Sperm Donor ‘Super Dads’: the new eugenics? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Sperm Donor ‘Super Dads’: the new eugenics?

Gagsquet
12-01-2011, 09:24 PM
Women use this system to find out the "perfect" sperm in order to produce the perfect baby.
You can choose a donor in a sperm bank functions of his physical characteristics, his diploma, his social background and religion.
Moreover, advances in technology have made it easier for couples who are reproductively challenged to conceive without hitting up the banks.
The result is just more eugenic pressures on getting the "best" sperm in these banks.

Is this tolerable?
I don't think so, it leads to create 'super-dad' donor.
Is this a new eugenics?


What's your thoughts?

safin-rules-no.1
12-01-2011, 09:33 PM
Women use this system to find out the "perfect" sperm in order to produce the perfect baby.
You can choose a donor in a sperm bank functions of his physical characteristics, his diploma, his social background and religion.
Moreover, advances in technology have made it easier for couples who are reproductively challenged to conceive without hitting up the banks.
The result is just more eugenic pressures on getting the "best" sperm in these banks.

Is this tolerable?
I don't think so, it leads to create 'super-dad' donor.
Is this a new eugenics?


What's your thoughts?

I don't think this is very new. What makes a 'super-dad' is very subjective? What about epigenetics? - No one will be the same even if they have virtually the same DNA. It's a bit sad though, but unsurprising.

Gagsquet
12-01-2011, 09:44 PM
I don't think private society should run this business. We can't create life as we buy a car selecting our options.

safin-rules-no.1
12-01-2011, 09:50 PM
I don't think private society should run this business. We can't create life as we buy a car selecting our options.

But it does have its benefits though? Reduced chances of genetic defects etc.... I have to say I don't agree with all this 'engineering' the perfect offspring - there will be no diversity - all end up blue eyed, blond, physically perfect and super intelligent.....hmmm actually I wish my parents had signed up.

Gagsquet
12-01-2011, 10:06 PM
But it does have its benefits though? Reduced chances of genetic defects etc.... I have to say I don't agree with all this 'engineering' the perfect offspring - there will be no diversity - all end up blue eyed, blond, physically perfect and super intelligent.....hmmm actually I wish my parents had signed up.

I agree but why are private firms running this business? Public laboratories could do it and also prevent from the eugenics stuff. State should really legislate on this!

Seingeist
12-01-2011, 10:17 PM
In principle, Grassquet, there are extraordinarily few things that should be entrusted to the State as opposed to the private sector.

And in practice, what percentage of women use sperm banks to conceive anyway? I don't personally have any idea, but I can't imagine that it's large enough to merit any real concern over the hunt for "super sperm."

Don't get me wrong; the attempt to "engineer" one's offspring in various ways does give me the willies, but so does the basic idea of getting pregnant by a totally random dude's seed. :shrug:

Gagsquet
12-01-2011, 10:28 PM
In principle, Grassquet, there are extraordinarily few things that should be entrusted to the State as opposed to the private sector.

And in practice, what percentage of women use sperm banks to conceive anyway? I don't personally have any idea, but I can't imagine that it's large enough to merit any real concern over the hunt for "super sperm."


You support a minimal intervention of the State? Only regalian functions, right?

Seingeist
12-01-2011, 10:35 PM
You support a minimal intervention of the State? Only regalian functions, right?

To be honest, this is the first time that I've encountered that term, and a Google search was not as instructive as expected.

Assuming "regalian functions" involve non-profitable public goods (e.g. roadways, libraries, etc.), lawmakers and law-enforcers (e.g police), and a military for protection from external threats, then yes, that's correct. With very few exceptions, I tend to favor extremely minimal governmental involvement in the affairs of its citizens. After all, the government exists to serve the citizens, and not vice-versa.

leng jai
12-01-2011, 10:40 PM
Filo V and Clay Death = 'Super Dads'

Gagsquet
12-01-2011, 10:49 PM
Regalian is perhaps not used in English...
But you got it: justice, police, army
non-profitable public goods are obvious too.

But I have to disagree with you. We are not in a theoretical world and the state have to regulate and legislate because the market is not efficient. Smith was wrong.

