UK's largest sperm bank caught trying to practice eugenics

Post Reply New Topic

Build a kid workshop

First of all, I didn't say it was "fair". It's totally not fair to autistic men who want to populate the earth with their offspring but have no responsibility. So unfair. Completely unfair. Cry me a river. But. It does not matter if it's fair to autistic men or not. The sperm bank is trying to make money. If your sperm isn't going to make them money, they're not going to waste their money keeping it. It hasn't got a thing to do with fairness, just business.

Besides, it's not like humans usually randomly mate. We don't. We selectively mate. We SELECT our preferred mate based on traits that we find pleasing. This is not fair. Some people happen to have unpleasing traits and consequently will have more difficulty finding a mate. But that's how it works.

When I said "nobody" I didn't mean that literally. Sure, there might be a person who wants autistic sperm. But that's rare enough that there is not a demand for autistic sperm and it's not worth their while keeping the autistic sperm. OF COURSE it's the sperm bank limiting the options- they are the ones who are trying to make money.

And it is NOT the same as people who don't abort a DS fetus. People don't choose to have a DS baby. It just happens. And once it happens, they may choose to keep it (I would, for the record). But they did not say to themselves, "I think I'll seek out some DS sperm so my child can have DS!". No. That never happens (literally never because DS isn't inherited).

The reason the women wouldn't be screened is because (a) they are the ones buying the sperm (i.e. the customers) and (b) they are the ones who will RAISE THE CHILD!! ! If an autistic woman goes to a sperm bank, she can do that, because she's the one who will be raising the autistic child. But if an autistic man goes to a sperm bank, he can't donate, because he is just going to dump the sperm and have no responsibility for the child whatsoever. Women ARE, however, screened, if they want to donate eggs.

I had kids with an AS man and our kids are severely autistic. Both of 'em. I didn't know at the time, however, once we had our kids we realized our genes together didn't seem to be a very good combo. So we stopped having kids. We did want a third but it seemed like a bad idea to try again. Maybe this is monstrous. But I don't think anybody should be obligated to reproduce. And yes, I am pro-choice, as it happens. More monstrosity.

Exactly.

A big advocate of eugenics, Hitler would have personally donated more sperm to improve the Nazi gene pool, except for the fact that his left testicle was, according to English folklore, kept locked up in the Albert Hall

Not really bothered about it as it's their voluntary decision and they are other competing sperm banks (unless it's government subsidized, I'm not sure if it is); furthermore, it's unlikely that most aspies want to reproduce and no woman really wants to acknowledge the risk of being inseminated to conceive a child on the spectrum, especially when you account for the severe/profound cases that would involve the longitudinal endurance of 24/hour daily care, which would ineluctably lead to the gateway of debt and mental slavery. It's pointless for the dispensaries to pay, as-well as the taxpayers to subsidize something with a very minuscule chance of being picked. Both Asperger's syndrome and classic autism are concurrently linked, so it's entirely possible for aspies to breed autistics who are more profoundly affected thanks to the enumerated complexities of the Asperger genome synthesis. Nevertheless, there would be no reductions in the autistic population as this restriction only accounts for an infinitesimal fraction of births, even if ASD was completely hereditary (and it certainly isn't) and not ascribed from environmentally induced biomarkers.

Private clinics are in no way effected so it's pretty much down to the principles of supply and demand to take care of autistic donors. London Sperm Bank might as well consider cherry-picking traits by extracting the genomic constituents responsible for proclivities to materialism, vanity and collectivistic entitlement mentalities; or to be even more pertinent, outlaw chavs, delinquents, banksters, psychopaths and the intellectually subordinate from donating altogether as all of these attributions would be great to dispose. The only groups of people that I have witnessed on the internet who would object to this have the conspicuous portenders of a SJW victimhood mentality, and even left wing Guardian readers/members think this policy is a good idea. Unsurprisingly, some disability exponents such as the granddaddy of the autism rights movement himself, Ari Ne'eman, are clearly not happy about it.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... c-eugenics

Last edited by TheRedPedant93 on 30 Dec 2015, 3:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Good point there, as an American I think of sperm banks on the business model we have here, which is for-profit or at least, self-supporting.

That would probably not work as he was not exactly a tall blond aryan.

