Sperm donor was AS

Post Reply New Topic

Even if it was a workplace turning someone away, I don't think it is necessarily discrimination, it all depends on why. Like, if the person's symptoms are severe enough that the accommodations they need are unreasonable for that employer to provide, then the employers have every right to not hire someone on that basis. It's only discrimination if they do so without a good reason, like if they simply said, "We won't hire you because you have Asperger's." or if they were unwilling to provide reasonable accommodations; that would definitely be discrimination and it is wrong. Which I'm pretty sure that is what you were saying, so I do agree, I just wanted to point that out.

As far as the original issue given by the OP, I know my opinion probably won't change a whole lot with this discussion, but I do agree with the people who say it is immoral to knowingly withhold that information. I agree because, like riley said, the purpose is not to allow men to spread their genes, it is for the couples who can't have children on their own to be able to have them. That has nothing to do with the rights of the donor, so withholding relevant information is infringing upon that prospective family's rights.

I totally agree with this. It bothers me a lot, because I understand the viewpoint that people with ASD should not be viewed as defective or useless, but some people are taking it totally to the other extreme. They say things that imply they think they are better than those who don't have it, which is quite hypocritical considering that this is what they claim others are doing to them; even if a person simply calls it a disorder in conversation, without even the implication of animosity, some people flip out about it, assuming the person is calling them defective. Calling it what it is isn't discrimination, it is simply being realistic, because like you said, it is a diagnosis, not an elite club, and it wouldn't be one in the first place if it didn't cause difficulty in some (or many) areas for those who have it.

I think one simple option here is for sperm banks to open their donor repositories to anybody (including people with disabilities), the proviso is that there is full disclosure.

That way if a parent proactively wants a child who had one biological parent with autism, Downs or other heritable traits it's there on the public record.

There will of course be no way to stop donors like the OP from concealing their diagnosis,

I think it gets much less clear cut when you're talking borderline cases, since there is no real test for AS and diagnosis as therefore at least somewhat subjective; at what point does eccentric and socially awkward become a genetic disorder requiring disclosure? I think the OP's reasoning is faulty at best, but I do think it's an appropriate and interesting question for discussion, as it touches on a lot of issues we have in the AS community surrounding the validity of diagnoses and the nature of being on the spectrum.

I don't see why it would be offensive, maybe you don't get the context. Nor do I want to be offensive. I do know what I am talking about.

Let me explain.
SignOfLazurus quoted Charloz's stated opinion concerning the moral obligation to follow the law concernign discrimination and a challenge to not let people define your life's path based on the fact you have been label ASD.
Then SignOfLazarus claimed that that seems grandiose and mimics those who are antisocial in nature.
It is entirely true that a dislike for the law is antisocial in behavior, especially if it manifests in the breaking of the law. It doesn't logically follow though that all laws are necessarily correct or moral. If a law were to be discrimatory in nature, it wouldn't mean that the person is necessarily antisocial even though they would have the proper characteristics by the standards regardless.
In Nazi Germany, the laws were clearly discrimatory against the Jews. They first labeled all political dissidents to be antisocials. This included, but was not limited, to German Jews.

Do we simply apply the term of antisocial on anyone with differing political beliefs? I think so. Morality isn't the real issue here. Instead we have made the law the issue here and have placed all morality behind the law without a seconds thought. We call them antisocial to scapegoat society.

I don't agree the way Charloz acted, but I think most of what everyone is saying against him is bull.

Let me try to explain. This thread, from my perspective, is about a choice someone is making when filling out a health questionnaire, prior to donating a bodily specimen.

Since the OP didn?t provide us with a copy of the questionnaire, let?s use the one SignOfLazarus found online.



These health questionnaires contain numerous questions asking about health history. Everything from, Autism to Pyloric Stenosis to Childhood Diabetes to Dwarfism to Cerebral Palsy. Many of these maladies have both genentic and environmental components.