And I think this is a case in point where the state have to legislate to prevent from eugenics shit.

Topspindoctor
12-01-2011, 11:18 PM
I don't think private society should run this business. We can't create life as we buy a car selecting our options.

Why not? Striving for improvement is the cornerstone of human civilization. Only relgious nuts have to put ethics and morals on every human advancement. If they had their way, we'd still be living without electricity, running water and computers.

Seingeist
12-01-2011, 11:26 PM
Why not? Striving for improvement is the cornerstone of human civilization. Only relgious nuts have to put ethics and morals on every human advancement. If they had their way, we'd still be living without electricity, running water and computers.

:haha:

That's a nice command of world history you've got there, Topspindoctor. :yeah: Keep it up.

Topspindoctor
12-01-2011, 11:37 PM
It's true, though. Who the fuck would allow something as pathetic and as arbitary as "ethics" and "morals" interfere with progress? Only religious zealots. They try to prevent women from disposing of unwanted genetic material (abortions). They impede science by trying to ban theory of evolution from schools and trying to incorporate nonsense like "Christian Science" into school curriculum. They refuse to vote for a better man just because he doesn't have an imaginary friend.

Genetic engineering is a wonderful field of science. With enough advancements, we can create "perfect babies", eradicate diseases, extend lives and heal the sick. But of course tampering with DNA and genetic code might not be "ethical" and "playing God" so here we are. It's disgusting how much religion still has so much influence over things it has no right to interfere with.

Gagsquet
12-02-2011, 10:12 AM
It's true, though. Who the fuck would allow something as pathetic and as arbitary as "ethics" and "morals" interfere with progress? Only religious zealots. They try to prevent women from disposing of unwanted genetic material (abortions). They impede science by trying to ban theory of evolution from schools and trying to incorporate nonsense like "Christian Science" into school curriculum. They refuse to vote for a better man just because he doesn't have an imaginary friend.

Genetic engineering is a wonderful field of science. With enough advancements, we can create "perfect babies", eradicate diseases, extend lives and heal the sick. But of course tampering with DNA and genetic code might not be "ethical" and "playing God" so here we are. It's disgusting how much religion still has so much influence over things it has no right to interfere with.

What's about diversity? Do you want a world where people are "clones"? Eradicate diseases, extend live is good but do we really need to choose the eyes colour, hair colour, soon face features of our babies?

Sham Kay
12-02-2011, 12:22 PM
There's a certain boundary with how much humans should use their technological advancements. This would be breaking that boundary.

I mean how are the rest of us, made in less technologically advanced days from random sperm from random guys supposed to compete with these super children? In some ways, humans are at the stage now where evolution and natural selection cannot advance any further naturally.. technological selection indeed. The human mind and thus technology might be the only way to develop further.. and become even further mentally and physically superior. I mean, that is afterall what all animals naturally strive for without even knowing it. With how the human mind has developed it was inevitable that Survival of the fittest would no longer be natural soon enough.

Obviously this will only cause trouble in the future, but it seems the likely course whether we like it or not. Will cause discrimination and power struggles, possibly even wars, but there we go. We can only hope we're long dead by the time this becomes the norm.

Time Violation
12-02-2011, 12:36 PM
Women use this system to find out the "perfect" sperm in order to produce the perfect baby.
You can choose a donor in a sperm bank functions of his physical characteristics, his diploma, his social background and religion.

Does this really guarantee anything? I mean, just because the dad is/was a doctor, doesn't mean the son can't be a bum.

buddyholly
12-02-2011, 01:58 PM
Women use this system to find out the "perfect" sperm in order to produce the perfect baby.


Women still half a 50% input, right? Not gonna happen.

Har-Tru
12-02-2011, 02:07 PM
I agree but why are private firms running this business? Public laboratories could do it and also prevent from the eugenics stuff. State should really legislate on this!

In principle, Grassquet, there are extraordinarily few things that should be entrusted to the State as opposed to the private sector.

European vs American system.

Can it get more stereotypical than this?

Gagsquet
12-02-2011, 02:18 PM
Women still half a 50% input, right? Not gonna happen.

