A judge in British
Columbia resolved a dispute over frozen sperm by dividing it in half. Two women in a relationship bought the sperm
together at a fertility clinic. They
then had two children with some of that sperm; the rest remained in frozen storage. The couple later separated, and their assets
were divided and a custody arrangement with the children was put in place. As for the remaining sperm, one of the women
asked for it, so that she could have a child.
The other woman objected, saying that if her former partner had a child
with that sperm, the two existing children “would be confused.”
There’s not much to
that objection. Children stand in all
kinds of relationships to their parents and to the adults with whom their
parents had previously relationships. Let’s
say that woman A used sperm to inseminate herself and to gestate the two
children, while woman B did not bear any. After the break-up, woman B now uses the sperm
to have a child of her own. The children will be related to one another as
half-siblings. There’s not anything
inherently confusing in that, since lots of half-siblings exist, and lots of
half-siblings exist because of sperm donation.
It may be that woman A wants nothing at all to do with woman B any more,
under any circumstances. If woman B
produces children related to those of woman A, well, there’s room for
relationships and intrusions into her life that woman A might not want. But that’s a different matter than saying
that children must be confused by the existence of half-siblings. Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have
half-siblings, and – unless you disagree with their politics – they seem
entirely functional.
The judge in British
Columbia wasn’t much persuaded by the argument about confusion either. He ordered the remaining vials of sperm
divided equally between the two women.
The use of their share of the vials is now up to each individual
woman.
