SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow4408
Their Mothers Chose Donor Sperm. The Doctors Used Their Own.
Scores of people born through artificial insemination have learned from DNA tests that their biological fathers were the doctors who performed the procedure.
Growing up in Nacogdoches, Tex., Eve Wiley learned at age 16 that she had been conceived through artificial insemination with donor sperm.
Her mother, Margo Williams, now 65, had sought help from Dr. Kim McMorries, telling him that her husband was infertile. She asked the doctor to locate a sperm donor. He told Mrs. Williams that he had found one through a sperm bank in California.
Mrs. Williams gave birth to a daughter, Eve. Now 32, Ms. Wiley is a stay-at-home mother in Dallas. In 2017 and 2018, like tens of millions of Americans, she took consumer DNA tests.
The results? Her biological father was not a sperm donor in California, as she had been told — Dr. McMorries was. The news left Ms. Wiley reeling.
"You build your whole life on your genetic identity, and that's the foundation," Ms. Wiley said. "But when those bottom bricks have been removed or altered, it can be devastating."
Through his attorney and the staff at his office, Dr. McMorries declined to comment.
(Score: 2, Troll) by bussdriver on Wednesday August 28 2019, @03:56PM (36 children)
You'd think they'd want sperm from a MD without any genetic diseases. It's not like the infertile husbands get any more health screening or more IQ screening than the MD donor does. The doctor could have visited CA at some point and "donated" to somebody while there... so he wasn't lying...
It is even more foolish when you realize science has been knocking down all the myths about genetics dictating personality traits for decades. Anybody without a genetic disease (or carrier) is just fine. Hell, even better if they outlaw racial discrimination on sperm so we can increase mixing of races and start to solve a bigger problem. They should make insemination regulations as harsh as adoption... or harsher. If you must have a white man from CA, then you must adopt.
(Score: 2) by bussdriver on Wednesday August 28 2019, @04:00PM (19 children)
Should we ethically allow shopping for sperm; that is formally? It's just a step from the future of shopping for genetically engineered humans and right next to existing dog breeding.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @04:10PM (2 children)
People have always chosen whom to mate with.
It's what just about what ALL animals do.
If you try to deny them this fundamental drive by law, guess what, they are going to go for privately contracted or informal arrangements.
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday August 28 2019, @05:22PM (1 child)
Yes, but they were always severely limited with their choices.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday August 28 2019, @05:57PM
I think they're called Incels now.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday August 28 2019, @04:15PM
You said:
Any set of designer genetic enhancements is also fine as long as it doesn't raise a disease concern.
Your ideas of banning "sperm shopping" or "sperm racial discrimination" are obviously non-starters, but I bet many parents will also seek designer baby services with no qualms whatsoever. Label it eugenics if you want, but nobody is getting sterilized. And it's your (her) body, your choice. Except the choice will involve eXtreme customization potential like never before.
Parents will get a kid with desired appearance traits, or more likely a package of appearance, height, intelligence, and athleticism enhancements. No particular male or female will be necessary, and an artificial womb could be used. If you ban it, people will just go to China, Russia, or whoever will take their money.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RS3 on Wednesday August 28 2019, @05:36PM (2 children)
> Should we ethically allow shopping for sperm; that is formally?
You ask a really good, deep question. It dovetails with the myriad laws and rules we have, and sometimes maybe should have (that we don't already have).
IE., do I have the right to decide whether a woman should be allowed to choose specific traits in a bio-father? I do not feel I have that right. But, and I know I'm in a tiny minority, I'm not sure if I have the right to say that nobody at all should decide for her. I think it's very complex, and much needs to be considered before making such rules.
But as was pointed out, a woman has a right to choose any man and his traits in conventional mating, so, why not with artificial insemination?
I will say this: if she was given options and she made choices, but then was given something different, that's illegal.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday August 29 2019, @03:10AM (1 child)
Think about it another way: Do you truly think you can stop women/couples from doing what they want?