Again, we don?t know what questionnaire the OP filled in, but one of the above included the statement:


As an aside, I want to quickly deal with my position on the morality of falsifying information on such a form (and by falsification, I am including omission). I always taught my daughters that the most important rule is the Golden Rule. As such, I put myself into the position of a young woman, who wants to get impregnated, for whatever reason, via artificial insemination. Prior to selecting a specimen, this woman is given the completed paperwork from a potential blood donor. As that young woman, how would I feel if the information provided by the donor was known to be falsified? I would be very upset that someone was intentionally trying to deceive me. I would then begin to question the basic decency of people. Based upon the application of the Golden Rule (by being able to put myself into someone else?s shoes), I can claim that falsification is immoral. Because I would not want to be the recipient of such falsification. This one is so clear cut, it?s not worthy of 14 pages of WP discussion.

Anyways, back to the question at hand. How can anything in this thread be related to the badges used to identify people of Jewish descent during the Holocaust? Can you seriously equate ?checking? that you have Autism or Pyloric Stenosis or Childhood Diabetes or Dwarfism or Cerebral Palsy with the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews (not to mention countless Gypsies, Homosexuals and Disabled people)?

Are you suggesting that ?checking? this box will lead to that? That sounds like a slippery slope to me. Worse, it?s offensive to the survivors (and their families) of that human tragedy.

Agreed. I someone has ASD or other label and they get fired purely because of that label then it would be discrimination, however if someone was behaving badly and the employer is unable to find a way around it then that would be different.


Precisely. IVF clinics don't exist just so men can spread their seed.. and no-one forced him into going to business with one. He is obviously fertile, can have children without the need for IVF so no-one is saying he is not allowed to procreate.

I've seen the comparison to Nazi Germany by another poster.



Okay then. They actually practiced eugenics hand picking men and women to have the ideal offspring so the "master race" could be spread. The OP is said he is doing this so his ASD genes could be spread I'm not sure how wanting aryan genes spread is different to wanting ASD spread it's still eugenics. I am pretty disgusted at the comparison it disrespects holocaust victims.

Last edited by riley on 27 Sep 2014, 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The poster you directed that question to is alluding to the slippery slope that lead from the philosophy of eugenics started by Claude Binet and other intellectuals in the turn of the 20th century (relating to sterilisation of humans with unfit genes such as people with autism, dwarfism or cerebral palsy) to full blown state sponsored Nazism (which is actually well documented).

I can understand the concerns many on the spectrum have over how the NT community don't really value autism and the rejection of potential genes for IVF is basically a reflection of values that are probably unchanged since the early 20th century that some humans are better while others (due to their autistic traits) are less desirable than others.

I think the poster you are directing that question to did also mention being a "moral relativist". I think he misunderstands that underlying meaning and it's context. Moral relativism does not (of course) justify deception on innocent people for a higher purpose. There is no higher purpose in causing pain and suffering.

Cyberdad ? Thanks for taking the time to provide this explanation. Other than that, I really don?t have a response.

No problem

In case anyone is interested, someone shared the following article with me. Which seems relevant: 2 white Ohio women sue over sperm from black donor<click>

Interesting, according to the law suite involving the black donor sperm **the sperm bank has no electronic record-keeping and no quality controls that would have prevented it from sending the wrong sperm to fertility clinics.**

Hey guys, just a couple of things that need clearing up...

Sperm banks don't always do IVF. There are many other ways of artificial insemination, don't be naive.

All you other Charloz haters...a lot of your points have already been answered earlier in the thread. Please try to think before you post.

Carry on....

"Charloz haters"..?


No. He posed an extremely controversial question and people replied. Just because they disagree with his immoral actions does not mean he is the victim of 'haters". Nice spin though try again.

Maybe she is referring to those who attacked him personally, rather than those who simply voiced an opinion.
Charloz has been called a long list of names from psychopath to mysogynist.

Artificial insemination (AI) is not the same as IVF. In IVF there is assisted fertilisation where the sperm is directly injected into the ova. AI on the other hand involves either administered or self-administered insertion of sperm into the uterus through the vagina using a catheter tube.