Sperm donation is a topical issue, and one which has undoubtedly split national and international opinion down on both sides of the fence. In relation to artificial insemination, the act of a man donating sperm creates a situation whereby couples with fertility problems raise the products of the donated sperm. Whilst this kind of solution can be a godsend to childless families, it nevertheless sparks an emotional and moral debate over the role of the sperm donor to his eventual biological child, dredging up the old issues of nature and nurture and the importance of biological as opposed to artificial family relationships. Furthermore with the potential confusion this can cause for the child in later life, and the advancing relationship between DNA testing and paternity, sperm donation continues to be a hotly contested subject.

On one side of the fence is the argument that a child, regardless of any other factors, has an inherent right to see both of his biological parents. Certain opinions suggest that the natural connection is far stronger than anything that can be artificially created, and that as such both the parent and the child have an in-built right to maintain contact with one another. However this view point has fallen to a number of robust criticisms. Firstly, in the context of sperm donation this produces all kinds of policy problems. Few would argue it desirable to have the ability to trace a sperm donor - sperm donation is not a commitment to fatherhood. Likewise the sperm donor should have no direct link to the child for fear that this may disrupt the family unit and hinder the child's upbringing.

Secondly, rights correlate directly with responsibilities according to the influential theory, albeit in a judicial context, known as the Hohfeld schema. Where then, do the rights of the sperm donor correlate with responsibilities? Whilst there is a genetic link, there is no paternal link - that job's already taken, thus the sperm donor has nothing to contribute to the bargain aside from his common genetic materials.

On the flip side, the suggestion stands that children should be allowed to grow up with their family units, and that biological relationships through sperm donation should be kept anonymous for policy reasons and to prevent eventual issues with tracking in later life. However to counter this, why shouldn't a child's biological father have the right to contact and access, if not at a distance, with his child? Sharing the same genes, the characteristics of the father could be adapted through DNA testing (genetic) to work out whether the child will be subject to the same medical problems or temperament issues, which could be beneficial to treating illnesses.

Paternity testing and DNA testing in general have become far more widespread in recent years, which could eventually lead to the issues of sperm donator anonymity being further jeopardised since a DNA paternity test will confirm with certainty who the biological father is of the child. Until then, however, the debate over the rights and responsibilities of the sperm donator in relation to his biological child looks set to rage on.