Sperm donor was AS

Post Reply New Topic

That's not how it works- of course you can have a child with severe autism even without having a history of it. It's astonishing to me that you know you're donating ASD genes but if the child ends up on the severe end of the spectrum, that can't be because of you. You're just too great to produce an "inferior" child, eh?

I want to echo this.

Actually, it is you that who is wrong with your assumptions on genetics. Severe, disabling, autism is linked to being autistic with a low traditional IQ. IQ is very largely a genetic trait. If there is no history of intellectual disability in his family history, then statistically his children will be higher functioning (whether classic, asperger, or atypical/NOS.)
The chances of him having a severely autistic child, based on what he has said about his family history, are extremely negligible unless intellectual disability or severe autism is on the other side of the family and then, his genes are likely to decrease the chance rather than increase the chance of the intellectual disability. This is caused by the dominant genes. The chances of him producing a severely autistic child are is only slightly more probable than two NT's having a severely autistic child and the chance of him producing an intellectually disabled child is equal to that of two NT's with average and/or above-average intelligence. Based on the family history he has shared,
Secondly, since there is no record beyond of autism in Charloz family besides Charloz himself, it is highly improbable he will produce a severely autistic child. Why? Is because while genes are passed from child to adult, genes can also pass from grandparent to grandchild, skipping a generation of activation. For example: the balding gene is almost always a trait passed on by your grandfather on your mother's side. With the extreme lack of knowledge concerning how genes relate to autism, your assertion is pure hubris.

To substantiate yourself, you take Charloz entirely out of context for the sake of your own moral "superiority." You have attacked the person of Charloz by claiming he has a sense of superiority and that he would carry it to his own child if it turned out to have an intellectual disability.
He gave a good and rational explanation based on solid genetics for why he considered the risks as minimal as compared to average couples and compared to others with autism.
Yet, you perceive this as (possibly misogynistic) arrogance, because that is all you wish to see.

Stop projecting your own negative, subjective perceptions onto others views and positions. And then you justify it by begging the question. Riley, you have had nothing new to contribute to this discussion since near the beginning.

You are the only one in this thread who has said anything about teaching NT mothers being bigoted or that they should be taught a lesson. You have attached that straw argument to your posts when they do not reflect the arguments of your oppositions. So please stop.

What is so judgemental about stating the fact that a child carries the DNA of the mother and that a mother should love her child?
It seems to me that it is you who are being judgemental. That argument had nothing to do with the mother acknowledging the severe disability, but of the mother accepting the child as the child. I don't know how you came to conclude that those words meant nearly the opposite of what was said.

And also, even though the genetic proof for your argument is lacking, I might address it anyways. You agree you accept people with disabilities, but you erroneously make the claim that Charloz is deliberately making children with disabilities. He is deliberately making children, but not deliberately making disabled children. He has even explained why the risk for disabled children is low and how none of the children he has produced are disabled.

And, I find it disgusting that you would view allowing the life a child to be created as punishing the child, especially considering that Charloz has never expressed any intent or motivation for his actions as wanting to punish either the child or their mother. That is an invention of your own mind.

False. There is no credible research to suggest that. The only thing statistics showing an increase are showing are an increase of diagnosis based on more refined definitions and a great awareness of Autism in doctors, shrinks, and others. Also, the label has been conveniently broadened.

I think there is a certain naivety here as well. Charloz and his supporters perhaps don't see the genetic risk but the probability of an Aspie giving rise to a severely autistic child who requires 24 hour care is much higher than for an NT. They perhaps look at this through rose coloured glasses and imagine a child no worse than themselves.

The point is no NT parent would voluntarily risk having a severely autistic child. I'm guessing Charloz would not be very popular with the mother if that was the outcome.

First of all, I wish to thank Protogenoi and o0iella for stating my case better then I myself could have stated it. I am glad to be understood by them, after being misunderstood by so many others. It?s never a good feeling to have people take what you say, and what you mean, out of context and act morally superior to you. Of course I respect everyone for their different opinions, and understand to some degree where they are coming from. I wish to thank those who tirelessly defended my viewpoints and my rationale against those who, with equal tirelessness, attacked it. This has strengthened the point I have been trying to make.

I am glad there have been people who went against me in great fury. Glad for the passion on both sides of the argument, but even more glad for those who have kept a cool head in all this and brought forth various valuable and insightful arguments. This has made the thread into a valuable intellectual debate. I hope there will be people to read this, whose minds may be changed by what they read on these pages. Autistic people and NT?s alike, who will read the thread and think of things they don?t normally think about? things like our own genetic lineage, and it?s future. And ways in which we can assure our genes to live on in a more effective way.

I wish to thank all those who have, through their intelligent responses and interesting hypotheses and theories, made possible a fascinating debate. I really appreciate everybody?s input, whether positive or negative.

