Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, which is the point.
So you would rather not exist ? Have you seriously sought counseling ?
I take it you are not familiar with antinatalism.
Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
91–100 of 106 posts
Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Genghis Khan thing doesn't really say much - there's a statistical near-certainty that liteally everyone today is descended from every single human that 7000 years ago (whose line didn't die out obviously).
That’s assuming that the human population is well-mixed; it should be obvious that e.g. aboriginal Australians and native Americans will not have a common ancestor that close by For example suppose you have two containers filled with elastically colliding particles. Over an arbitrarily long time you can say that each particle has surely collided with every other particle, however if each container is closed then clea…
>That’s assuming that the human population is well-mixed
Yes that's why I took the conservative estimate of 7000 years, otherwise with the panmixia hypothesis it only goes back 3000 years or so.
Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
There are roughly two Crispr’d humans and the scientist responsible has been under house arrest in China ever since. I’m not interested in your Nordic eugenic superman nonsense.
Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
#94In its long term effect this fraud is similar to serial rape. But that's also true of serial seduction under false pretenses. Should the punishment for these things also be similar? I don't know. From a Darwinian perspective even the death penalty is insufficient, since reproducing copiously is worth dying for. The only effective punishment would involve also killing or sterilizing the resulting children ... which is…
>> serial seduction "under false pretenses"
So should we punish 90% of men?
Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
#95I mean, that's a pretty damn effective way to ensure you reproduce on a grand scale, but I seriously question the impact it will have on the world. I'm already against sperm donation in general partly because of how much it can reduce genetic diversity, but I never factored this sort of rape-fraud (raud? fraupe?) thing into it
Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
#96I am glad this happened, only shows that you shouldn't fuck with nature. If you are not supposed to have children, don't. Not like it matters anyway - why? To spread your genetic material and make another instance of a human producing toxic waste damaging the planet (in multiple ways - another consumer supporting the cancerous growth of FB, Instagram, Google, Tinder and Apple)? Is it not enough of us here? Spreading…
> Natural way is the only way. Fuck technology. Why are you not running in your primal forest instead of posting here? Genuine question.
What an inane comment, we don't live in a world where you can really do that anymore, that doesn't make him wrong. Go read 'Industrial Society And Its Consequences'.
Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
#97I've posted several times about law lagging behind technology, and this is what I mean. If a new tech is in the horizon, you should already be able to realize what can be done with it, what damage it can cause.
I can't believe they call it sexual assault. It's as if it was beyond the realm of possibility to create new lexicon and they had to use only existing terms.
Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you would rather not exist ? Have you seriously sought counseling ?
I take it you are not familiar with antinatalism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism
So an entire group needs counseling ? The desire to end ones gene pool is not mentally sound but is a self correcting issue I suppose.
Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Choosing your partner with the intent of having particular genes for your child (other than, as I said, general physical health) seems unethical to me too. People do choose their partners on the basis of particular characteristics, but I would hope not for any reason so crass as manipulating the genes of their future children.
Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
A child that you know doesn't possess your genes but you still accept, is your child. Adoption doesn't count less. If you knew the child wasn't "yours" before the test, why would the test make a difference? If you didn't know the child wasn't yours before the test, surely the most significant part of the result for you is that there is some reason that you didn't know before. That is, that you had been lied to, and were in the relationship and parenting the child under false pretenses.
I don't think that most people distinguish between a child from their own genes with an adopted child, unless there's some falsehood in play. At least I hope not.