On there being only 9 sperm donors in the UK

Matt, via email:

Shows that there’s one wanker in the country who isn’t a Lib Dem MP

20 thoughts on “On there being only 9 sperm donors in the UK”

  1. I remember at the time that the anonymity of donors was removed that there was a prediction that the numbers of donors would fall. “Oh no it won’t” said those in power.

    Twats.

  2. What the fuck are all the people at this place doing all day? 9 donors? 10 visits each? That’s what, 30 hours a year of standing outside waiting for someone to jerk off? Even if they have 1 employee (and this is the state, so I seriously fucking doubt that) that’s a part-time job.

  3. The Stigler

    To be fair there were more than nine volunteers so a lot of screening was going on. But for a “national” sperm bank the numbers are a bit pathetic really.

  4. Massively foreseeable unforeseeable consequence of removing anonymity.

    I saw an article about this where the head of this organisation said that men weren’t liable for financial support of the children. She forgot to add the word ‘yet’, which any man would have automatically added to the end on reading it.

  5. In my parts, med students were asked to donate. Those that did were wankers every one of them, returning some very dubious genes to the pool.

  6. Rob,

    “I saw an article about this where the head of this organisation said that men weren’t liable for financial support of the children. She forgot to add the word ‘yet’, which any man would have automatically added to the end on reading it.”

    I don’t think that’s likely to happen. But the problem is that no-one wants some kid turning up on their door that they’re going to perhaps feel they have obligations towards. At 20 or 21, you just don’t want that. You’ll commit to kids when you’re in a relationship. And can you imagine what this would do to families? You’re raising your kids in your early 40s, and along comes a kid. Are you going to spend time with him/her? How is your wife going to feel about you doing this rather than spending time with her kids?

  7. So Much For Subtlety

    abacab – “And as we all know it is only a matter of time before idiotic things in the US manage to cross the Atlantic.”

    Except it is not idiotic. A sperm donor has made an explicit and clear decision to have children. Why precisely should he be exempt from the foreseeable, intended, logical consequences of his actions? If you shag some girl in a night club with no intent to father any children, not intending anything beyond a bit of cardiac exercise, you get to pay for 18 years. Hell, if you are a child who is raped and a child results, you have to pay in the US. If you ex-wife fakes your signature, steals your sperm and uses your divorce settlement to have children without telling you, long after your marriage was dissolved, you have to pay in the UK.

    The question we have to ask is whether women undergoing this procedure can forgo their legal rights – and waive those of their unborn. If so, why not other women such as those in religious marriages? Or alternatively that sperm donation is such a public good it deserves special protection. Is it?

  8. @smfs – I would have thought that the sperm donor has made a decision to help someone else have children by donating some manfat, not to have a kid themselves. Not the same as some reckless chav having unsafe sex against the bins out the back of KFC. In that latter case, an act was committed for which having an unwanted kid was one of the possible and forseeable outcomes.

    In any case, first time that sperm donated through the official channels (and not via turkey baster) results in a child support claim, the number of sperm donors will drop to zero.

  9. So Much For Subtlety

    abacab – “I would have thought that the sperm donor has made a decision to help someone else have children by donating some manfat, not to have a kid themselves.”

    They are not choosing to have the child themselves in the sense they do not intend to be involved in raising the child but the one night stand is not intending to have a child either. Just a bit of sex.

    “Not the same as some reckless chav having unsafe sex against the bins out the back of KFC. In that latter case, an act was committed for which having an unwanted kid was one of the possible and forseeable outcomes.”

    So a possibility is more culpable than a certainty? A donor intends to have children. That is the point. A nice middle class boy who drinks too much at his Fresher’s do and has a condom fail does not. Why is that more culpable? The chav has no more intention to stick around then the donor. Why make him?

    “In any case, first time that sperm donated through the official channels (and not via turkey baster) results in a child support claim, the number of sperm donors will drop to zero.”

    We are getting there. Remember that fraudulently obtained sperm, taken without consent, has resulted in a successful child support claim. So there is really no reason not to hit donors with bills as well. After all, they do intend to have the child. Just not the responsibility to house and feed it.

  10. No, the donor is intending for *someone else* to have (and raise) children.

    A sex accident is one of the know, possible consequences of having sex, protected or not, and thus banging someone up unintentionally is part of the risk calculation (or at least should be).

    And in other illogical caselaw, we have even had people who proved by DNA that they were *not* the biological father being hit up for child support anyway: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-cant-refund-31000-child-4074479

  11. Smfs

    Where have you been – haven’t seen you in an age?

    Would you say an egg donor should also be charged for child support?

