Sperm Donors and What the Criteria Is

I was getting ready to go to bed and read this article. A Danish sperm donor they claim passed on a genetic deformity. Science claims that it can now identify 3,500 genetic "risks". I am autistic, that makes me a genetic risk. I am considered high functioning, is that still a risk? If we continue down this road, everyone will be 6 foot tall, beautiful and compliant, of a same mind. Is that really what we want, only sheep?

I am autistic and can be quite annoying, I also don't understand many facial expressions, though I have learned how to be better with people. Here is the thing, if you could determine what your child would be like, killing the ones that don't make it, what would the limitations be? What would we seek our children to be? If you believe in natural selection then guess what, autism is on the rise, Aspergers is on the rise. Do we no longer believe in evolution or trust nature? We trust it; but, we want an advantage over it.

It is late and nobody will read this. If they do, they will skip it because many dislike me. There is nothing wrong with sheep; but, do you really want to live in a world that only has sheep. I have read where people have said the best that could happen is that all spiritual people died. We have all read that. We want conformity, that is the way of sheep and that is what we choose. Dostoyevsky said that we had the choice between freedom and safety, we choose between challenge and comfort, very similar.

What happens when there is no more disagreement? Does it mean that the people are correct? No, it means that we are unprepared for major changes, that is evolution. Variety means success evolutionarily. Let us hide knowledge, let us hide from differing views, let us kill all who disagree with us. Good luck with that, what are you left with?

Eugenics in essence is having a world where everyone is the same. It is a world of conformity and comfort, at least for a little bit. Maybe someone will think about what I said; but, I really doubt it. Still, I said it and will respond to comments. Have a good night.

UPDATE - Forgot the link, here it is.

France 24 - International News - Danish sperm donor passes genetic disorder to five children

Doesn't matter how we feel about eugenics, a sperm bank is still a business.

Are customers going to buy from a bank that they know has autistic sperm donors? Of course they won't. If the bank lies about accepting sperm from autistic donors, customers will sue.



You may not want a world filled with 6 foot tall, attractive, non-autistic people but when potential parents are "shopping" for some DNA, they don't want it from short, fat, low IQ, lactose intolerant donors.

Luckily, human reproduction is still vast majority sexual reproduction. And that's not something I see changing too soon.

Interesting you bring up the idea that a rise in autism is a product of natural selection. Many of the great minds throughout history have had some autistic/savant qualities. Maybe, a parent who wants a genius of a child would actually roll the dice on some Autistic traits if given the choice at a sperm bank.

You ever read "The Last Oracle" by James Rollins? If not, it might be worth the time.

There's very little difference when we talk about eugenics in a sperm bank, and choosing your mate to have offspring with...

When using a sperm bank you have the ability to choose the best sperm donor possible, based on actual information.

When you choose your mate, you subconciously conduct a eugenics experiment by rejecting what you don't want in a mate and choosing what you want. This in turn, will likely cause you to have offspring with the same genetics that you chose in the first place.

I can see the moral dilema you are raising, but I don't think that it's that bad considering that we technically conduct eugenics everyday of our lives based on our likes and dislikes. It's natural.

reply to post by Magnum007


Dear Magnum007,

This is not really about sperm banks as much as it is about screenings, the story was just an example. If I pick a partner based on whatever, that is natural selection. If she then gets pregnant and we screen for whatever, 3,500 defects to choose from, would people abort the baby if it was going to be blind? Some would. What if homosexuality was genetic, should we abort those children? If we are going to select who is born based on genetic testing, when would it be right and when would it be wrong to abort because the baby was not going to be whatever we considered to be desirable. I think we should at least consider the issues.

Originally posted by AQuestion
I was getting ready to go to bed and read this article. A Danish sperm donor they claim passed on a genetic deformity. Science claims that it can now identify 3,500 genetic "risks". I am autistic, that makes me a genetic risk. I am considered high functioning, is that still a risk? If we continue down this road, everyone will be 6 foot tall, beautiful and compliant, of a same mind. Is that really what we want, only sheep?

More like two species of humans, those that can afford the enhancements, those who had parents able to pay so they are born "perfect" according to their propaganda, and there will be the rest of us, I'm sure they will look down on us, consider us hideous deformed, corrupted and what have you.

To deny nature's natural genetic diversity is wrong.

Eugenics = Transhumanism.

reply to post by Lysergic


Dear Lysergic,

Yes, you are closer to the truth. Once gene selection is in place, then we have gene correction. I find out that my child will be blind, well, I wouldn't be in favor of an abortion for that reason; but, if offered gene modifications we would. The question of who the gene donor is then comes up. Perhaps your doctor or the person who selects the genome decides that tall is better so they throw in some eyesight gene from a person who also carried the tall gene. You would have no way of knowing what genetic code has been added.

Consider a country like China, what kind of "corrections" to people's genetic code might they make? There are those who say that we are in a race with China to create our own superior soldiers through genetic modification. Plenty of mainstream articles on the issue. Recently, it was announced that two or three babies were born in the last few years to three parents (two mothers and one father). There are plenty of people on ATS that talk about these things, pro and con; but, I don't think the average person even has a clue as to how far along we are on this road.