Sensitive Topic Screening sperm donors for autism? As an autistic person, I know that’s the road to eugenics...

[AGXStarseed]

Here's an addition to the story: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...t-bar-me-from-donating-my-sperm-a6792201.html

(Remember, keep your comments civil in accordance with the forum's rules).

 

[unsurewhattoname]

Here's an addition to the story: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...t-bar-me-from-donating-my-sperm-a6792201.html

(Remember, keep your comments civil in accordance with the forum's rules).

He's missing the point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_autism

For the second link skip to about 7 minutes in.

 

[ancusmitis]

One person picking a donor is individual. An organization barring people from donating is institutional, and that is a different matter. Autistic people have the same reproductive rights as everyone else. Just because we have a label doesn't change things. Why is it okay for a sperm bank to say no one with autism is allowed to donate?

If you can't stop people from choosing the sperm they want, then you can't stop people from donating either. It's the same freedom. If you make sure less sperm is available, that's fewer choices. Maybe some people want kids with Aspergers. Is it wrong to want kids who are like yourself? If it's okay for NT's, then why is it wrong for autistics?

 

[unsurewhattoname]

Except the same genes that cause Asperger's cause severe autism so there's no guarantee that child is going to be mild. If people want that risk then fine, but the sperm should be marked for high autism risk. And I really doubt that'd be in high demand enough for them to keep the sperm. I think the vast majority of the general population want children with the lowest risks of diseases. Asperger's people who want sperm are an absolutely tiny minority. Think about it. Take the figure for ASD, then the figure for Asperger's, then the figure for those capable of being parents, then the figure needing sperm, then the figure for those wanting sperm with high autism risk. It's so close to 0 it's not worth storing the sperm for sperm banks. Remember this costs them money so they have to see return in their investment. The sperm would expire by the time they found someone who would want it, if they ever did.

If someone wants an autistic kid then maybe they should jack off someone with a strong history of autism and collect the sperm and insert it into the vagina.

 

[ancusmitis]

Autism is not a disease and so-called "severe" autistics are still people. It's too bad that they are so underrepresented on forums like this one, then maybe people like us wouldn't have to be reminded of that.

 

[unsurewhattoname]

Then why is it in the ICD if it's not a disease?

They're people low in demand. It's all about demand, sperm trading is a business.

 

[gonzerd]

A few more notes I'd like to make:

Some personal experience regarding the conception that raising an autistic kid is so much more difficult than raising a neurologically typical one: I have an older brother and sister, both NT. When I was about 18, my dad told me - and he's not the kind of person who just says stuff if he doesn't mean it - that from his 3 kids, I was the one who caused the least of worries, who was the most responsible, and who needed the least parenting and frankly, and I wish it was the other way around in a sense, I think he was absolutely right with that statement. It's just one opinion of course, and it's not like I don't run into problems in my life now; there are days that I hardly function at all, life's not easy. But the whole notion that an autistic kid will always be more difficult to parent is simply not true.

Then there's the idea that clients pay good money so they deserve only top notch material: wouldn't it be up to the clients to decide about what kind of donor they'd prefer? I don't know this business, maybe there are sperm banks who cater to a certain subset of clients. But this is the largest sperm bank in London, not some designer boutique selling unicorn leather underpants. Refusing whole classes of people on this basis is perpetuating the idea that simply because one's autistic, one is undesirable, one shouldn't procreate, and this will have a direct effect on how we think about ourselves, and how society as a whole thinks about us. For me there certainly was a time when I'd think 'I don't ever want to bring this stuff, this me, on my children' and that shouldn't be surprising. When you're being put down for crazy and insane for a bit too long, it's only normal to start to believe that crap. But I'm not crazy, and I'm not insane. I'm not 'damaged goods'. I'm autistic, and I'm actually pretty awesome. Not despite of it, but because of it, because this autism isn't some side thing, it's in everything I do, it's in how I see the world, how I smell, how I hear, how I feel, how I think and how I do. 24/7. It doesn't mean I can't be a bit of a dick at times too, but apparently not being a bit of a dick isn't a requirement.

And putting autism next to things like cancer... it boggles my mind. Autism isn't a disease, it's a neurological condition. It doesn't kill me. Me not being very prone to make eye-contact for example isn't in itself a problem. Some people turn it into a problem, which will be a problem for me as it will affect my functioning, but it doesn't need to be a problem.

Also: these centers don't just 'store and offer' sperm, they are part of a bigger fertility services industry (in italics, because it's not an industry, it's health care. Hospitals and the like shouldn't be run as a business and making a profit should not be the goal.) If it were just a matter of 'jacking off some dude and inserting the sperm into the vagina', than why have any of this at all? It's not about providing people with the perfect kid designed to their specific wishes. It's about giving people who can't otherwise conceive fulfill their desire to have children and an autistic kid is as good as any. We're not a disaster, we're not a horror story and we're not an epidemic that should be eradicated.