There?s two things I took into consideration here:

1: The children are all wanted by default, and very much so. Their parents struggled with infertility or were, for various other reasons, unable to conceive naturally. Some of the couples are same-sex, and therefore very much used to being seen as ?different?; I can imagine they would be very open to a child who is a little different too, as they can relate to such things better than most. I don?t believe that a couple who wants children so badly to undergo fertility treatment for it, did not make the conscious choice of parenthood-no-matter-what. They wish to be the best parents they ever could be, and not everyone desires a ?social butterfly?.

2: Most of us are indeed born into families we fit into, one way or another. And yet again, some of us aren?t. The sperm banks ask for a description of the father?s looks; his height, hair & eye color, tone of skin, weight and build. Say a straight couple wishes to use donor sperm because the father is sterile and produces no sperm? the couple still want the children to resemble their father so what do they do? They get a donor who has the same hair, the same height and some of the same interests as the legal father. This ensures the child is born into a family it resembles physically, and will more likely fit in with.

Another thing to take into account, and I have briefly mentioned this before, is the factor of interests. I had to fill in a form with interests, and write a little something about myself, like a mini-biography. The couples who use my sperm look at these things, and use them to decide upon which donor to use. Say I wrote that I like chess and am interested in sailing? The prospective father would read this and if he likes the same things, might choose me. The son or daughter is then born into a family that has some of the same interests as the child?s genetic father. I accurately filled in all the forms and wrote down all the details required, safe for that one detail: my ?mental illness?. I did write enough for couples to know what I am like, and for them to know what I like. My interest is not sports so a sports crazy family may instead use the sperm of a donor who wrote down he?s sports crazy. I did write down that I like the outdoors, however, so maybe the families who used my sperm like the outdoors too?

I think using these forms ensures that my children are born into families that they are compatible with. They will look alike, and may develop similar interests. I am sure a loving coupling battling infertility for years will forgive their child for not being much of a ?social butterfly?, if the child is otherwise good-natured and loving, and if they can still engage in some of their favorite activities and hobbies with said child. These are people whose biggest desire was to have a child, who paid good money to have one. They don?t look for perfection? they just want a child to hold and to love. And I have provided them with that, and many donors with me.



You, my friend, understand me so well. You understand the many conflicting feelings that dwell and brew within my heart. You understand my desire to live, and to live on. What is it worth to live now, knowing it all dies with you? That the way you see the world, your creativity, your imagination and intelligence, is seen as a curse worth eradication by some?

I am a creative person, and I am a loving person. I know that I am different but different as I may be, I am not inferior to any NT. So why then would I want them to have the monopoly on sperm donation? We all fill in interest profiles and when a donor meets a couple or a woman through the internet, there is also a meet up prior to the actual donation itself. The women know what they are getting. Why can an NT donor donate as much sperm as he wants, and an AS donor can?t? Hell, I?ve even read comment by autistic parents who believe themselves to be so ill-equipped to parent that they decided to remain childless. They say their autism has been such a debilitating curse for them that they would not wish to pass it on to a child. It?s a really sad thing to see happen? for self-hatred to get to a young man or woman. For them to say: ?this thing, this most primal and ancient thing that all men and women have done since the dawning of time, I cannot do it. I cannot do what those NT people can, I cannot raise a family, father or mother children, be a parent. I am unfit, because of my autism?. It is so sad for me to see this reasoning and yet I have seen it far too often.

Autism is not a death sentence! Mild autism may even be a great advantage in certain fields, professions and academic pursuits. You can be autistic and still be an amazing father, a wonderful mother, a great parent. But too many of these amazing, strong and resilient people are beaten down by society?s expectations, and whacked around the head with doubts. They are seen not as beautiful and strong people, but as defective human beings. The gene that helped them be as creative, as imaginative and unique as they are, is seen by many NTs and AS? alike as a defect. A negative and not a positive. And if it would be possible, and a child can be tested for autism before it is born? Many may choose to abort. Abort a future father or mother, a future Nobel Prize winner or bestselling author. Deny life to a human being with tremendous potential, simply because it does not ?fit the norm?. Such ridiculous eugenic practices have to be prevented at all costs. By any means necessary. Because we need to be survivors, not victims. So that we might prevail, and our genes may survive us.

Am I crazy? Yes. I am crazy to some. But I am legitimately frightened by the idea of people seeing Aspergers as a flaw needing eradication or curing, rather than something one can learn to live with and still enjoy life. And I am deeply saddened by the amount of self hate I see in many autistic people, who believe it to be best if their genes die with them, because they don?t believe their potential children would be suited for this world. I know this site is called Wrong Planet, but damn it, we?re here to stay! It?s every bit as much our planet as it is theirs. We built it together, live on it together, and one day will die on together. But when I die I don?t want my grandchildren being aborted for carrying my AS gene. Because a planet that does that to its children, truly is a ?wrong planet?.

First you say this

then this


You assume that your child will be Aspergers? and that parents will be bestowed a gifted child?. Quite clearly you seem to be ignorant that your sperm can give rise to a severely autistic child which is actually a high risk if one of the parents has Aspergers. What then? will you shrug your shoulders and leave the mother to a life of 24 hr care for their child and for the child born into a life of difficulty based on your own pet needs?

