4 ms·
It doesn't change the argument. The fact that the father does not know who his offspring are (and the other way around) is quite bizarre to say the least.
by apta 7y ago
It doesn't change the argument. The fact that the father does not know who his offspring are (and the other way around) is quite bizarre to say the least.
- hackinthebochs 7y agoThe probability of harm to potential offspring does in fact change the moral argument (which seems to be what you were going for).
- apta 7y agoHypothetically, even if it didn't harm the offspring, it must be kept track of who are their real parents.
- icebraining 7y agoBizarre is sending messages across hundreds of miles using electrified sand. Men impregnating women and moving on is as old as large scale war, at least.
- apta 7y agoWe're not in a large scale war. Today, this behavior is seen as desirable, without realizing what the effects are. It's selfish behavior on both the donor and the recipient, and who ends up paying for it are the offspring and most likely society as well.
- icebraining 7y ago> We're not in a large scale war. No, but we're in a large society where men can and do have sex with women (consensually or not) once and leave them pregnant. I'm not making a moral judgement, I'm saying that mostly anonymous sperm donations have been happening long before IVF and sperm banks were a thing, so the results aren't as unpredictable as you paint them.
- apta 7y agoSo let's just enable this behavior even more, on an even larger scale? What you described happens, but it's not comparable to this. A single man's sperm can now be used to impregnate several women with a much lower barrier (as we can see from the article posted here). This issue has also been reported elsewhere, it's clearly becoming more wide spread, and we don't know what we're getting ourselves into, all because of greed and selfishness.