If you ban abortions and they want one, they'll get a back alley abortion. If you ban sperm donor shopping, they'll go to Craigslist. If you ban surrogates, they'll go to India, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, etc [wikipedia.org]. If you ban designer babies in 10 years, they'll take a trip to China.
You're carefully wading into an ethical discussion. But parents will give a big middle finger to ethics and laws because they know what they want, will do anything within their means to get it, and are unlikely to get caught.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday August 29 2019, @04:02AM
I think you completely misunderstood me, but that's (all too) common.
I completely agree with you, and I'm not sure why you write from an adversarial stance. I clearly said how I feel about the whole thing. "I do not feel I have that right."
Again, as I previously wrote, I don't feel I have the right to dictate other people's decisions such as sperm donor traits, and everything you listed.
But, some people (not me) feel they have that right, and in fact form governments, pass laws, etc.
The next level is: do you believe in democracy? If "yes", then you must accept the majority's laws.
If "no", well, it's too late and I'm too tired...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @07:21PM (11 children)
Everything about sex is legally for sale, except for the actual act. Crazy.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday August 28 2019, @11:03PM (9 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29 2019, @01:52AM
Not so fast: it's only legal in certain rural counties in Nevada where almost nobody lives.
It is totally illegal everywhere else.
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday August 30 2019, @04:48AM (7 children)
Being illegal to buy is still illegal, it just changes who gets charged with the crime.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday August 30 2019, @09:00AM (6 children)
Still illegal are sex with minors (lack of capacity to consent) and non-consensual sex (in other words, if at any time the woman changes her mind), as well as running a whorehouse. The Supreme Court recognizes the reality of the sex trade, and that keeping it illegal discriminated against women by placing them in a situation where they needed "protection " from the law, making them vulnerable to sexploitation.
It's still a gross, grubby way to survive, but criminalizing it was just making matters worse, same as the war on drugs, both providing easy money for the courts and prisons but not fixing anything.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday August 30 2019, @03:03PM (5 children)
Harper's government made so many things illegal about prostitution that it is de facto illegal. From wiki,
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 31 2019, @12:50AM (2 children)
Sounds clear to me: the only kind of prostitution that is legal is "call girl."
These are the kind that are discreet and don't cause problems.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Saturday August 31 2019, @01:25AM
Basically. Also the minimum to be Constitutional, if that. The law was changed due to the Supreme Court ruling that it was unconstitutional for prostitution to be illegal.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday September 10 2019, @06:39PM
The problem with the new law is that it's also illegal because, while it doesn't prohibit women selling sex, it prohibits men purchasing sex, running afoul of the Charter prohibition of discrimination based on sex.
Everyone knows it, so if the prosecutors can't bluff someone into a quiet plea bargain, nothing happens.
There's enough real crime with real victims related to the sex trade (child prostitution, human trafficing) that it's a serious misallocation of resources to go after consensual sex between adults where nobody is harmed.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday September 10 2019, @06:31PM (1 child)
It hasn't been illegal to sell sex for money for decades, and every time the government tries to outlaw it, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says "Nope, you can't make that illegal - it's a law that discriminates against women."
Harper's legislation (as mentioned in the wike) still doesn't criminalize sex work. Quoting from the same wikipedia article:
The prohibitions against purchasing sex services target Johns, not sex workers, and as such aren't falling foul of the Charter by discriminating against women.
The prohibition against advertising is ignored on a daily basis - just look at the classified advertising in all the free local newspapers. Everyone knows what "type of massage" is being sold.
The prohibition on living on the material benefits of sex work is targeted at pimps and madames, not the sex workers themselves (which still enjoy protection of the Charter because making it illegal to live off your own sex work would be discriminatory).
In other words, Harper's changes didn't change anything - sex work is still legal. Always has been, always will be.
Police have changed their approach. Now they're looking for human trafficers, pimps of underage girls (the Canadian Grand Prix in Montreal is basically a snog-fest with people all over the world coming for cheap and easily accessible sex. Plenty of them want under-age girls, so the police concentrate on that).
