Last night when I was listening to the radio, the radio hosts were talking about an interesting subject. And that would be on the topic of donating sperm. People see it as a way to make some quick cash. But most of us don't see what could happen to the children born from the men that donated.

The hosts went on comparing how the children of those who were born from donated sperm to those of orphans. It stated that the those kids are more liable of growing up being more or less troublemakers. They are more likely to commit crimes and be more ashamed of who they are. Freaks of nature. The children of those donors will go on trying to know who their father (or both parents) are. Thinking "Is that them???" every time someone walks by.

So I ask you menewsha, do you think that there should be a ban on donating sperm??? Is it right for those children born of donors to have to live a life of shame and crime???

So, if I may condense and simplify the argument, basically sperm donations should be banned because it produces fatherless children who are insecure paranoid societal delinquents?

Originally Posted by Keyori

So, if I may condense and simplify the argument, basically sperm donations should be banned because it produces fatherless children who are insecure paranoid societal delinquents?

There are always going to be people who are like that. Causing trouble for themselves and others. Though I meant that those who were born from sperm donations are much more likely then those of orphans, and just day to day people, of having issues in their lives. Not to say that people already have issues to deal with to this day. Erm, do you get the point I'm trying to make??? -3- *isn't trying to sound confusing*

Shouldn't we be blaming the mothers of those children then, for not equipping them properly to be able to deal with those kinds of issues? Children can't always deal with emotions on their own, and it's up to the parents (or parent) to help them develop emotionally. If the mother isn't equipped to raise a child and help him or her cope with those unique issues, maybe we should be barring them through a screening process instead of banning it for everyone, stripping the hope away from mothers who don't desire to have a father figure for their children or lesbian couples who can't have children on their own.

And if we're going to pin it on the lack of a father, then you'd have to go ahead and tell single mothers whose children don't see their fathers (e.g. divorced, father is overseas, passed away, etc.) that they have to give up their children too because they might be "messed up" by emotional issues.

Before I say anything else, do you have any actual sources for the claim central to this argument? Radio talk-show hosts are rarely the most honest people in the world.

First of all, I'd like to say that your argument is horribly skewed. To start, I'm sure a large number if not a majority of children conceived with the use of donated sperm grow up in loving homes with two parents and a family surrounding them. These children may grow up with no knowledge that they were born through artificial insemination of donor sperm. THAT is an issue all of its own.

For those who grow up in a single-parent family, who's to say they are different from any other child, such as myself for one, growing up without a father figure? And I'm going to agree with Keyori on the issue of single and lesbian mothers, though I would like to add that it should be down to the mother to think carefully about how she might deal with these issues in time before she even contemplates going through with the procedure and pregnancy, rather than simply expecting them to go away or forgetting about them.

Just being born through the use of donor sperm doesn't guarantee that a person will grow up to be mal-adjusted and a miscreant. It's true, some children may grow up to go on a search for their unknown parent. However, I'm sure there are just as many who wouldn't, having grown up in a well-adjusted home with parents that they love.

...and are you implying that orphans are criminals?

----------

I thought I'd fish out my Pocket Guide to Ethical Issues to see what exactly Andrew Goddard has to say on this matter. A large part of the chapter on ARTs (Artifical Reproductive Technologies) is devoted to gamete donation.

He begins by setting about defining some key issues involved in this and asking some intriguing questions.

Originally Posted by Andrew Goddard

Perhaps the first question to be asked is how we are to think of what is happening in gamete donation. Is it simply a peculiar form of organ transplant, raising no more questions than a kidney transplant from a stranger? Perhaps it is simply the earliest possible form of adoption? Or should we think of it more negatively?

(...)

It could be argued that gamete donation is a loving act to a neighbour in need. If someone is unable to have children and I can supply their need of sperm or eggs, what is wrong with doing so? Indeed, given the surplus of sperm and eggs most of us have, might there not be a duty to give out of that surplus to those who lack?

(...)

...by using sperm that is not from the husband, donor insemination creates two 'fathers' for any child. There is the social father who brings up the child within the family unit and the biological father whose genes the child carries. (...) A similar phenomenon appears in step-children.

As you can see, he draws an interesting comparison there to the phenomenon of step-children, which has been an accepted part of society for decades. He then moves on to compare adoption to creating a child through artifical insemination, which you should find pertinent to this discussion.

