UK's largest sperm bank caught trying to practice eugenics

Post Reply New Topic

Don't worry too much about test tube babies the practical difficulties of creating test-tube babies make it an undesirable option for most women.

Sperm banks are not equivalent to test-tube babies. The most common use of a sperm bank is in cases in which the woman is fertile but her heterosexual partner is not; the woman is in a lesbian relationship; or a single woman wishes to have a baby. In short, sperm banks are used for artificial insemination.

In vitro is more often used when the woman does not have viable ova or clear fallopian tubes, but does have a functional uterus; or when a surrogate mother is being employed, in which case the sperm usually comes from the husband of the couple who want the baby.

It would be helpful to have a basic understanding of the process before attempting to debate the ethics.

Sperm banks got a bad rap in the era of the "genius" sperm bank (since closed) and the sperm bank operator who fathered dozens or hundreds of babies with his own sperm.

One reason a couple might want to select certain characteristics is if they want to pass off the child as the husband's own - so they would select a donor with the same ethnicity and build. That isn't a motivation to build a master race; it could just as easily be a couple choosing a short donor or a black donor so the baby would "match" the husband.

I'm pretty sure lots of women would love to have a child from Bill Gates (if it was possible, of course).

Article by Ari Ne'eman head of ASAN written for The Guardian
Screening sperm donors for autism? As an autistic person, I know that’s the road to eugenics

http://cphpost.dk/news/down-syndrome-heading-for-extinction-in-denmark.html

This is why any form of eugenics against autistic people should be fought against strongly in case we get the same fate.

By automatically blocking autistic people from donating, not only are they denying recipients a choice, but contribute to the cultural assumption that autistic genes should be kept out of the gene pool and this is wrong.

Sure because he's rich and famous for being a genius. How many people with Aspergers do you know who are like Bill Gates? He's kind of a special case, wouldn't you say? There's also no proof he's autistic. I've never bought the whole "any historical figure or celebrity who was/is smart must have Aspergers!" thing - still don't. It's possible, sure. Assuming it's true...will all those women who'd love to have Bill Gates' child also love having a nonverbal adult child who requires 24/7 care? Not likely. So I dunno about that. Most women when trying to reproduce think about their future kids lives.

I agree with this.

I do not know anybody like Bill Gates

I also hate blanket statements that so and so historical figure or celebrity is Autistic. It is ok to say this person has autistic traits or I suspect this person is an Aspie. Not ok to state Bill Gates is an Aspie without any caveats. All this does is convince or validate for people that already think that way that Autism is a made up disease or so massively over diagnosed that most people diagnosed with Aspergers are spoiled brats looking for excuses.

Designer babies should not and should never be a thing

If you can't have children naturally and you can't bring yourself to adopt then I don't think you should have children.

You, my friend, are suffering from the "tyranny of the shoulds" - but that doesn't mean I have to.

I agree with this

As I said before I am anti IVF anyway, purely on the overpopulation front and it does appear to have a selfish origin to `fulfil` the persons need for a life with their own biological child.

Adopt a child, there are loads out there who need a family what a fantastic and generous act to give to a child in need. Give them all that spare love...

Yes this whole scenario is very `Brave New World` and should be punished with the full weight of the law.

Any evolution should be done by nature when you choose your partner some will thrive some will struggle in certain ways... thats life... why are we always searching for this human created concept of `perfection` that does not actually exist in nature?

One of the factors that results in evolution is selective mating. In other words, selective mating IS a natural force of evolution...

Humans selectively mate. It isn't fair but that's how humans do it (and many other species). IVF selective mating really isn't any different than the selective mating that occurs when humans mate "traditionally". They're not creating the perfect child - they're deciding who to have the child with, like everyone else does.

All human breeding is selfish. IVF isn't any more selfish than other ways of doing it.

So what is your argument against eugenics in general?

Quite a few.



IF autism/Asperger's is genetic, then probability that HFA and NT parents have a LFA child is very, very unlikely.

Eugenics is done with the goal of changing the makeup of humans. When I selected my mate, I selected him because he had traits I found pleasing. But that's not eugenics because I didn't select him in order to make the whole world have his traits. If I had gone to a sperm bank, I would have done the same thing, also not to change the makeup of the world, but because I like those traits. Because there's no goal, different people have different preferences (and some just take whatever they can get, lol), maintaining diversity. This is what EVERYONE (other than rape victims) does. Normal selective mating is goalless, but still drives natural selection (also goalless).

To call it eugenics really diminishes the seriousness of people actually starting breeding programs and forcing people to breed in such a way with the goal of changing the population. This is a problem from a moral standpoint for obvious reasons, but is also bad because genetic variation is important for populations. Now that brings us back to sperm banks...so why shouldn't they be forced to store autistic sperm? Simply, if it were labelled as such, it would be chosen so infrequently anyway it wouldn't make a difference with regards to the population as a whole. So it would just be a waste of resources for no reason and being realistic here about how society works, it doesn't make sense. The majority of mating does not occur this way, so it's not like it's going to wipe out the autistic population.

When it comes down to things like IVF- we're just not going to agree - EVER. This happens to be in my line of work so I have a fairly concrete opinion but it's still just my opinion. I'm fully prepared for you all to think I'm evil or something, lol. It's definitely a polarizing issue. I feel I've said Ive all got to say on the topic.

XenoMind- Wow really?! lucky you!

None of the clients of the London sperm bank were praticing eugenics because they were not informed. The letter went out to potential donors not clients. So even without the eugenics issue this businiss should be investegated for misleading clients.

When you choose a mate it is on the basis of chemical reaction for physical traits and socialization for personality traits. If you choose from a sperm bank and have been informed properly you are practicing a form of eugenics. It is not on the level of what was done in the first half of the twentieth century. It is on the very mild end of the eugenics spectrum so to speak. Eugenics has been attempted not only to better the world but to better a race, a country etc. in this case eugenics is bieng used for the benifit of one companies balance sheet.

Let's discuss the probability that most potential parents would refuse to have autistic children. Amoung the reasons are it is expected the child would be a financial burden, be miserable and bullied, probably will be under or unemployed. That is not unrealistic. Why is that? For the milder autistics societal views of difference particularly social communication differences is a large factor. For the more severe most people are baffled and thus are making decisions and research priorities on the wrong assumptions. It is a matter of debate and lack of knowledge as to how much the difficulties autistics face are the result of thier autism or the disadvantage of bieng a small minority and bieng different/challenged in the area society puts the highest priority on, social presentation and communication. The can be no doubt if society was more more accepting the expected outcomes would be better. But now what we have is an endless vicious cycle. The outcome is expected to be bad validating the idea that autism is bad which keeps the expected outcome bad.

So now here we are in 2016 the London Sperm bank has been exposed. It is a big issue in the British media and I suspect sperm banks will become a media sensation in America. The goverment and society's could decide genetic screening of autistic sperm is the right thing. At best the status quo continues, at worst the idea that Autism is bad becomes more entrenched and we move towered the 20th century type eugenics and whatever gains autistics have gotten start getting reversed. History and basic human nature suggest the worst options are more likely. If goverment and society decide genetic screening is wrong maybe this is quickly forgotten and nothing happens, but maybe it enhances the slow trend towereds autism acceptence.

The vicious cycle has to stop somehow. While as always there is a lot of of uncertainty letting the status quo continue is not the best way to stop the status quo so prohibiting genetic screening as a way of choosing children is a good idea.