  12. So Much For Subtlety

    abacab – “No, the donor is intending for *someone else* to have (and raise) children.”

    I understand that. The unlucky chav is intending *no one* to have and raise the children. But suppose I know some needy girl is in her fertile window, I do the deed and I am on the next plane to Brazil. Having no intention whatsoever of sticking around. Are you saying that I should not have to pay as I never had the intent of having a child? I should be better off for being completely irresponsible?

    “A sex accident is one of the know, possible consequences of having sex, protected or not, and thus banging someone up unintentionally is part of the risk calculation (or at least should be).”

    You still are saying that taking a risk involves consequences that knowingly fathering children should not. I do not understand the logic of that position. It is not illogical to say someone who intends to father a child should shoulder the consequences. Especially when we make those boys who do not intend to father a child do so.

    This is one of those areas where unfortunately feminists and social conservatives have an area of agreement. The SoCons want to punish men who have sex outside marriage. The feminists want to punish men. I suppose from their points of view that is logical. If you accept their first premises.

    “And in other illogical caselaw, we have even had people who proved by DNA that they were *not* the biological father being hit up for child support anyway: ”

    If they have made a legal act regarding the children that indicates they intend to be the father, like marrying their mother, I can see that. In the US people have been deemed to be the father because the mother said so and they did not get legal notification and so missed the window to object. The system is insane.

    The way to restore some sanity to it is to say people who intend to father children should pay. People who don’t, underage rape victims for instance, shouldn’t.

    Van_Patten – “Would you say an egg donor should also be charged for child support?”

    It is unlikely that the system would ever award custody to anyone but the mother, but sure. Logically that makes sense. She is one of the people who made the decision to bring a child into the world. She ought to be held liable. Unless we deem this such a social good it deserves some sort of special protection. Is it?

    The alternative is that we all have to pay in many cases.

    There is a lovely on-going divorce case in the US between two WNBA stars. It turns out one of them is pregnant. It does not appear to have been a mutual decision as the other one wants a divorce. First one is not happy. She wants child support from the other one.

    On April 22, 2015, [Glory] Johnson and then-fiancee and fellow WNBA player, Brittney Griner, were both arrested for allegedly attacking each other in Phoenix. Nevertheless, they married on May 8, 2015.[7] It was announced June 4, 2015 that Johnson-Griner was pregnant and that she would miss the 2015 WNBA season. One day later wife, Brittney Griner, filed for annulment which was rejected.

    Gay marriage does have its up sides.

  13. SFMS: On your reading then a sperm donor should be prepared to take on the responsibility of providing for any children fathered from his sperm?

    Sperm donation was conceived as an altruistic act by someone to help couples, where the male partner was infertile, to have children. It seems that in your reading this has now morphed into some kind of ‘fatherhood without the responsibility’ act by the donor. Does not intent matter here? Perhaps there may be some kind of twisted ‘Genghis Khan’ impulse to father as many children as possible by some potential donors, but I would hope and expect that those individuals would get weeded out at the early stages of selection.

    As I said on another forum, the child’s real dad is, and surely should be, the mother’s partner rather than an anonymous donor. The same-sex partners issue muddies the waters somewhat – no ‘dad’ as such, but I suspect this is (still) a minority of sperm donorship cases.

  14. So Much For Subtlety

    Tractor Gent – “On your reading then a sperm donor should be prepared to take on the responsibility of providing for any children fathered from his sperm?”

    If we are going down the road of making any man pay for his biological children regardless of whether he intended to have children, then we should make any man pay for his biological children. If Boris Becker is still paying because some Russian waitress blew him in the bathroom of Nobu back in 1999, then why shouldn’t every donor on the planet?

    Unless we want to make an argument that a woman can sign away her and her unborn child’s legal right to support. If so, why is this restricted to women who pay for a donor?

    “Sperm donation was conceived as an altruistic act by someone to help couples, where the male partner was infertile, to have children.”

    Was it? I expect it was more of “We can do this because science has advanced, so let’s give it a try and see what happens”. But if it was an altruistic act, why can’t some drunken chav claim he only shagged a girl out the back of the KFC because he was trying to help too?

    As I said, are we saying that donation is such a public good we want to exempt donors from the logical consequences of their actions?

    “It seems that in your reading this has now morphed into some kind of ‘fatherhood without the responsibility’ act by the donor.”

    Actually it was always fatherhood without responsibility. It was just generally a given that fatherhood involved more than an orgasm back in the days when they started. We have moved on. Why shouldn’t they move too?

    “As I said on another forum, the child’s real dad is, and surely should be, the mother’s partner rather than an anonymous donor.”