Originally Posted by Andrew Goddard

In adoption there is already an existing child. (...) In contrast [to adoption], donor insemination intentionally creates a new human life for a couple by means of germ cells donated by another person.

Therefore, he underlines a stark contrast in the two, which puts a question mark over whether or not the two can be directly compared. Indeed, adoption concerns an existing child who may have had greater issues with their home and family life rather than creating a life anew.

He also mentions the potential personal issues surrounding the procedure:

Originally Posted by Andrew Goddard

In the case of donor insemination, it could be argued that the natural ordering of family relationships and the fact that our germ cells are quite different from our organs place certain limits on what we are free to give to others in need. This is because of the life-giving, and to an extent identity-giving, powers of human gametes and because of the potentially damaging effects of donating them, for the individual who comes into existence, for the couple who receive them and for wider society.

However, at no point in the chapter does he make any reference to children created through artifical insemination being any more or less adjusted or likely to commit crime than any other child who is born, orphan or non-orphan, hetero parents or gay parents.

Therefore I would say having the discussion based upon this issue is not a very intelligent decision. As Phil said, do you have any figures for this? Any sources? "The radio" won't do, sorry. XD

You know, I always take the "children with no fathers are HEATHENS!" comments personally. As someone who didn't grow up raised by my mother or my father and not being close to either, I think I am a perfectly fine, well-functioning human being.

Originally Posted by Keyori

Shouldn't we be blaming the mothers of those children then, for not equipping them properly to be able to deal with those kinds of issues? Children can't always deal with emotions on their own, and it's up to the parents (or parent) to help them develop emotionally. If the mother isn't equipped to raise a child and help him or her cope with those unique issues, maybe we should be barring them through a screening process instead of banning it for everyone, stripping the hope away from mothers who don't desire to have a father figure for their children or lesbian couples who can't have children on their own.

And if we're going to pin it on the lack of a father, then you'd have to go ahead and tell single mothers whose children don't see their fathers (e.g. divorced, father is overseas, passed away, etc.) that they have to give up their children too because they might be "messed up" by emotional issues.

There we go. I'm just not going to post.

I have to agree with Keyori and Lorika on this issue. I don't have much to add to this debate because the two of them have said everything I was wanting to say. I have a good friend who was born from artificial insemination and she grew up without a father and she turned out very well adjusted. The only issue with donating sperm is that you have to make sure that not too many children in an area have the same biological father (the one who donated their sperm). But that isn't a major issue from what I know. But that doesn't have anything to do with this debate. I think it's completely insane to insinuate that all kids who were born because of artificial insemination are going to grow up to be criminals. Making a claim like that is preposterous.

Without any doubt, a ban is the only moral solution to this abominable practice! If only genetic material was never been donated, it would never face the dangers and pain of being born into life, and could become a well-adjusted, law-abiding crusty spot on a mattress, like every spermatozoa deserves a chance to be!

Of course, I am not certain that one would be able to ban the unscrupulous women who wish to use sperm this way from going to their local bar or dance club and illicitly encouraging a man to donate his sperm to her in exchange for sexual favors.

Originally Posted by Laila Izuka

So I ask you menewsha, do you think that there should be a ban on donating sperm??? Is it right for those children born of donors to have to live a life of shame and crime???

shame and crime?
im acutlly very surprised by this statement
shame and crime.. shame that they where born even thow their faither could not produce the right number to get your mother pregnant?
is it a crime that your parents wanted to have you so bad that they took that step?
A father is a father no matter if your related by blood or not. Same goes to mothers.
Goodness.. i could understand if that line was used to argue against abortion.. but to argue about being born.
I think im more surprised right now then mad..
stop listening to that radio.. its stupid

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

Without any doubt, a ban is the only moral solution to this abominable practice! If only genetic material was never been donated, it would never face the dangers and pain of being born into life, and could become a well-adjusted, law-abiding crusty spot on a mattress, like every spermatozoa deserves a chance to be!

Of course, I am not certain that one would be able to ban the unscrupulous women who wish to use sperm this way from going to their local bar or dance club and illicitly encouraging a man to donate his sperm to her in exchange for sexual favors.

If this were Facebook I would Like this.

Originally Posted by Hermes

If this were Facebook I would Like this.

And if you were a cat, I would offer you some fish and be filled with the inexplicable warmth that only being liked by a cat can provide.