I'm going through the comments on the site itself and they are, as usual, cringeworthy. It's clear that to the general public, eugenics is still a very easy sell. All the usual comments are there: traits are undesirable or unworthy, the gene pool should be optimized and natural selection (really? Wouldn't that be quite ironic in a discussion closely related to infertility?), we're a burden on society and we cost too much. It's basically an institution deciding which traits are good and which are bad, and that's a big assumption to make, that's discrimination turned into policy. What if hospitals were to make it policy to stop giving treatment to certain people based on their merits? Should we sterilize the poor, or stop giving valuable medicine to the unemployed? I think we can do better than that, as a society.

I'd rather not see stuff like this make a comeback.

 

[unsurewhattoname]

This sperm comes from someone with no family history of genetic disorder, this one comes someone with a genetic disorder and a strong family history of it. Now tell me, which one will the vast majority prefer? This industry is about demand.

And I'm pretty sure that's how it works. Dude jacks off, collect sperm in bottle, take sperm and put it into a vagina and 9 months you get a kid out.

You can still make your own babies. Nothing stopping you. You could create as many as you want. This is not stopping that. Have like 10 kids, it's not stopping procreation.

 

[AGXStarseed]

Interesting points from both sides of the argument.
Personally, this whole thing about Eugenics makes me think of the film Gattaca.

The following is from Wikipedia:
In "the not-too-distant future", eugenics is common. A genetic registry database uses biometrics to classify those so created as "valids" while those conceived by traditional means and more susceptible to genetic disorders are known as "in-valids". Genetic discrimination is illegal, but in practice genotype profiling is used to identify valids to qualify for professional employment while in-valids are relegated to menial jobs.

In the film, the protagonist Vincent Freeman is conceived outside the eugenics program and sadly has a number of 'genetic deficits'. As a result, he is labelled an invalid and is subjected to genetic discrimination - including from his younger brother (who was conceived by the program). Despite this, he still intends to follow his dream and travel into space.
One thing I love about this film is how Vincent - despite his genetic deficits - set out to prove that he could achieve his dream, regardless of what society told him that he could and couldn't do. The film itself not only looks at the positives/negatives of eugenics but also the idea of destiny.
The comment below was from a Youtuber on one of the movie scenes near the end:

"This movie is so great that I could watch it in another 10 or more years. It really brings out what is the best about humanity: it's not the genes that make man what he is but the will to overcome his weakness. Vincent defeated his genetically superior brother not because he was stronger but because he had the will to put everything in it and used his mind to compensate for his disadvantage.
Genetic perfection to result in perfect humanity is an illusion. It is the will and the strength of character to succeed in what we dream that makes us great."

Similar to Gonzerd, I was told by my parents when I asked about my childhood that I was the one who caused the least of issues. More often then not, it was my four siblings (all NT) who caused the most trouble.
(Please note that that's not to say that all NT's are trouble-causers or that I or other Autistics aren't/weren't pains in the backside at times).
Raising a child or children in general is tough work - regardless of whether they have a label or not - so to bar people with a condition just because there is a so-called 'higher risk' does seem institutional and discriminatory.
Furthermore, even if you choose sperm that is from someone whose family doesn't have a history of Autism, whose to say your child still won't be on the spectrum regardless?
While I agree with the notion that Autistics are perfectly capable of procreation, why should we (or indeed those with ADHD or Dyslexia as they are also been blocked from donating) be blocked from donating our sperm and helping those who cannot conceive have their own bundle of joy to love?
(Makes me think of this scene from Kung Fu Panda):

Religiously, Are we not all equal in the eyes of the Creator?
Scientifically and Spiritually, Are we not all a spark from the infinite?

 

[SingaSong]

If I had decided to have children (no hope of that as I can't make friends never mind sexual relationships) I might have been offered genetic testing to screen out a bleeding disorder that I have. As with ASD it can manifest with very serious life changing consequences or not much at all. I probably would have been tested. This means of course that if it was available when my mother was planning a family I could have been screened out. Now it looks like I could have been screened out for ASD.I've just been diagnosed with ASD. It has had a very negative affect on my life, though maybe more due to not being diagnosed until 39 years old.
My parents would have had a very different child and now have a much more independent adult child.

Yes it's possible I could have had another illness but at the moment both they and I definitely are terrified what happens when they die because I am completely socially isolated due to effects no help with ASD(unfortunately no siblings or relatives living close by either). I know that part the way I think is likely to be due to depression, however again that is an illness my parents might not have encountered if i screened out and they had another child.

With the best will in the world support for families and children who are different is limited and I don't think a child like me born today would necessarily be diagnosed early or have support. So yes if it comes down to it I'd have been prepared to be screened out for ASD and wouldn't stop current parents having the choice.