    In an ideal world perhaps. In reality, if your wife was cheating would you really feel an obligation to her as yet unborn child? Suppose you were separated and waiting for the final paperwork to come through and she got knocked up by her new boyfriend? What if the mother has no partner?

    Children should be tested at birth by the state. Either partner should be allowed to see the results if they want without the other knowing.

    “The same-sex partners issue muddies the waters somewhat – no ‘dad’ as such, but I suspect this is (still) a minority of sperm donorship cases.”

    I would think a lot of donor cases involve no male partner and no reasonable prospect of one. So more or less lesbians. In this case, it looks like the second WNBA lesbian was in fact continuing to carry on with her previous boyfriend behind the first WNBA lesbian’s back. Despite being married.

  15. SMFS: You are arguing out of sheer perversity.

    As has been pointed out sperm donation was a charitable act to help childless couples. Under no circs should support for the child rebound into the life of the donor. That was not part of the offered deal–contribute to help others. The chav outback of KFC has nothing to do with it. Any man who has sex with a woman stands at least some chance of making her pregnant. He has the choice to do the act or not. A donor has no control over his seed once it has been handed over. In no circs should he have to pay for any offspring of an inseminated women. If that is to be the new deal then let it be offered honestly and the sperm banks will be as ruined and empty as all the rest of the banks will shortly be.

  16. So Much For Subtlety

    Mr Ecks – “You are arguing out of sheer perversity.”

    I am not. Really I am not. There is a logical reason to hold all biological parents to their obligations. There is no real reason to exempt sperm donors. Or at least no one has put one forward.

    “As has been pointed out sperm donation was a charitable act to help childless couples. Under no circs should support for the child rebound into the life of the donor. That was not part of the offered deal–contribute to help others.”

    Again, it is being held up as a charitable act. Doesn’t mean it is. People rarely get paid for their charitable donations. And again, the gay best friend of two lesbians who offers to help is being as charitable if not more so. He is usually held liable these days.

    We have no consistency here. We should have some. The two clearly consistent positions are fathers are responsible by the mere fact of biology or fathers are only responsible when they make a clear act indicating their intent to be a father. Like getting married.

    “The chav outback of KFC has nothing to do with it. Any man who has sex with a woman stands at least some chance of making her pregnant. He has the choice to do the act or not. A donor has no control over his seed once it has been handed over. In no circs should he have to pay for any offspring of an inseminated women.”

    Boris Becker had no control over his seed once he had ejaculated into some Russian girl’s mouth. He has to pay. The donor has a 100% chance of making someone pregnant. That is his intent. That is why he is being paid. He knows this upfront and consents to it. How can you claim that the unwanted outcome of some horizontal jogging should carry more liability than the deliberate and conscious decision to father a child?

    Both of them have control over the act. Both of them can choose not to do it. Although I note that if the man is so drunk he cannot make clear decisions and has impaired control over the act, he is still held liable. If he is 12 years old and is incapable of consenting (or probably even understanding the consequences of the act) he still has to pay in the US.

    “If that is to be the new deal then let it be offered honestly and the sperm banks will be as ruined and empty as all the rest of the banks will shortly be.”

    Why not? As I keep saying, people seem to be assuming that this is a social good that needs protecting. Is it? I don’t see anyone making a case for it.

    Let me be clear where I stand – women who are incapable or unwilling to form long term relationships with men willing to provide for them have no business bringing children into the world given they will be at vastly higher risk of abuse, deprivation and hence impose social costs on the rest of us. So what if they all shut down? You don’t want to support your children? Don’t have them.

  17. Mr. Ecks puts is more eloquently and more clearly than I, and gets a +1.

    SMFS seems to be arguing that you should be responsible for any use of your genetic material that creates a kid. But I thank him for bringing up the underage male victim of a female-on-male rape that was hit up in the US for child support. I had forgotten about that one.

  18. So Much For Subtlety

    abacab – “SMFS seems to be arguing that you should be responsible for any use of your genetic material that creates a kid. But I thank him for bringing up the underage male victim of a female-on-male rape that was hit up in the US for child support. I had forgotten about that one.”

    I am not arguing for it as such. I am pointing out that this is the system we have. Men have an absolute liability for any use of their genetic material. Whether or not they even consented to said use. Except for this one odd exception. If that exception is to remain exceptional someone ought to explain why. No one has.

    Keep in mind that a woman in Britain used the money from her divorce to enter into an IVF programme. She forged her ex-husband’s signature and stole his sperm deposit. She used it to have two children well after their divorce. Some years later when one of the children became sick, she demanded child support. A court over-turned the divorce settlement and made the husband pay.

    How can he be liable and any other sperm donor is not?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *