Sperm donor was AS

Post Reply New Topic

Actually I haven't been name calling. His actions a extremely sociopathic. I do not know if he has been diagnosed with sociopathy but he does not seem to have ANY remourse of empathy for what he is doing to these women. He is treating them like meat.



What he is doing is deceiving clinics and women in order to get them pregnant with HIS spawn. What he is also doing is not giving the parents the knowledge that could HELP his children. They may really struggle because of this lack of knowledge. If those kids suffer because he chooses to withhold information that is all on him.



I campaign for therapies to be available for adults with severe autism. I also campaign against abuse in day centers, groups homes and schools and I also campaign for better education in schools.

What I do NOT do is break the law and violate the rights of freedoms of others. He is doing it in the most intimate way possible and it does seem to have connotations of sexual violation which again smacks of misogyny. He talks about eugenics when he wants to practice it himself ..like ASD makes his sperm some sort of blessing to be bestowed regardless if women want it. THAT is a symptom of narcissism. The part where he does not give a crap about the women is also misogyny. He is treating them like objects.



The misogynist part, also lies in order to treat women like incubators for HIS ego's sake without any consideration for what they may want. He does not care about their autonomy, rights and freedoms. He also speaks of these women with disdain yet wants them to carry his children? I doubt they'd want to carry them if they read this thread.

If women are going to impregnate themselves with sperm from someone they don't know then they deserve what they get. I think the whole idea of sperm donation is abhorrent, so am biased I guess. But why do people think that because they want something they automatically have a right to it? You can't always get what you want.

Most women who go for AI are probably infertile or are partnered to an infertile man

I figured that. I can't imagine this would be anyone's first option.

This whole debate is poised to become a moot point.

http://m.technologyreview.com/news/5074 ... perm-bank/

There aren't currently reliable genetic markers for autism but since that is a hot area of research, there will be if in fact it is at least partly genetic. If it is not at least partly genetic then this is all moot anyway. But it probably is.

Note that this particular soon-to-launch service is not about casting specific DNA sequences into the trash and saying "your DNA is no good- begone!". It's about figuring out which combinations of DNA from sperm and egg will likely give which results. Everybody is carrying something. That's why children born of two close relatives often have some disorder. We're all carrying something. With the current setup, would-be parents are left to their own devices to attempt to calculate the odds of their child having a certain disorder based on what they know of their own genetic history and what they know of the donor's history-which as this thread shows is very little at all.

All of that is about to change, whether we want it to or not.

agreed.

Lying for sex isn't exclusively a NT thing.. and FRAUD is a crime.

you have a point.

Taking all the emotion and morality out of it, Charloz, if you read my other posts, you will know that I think your approach here is counterproductive to the goals you've stated in your most recent posts.

I will repeat: how this will play out in the NT world is, I strongly believe, counterproductive to your stated goals. My instinct on this is really strong, and my instincts are rarely wrong.

Be ware the law of unintended consequences. You are making a lot of missteps that in my experience are likely to get you burned. I tried to explain or at least hint at much of how in my earlier posts. Do I expect you to believe me? Not really. But someday, I sincerely believe, you will look back and understand what I meant.

I will say that the most interesting and possibly effective argument you've made is that it seems to you like the most severe autism cases are cropping out of nowhere, born to two NT parents. I'm not sure that is statistically born out (in fact, I am 80% sure it is NOT), if it were, that is the only thing I've read of what you've written that could change the formula. But ... I think you are wrong on that. The cases I know of severe autism are all in families with clear spectrum history, albeit mild enough to have gotten "by," married, and reproduced.

Personally, I think that a big reason for potential mothers to know about the ASD is that those who have it already in their own families should probably think twice about combining potential ASD genes with potential ASD genes. While they would probably be the best mothers for an ASD child, the combination also creates the most risk of severe, life-limiting, forms of autism. Those are the women who would know and understand how to weight it, and would probably take the risk knowingly. They should have that choice. I would consider it a shame if sperm banks are not allowing complete and full disclosure of the history, and rejecting based just on the one word, but is your method the best way to change that? I really, really do not think so. I really, really think you are hurting the cause more.

I agree with DW_a_mom but think you might not have thought it through in other ways disregarding AS. I'm very family oriented as I come from a close family. I'd assumed you would be the opposite from your actions but some of your posts about your parents have made me question this. You need to let your parents know what you have done as you have set in motion a scenario where grandkids they didn't know about will come knocking on their door (and yours) in the future. Sperm donation is dropping precisely because there is no guarantee of anonymity for the donor once the child comes of age. There was a TV series, Generation cryo I think, that showed the search some of the kids go through.
These kids will be brothers and sisters to any kids you have with your fiancee and nieces and nephews to your siblings. They are not political statements but living breathing people who might have your dad's eyes or your mum's nose and they will come looking for family. You are in a position where you don't get to vet who gets to be in your family or safeguard the kind of life your children will have. You just have to hope that the women buying your batch are good people and all the people in their lives treat your child well and raise them right as you will not be there. If your parents are anything like mine, the knowledge that their flesh and blood is out there wandering in the world without them will hurt them. Your fiancee will also not be pleased.

There are also plenty of surrogates, lesbians and women who have frozen their eggs in order to either pursue a career and return to child bearing in their 40s or because they saved their genetic material while receiving radio or chemotherapy. More reasons these days.

It doesn't actually matter what the question is if you are talking omission, which you are- if you were given an opportunity to inform someone of a fact and you specifically chose not to, it is active omission. Or misrepresentation.
Lying.
Immoral yes.

YIn doing so you aid your cause regardless of the consequence to another's.

Immoral yes.
But why even bother polling an internet forum?
Does one actually base morality on such results or is this only an exercise?

...and I mean, the answer to your question is right there.
You have no intentions of informing any of the appropriate parties, so you are intentionally withholding information- which you yourself characterize as a "lie" and a "trick". Both of these things indicate malicious intent [in context].

I'm not sure why the confusion over morality here.

From what he has said he was either looking to be congratulated for his "conquest", wanted to brag about it or was trolling. He wasn't interested in opinions that did not support his actions.

Waaaaaaaaiiiit a second. So are you saying that *any* personal preference on my behalf is discriminatory? That is what you are saying. So basically I should accept any sperm regardless of whether the guy is smart/dumb, tall/short, black/white, AS.NT etc... because refusing for any of those reasons is discriminatory?

I think that would be a fair statement. If society is going to do this I think it should be a gamble. Or alternatively as a tool of the government to manipulate the development of the species, hopefully for the better.