You are, however, a god, and I can't remember the last time one god liked something another said for purposes other than divine politics, so I'm not certain what to do in this situation.

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

And if you were a cat, I would offer you some fish and be filled with the inexplicable warmth that only being liked by a cat can provide.

You are, however, a god, and I can't remember the last time one god liked something another said for purposes other than divine politics, so I'm not certain what to do in this situation.

Are you sure? The only Hermes I know is my pet cat >_>

So I vote for cat. Give him fish!

The wrath of Hermes on a lowly sun-drenched leprechaun would be quite amusing to see.

Therefore I advise Sheo to keep poking him until he does something awesome and godly.

Originally Posted by Lorika

The wrath of Hermes on a lowly sun-drenched leprechaun would be quite amusing to see.

Therefore I advise Sheo to keep poking him until he does something awesome and godly.

Now this is advice I can get behind - advice which will lead to results! You, madame, are a woman of action.

I suppose fish-giving is the best course of action then; after all, giving someone fish can be just as wrath-inducing as not giving someone a fish, if they don't like fish. Benjamin Franklin pointed out that both fish and guests stink after three days, and in all likelihood the shipping would take about that amount of time.

Yes: Since it had been shown that Hermes is both a god and a cat, and if he is a cat his pleasure should be evoked, and if he is a god his wrath should be evoked, it is clear that a gift of fish, when shipped for three days, would evoke both. All that is required is postage. About 5.95 I believe.

Unfortunately Daedric God of Madness is a position for which there is no compensation, so the idea of a fish will have to do.


I would like to point out the similarities to this discussion to the one for which the thread was intended - conception, like a gift of fish, is an action which may lead to both great pleasure and great pain, which most often lead to prosocial or antisocial behavior respectively; yet to deny the gift is that worst of all evils, boring, and must therefore be avoided!

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

Now this is advice I can get behind - advice which will lead to results! You, madame, are a woman of action.

I suppose fish-giving is the best course of action then; after all, giving someone fish can be just as wrath-inducing as not giving someone a fish, if they don't like fish. Benjamin Franklin pointed out that both fish and guests stink after three days, and in all likelihood the shipping would take about that amount of time.

Yes: Since it had been shown that Hermes is both a god and a cat, and if he is a cat his pleasure should be evoked, and if he is a god his wrath should be evoked, it is clear that a gift of fish, when shipped for three days, would evoke both. All that is required is postage. About 5.95 I believe.

Unfortunately Daedric God of Madness is a position for which there is no compensation, so the idea of a fish will have to do.


I would like to point out the similarities to this discussion to the one for which the thread was intended - conception, like a gift of fish, is an action which may lead to both great pleasure and great pain, which most often lead to prosocial or antisocial behavior respectively; yet to deny the gift is that worst of all evils, boring, and must therefore be avoided!

...Your logic turns me on, sir. o3o

It is some very delicious logic, much like the gift of a three-day-old fish.

Originally Posted by Lorika

...Your logic turns me on, sir. o3o

It is some very delicious logic, much like the gift of a three-day-old fish.

Why, thank you, Madame. *Bows.* Then please help yourself to the idea of some, too. :)

To be completely honest, I can't tell if I'm a god or a cat anymore. I mean, I thought I was a god.
But I really love cats.

Originally Posted by Hermes

To be completely honest, I can't tell if I'm a god or a cat anymore. I mean, I thought I was a god.
But I really love cats.

To be honest, you do look a bit like a cat.

That cute little furry face is a real giveaway.

as i was saying in another forum, i dont think there should be bans on this due to people whom may want to date or marry there cousins. and a perfect way for them to have a baby is to go to a sperm donation place and have it embeded surgically. this would make them happy and make them have a child they can call there own. without the risks of deformation or other things.

That's ridiculous. Sounds to me that those radio show hosts are talking out of their asses. I mean, is there any evidence that adopted kids are more likely to act out and to have poor quality of living than non-adopted kids? Because I know quite a few who have grown up fine- better than me. I think donating sperm- and eggs, if you're a woman- is just fine. I see no reason to make it illegal. And even if there was a bit of increased risk, it would not be that much. If we're going to start banning people from having children that are predisposed to certain traits, what else can be banned? I think that's heading down a trail to eugenics right there.

Child development does not come solely from their genetics.
Not all orphans are miserable social delinquents either.

Such wide assumptions for such a drought of evidence to back such claims.