Sperm donor was AS

Post Reply New Topic

"I am not a fan of any of it, either, to be honest. If you can't have children, adopt. I don't like messing with nature."

O.K. then, no vaccines or antibiotics for you. You can get rid of your car, house, clothes etc etc. Humans have "messed" with nature ever since we first evolved.

People like to use the word Eugenics with a negative connotation ever since the atrocities of the Nazi's. However, Eugenics does exist as a cultural phenomena. In other words, eugenics via fad (as I've discussed earlier) and sperm banks have reported that most of the sperm isn't ever used except for the sperm of some individuals of which they can't keep enough stock to meet the demand of clients. Why do all the women flock to those certain individual's sperm? Well, it isn't like there is some conspiracy. Rather it tends to be based of fads concerning how people look. In 2007-2008, dark skin Latinos were in, especially if they were from Brazil.
With the advent of Twilight, we probably saw a fad shift to pale people with more troubled histories. Interestingly enough concerns about intelligence, education, artistic talent or other things concerning what most people might consider measure of success tend to fall back in priority in place of what romance story in culturally relevant. It's loosely guided eugenics. But imagine how a directed effort could alter perceptions of different kinds of people and limit demand? Say if Autism Speaks suddenly did a large campaign about how autistic reproducing is bad? I wouldn't put it past them to do a campaign over birth control once they have a prenatal test.
But even more directed, in times past kings and priests had ultimate control of reproduction. If you talk out against them, they could excommunicate or the threat thereof and thus marriage was not a possibility. Sex outside of marriage meant death. Eugenics through ostracism has always been present.

I'm sorry, but deciding not to have a child because they are autistic or could be autistic is eugenics.

If you don't want an Aspie as your kid's father that brings him up that's one thing, but SELECTIVE not choosing an autistic sperm donor is pure eugenics.

Perhaps it would be useful to note that there is a distinction between exercising a personal choice about who to conceive a child with and being forced to make a selection based on criteria defined by government?

It's sophistry to call all personal choice in selection of a mate or reproductive partner "eugenics."

Likewise, it's fine to point out that organized advocacy to deny others the option to reproduce or to codify in law restrictions on an individual's right to make such choices is "eugenics."

These are not equivalent things.

If you intend to push for eugenic laws, your are violating fundamental rights, but you are also advocating violating fundamental rights if you tell people they should not choose not to procreate with people for any reason, no matter how "unfair" it seems to you.

I may be mistaken, but I believe it becomes eugenics when the practice becomes systematic. And, as far as I know, we are not talking about a systematic practice. Rather, we are talking about giving an individual (in this case the sperm donor recipient) the right to receive full disclosure of any medical conditions from the person who donated the sperm. And this full disclosure includes whether the donor had HIV, Leukemia, MS, Cerebral Palsy, or yes, even Autism.

So, I am not a woman. But, if I was a woman and I was interested in becoming impregnated using sperm from a bank, I would want this type of disclosure.

I voted 'no' because I assumed this was done in a way that the parent didn't mind what child came out - for example a known sperm donor where the parents decided they liked the donor and made an agreement with them. I assumed they knew or didn't ask but had expressed openness to parenting a disabled child.

(For example, my wife and I are thinking of adopting. We'd be open to adopting a child with developmental uncertainty or some disabilities. If we're not allowed to adopt, I will give birth to our child and my wife is happy to parent a child who may inherit BAP tendencies or deafness.)

Lying on the forms is essentially fraud. If I was selling TVs and I had a really high definition, portable TV but it could only show black and white output and I sold it as colour, that would be fraud.

Only, in this case the stakes are much higher - the parents may have near bankrupt themselves trying to conceive. Suppose they have a child and cannot afford the therapies - maybe knowing this they have specifically sort out AI to lower the chance of having a disabled child.

Also, there are many Deaf people who believe their differences are just a variation of normal so your argument that ASD donors are magically superior to Deaf donors if false. Indeed, one could argue that some types of deafness are less disruptive to an individuals quality of life than ASD.

I'm also gay and while I think the barriers to gay people donating (such as excessive concern about HIV which would be screened out anyway - thus making it a very different issue to ASD) are inappropriate - especially as many gay people will have otherwise entirely NT lives the only difference being the gender of their partner - if a person is concerned enough about this to screen gay people out of their search then its probably best if they don't have a gay child. I wouldn't want offspring from my genetics (for they are NOT my child) to suffer the problems that come with an unsupporting family. Similarly, if I wanted to have a relationship with a man I wouldn't procreate with a homophobe.

Many people on this topic have discussed why OP is violating these women's rights. There seems to be a tendency later in the thread to misrepresent what the dissenters have been saying. Informed consent is important. You do not have a right to spread your 'seed' via AI at the expense of the child and the parents.