Page 18 of 19 [ 291 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next


Well, is it immoral?
Yes, it is 60%  60%  [ 59 ]
No, it isn't 40%  40%  [ 40 ]
Total votes : 99

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

10 Oct 2014, 6:55 pm

AspE wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
firewhiskey wrote:
So are you suggesting every couple desiring children which includes an autistic male is "insane"? You're throwing quite a few people under the bus. Including some who don't even know that they would qualify as autistic..


Not really. I'm merely presenting likely perceptions NTs have. Aspergers is classified as a mental disorder. A couple wanting a sperm donor would be very strange if they ignored thousands of candidates with no medical record of a disorder to select sperm from a male diagnosed with a disorder that (they would be advised) is heritable.

The question of undiagnosed donors is a separate issue as nobody is none the wiser.

It's not a mental disorder, or a mental illness, it's a developmental disorder.


Sorry, my bad....it is a developmental disorder unless the child is intellectually impaired



Protogenoi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 817

10 Oct 2014, 8:59 pm

To get out of the main flow of argument for a second, I found some interesting facts out.

I actually read an article recently about sperm banks. They interviewed people at the Fairfax Cryobank, which is one of the biggest sperm banks in America. They said that sperm banks tend to only accept the best 1%-2% of applicants nowadays. They don't stop at form that you fill out, but the monitor your behavior and if any part of the staff don't like or think you don't look extremely good, then you will be denied. The standards are raised every year.
The majority of those accepted are medical doctors, lawyers, or people with a PhD, or are well on their way towards one.
They have high standards for attractiveness, and they tend to like men with a Brazilian-Colombian complexion (of which they apparently can't keep enough units of.)

Also, out of those 1%-2%, only a minority of the donated sperm is used, what is used tends to be focused on a select few individuals who are in high demand. They particularly cited one man (of Brazilian-Colombian complexion) who was considered highly attractive and they have a long list of people waiting for his sperm and that they can't get enough of it. He has apparently fathered dozens upon dozens of children in only a few short years.

If, Charloz put aspergers on his application he would have been denied. At least by American standards.
Maybe they might accept the application if they have a specific request for aspie sperm.
However, I would note that it wouldn't be cataloged and therefore it would be like having your website not show up on any major search engines. People don't tend to search for things that they don't have an option for.

Even omitting his diagnosis, it's still rather lucky* that he made the cut. I mean lucky* in a neutral sense, to only mean that he beat the odds. It would be highly improbable for him to get an application accepted.

I find the process somewhat disgusting. The Brazilian-Colombian preference is a fad, and the representative at the interview called it a fad.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

10 Oct 2014, 9:04 pm

cyberdad wrote:
firewhiskey wrote:
Most autistic people are of average IQ. It's also fairly widely acknowledged that IQ is not necessarily a great test of intelligence, especially for neurodiverse individuals, and so its relation to actual intelligence is tangential at best.


Actually the best estimates are around 50-70% of all people diagnosed with ASD have an IQ < 70. Conservatively this means a 50:50 chance of intellectual disability.

Secondly even if the child has a normal IQ the parents will still have a high risk the child will have lifelong socialisation and other problems to contend with.

Despite these risks I agree with DWamom that disclosure is the best course of action. However I would still contend that mothers who volunteer to choose a sperm donor with Aspergers or Downs syndrome or dwarfism and then have a child with a severe disability could (potentially) be charged with child abuse.


I dispute the percentages you quote; that doesn't ring true with what I see around me, and I live in an area with a very high ASD cluster.

I would also suggest you are taking things way, way too far even hinting that use of sperm with a known disability could ever approach child abuse. The odds aren't that high. It's like suggesting I shouldn't have married my husband knowing we wanted children. True, we didn't know at the time that issues on both sides of the family were ASD related but, really? Why should it be different now that we have a name for it? You make it sound like people should be trying to control nature from the opposite side of the way Charloz is trying to control nature, and I can't buy that any more than I can buy his position.