Don't play with words please

abraxas21
12-02-2011, 02:22 PM
In principle, Grassquet, there are extraordinarily few things that should be entrusted to the State as opposed to the private sector.

colour me surprised. a fundamentalist Christian with a penchant for libertarianism. :facepalm:


Don't get me wrong; the attempt to "engineer" one's offspring in various ways does give me the willies, but so does the basic idea of getting pregnant by a totally random dude's seed. :shrug:

i thought you said you were a dude yourself... given your tacit support of alomieh, i assume you're not gay...

abraxas21
12-02-2011, 02:24 PM
Why not? Striving for improvement is the cornerstone of human civilization. Only relgious nuts have to put ethics and morals on every human advancement. If they had their way, we'd still be living without electricity, running water and computers.

topspinclown invoking eugenics in the name of 'human advancement'...

with i could say i'm surprised.

buddyholly
12-02-2011, 02:38 PM
Don't play with words please

Good spotting. I never even noticed. Subconscious word play, I guess.

Har-Tru
12-02-2011, 02:42 PM
I'm too thick apparently. What was the word play?

Garson007
12-02-2011, 02:53 PM
I'm all for designer babies when it comes to combining the best of both parents. Everyone having the same father though... That's just looking for trouble.

Time Violation
12-02-2011, 02:56 PM
I'm too thick apparently. What was the word play?

have/half :)

Har-Tru
12-02-2011, 03:32 PM
have/half :)

Oooh I see it now! My mind automatically corrected it. Thanks.

Gagsquet
12-02-2011, 03:52 PM
Oooh I see it now! My mind automatically corrected it. Thanks.

Mine is broken :lol: :sad:

Pirata.
12-02-2011, 06:05 PM
We can't create life as we buy a car selecting our options.

Don't people already select their options when finding mates?

Seingeist
12-02-2011, 08:04 PM
i thought you said you were a dude yourself... given your tacit support of alomieh, i assume you're not gay...

I'm sorry that I did not render that sentence more explicit: "The idea of a woman getting pregnant by some totally random dude[...]." I had assumed that the italicized term could safely be implied. ;)

Valiant attempt to smear me, by the way, with this "tacit support of Aloimeh" schtick that seems to so obsess you lately. I recognize that it is extraordinarily difficult for you to see nuance and make basic distinctions, but I'd like you to try to overcome this particular frailty of your intellectual nature and pay special attention to the following:

The fact that I maintained that Filo V (and many others, including you) display a far more "hateful" and "direct" bigotry than Aloimeh does not entail that I endorse the tone or content of everything that Aloimeh says.

If you can handle that one, I'll give you another one to try as well:

The fact that I reject the terms and conditions of the hysteria-driven "homophobe"-witch-hunt neither entails that I am in fact a "homophobe" nor, as above, "that I endorse the tone or content of everything that Aloimeh [i.e. the main target of the witch hunt] says."

Now I realize that many a leftist's primary rhetorical strategy is to do everything in his power to paste his opponent with an anathematic label, however poorly it fits or however little justification there is for it; you are merely following in the footsteps of your peers in this regard. This is actually not dissimilar to the way that you attempt to reduce every political event to broad, ill-fitting Marxist paradigms, which results in both the misapprehension of that particular event and the perpetuation of these outmoded models that violently refuse to conform to the events that they purport to explain (Cf. Sartre Search for a Method).

Perhaps one day in the future, you will accidentally allow a mote of nuance and fairness to penetrate your thinking. Call me an optimist. :shrug:

abraxas21
12-02-2011, 10:58 PM
Valiant attempt to smear me, by the way, with this "tacit support of Aloimeh" schtick that seems to so obsess you lately. I recognize that it is extraordinarily difficult for you to see nuance and make basic distinctions, but I'd like you to try to overcome this particular frailty of your intellectual nature and pay special attention to the following:

The fact that I maintained that Filo V (and many others, including you) display a far more "hateful" and "direct" bigotry than Aloimeh does not entail that I endorse the tone or content of everything that Aloimeh says.

