Naughty Sperm Donor?

[Beckpatton]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/w...o-sperm-donor/

How is what he's doing any different to a guy sleeping around and knocking up 14 women? He's not doing it for money, it's purely voluntary. If these people want safety and guarantees they should go to an actual sperm bank Or pay to have him tested.

How can the FDA step in and tell him what he can and cannot do with his man juice?

I myself would not use him, as I would prefer the anonymity and disease free guarantees of a sperm bank. But if all parties involved are aware of the risks, who can stop them?

[Greenday]

I don't see how what he's doing is illegal. It's not a business. He's just offering up jizz to whoever wants it to make kids. The article didn't mention him profiting off of this in a monetary fashion.

Does this mean it'd be illegal for me to have sex with a lesbian purely to knock her up so she and her girlfriend can have a kid? It's not prostitution since no one is getting paid.

[Panacea]

I don't think this guy is actually having sex. He's donating sperm for a medical procedure; in that case this activity is definitely regulated by the FDA.

[Greenday]

I didn't say he was having sex, just that it's similar. And that he's doing nothing wrong.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

So, they'd be fine with him provided he actually inserted his penis into a vagina instead of spanking it into a cup?

Because there are plenty of guys out there who are quite legally catting around getting multiple women knocked up and then disappearing, and evidently, that's cool.

We are living in an insane asylum.

[Panacea]

So, they'd be fine with him provided he actually inserted his penis into a vagina instead of spanking it into a cup?

Because there are plenty of guys out there who are quite legally catting around getting multiple women knocked up and then disappearing, and evidently, that's cool.

We are living in an insane asylum.

Basically. Look, the FDA's purpose is to make sure food additives, medications, and medical equipment and procedures are safe. That's it.

Artificial insemination is more than a guy just jacking off into a cup. It's about a bio-hazardous substance that is well known to transmit serious diseases, including life-threatening HIV and Hep C. From a medical standpoint, that sperm has to be able to be shown to be disease free.

It's the same thing as requiring a screening for blood donation. There is NO difference between the two.

Unfortunately, this guy is breaking the law and the FDA is not only within the law to make him stop, they have a DUTY to do so.

[Greenday]

Unfortunately, this guy is breaking the law and the FDA is not only within the law to make him stop, they have a DUTY to do so.

That doesn't mean the law makes sense applying it to this situation.

[bara]

So...
He makes the donation in a cup. Someone has to see that it gets.... deposited in the 'bank'. Ill assume these people are medical professionals. Correct me if Im wrong, but arent they the ones breaking the law?

From the article
'The oldest child he has fathered is now four. Arsenault and the recipients, whom he describes as "intimate partners", sign a legal agreement ahead of time stripping him of any custody rights and absolving him of any financial responsibility for the children.

But he says that part of the reason of making himself publicly visible as a sperm donor rather than remaining anonymous, as is typical with sperm banks, is because he and some of the families hope and expect he will have some involvement in the children's lives in the future'

These two ideas seem to be contradictory.
I dont care what he signed. Without the anonymity that a sperm bank offers I can guarantee that a court some where would award child support if a woman would sue for it.

[Greenday]

I dont care what he signed. Without the anonymity that a sperm bank offers I can guarantee that a court some where would award child support if a woman would sue for it.

That was one of my first thoughts. I mean, there are guys who were proven via DNA to not be the father but the courts said, "Screw you!" and made them pay child support anyway.

[bara]

Ive heard of quite a few guys (coworkers and some of them damn good people) who were totally screwed by child support. Wont go into details but Greenday pretty much covered the crux of it.

[Panacea]

That doesn't mean the law makes sense applying it to this situation.

But it does in this instance.

So...
He makes the donation in a cup. Someone has to see that it gets.... deposited in the 'bank'. Ill assume these people are medical professionals. Correct me if Im wrong, but arent they the ones breaking the law?

The article isn't clear on exactly the process in play here. If the process is in fact artificial insemination, then the scenario as I described applies and yes, the medical professionals might have some legal responsibility just as the "donor" does since presumably they should know where the source comes from.

From the article
'The oldest child he has fathered is now four. Arsenault and the recipients, whom he describes as "intimate partners", sign a legal agreement ahead of time stripping him of any custody rights and absolving him of any financial responsibility for the children.

But he says that part of the reason of making himself publicly visible as a sperm donor rather than remaining anonymous, as is typical with sperm banks, is because he and some of the families hope and expect he will have some involvement in the children's lives in the future'

These two ideas seem to be contradictory.
I dont care what he signed. Without the anonymity that a sperm bank offers I can guarantee that a court some where would award child support if a woman would sue for it.

It depends a lot on the state laws involved here. In some states, if you are stripped of your parental rights then you can't be forced to pay child support. If you don't name the father on the birth certificate, you have to go through a lengthy legal process to get a paternity test to prove paternity. However, a father could lose his parental rights and still be involved in the child's life if the mother chooses to allow him; this actually happens frequently. He just has no legal rights or responsibilities.

However, if the states laws are not structured in a friendly way, then he could indeed get slapped with paternity and be forced to pay child support if things went sour between the couples he contracts with. And having made such an agreement might not protect him if it is illegal for him to do this; courts are unsympathetic to defendants with "dirty hands," profiting from doing things they knew they shouldn't have been doing in the first place.

Especially if sex IS the method of insemination being used (which isn't completely clear), in which case the crime IS prostitution. It doesn't matter if no money changes hands; the woman still gets something of value from the transaction (a baby), which makes it prostitution.

[Skelly]

That was one of my first thoughts. I mean, there are guys who were proven via DNA to not be the father but the courts said, "Screw you!" and made them pay child support anyway.

Which is armed robbery, nothing less.

[tropicsgoddess]

Correct me if I'm wrong but do the Sperm banks check your health history extensively?

[Hyena Dandy]

Correct me if I'm wrong but do the Sperm banks check your health history extensively?

Yes.

EXTRA WORDS SO I REACH TEN CHARACTERS

[Kelmon]

I am a sperm donor. It is actually quite profitable over here (80€ = ~105$ a "pop", tax free, theoretically up to twice a week).

The way it is done here is that all donations are collected for 6 monts, then i'm tested for diseases, and only then the donations so far are released for insemination.

A big problem for sperm banks is to find suitable, reliable donors. First of all, your sperm needs to be of high enough quality to survive freezing and thawing in suitable quantities. My doc says that only about 10% of applicants are suitable. Then you need people disciplined enough to not ejaculate 2-3 days before a donation, so the body has time to produce enough spermatozoa. (Having a weekend relationship helps...). So that's..10% of 20%? 10% 5%?

So it might be that he was not eligible for freezing one of his donations - but still fertile enough to make a "live" one. So he chose this way.

As for the legal issue...while i can see how the child support thing could very well bite him in the ass, i see no justification (or legal hold) for the FDA to tell him what to do. What goes on between one girl, one guy and a cup in the privacy of either home should not concern them.