• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Moral obligation of sperm and egg donors

Texashiker

Texashiker

Lifer
Last nights episode of CSI involved a sperm donor who had over 100 children.

The donor dad was passing along Wilsons disease to his children. When one of the kids asked the donor dad for a partial liver transplant, the dad said no. The kid said something like "I am going to die without the transplant", the donor dad was uncaring.

Even though the dad signed his legal rights away with the sperm donation, should society allow people to associate moral obligations and legal obligations in the category?
 
Aren't legal sperm donors supposed to be screened for all medical problems prior to it being donated to a bank?

CSI episode is fiction. Why try to tie in a fantastical fictional story line with reality? Oh wait, I forgot, you still "believe" in many things don't ya?
 
No, now way. Donor is doing it for the money in most cases, its sell and go away. He is not asking anyone to buy it. Its the agency who should be checking for such disease. IMHO, once the donor leaves, he should not have any further obligations what so ever.
 
I don't watch CSI (how has David Caruso not broken his neck looking like that yet?), but I managed to catch enough of it last night to know that skydiver had to die. No other choice. Absolutely had to die a long, horrible, terrifying death.

Nice... my post just timewarped -6 minutes and leaped in front of posts that were already there when I clicked "Reply".
 
Did he know that he had the disease? Reading about it, even though the odds are rather high (for a disease) for someone to be a carrier, that doesn't mean they're aware of it since they never have symptoms. Now, if he found out about it and didn't notify the sperm bank, then I feel he has a bit of a moral obligation because he didn't do anything in his power for those kids and their parents to be notified of it.
 
DesiPower said:
Its the agency who should be checking for such disease.
Click to expand...

So the agency should check for every known genetic disorder?

Do you realize how much money and time that would take?


HumblePie said:
CSI episode is fiction. Why try to tie in a fantastical fictional story line with reality? Oh wait, I forgot, you still "believe" in many things don't ya?
Click to expand...

I know CSI is fiction, there is no debate here on that topic.
 
Texashiker said:
So the agency should check for every known genetic disorder?

Do you realize how much money and time that would take?




I know CSI is fiction, there is no debate here on that topic.
Click to expand...

If you know it's fiction, then why are you trying to relate a completely fictional plot line to reality as a moral issue?
 
It's a moot point. Kid could get liver tissue from other people, including their mother.

If donor privacy was a real thing, like it should be, kid would never know their biological father and wouldn't have been able to ask.

I know donating liver tissue makes you feel like shit for 6-12 months. Weighed against another person's life, even one I didn't know, I would at least consider doing it. But it shouldn't be mandatory.
 
Juddog said:
LOL @ thinking CSI is real life.
Click to expand...

How do you think you would feel if you had a one night stand, 20 years later a kid shows up at your house claiming you were his father. Would you at least treat the child as if he/she were your own? Would you treat the kid any different then you treat the children you had with your wife?

Or if you donated sperm for some weekend party money. 20 years later a young adult shows up at your home. Do you treat him/her any differently then you would treat the kids you had with your wife?

If we shun responsibility, are we any better then animals?
 
Last edited:
What is the likelihood that this would actually happen outside a fictional setting? Sperm donors are screened for all sorts of stuff, and according to Wikipedia, in order for a child to develop Wilson's Disease, BOTH parents must be carriers. It seems incredibly unlikely that a single donor would pass through all screenings and be the father of hundreds of babies with a disease that would easily trace back to him and cause the sperm bank to pull his donations after the first baby had been diagnosed. So, in your purely hypothetical scenario, I'd say that there's a lot more responsibility on the sperm bank than on the donor; the sperm bank are the ones vouching for the authenticity and cleanliness of the sample after it's been collected.
 
ichy said:
CSI is trash and this is just another one of their ludicrous storylines.
Click to expand...

Atomic Playboy said:
What is the likelihood that this would actually happen outside a fictional setting? Sperm donors are screened for all sorts of stuff, and according to Wikipedia, in order for a child to develop Wilson's Disease, BOTH parents must be carriers,,,.
Click to expand...

Can we please move past the CSI is fiction, and stop focusing just on Wilsons Disease?

At what point do parents get to pick and choose that their moral obligations are to the children? Is it only when the child was planned? Is it only when the parents are married?

Is there any real difference between a one night stand, and making a "donation" at a clinic?

Perhaps men should have women sign a contract before a one night stand, stating that if she gets pregnant, the man can not be held responsible for support of the child.
 
ichy said:
CSI is trash and this is just another one of their ludicrous storylines.
Click to expand...

^^ This.

edro said:
Are you retarded?
He is talking about the moral implications of the CSI episode... not every technical aspect of the episode.
Click to expand...

u%20mad%20bro.jpg


Obviously you are the retarded one here taking a CSI episode to reflect real life. There are no moral implications from this garbage piece of fiction and people who watch it are generally pretty stupid - I'm guessing you're one of the idiots that actually watches the show, thus you reacted defensively. It's TV for morons, no more real content than an episode of Jersey Shore.
 
Texashiker said:
Perhaps men should have women sign a contract before a one night stand, stating that if she gets pregnant, the man can not be held responsible for support of the child.
Click to expand...
Doing this would cause unintended pregnancies to drop to zero. Because good luck getting a woman to have sex with you after you have her fill out a legal release.
 
I've been donating sperm 2 times a year for the last 23 years. I've had 3 kids track me down. I told them all to go fuck themselves. I got a restraining order against the last one. I'm done donating and am currently in court trying to get the last recipient to have an abortion.
 
Juddog said:
Obviously you are the retarded one here taking a CSI episode to reflect real life.
Click to expand...

I am going to guess you have no real life experiences with your own children? What are you, 19, 20, 21,,, years old to be making those kinds of comments.

Come back when you have children, or when you get some morals and values.

Think about this just for a minute, a man my dad worked with, one day the child support office sent him a letter saying he owed something like $25k or $30k in back child support. Seems he fathered a child 15 or so years earlier with a fling. He never knew he had a child with the lady, much less owed back support.

Where does society draw the line on supporting the children we produce?

Is it ok for a donor to turn their back on a child, but its not ok to have sex, then turn your back?
 
Last edited:
Texashiker said:
I am going to guess you have no real life experiences with your own children? What are you, 19, 20, 21,,, years old to be making those kinds of comments.

Come back when you have children, or when you get some morals and values.

Think about this just for a minute, a man my dad worked with, one day the child support office sent him a letter saying he owed something like $25k or $30k in back child support. Seems he fathered a child 15 or so years earlier with a fling. He never knew he had a child with the lady, much less owed back support.

Where does society draw the line on supporting the children we produce?

Is it ok for a donor to turn their back on a child, but its not ok to have sex, then turn your back?
Click to expand...

If he never knew, he shouldn't be liable for back child support. Too bad she didn't hunt him down sooner, but you can't go retroactively punishing him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top