If you can handle that one, I'll give you another one to try as well:

The fact that I reject the terms and conditions of the hysteria-driven "homophobe"-witch-hunt neither entails that I am in fact a "homophobe" nor, as above, "that I endorse the tone or content of everything that Aloimeh [i.e. the main target of the witch hunt] says."

well, i guess it was just a coincidence that you had lots of words of condemnation for filo v. ramblings but none for aloimeh's homophobia. you even manifested your surprise at people attacking aloimeh for his bigotry and chose to focus on filo v.'s trolling/stupidity/whatnot, all that while asking the mods to get him banned like a 5 year old kid afraid of a bully in the schoolyard. the way you actually attacked one side's insults and asked for its censorship while at the same time kept silent on the other side's homophobia and dared to appear so surprised at why others were so againt it does show a huge bias that deep down probably covers your own intolerance towards different sexual groups. can't say i'm surprised about it since in your country there are a lot of self called 'Christians' like you.

you might as well stop hiding behind a mask of rationality and come out as what you really are, a bigot. like i said in the other thread, at least your buddy aloimeh is far more honest than you. it fits you being a djokovic fan btw

Seingeist
12-02-2011, 11:57 PM
you might as well stop hiding behind a mask of rationality and come out as what you really are, a bigot.

Thank you for making my point. Perhaps if you do not wish to be the ironic butt of your own jokes, you should read this again, more slowly this time:

Now I realize that many a leftist's primary rhetorical strategy is to do everything in his power to paste his opponent with an anathematic label, however poorly it fits or however little justification there is for it; you are merely following in the footsteps of your peers in this regard. This is actually not dissimilar to the way that you attempt to reduce every political event to broad, ill-fitting Marxist paradigms, which results in both the misapprehension of that particular event and the perpetuation of these outmoded models that violently refuse to conform to the events that they purport to explain (Cf. Sartre Search for a Method).

Perhaps one day in the future, you will accidentally allow a mote of nuance and fairness to penetrate your thinking. Call me an optimist. :shrug:

It's quite clear how desperate you are when you're forced to attack me based on your absurd speculations about my "deep hidden bigotry," as opposed to what I actually say.

"Well sure, you don't actually post bigotry, but I know that's what you are deep down inside, you piece of shit!" :lol:

Topspindoctor
12-03-2011, 12:16 AM
What's about diversity? Do you want a world where people are "clones"? Eradicate diseases, extend live is good but do we really need to choose the eyes colour, hair colour, soon face features of our babies?

I can't seem to understand the problem here. If some parents want a particular eye color for their baby, why stop them? :shrug: What reasonable argument can you offer against it? Eye color, hair color are all superficial things. If the technology allows it, why not take advantage? It's no different than taking advantage of some features the newest iPhone offers as far as I am concerned. I have a feeling many people are still living in the dark ages, thinking that genetic science is some kind of sorcery that will land them in a lake of fire after they die...

Seingeist
12-03-2011, 12:21 AM
I have a feeling many people are still living in the dark ages, thinking that genetic science is some kind of sorcery that will land them in a lake of fire after they die...

We prefer to call it "wizardry." "Sorcery" is our name for what the infidels call "organic chemistry."

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go summon the daemons of the microwave to cook me a hot dog.

buddyholly
12-03-2011, 12:43 AM
I'm too thick apparently. What was the word play?

Of course you're not. I edited it. My bad. So now I edited it back to the original.

Sunset of Age
12-03-2011, 12:46 AM
:haha:
Yet another top-notch thread created by someone with no knowledge of procreative biology at all. Thanks for the laughs, folks! :D

buddyholly
12-03-2011, 12:50 AM
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go summon the daemons of the microwave to cook me a hot dog.

A microwaved hot dog!!!!!!!!!! Gross!

buddyholly
12-03-2011, 12:59 AM
Now I realize that many a leftist's primary rhetorical strategy is to do everything in his power to paste his opponent with an anathematic label, however poorly it fits or however little justification there is for it; you are merely following in the footsteps of your peers in this regard. This is actually not dissimilar to the way that you attempt to reduce every political event to broad, ill-fitting Marxist paradigms, which results in both the misapprehension of that particular event and the perpetuation of these outmoded models that violently refuse to conform to the events that they purport to explain (Cf. Sartre Search for a Method).