 

[Ettina]

For example, maybe an aspie woman would only want an autistic child and would wish to reduce her chances of having a NT child.

*Raises hand*

Not that I wouldn't want an NT kid, but I'd prefer an autistic kid. If a sperm bank offered sperm from a guy labelled as having an autism diagnosis, I'd gladly accept it. (I'm asexual so sperm donation or adoption is my only

People argue about 'producing a child with a disadvantage', but that argument only seems to come up when the 'disadvantage' is considered a disorder. What about if I picked a black guy's sperm because I wanted a biracial kid? Is it wrong to choose a donor of a certain race, knowing full well that the resulting child will be subjected to disadvantages because of how society reacts to their skin color?

Personally, I wish that a few more people who use sperm banks, IVF, or surrogates, would consider adoption. Is it really that important that your child be related to you biologically?

For me? No. But there are more legal hoops to jump through for adoption, and it can be easier to parent a biologically related child because they might share your quirks. Plus, with people who aren't using unknown donors (eg IVF with a heterosexual couple using their genetics, or surrogacy with the mom and dad providing the genes, or a couple using a donor related to the non-genetic parent), you don't have to worry as much that the kid might feel like an outsider because they have genetic traits that make them stand out from the family.

For example, an adopted kid might turn out to be highly creative, with two parents who are not at all creative. A highly creative kid raised by biologically related parents is more likely to have at least one parent who is creative too, and therefore instinctively gets what creative inspiration feels like. Not to say it could never work to raise an adopted kid with traits different from yours, or that bio kids will never turn out very different from both parents, but it is tougher and more likely if the child is adopted.

Plus, genetic health risks. My Dad and paternal grandfather both developed type 2 diabetes, which is genetic. Knowing that, I'm trying to get myself a healthier diet, and I also know the early signs of diabetes and how it's managed. If I were to adopt, maybe my kid would be at risk for something I've never heard of, instead of something I understand and know how to prevent and manage.

Also, breastfeeding. My Mom breastfed me and my brother, and I'd love to breastfeed my kid. I know some adoptive moms have managed it, but it's not a sure thing that you'll be able to induce lactation if you haven't gone through pregnancy. Whereas virtually all biological moms can breastfeed their babies.

Lastly, since I'd like an autistic kid, if I went the adoption route I'd have to either adopt an older kid (and get trauma issues along with the autism to deal with) or a kid with something like Fragile X Syndrome. The logistics of finding a baby diagnosed with something with a link to autism is daunting, and many of those conditions also have health problems that aren't part of regular autism.

I might adopt, especially for a sibling if I want more than one kid. But it's not my preferred option.

 

[Ste11aeres]

Also, breastfeeding. My Mom breastfed me and my brother, and I'd love to breastfeed my kid. I know some adoptive moms have managed it, but it's not a sure thing that you'll be able to induce lactation if you haven't gone through pregnancy. Whereas virtually all biological moms can breastfeed their babies.

In keeping with the spirit of that line of thought, I definitely understand wanting to go through the experience of pregnancy, birth, and early infancy with one's child. (Although with surrogate pregnancies, one misses out on that, as well.)

 

[gonzerd]

The bottom line here seems to be that this particular clinic is operating in disregard of the rules set in place. Rules which are there to protect the clients, but also to prevent unjust discrimination. This isn't a free market business. Individuals can make whatever decision they want, can have there personal preferences, but there are anti-discrimation laws. This isn't just a person though, this is an institution, and therefore its decision making carries a lot more weight, especially for institutions in the medical sector.
If sperm banks refuse certain people from donating, it can have far reaching effects, because they are regarded as authorities within their field of expertise. It sets a precedent and it has a real influence on public opinion that goes beyond their own patients. If some couple of which one of the partners has any of these disorders is considering having children and they seek some advice from their personal physician, he or she might advice against it, based on these practices. The same for friends and family. It's a domino effect, making life needlessly harder for people who live with these conditions, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where people affected will start to suffer from secondary issues like depression, seriously inhibiting their ability to function up to the point where it might actually be better not to have kids, or whatever.
There are a lot of intelligent people in the world who'll never get a degree, simply because they've been made to believe they are too stupid. A lot of people who'll never reach their full potential simply because they've been told they didn't have any, or it was useless to try. A lot of possibly great parents and kids, who'll never be, simply because they've been told the risk was too damn high. Meanwhile we're still reading too many stories of 'perfectly normal' parents who consider their 'perfectly normal' life being destroyed by their once 'perfectly normal' kid who turned out to be autistic.

