Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_(tort)
It appears the seducer would pay with monetary damages and the seducted would pay with a life in disgrace
So, a marriage? /s
Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
81–90 of 106 posts
Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> From a Darwinian perspective even the death penalty is insufficient, Darwinism has no bearing on legal matters. In fact the entirety of laws are opposed to darwinism Plus we re probably the last generations that care for darwinism? It won't take long before it becomes normal to engineer your children.
That’s like saying we’re the last generation that cares about gravity. Darwinism is part of how the world works. It’s not something to be accepted or denied or supported or opposed. It’s just reality, and at most it’s a constraint to work around. If you try to fix society by pretending that Darwinism doesn’t exist, that’s like trying to build a house by pretending that mold and water damage don’t exist.
There is no invention on the horizon that will counterweight gravity, as opposed to genetic engineering.I think it's fair to say that procreation will not determine our genetic future, but the choices of genes that the people of the next few generations will make. And people's vanity may compel them to perpetuate their own genes, but given the opportunity people always choose the best possible genes for their kids (i.e. choose healthy sperm donors with generally considered "higher genes" - i.e. Danes).
The OP describes a system where darwinism is used to determine how to punish people. i.e. darwinism is the source of law. That's not happening.
Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
> From a Darwinian perspective even the death penalty is insufficient, Darwinism has no bearing on legal matters. In fact the entirety of laws are opposed to darwinism Plus we re probably the last generations that care for darwinism? It won't take long before it becomes normal to engineer your children.
>In fact the entirety of laws are opposed to darwinism I don't see how this is true. Can you explain this position?
starting with killing competitors, all egotistical traits are darwinian. If anything, laws exist to stop us from that
Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s like saying we’re the last generation that cares about gravity. Darwinism is part of how the world works. It’s not something to be accepted or denied or supported or opposed. It’s just reality, and at most it’s a constraint to work around. If you try to fix society by pretending that Darwinism doesn’t exist, that’s like trying to build a house by pretending that mold and water damage don’t exist.
There is no invention on the horizon that will counterweight gravity, as opposed to genetic engineering.I think it's fair to say that procreation will not determine our genetic future, but the choices of genes that the people of the next few generations will make. And people's vanity may compel them to perpetuate their own genes, but given the opportunity people always choose the best possible genes for their kids (i…
I don’t know or believe that genetic engineering is anywhere close to ready for those kinds of purposes any more than waterproof materials are ready for house builders to stop worrying about drainage and other basic principles of water damage. And we’re a hell of a lot farther along in terms of waterproof materials!
In fact I think it’s slightly more likely that you’ve been suckered into a scam perpetrated by Danish men for reasons that are plainly obvious from a Darwinist perspective ;) Seems like more of a crackpot Nordic eugenic superman theory to me.
Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no invention on the horizon that will counterweight gravity, as opposed to genetic engineering.I think it's fair to say that procreation will not determine our genetic future, but the choices of genes that the people of the next few generations will make. And people's vanity may compel them to perpetuate their own genes, but given the opportunity people always choose the best possible genes for their kids (i…
I don’t know or believe that genetic engineering is anywhere close to ready for those kinds of purposes any more than waterproof materials are ready for house builders to stop worrying about drainage and other basic principles of water damage. And we’re a hell of a lot farther along in terms of waterproof materials! In fact I think it’s slightly more likely that you’ve been suckered into a scam perpetrated by Danish…
embryo selection is already a thing today, and there are already crispr'd humans. Considering the pace of genetic research it's not unreasonable to expect that genetic selection of traits will be available within 20-50 years.
Whatever scam the danism men are running , it's working
https://www.marieclaire.com/culture/a6134/danish-sperm-donor...
Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the genetic sequencing graph grows, the odds of maintaining anonymity rapidly drops to zero. Poor choice of words on parent’s part, but I think one can understand what they were trying to convey (datamining the genotype matrix). Disclaimer: Interviewed at 23andme a decade ago. Good folks.
I think that commenter was thinking that 23andme would be able to identify many people as children of the same unknown person, but unless that person also submitted their DNA to the service, they would effectively be anonymous. An unknown parent of dozens or hundreds.
They’d only be anonymous if none of their family had used 23andme. CODIS already supports similar familial searches.
Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anonymous yes, random no, at least not that I have ever heard of. You get a catalogue of various physical and socioeconomic traits from anonymous donors and pick the one that you want. Replacing that with any other is certainly fraud.
> You get a catalogue of various physical and socioeconomic traits from anonymous donors and pick the one that you want. Replacing that with any other is certainly fraud. It's fraud, certainly, but the system you're describing (I'm not familiar with it) seems to be open to abuses that are almost as unethical. Surely genetic health is the only thing it really makes sense to take into account when choosing a donor. Som…
You choose all of those things when choosing a partner for making a baby the old-fashioned way. Why is it Ok in that case but not this one?
Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
#88People at 23AndMe could run an anonymized query on their dataset to extract networks of lineages and see highly connected individuals. It would be fascinating to see some people with hundreds of offsprings because they are sperm donors. What if their own children become sperm donors, etc. If two persons are born from sperm donors I imagine they have to check in case they are siblings or closely related.
This is how these fertility doctors are caught. Their illicit offspring find matches for half siblings on genealogy sites.
Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
France banned paternity tests for the sake of filation, i.e. to protect the rights of children and to promote stable families. I differ with the previous poster in that I don't think that many men are unknowingly raising children that are not theirs. I've seen estimates that vary between .6% and 5%. I do think that a man ought to have the right to know if he's the biological father and I think it's understandable if…
> I do think that a man ought to have the right to know if he's the biological father and I think it's understandable if he wants to leave if he isn't. Yes, but I've always assume reasonable people want to know this because it would prove infidelity by their spouse, not because they specifically care that their child shares their genes.
Many of us have no interest whatsoever in raising other people’s children. Infidelity is a separate, though sometimes related, issue.
Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In fact the entirety of laws are opposed to darwinism I don't see how this is true. Can you explain this position?
starting with killing competitors, all egotistical traits are darwinian. If anything, laws exist to stop us from that
Do you mean to suggest that cooperation is not a Darwinian trait? Or that social animals are not a product of natural selection? Because I'm pretty sure that is false.