And what about my hearing loss? It is genetic, even though it doesn't occur in every child. Should I not have had children? Should my genes now be considered bad things? Where, exactly, is the line between sharing genetics and calling "luck of the draw" or sharing genetics and calling it an abusive choice? Actually, the world has already made that call: don't marry your siblings. So beyond that ... just let people make their own choices, and if I hadn't been able to have children with my husband, I do think I would have sought out sperm as much like him as possible, and that now includes the ASD (undiagnosed, but I do believe it is there).

I realize that you have a lot more to deal with your child than I do mine, which may be why our perceptions are different.

Anyway.

Reality no one "gets it all." Nature seeks a balance.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

10 Oct 2014, 9:10 pm

Protogenoi wrote:
To get out of the main flow of argument for a second, I found some interesting facts out.

I actually read an article recently about sperm banks. They interviewed people at the Fairfax Cryobank, which is one of the biggest sperm banks in America. They said that sperm banks tend to only accept the best 1%-2% of applicants nowadays. They don't stop at form that you fill out, but the monitor your behavior and if any part of the staff don't like or think you don't look extremely good, then you will be denied. The standards are raised every year.
The majority of those accepted are medical doctors, lawyers, or people with a PhD, or are well on their way towards one.
They have high standards for attractiveness, and they tend to like men with a Brazilian-Colombian complexion (of which they apparently can't keep enough units of.)

Also, out of those 1%-2%, only a minority of the donated sperm is used, what is used tends to be focused on a select few individuals who are in high demand. They particularly cited one man (of Brazilian-Colombian complexion) who was considered highly attractive and they have a long list of people waiting for his sperm and that they can't get enough of it. He has apparently fathered dozens upon dozens of children in only a few short years.

If, Charloz put aspergers on his application he would have been denied. At least by American standards.
Maybe they might accept the application if they have a specific request for aspie sperm.
However, I would note that it wouldn't be cataloged and therefore it would be like having your website not show up on any major search engines. People don't tend to search for things that they don't have an option for.

Even omitting his diagnosis, it's still rather lucky* that he made the cut. I mean lucky* in a neutral sense, to only mean that he beat the odds. It would be highly improbable for him to get an application accepted.

I find the process somewhat disgusting. The Brazilian-Colombian preference is a fad, and the representative at the interview called it a fad.


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. These sorts of things aren't about saving lives, and not even so much about improving lives; they are about letting people have more control over the outcomes on a non-necessity.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

11 Oct 2014, 10:44 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
I dispute the percentages you quote; that doesn't ring true with what I see around me, and I live in an area with a very high ASD cluster.

I would also suggest you are taking things way, way too far even hinting that use of sperm with a known disability could ever approach child abuse. The odds aren't that high. It's like suggesting I shouldn't have married my husband knowing we wanted children. True, we didn't know at the time that issues on both sides of the family were ASD related but, really? Why should it be different now that we have a name for it? You make it sound like people should be trying to control nature from the opposite side of the way Charloz is trying to control nature, and I can't buy that any more than I can buy his position.

And what about my hearing loss? It is genetic, even though it doesn't occur in every child. Should I not have had children? Should my genes now be considered bad things? Where, exactly, is the line between sharing genetics and calling "luck of the draw" or sharing genetics and calling it an abusive choice? Actually, the world has already made that call: don't marry your siblings. So beyond that ... just let people make their own choices, and if I hadn't been able to have children with my husband, I do think I would have sought out sperm as much like him as possible, and that now includes the ASD (undiagnosed, but I do believe it is there).

I realize that you have a lot more to deal with your child than I do mine, which may be why our perceptions are different.

Anyway.

Reality no one "gets it all." Nature seeks a balance.


I take your points, my views over the risks are probably flavored by my experiences. On the question of percentages there seems to be little consensus in the literature about what the prospects or probability of having a intellectually disabled child if you have Aspergers.

