4 ms·

He's fathering a lot of children in a restricted geographic area, and he's not making clear to prospective mothers that he's doing this. While incest is legal

He's fathering a lot of children in a restricted geographic area, and he's not making clear to prospective mothers that he's doing this. While incest is legal in the Netherlands, unintended inbreeding and genetic disorders are not good outcomes for a sperm donation service and so they have guardrails. He's well over the guardrails.

foldr 4y ago
I'm not sure that the risk of birth defects in the children of half-siblings is actually that high. You have to compare it to the risk when e.g. the couple is older, or one of them has a genetic disorder, one of them is obsese... There are lots of things than can increase the risk of birth defects. People often wildly overestimate the actual risks of 'inbreeding' because their real objection is either an ethical one or a simple gross out reaction. That is, they're not making an informed estimate of the actual risks and then concluding that these are unacceptably high; they're just searching for a more objective justification for their gut reaction. Unfortunately, the objective justification that most people reach for (the risk of birth defects) is a very steep slippery slope to eugenics. Once you admit the principle that a higher than average risk of birth defects is sufficient reason for a couple to be legally prohibited from having children, then you are basically there.
- amiga386 4y ago
  > they're not making an informed estimate of the actual risks "Dutch clinical guidelines state that a donor should not father more than 25 children in 12 families." Clinicians have already made the informed estimate for me. 500-600 children with the same parent is a more than the recommended 25. > a couple to be legally prohibited There are no couples involved here. There's this donor, a clinic with an ethics board, and their clients. The court are not even looking in the area you're so concerned about, and nobody is thinking of making any laws in that area. Incest is not illegal in the Netherlands, so have it away with your mother/father/sister/brother if it makes you happy. But if you open a fertility clinic, I would hope that you adhere to clinical best practises, including reducing the risk of inadvertent inbreeding.
  - foldr 4y ago
    > Clinicians have already made the informed estimate for me. I would be interested to know if there is any scientific justification for the limit that isn’t simply eugenics in disguise. It might be an empirically informed estimate guided by morally objectionable principles. Or it might be a round number someone pulled out of their ass. If you just want to trust that the limit has a sound basis, then that’s fair enough on a personal level. You are certainly not obliged to persuade random people on the internet otherwise. > The court are not even looking in the area you're so concerned about, and nobody is thinking of making any laws in that area. That’s my point. No-one in general is trying (yet) to stop particular pairs of humans procreating based on estimates of the chances of birth defects in their children. So what’s the justification for doing it in this case? I understand that there are no ‘couples’ involved in a romantic sense, but the sperm and egg don’t know the difference. If the concern is a genetic one, it should apply equally in either situation. As I said before, there are probably lots of other reasons why what this guy has done is bad. I just don’t think this can be the reason.

foldr 4y ago

I'm not sure that the risk of birth defects in the children of half-siblings is actually that high. You have to compare it to the risk when e.g. the couple is older, or one of them has a genetic disorder, one of them is obsese... There are lots of things than can increase the risk of birth defects. People often wildly overestimate the actual risks of 'inbreeding' because their real objection is either an ethical one or a simple gross out reaction. That is, they're not making an informed estimate of the actual risks and then concluding that these are unacceptably high; they're just searching for a more objective justification for their gut reaction. Unfortunately, the objective justification that most people reach for (the risk of birth defects) is a very steep slippery slope to eugenics. Once you admit the principle that a higher than average risk of birth defects is sufficient reason for a couple to be legally prohibited from having children, then you are basically there.

amiga386 4y ago
> they're not making an informed estimate of the actual risks "Dutch clinical guidelines state that a donor should not father more than 25 children in 12 families." Clinicians have already made the informed estimate for me. 500-600 children with the same parent is a more than the recommended 25. > a couple to be legally prohibited There are no couples involved here. There's this donor, a clinic with an ethics board, and their clients. The court are not even looking in the area you're so concerned about, and nobody is thinking of making any laws in that area. Incest is not illegal in the Netherlands, so have it away with your mother/father/sister/brother if it makes you happy. But if you open a fertility clinic, I would hope that you adhere to clinical best practises, including reducing the risk of inadvertent inbreeding.
- foldr 4y ago
  > Clinicians have already made the informed estimate for me. I would be interested to know if there is any scientific justification for the limit that isn’t simply eugenics in disguise. It might be an empirically informed estimate guided by morally objectionable principles. Or it might be a round number someone pulled out of their ass. If you just want to trust that the limit has a sound basis, then that’s fair enough on a personal level. You are certainly not obliged to persuade random people on the internet otherwise. > The court are not even looking in the area you're so concerned about, and nobody is thinking of making any laws in that area. That’s my point. No-one in general is trying (yet) to stop particular pairs of humans procreating based on estimates of the chances of birth defects in their children. So what’s the justification for doing it in this case? I understand that there are no ‘couples’ involved in a romantic sense, but the sperm and egg don’t know the difference. If the concern is a genetic one, it should apply equally in either situation. As I said before, there are probably lots of other reasons why what this guy has done is bad. I just don’t think this can be the reason.