly in biased speculation. Regardless, based on what I’d heard and what I instinctively believed, my overriding opinion toward sperm donation was negative. The procedure seemed to be exactly like people trying to play God in society, but not a good god. I thought of this new god as a massive faceless conglomerate pretending to help while really destroying peoples’ lives. To me, sperm donation was the first stumble down a treacherous slope to abandoning morality.

One reason for my instinctive aversion to sperm donation was the thought of all the unforeseen, inevitable, and potentially fatal problems that would come along with attempting to manufacture human beings. Some people may argue that the benefits of donating sperm far outweigh any issues; however, I didn’t see how one could believe that. My main objection to sperm donation was this: humanity would be removed from human lives. Some donated children will never know their father, whether they want to or not. Think how you would feel if you were to discover that all your mother knew of your father was a cold medical procedure. I, at least, would feel more worthy of being a product than a person. Through sperm donation one man could potentially be the father of an almost unlimited number of children. If this was to become widespread, just think of the consequences, especially in the areas of genetics and marriages.
Some people may wonder how sperm donation could present a pressing problem; after all, there are plenty of people to marry to whom you are not related. This is true, at least for now. However, in several hundred years, the world’s human gene pool could be drastically reduced due to many children sharing one parent. New genetically transmitted diseases could spring up that we would not be able to escape. Distant relatives could marry each other and have children without even knowing they share a common ancestor. All these potential problems were racing through my head as I considered sperm donation. I did not and still do not want the future of the world to be scarred by the consequences of the actions we decide to take now.

Evidently my opinion toward sperm donation was that it was not a good idea. Then a thought struck me: How can something that basically equals birth be so bad? I teetered on the brink, not knowing which way to fall. It seemed that bringing another person into the world could not be a crime because human life is at its core a good thing. However, upon pondering the issue, I came to the conclusion that the ends do not justify the means. Although the addition of more human life to the world could definitely be seen as a positive thing, in my thinking quality trumps quantity. In this case, the quality of life for every child conceived through sperm donation could be at stake. Because of the formidable array of potential problems that sperm donation wields, I must side against the process of manufacturing human life.

The controversial topic of sperm donation is arguably one of the most dubious notions facing today’s society. Despite the vacillation of the public’s moral fiber, it is my firm belief that sperm donation is immoral. Some say it has inestimable potential for human life, but I say it holds the promise of incalculable sorrow.