1. I don't think it's necessary to quote everything the person says if it's unrelated. That just takes up loads of room for no reason- if anyone wants to what else he said, they can always scroll back.. I did not change the meaning of his quote.

2. He has repeatedly stated he's doing this because he doesn't want autism to die out, so presumably he wants an autistic child (how else would this result in it not dying out?). Yet he alsostates that if he has a child with severe autism, it's the mother's fault, not his. So in conclusion, he doesn't want a severely autistic child (it doesn't fit his scheme of what he's trying to produce), and he won't take responsibility that his genes could have resulted in that. What other conclusion can be drawn?

3. If we don't know how autism is inherited, how are you so confident in how severe autism is inherited? How are you so confident it's not inherited the same way and just varies in how much it's expressed?
I happen to know several families where there was no history of severe autism who produced severely autistic children. And they produce more of them than the average population. Take us for example: we have 2/2 severe autism and there's no severe autism in either of our families, but there is Aspergers. Therefore I know it's not true that you must have history of severe autism to have a severely autistic child (or be more likely to have one).

4. I do not agree that IQ tests are accurate for testing the intelligence of severely autistic individuals, and I don't agree that severe autism is severe just due to IQ below 70. I also don't agree that intellectual disability is laregly passed on from family members- lots of cases of severe intellectual disability are caused by things like abnormalities in chromosome separation (trisomies), brain damage in utero or during birthing process, etc.

5. He asked if his actions are morally wrong. I think they are. If he didn't want to hear that, he shouldn't have asked. (I actually don't know why he asked because he obviously doesn't give a s**t, but the fact of the matter is, he asked). That doesn't mean I'm morally superior in general- we're talking about one very specific issue here...

There is no evidence to support that. The data you are using cannot and has not been linked in such a way as to be relevant to Charloz's situation. I have already addressed this. Your argument would deny lineage factors in genetics. The studies were done with all aspies, most of which have other more severe autism present in their family history. However, aspies without other more severe autism or even similar to/highfunctioning in their family historyhaven't been studied as to the likely hood of othe more severe autistic children. Your claim is unscientific. Why should Charloz change his actions based on an unproven postulation?

He has said before that there is no family history of severe autism, so the risk of this happening isn't much higher than the general population. If cyberdad takes his arguments to their logical conclusion, no-one would donate their sperm at all, because all gene combinations carry the potential of precipitating a severe genetic disorder.

What about neurotypical parents who have a history of severe autism in the family.



You are expecting us to take your word on it. I'm sorry, but that may work with your children, and the people who are opposed to your views are not going to automatically take what you say for granted like your children may do.




All these statements are contentious, and require evidence to back them up.



How do you know that? Or do we have to take your word on this as well.



I grew up in a fully NT family. I think the OP did too. It was tough but I'd rather have that than not exist. I think the OP would feel the same way.

OP, you are taking advice on the internet on a very personal matter to you. I really think you should talk this through with your dad, but it is very noticeable that all the actual parents that have responded to your thread think it was a terrible idea. You are full of contradictions and your thoughts do not flow logically. If you are family oriented, you keep your family close. You do not make it readily available on the internet to anyone with the cash to buy into it. It's your sperm, but it's also your family's genetic material and you've just put a lot up on ebay for some cash and your parents will not be pleased. You seem to have a romanticised ideal of what donor kids lives will be like and how they're wanted. That's not always the case, especially if the relationship breaks up in the future like nearly half of relationships do. A quick google shows they do even worse than adopted kids in terms of mental health and well being.
You have a fiancee you are getting married to and you talk about her very fondly. Does she realise she will potentially have 25-30 step kids showing up at some point in your life together. She probably hopes to share the experience of a first child with you, but you already have kids. Lots of kids with randoms you didn't choose or screen. She'd have to wonder if you take family seriously . Your actions are as puzzling as they are self sabotaging and this is all before you even add AS into the equation.

There is no evidence to support that. The data you are using cannot and has not been linked in such a way as to be relevant to Charloz's situation. I have already addressed this. Your argument would deny lineage factors in genetics. The studies were done with all aspies, most of which have other more severe autism present in their family history. However, aspies without other more severe autism or even similar to/highfunctioning in their family historyhaven't been studied as to the likely hood of othe more severe autistic children. Your claim is unscientific. Why should Charloz change his actions based on an unproven postulation?

And the fact remains Charloz personally believes Aspergers is hereditary. Let the women decide, that's all we are asking. He's being deliberately deceptive, which is the heart of the issue.

Tell all this to the families in Silicon Valley, where there is a giant cluster of severe autism. When two ASD individuals produce a child together, it increases the odds of more severe forms of autism. What Charloz can't know, of course, is if his genes might end up combined with those of an ASD mom.

I am not going to say if that is good or bad; my position has only been that the information should be out there for the potential parents to evaluate properly. I have an issue with hiding the information, not with the desire to donate sperm.

Charloz, you and I are never going to agree on the ethics of it, or how you see the results of some of my questions, but you have shown that you have, at least, thought about those questions and I appreciate that. I can't make you think like me or vice-a-versa. But I will always think I'm right and you aren't