I see the self-haters are out in full force today.

As a private business, they just bending to the desires of the customers, and since neurotypical supremacy is common amongst the population, of course they will screen out neurodivergents.

I think this tendency to weed out "defective genes" needs to be fought against as fiercely as possible, as if it is taken to it's logical conclusion, we will become extinct.

This will be bad for neurotypicals as well. A diverse gene pool is a healthy gene pool.

So the autistics and supporters on WP support eugenics if it is done just for the money, great just great.
I know this is not sterilization, yet. I guess I am just paranoid because I think history can repeat itself. What I do not understand for the life of me is there is post after post, year after year assuming and accusing Autism Speaks of practicing eugenics based on suspicion, not evidence of any kind, but when there is actual evidence an organization is practicing eugenics most everybody is ok with it or just resigned to accept it as just regrettable part of life?. No the Sperm bank is not exactly 20th century eugenics nor Autism Speaks but the language used and more importantly the idea really is the same. If you want to accept this there is nothing I can do about it. Hopefully there is no slippery slope and this is a one shot thing. Even if it is a slippery slope it won't effect my life, but still I hope I am not around to see it.

Unlike SJW types I am not in favor or arresting people or banning people from using eugenics language or bullying people who do. But damm if I am not going to call them out on it. Actually I find people who call people who disagree with them SJW's quite ironic.

double entry ..!

Last edited by Peejay on 30 Dec 2015, 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I do believe there is a law in the UK to help prevent the selection of female foetuses for abortion from gender testing.
This is especially prevalent within certain cultures where males are valued more than females.

Perhaps this is not technically the same as eugenics on the grounds of dyslexia and aspergers etc (how in hells name can they actually tell!!) but 5,000 foetuses are estimated to be aborted per year in the UK.

Worthwhile for the sperm donor business as if you pay more and you get the gold class pure bred child.

I don`t agree with IVF in the first place, but in the UK business is business ... and everything under the present government is a business now.

I'm neither a SJW nor a eugenics supporter. And don't you be all up in my face belittling me jus' becos.

It is an enormous investment to raise a child, not merely an investment of money but emotional capital. You want your child to have the best chances possible, and you don't want your job to be any harder than necessary. Also it would be nice if one day your children grow up and give you grandchildren, or at least can survive on their own?

I know that some of the militants on this thread are not raising children. How DARE you mock those of us who are/did.

And I don't advocate the sterilization of autistic people nor the hiding/institutionalization/slaughter of little autistic people. But we are talking SPERM, people. Little autistic sperm. (funny visual) They don't have a destiny to unite with that one perfect NT ovum. They have a destiny to wag they little taileys until they drop dead. Seriously. There's millions of those little autistic sperm cells, and only one in a million is gonna find the sweet spot.

Get over yourselves, people.

Being able to select the traits you want for your child from the turkey baster is not a right, it's honestly pretty 'Brave New World'ish in my opinion. If you think raising a child is too hard without being able to choose their genes then maybe you shouldn't be a parent. Unethical and a horrifying slippery slope. If you want children do it naturally or adopt.

If you want your autistic child to grow up well or just want Autistic kids not to have to deal with some of the nonsense what we had to deal with in the lost generation you should not want these eugenics ideas to start becoming more entrenched and you should favor these ideas becoming less acceptable. I do not see how accepting the sperm bank doing what it is doing accomplishes this. Objecting to the letter sent to the doners by pointing out the wrong information in it, using this to point out positives people can do with these conditions can't hurt , and in a small way might actually help the next generation.

What about infertility?

Edited to add: Or same-sex couples? (Lesbians)

Edited to further add: Or single mothers?

Does infertility prevent you from adopting or are you owed a perfect child from your own eggs? I don't think so, not anymore than a man should be entitled to a child from his sperm. This beyond the laws of nature, we are playing god!

We have to have ethics, us on the spectrum have to be more vigilante than anyone, because once they can screen us then they will eliminate us. Test tube babies should not be a thing, we should not be able to pick and choose whatever traits your child will have, what their talents and abilities are, that isn't up to you to decide. If this allowed you will destroy the human race, it'll be like something out of the movie Time Machine. The species will split into two, a genetic caste system.

Exactly. The end doesn't justify the means.