My figures of 50-70% of the spectrum are based on ranges published in the literature but are themselves estimates (generally the number of people with autism outnumbers Aspies). Due to our lack of knowledge on the genetics of autism they perhaps don't predict what the likely outcome of a child being disabled really is? other than inheritance of Aspergers and autism cluster more closely together in families than in the general population. The fact remains, there is a higher inheritance risk than from sperm collected in the general population.

Therefore without disclosure the donor recipient of Charloz's sperm has the right to legal action and Charloz's actions might constitute criminal intent. We are talking hypothetical at this point as I suspect the legal system had not actually dealt with a case of deception in relation sperm or egg donations (as yet)...



Nonperson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,258

13 Oct 2014, 5:17 pm

Yes, and it's also immoral to donate sperm without informing them that you are neurotypical. I wouldn't want any neurotypical sperm! :P

Seriously, though, women should always be able to choose who they're impregnated by, and in the case of sperm donation, that means not withholding information from them. Their reasons for choosing one man over the other are no one's business but their own.



Nonperson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,258

13 Oct 2014, 5:23 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Despite these risks I agree with DWamom that disclosure is the best course of action. However I would still contend that mothers who volunteer to choose a sperm donor with Aspergers or Downs syndrome or dwarfism and then have a child with a severe disability could (potentially) be charged with child abuse.


So... Peter Dinklage's wife could be charged with child abuse? Choosing a father for your children is choosing a father for your children, either way...



the-comander
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2014
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 236
Location: boston area

22 Jun 2015, 8:52 am

AspE wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
firewhiskey wrote:
So are you suggesting every couple desiring children which includes an autistic male is "insane"? You're throwing quite a few people under the bus. Including some who don't even know that they would qualify as autistic..


Not really. I'm merely presenting likely perceptions NTs have. Aspergers is classified as a mental disorder. A couple wanting a sperm donor would be very strange if they ignored thousands of candidates with no medical record of a disorder to select sperm from a male diagnosed with a disorder that (they would be advised) is heritable.

The question of undiagnosed donors is a separate issue as nobody is none the wiser.

It's not a mental disorder, or a mental illness, it's a developmental disorder.

i don't think that is how that works.
i really don't you might not be aloud to have kids but i don't think you get charged for child abuse if your children are slow. that would be unfair.



the-comander
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2014
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 236
Location: boston area

22 Jun 2015, 8:55 am

cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
I dispute the percentages you quote; that doesn't ring true with what I see around me, and I live in an area with a very high ASD cluster.

I would also suggest you are taking things way, way too far even hinting that use of sperm with a known disability could ever approach child abuse. The odds aren't that high. It's like suggesting I shouldn't have married my husband knowing we wanted children. True, we didn't know at the time that issues on both sides of the family were ASD related but, really? Why should it be different now that we have a name for it? You make it sound like people should be trying to control nature from the opposite side of the way Charloz is trying to control nature, and I can't buy that any more than I can buy his position.

And what about my hearing loss? It is genetic, even though it doesn't occur in every child. Should I not have had children? Should my genes now be considered bad things? Where, exactly, is the line between sharing genetics and calling "luck of the draw" or sharing genetics and calling it an abusive choice? Actually, the world has already made that call: don't marry your siblings. So beyond that ... just let people make their own choices, and if I hadn't been able to have children with my husband, I do think I would have sought out sperm as much like him as possible, and that now includes the ASD (undiagnosed, but I do believe it is there).

I realize that you have a lot more to deal with your child than I do mine, which may be why our perceptions are different.

Anyway.

Reality no one "gets it all." Nature seeks a balance.


I take your points, my views over the risks are probably flavored by my experiences. On the question of percentages there seems to be little consensus in the literature about what the prospects or probability of having a intellectually disabled child if you have Aspergers.