People can still **** and have as many babies they want with whoever they want, but that's just theory. People rarely make these decisions in a vacuum. We're all influenced by a cavalcade of opinions, and some opinions will have a lot more influence on our personal decision making than others. That's why it's important to have these laws, so people get equal chances. It might be just one clinic trying to maximize profits, but in the bigger scheme of things it becomes a human rights issue.

 

[unsurewhattoname]

Who is we? I am in a vacuum apparently. Except I can't fit into our vacuum cleaner. Speak for yourself. I am outside of a vacuum but when I make decisions, which isn't common, it is not at all influenced by what others think. I don't feel strongly about things very much, meaning in most things I don't mind one way or the other so will be fine with either. But on the rare thing I do have an opinion on, believe me, it's not influenced by what others think. It's an opinion formed entirely by myself, evident as it can be the complete opposite of those around me. But I won't budge on it. My opinions aren't based lightly. See how you all have the opposite opinion, but my mind isn't changing. Because your opinions have no influence on my own. I have my reasons. You have yours. We disagree. That's that. Not sure who "we" is but it doesn't include me.

 

[Jacoby]

I don't think people that can't have kids naturally and are unwilling to adopt should have kids, the whole idea of a "sperm bank" is definitely steeped in eugenics. It is inevitable what genetic screening for autism will lead to.

 

[Bellatrix]

Actually, I can't see a problem with this. It's not eugenics, that's a silly accusation. Since it is their policy to screen potential donors, here are a few other things they should look out for in potential customers:

a) an inability to take language literally, with a corresponding over-reliance upon 'body language' and metaphor
b) enjoyment of, and indulgence in, gossip
c) aversion to honesty
d) a tendency to be easily led astray by mobs
e) being loud and obnoxious
f) an inability to empathise with those who don't see the world the way they do whilst, ironically, accusing others of lacking the very empathy that they themselves don't seem to possess
g) false humility
h) pathological obsessions with labels, status and money
i) extreme oversensitivity to voice tone

The world will be a much better place when the genetic markers for these, and other related, deficiencies are located and eliminated.

 

[Ettina]

Actually, I can't see a problem with this. It's not eugenics, that's a silly accusation. Since it is their policy to screen potential donors, here are a few other things they should look out for in potential customers:

a) an inability to take language literally, with a corresponding over-reliance upon 'body language' and metaphor
b) enjoyment of, and indulgence in, gossip
c) aversion to honesty
d) a tendency to be easily led astray by mobs
e) being loud and obnoxious
f) an inability to empathise with those who don't see the world the way they do whilst, ironically, accusing others of lacking the very empathy that they themselves don't seem to possess
g) false humility
h) pathological obsessions with labels, status and money
i) extreme oversensitivity to voice tone

The world will be a much better place when the genetic markers for these, and other related, deficiencies are located and eliminated.

Ha! I see what you did there!

 

[jellyhead]

I don't like this as I believe that most of us on the spectrum have an awful lot to offer in the way of alternative thinking , but I can also see how fear has taken hold as nobody voluntarily wants a little Rainman

 

[pax]

I think any type of agreement, arrangement, contract, etc. whereby a child is conceived for the purpose of giving that child to a person or persons who are not the child's biological parents constitutes human trafficking. I think the right to one's own parents is part of natural law. Having a child is a privilege, but that privilege doesn't override the child's right to her parents. I think sperm donation is an affront to human dignity. If people are treated like products, then the logical outworking will be that the consumers will want their "model" optioned to their preferences.

I once worked with a guy who was having troubles conceiving naturally. He was adamant that he would not adopt, as then it wouldn't be "theirs"
He spent an extraordinary amount of (company sponsored) time of and (tax payer subsidised ) money doing rounds of IVF. Then announced that if tests showed it had Downs, they would immediately head to (State that does late abortions) and get rid of it.
People like that shouldn't have responsibility for children, natural or otherwise. They shouldn't have responsibility for a goldfish.

 

[Sully]

What would you say are the child's rights when the parent(s) are not the sort of people who can be trusted with the welfare of a child? Is it alright for someone who isn't blood to take care of a child whose relatives just aren't safe for them?

Of course there are many situations in which a child can't or shouldn't be raised by his/her biological parents (death of parents, incarceration, chemical abuse and addictions, physical, sexual, emotional abuse, dangerous environment, etc.) Adoption and foster care are great and many children would suffer terribly without them. Someone recently revealed to me how his mother prostituted herself for drugs. His foster parents probably saved his life. But, these situations aren't relevant to my original post which I think has been misinterpreted.

People can reproduce in many different ways. I don't think that many people consider the right to one's parents as part of natural law. I'm not against the idea that sometimes children must be raised by people other than their parents. I was objecting to creating that situation intentionally.

For the sake of clarity I want to point out that I am not trying to make any connection between sperm donation and child abuse. I am just answering the questions posed to me and then I tried to clarify my original post.