I realized that, after only a few days in Cuba. The word that was everywhere on billboards and peppered through every Party speech was ''dignidad.'' Precisely because Castro took it away from the entire population, it had to be repeated like a mantra at every opportunity.

In a similar vein, I asked a friend why GRANMA always published these delicious recipes when almost all the ingredients were not available anywhere in Cuba. My friend replied , "Oh, I think we are supposed to cut out the list of ingredients and simmer it for 30 minutes in a pot of water."

Seingeist
12-03-2011, 01:37 AM
I realized that, after only a few days in Cuba. The word that was everywhere on billboards and peppered through every Party speech was ''dignidad.'' Precisely because Castro took it away from the entire population, it had to be repeated like a mantra at every opportunity.

Oops, the "now" at the beginning of my sentence was a bit ambiguous. I was just using it in a transitional sense, e.g. "Now this is going to hurt Bobby, so grit your teeth." The word "now" is meant to be unstressed.

I've known about that tactic for as long as I've been a conscious part of the political sphere. ;)

A microwaved hot dog!!!!!!!!!! Gross!

A daemoned hot dog, technically.

And it isn't as bad as it sounds if you're careful not to overcook it. :D

Gagsquet
12-03-2011, 08:15 AM
:haha:
Yet another top-notch thread created by someone with no knowledge of procreative biology at all. Thanks for the laughs, folks! :D



What the fuck are you talking about? We are talking of the backlashes of this phenomenon not the process itself.

buddyholly
12-03-2011, 12:20 PM
A daemoned hot dog, technically.

And it isn't as bad as it sounds if you're careful not to overcook it. :D

Just don't start one of your typical posts while you're waiting, then.

abraxas21
12-03-2011, 02:19 PM
Thank you for making my point. Perhaps if you do not wish to be the ironic butt of your own jokes, you should read this again, more slowly this time:



It's quite clear how desperate you are when you're forced to attack me based on your absurd speculations about my "deep hidden bigotry," as opposed to what I actually say.

"Well sure, you don't actually post bigotry, but I know that's what you are deep down inside, you piece of shit!" :lol:

your double standards are evident because of what you actually say, pal.

but there's no point arguing with you. like a lot of self called Christians, you're a dishonest and hypocrtical and your bigotry is evident for anyone capable of thinking.

Seingeist
12-03-2011, 07:43 PM
like a lot of self called Christians, you're a dishonest and hypocrtical and your bigotry is evident for anyone capable of thinking.

*blinks twice and wonders if Abraxas recognizes the ironic bigotry that shines through his claim*

buddyholly
12-03-2011, 09:09 PM
you might as well stop hiding behind a mask of rationality and come out as what you really are, a bigot.

So, all this time you have been whining away about what seingest says, but all you have found is rationality. So you decide seingest therefore must mean the opposite of what he says.

Then, even more clownishly, two posts above, you are insisting that to really understand seingest one should pay attention to what seingest actually says.

:cuckoo:

Gagsquet
12-03-2011, 10:01 PM
Beyond the possibility to choose characteristics of the donor, do you consider acceptable that a same donor generate 100/150/200 childrens? :cuckoo:

abraxas21
12-03-2011, 10:03 PM
So, all this time you have been whining away about what seingest says, but all you have found is rationality. So you decide seingest therefore must mean the opposite of what he says.

Then, even more clownishly, two posts above, you are insisting that to really understand seingest one should pay attention to what seingest actually says.

:cuckoo:

:lol: thats not what i think nor what i said

funny to see the NT resident siding with seingeist here. 2 clowns united.

buddyholly
12-04-2011, 04:35 AM
:lol: thats not what i think nor what i said

funny to see the NT resident siding with seingeist here. 2 clowns united.

It is what you said. Who knows what you think?

Seingeist and I do not approach a topic with closed minds. We don't obediently toe the line on the Party dogma.
But the only siding we have done in this thread is to be on the other side of your usual socialist propaganda. That is only natural, not ''funny'' at all.

I don't think I have expressed an opinion on the thread topic yet, but provisionally I confess I would be hesitant about letting you spread your seed randomly.
But that could probably be avoided by filtering out all the sperm wearing tiny "Che" T-shirts and a black beret.