My figures of 50-70% of the spectrum are based on ranges published in the literature but are themselves estimates (generally the number of people with autism outnumbers Aspies). Due to our lack of knowledge on the genetics of autism they perhaps don't predict what the likely outcome of a child being disabled really is? other than inheritance of Aspergers and autism cluster more closely together in families than in the general population. The fact remains, there is a higher inheritance risk than from sperm collected in the general population.

Therefore without disclosure the donor recipient of Charloz's sperm has the right to legal action and Charloz's actions might constitute criminal intent. We are talking hypothetical at this point as I suspect the legal system had not actually dealt with a case of deception in relation sperm or egg donations (as yet)...

i think you can judge by your family history. no one in my family is intellectually disabled so i can assume its not particularly more or less likely that my kids will be.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

27 Jun 2015, 10:10 pm

Nonperson wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Despite these risks I agree with DWamom that disclosure is the best course of action. However I would still contend that mothers who volunteer to choose a sperm donor with Aspergers or Downs syndrome or dwarfism and then have a child with a severe disability could (potentially) be charged with child abuse.


So... Peter Dinklage's wife could be charged with child abuse? Choosing a father for your children is choosing a father for your children, either way...

Yes I see your point. Criminality is a little over reaction.



CharityGoodyGrace
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,124

29 Jun 2015, 5:55 pm

How can so many people (or so many WP accounts, anyway) think eugenics of any kind is moral??? And that it's immoral to oppose it??? Nobody should get to choose what kind of a child they have. The point of love is UNCONDITIONAL love. It's being happy with what God gave you.



Rocket123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,188
Location: Lost in Space

29 Jun 2015, 9:03 pm

CharityGoodyGrace wrote:
How can so many people (or so many WP accounts, anyway) think eugenics of any kind is moral??? And that it's immoral to oppose it??? Nobody should get to choose what kind of a child they have. The point of love is UNCONDITIONAL love. It's being happy with what God gave you.

I think I am missing the connection between sperm donation and unconditional love?



WelcomeToHolland
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 583

29 Jun 2015, 10:16 pm

CharityGoodyGrace wrote:
How can so many people (or so many WP accounts, anyway) think eugenics of any kind is moral??? And that it's immoral to oppose it??? Nobody should get to choose what kind of a child they have. The point of love is UNCONDITIONAL love. It's being happy with what God gave you.


They're not selecting the child. They're selecting who provides the sperm.

People who conceive naturally also select who provides the sperm, unless they are raped.

I think women should absolutely have an informed choice about who impregnates them. End of story. If you want to call that "eugenics" then I'm a huge fan of "eugenics". (For the record, I think calling women being informed about who impregnates them "eugenics" is EXTREMELY disrespectful to those who actually experienced eugenics. But whatever floats your boat I guess...).


_________________
Mum to two awesome kids on the spectrum (16 and 13 years old).


o0iella
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 18 Aug 2013
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 229

01 Jul 2015, 9:07 am

"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.



Protogenoi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 817

01 Jul 2015, 7:38 pm

WelcomeToHolland wrote:
CharityGoodyGrace wrote:
How can so many people (or so many WP accounts, anyway) think eugenics of any kind is moral??? And that it's immoral to oppose it??? Nobody should get to choose what kind of a child they have. The point of love is UNCONDITIONAL love. It's being happy with what God gave you.


They're not selecting the child. They're selecting who provides the sperm.

People who conceive naturally also select who provides the sperm, unless they are raped.

I think women should absolutely have an informed choice about who impregnates them. End of story. If you want to call that "eugenics" then I'm a huge fan of "eugenics". (For the record, I think calling women being informed about who impregnates them "eugenics" is EXTREMELY disrespectful to those who actually experienced eugenics. But whatever floats your boat I guess...).


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.


_________________
Now take a trip with me but don't be surprised when things aren't what they seem. I've known it from the start all these good ideas will tear your brain apart. Scared, but you can follow me. I'm too weird to live but much too rare to die. - a7x


CharityGoodyGrace
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,124

02 Jul 2015, 8:04 am

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.