Nobody should have to sell their bodies for sex with someone they find gross, disgusting, unappealing, etc., but poverty, drug addiction, and lack of opportunities is a symptom of a bigger problem, not THE problem.
Same as nobody should have to sell their organs or their blood to survive (we work on a voluntary blood and organ transplant basis here. I've donated blood more than 30 times, and offered up a directed donation of a kidney and chunk of liver which it turned out the patient was not healthy enough to benefit from transplants).
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday September 11 2019, @04:23AM
I admit that I'm mostly going on memory, namely that Harper did his best to illegalize prostitution, and making it illegal to buy has the same affect as making it illegal to sell and his final law wasn't much better. I haven't hung out with any prostitutes in a long time, perhaps pre-charter. I do agree with what you say and thanks for the correction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 31 2019, @12:52AM
It's legal if you pay for the sex act AND FILM IT. But only then, because otherwise it's exploitation.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday August 28 2019, @04:03PM (1 child)
Speaking of racial, Dr. Kim was clearly the right color to go unnoticed:
https://drmcmorries.com/ [drmcmorries.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @06:56PM
Kim was his first name.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @04:05PM (8 children)
You are not going far enough.
I say we should set goals for X percent of all adopters to be gay couples so we can further normalization of homosexuality.
People should not be allowed to choose who they mate with (I agree with your point!), but it is just as important to tackle breaking straight white "identity" from the other end with adoption.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday August 28 2019, @05:13PM (2 children)
What if there aren't sufficient gay couples wishing to adopt? Do the children end up in limbo until we can find some? Forcing a specific number of adopters of any sexual makeup is wrong. What we should do is ensure that homosexual couples are entitled and able to adopt children under exactly the same rules as anyone else, not enforce quotas. Do you want to do the same for ethnic minorities, specific religions or some other arbitrary reason?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 28 2019, @08:57PM
What a waste of organic material. Soylent (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29 2019, @01:33AM
Of course the parent poster does. Just like with the PHP conference, even if no females applied, they should be FORCED to apply, FORCED to give a presentation.
In this case, gay couples should be FORCED to adopt, otherwise the adoption agency is somehow at fault. And if the gay couple refuses, or gets out of it? The adoption agency should be charged, its directors sued!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @07:19PM (1 child)
Nothing is stopping you from embracing your (or anybody else's) gayness - not that there's anything wrong with that.
You do know you don't have to adopt to be gay, right? So you can go right on doing your thing - not that there's anything wrong with it - without worrying about who's going to babysit your adopted lifestyle accessory.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 29 2019, @02:07PM
FFS, that's as queer as the KKK member telling us that some of his best friends are black. It's obvious that you DO think there's something wrong with being gay, or queer, or homosexual, but you want to appear politically correct. You're afraid of being beaten down by - someone, so "not that there's anything wrong with that".
Your probably another one of those wishy washy incels who wishes they could be the kind of asshole that Runaway is. I don't intentionally offend people, most of the time, but that's only because I don't give a damn who is offended.
You? You sound more queer than a herd of gay queens prancing around Oakland.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @07:57PM
No worries. There are plenty of adoptable kids available. And yes, it will continue to break homophobia which ain't bad either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @08:21PM (1 child)
I wrote parent post as a troll.
Says a lot about today that people don't seem to detect that.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 29 2019, @02:11PM
There was a power surge, earlier. Troll detectors are sensitive to power surges.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @04:27PM
What if you aren't thrilled with the very strong lying narcissistic god complex traits of the current donor?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @04:31PM (1 child)
Not true if globalist khazar racist jews were involved. We know racist khazar jews will do anything to murder other races so anything they promote is usually a lie.
Do you happen to be a communist khazar racist jew rat?
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @07:07PM
You really don't see the irony in this sentence?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @05:11PM (1 child)
"Hell, even better if they outlaw racial discrimination on sperm so we can increase mixing of races and start to solve a bigger problem"
Why don't you worry about yourself, you stupid authoritarian fuck?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @08:43PM
The alt-left and alt-right share a lot in common. They hate each other only because familiarity breeds contempt.