Sperm donor was AS

Post Reply New Topic

If an Autistic man has a one-night stand with a NT woman that is completely consensual, but does not mention the diagnosis because the subject never came up, is that rape?

Your analogy is insufficient for OP's situation because in most one night stands consent does not extend to pregnancy and at least one party uses some form of birth control. This is closer to an autistic man having a consensual one night stand and poking a hole in the condom without informing his partner. Regardless of whether you want to equate it directly to rape or to something else, it's unquestionably unethical.

I agree gamerdad, that's a good analogy.

A woman making use of a sperm donor expects to get pregnant, and she expects that the donor will disclose any obvious genetic anomalies. ASD people have a higher chance of anxiety and depressive disorders.

What is ethics? Nothing more than the study of logical extrapolations based on presumptions about morality.
What is morality? Either a personal conviction which no one has a right to question or there is another source of morality. If there is another source of morality, the source can only be either an external absolute morality or resultant only by society. The problem with absolute morality that only an extreme minority know (and therefore the rest are immoral.) A societal source for morality stands on shaky grounds. If there is no absolute by which to judge society, society is absolute.

So, everyone who says Charloz has acted immorally, from what do you base that on? An external absolute, society, or yourself?
If you base your judgement on yourself, then you have no basis for the judgement. Your personal beliefs and feelings on the subject don't and shouldn't have a bearing on whether or not he is immoral or moral. In other words.
If you based it on external absolute source, you have the burden of proof. You must prove that the external absolute is real, should be followed, and of course the source of the external absolute. None of you did so.
Do you base it on society? Is society the basis for morality? If yes, then there is no reason to believe the holocaust was wrong while it occurred because it was accepted by that society at the time and only became wrong the society thereafter. Additionally, it would mean that any so-called crimes being committed by a society at any single time wouldn't be morally wrong until outrage formed in a significant majority. Those who defy the society would be immoral regardless of the actions of society.
If you said that he acted immorally, I dare you to prove it. The act of lying is not inherently unethical or immoral.

Therefore, I must concur with Charloz that he did not act immorally or indeed acted morally.

Your whole post was full of fallacies, but I am choosing to point out this section. Of course it isn't a joke. People aren't jokes. You can't prove that it is an abnormal condition at large in the course of evolution. Nothing living is perfectly normal to it's own species. And maybe this is a support forum, that doesn't necessitate the need for support. Nor does a need for support necessitate abnormality, dysfunctionality, or disability. Everyone requires support at times.
Additionally, your post previous to the one I am quoting is rather abusive in nature. If you're position is so great, why do you resort to ad hominem attack?


So you would require people to self-label as being mentally ill and help serve other's presuppositions?
And just because it is a tendency for aspies to take things literally, does not in anyway suggest that it isn't the right way to take things. The law itself is functions the same way, the law is literal. Is it wrong that the law has a tendency to take things literally? Maybe, but if it weren't, "justice" would be far more arbitrary. What you are saying here is nothing more than, "If you think differently than I do(or the majority) than you are wrong/immoral/a-jerk." And since people seem so caught up in this phenomena called "lying," isn't it a lie to report that which you think is not true?

Besides, what is a diagnosis? In the case of psychology, it is nothing more than a label. Great, you managed to have a personality that fits inside a categorization, just like everyone else. And you let that get to your head.

I think that one can use one's intellect to reach moral conclusions. The standards for morality, even if not absolute, can be objective, since human beings are all the same species, and we all have similar needs and desires. We can ask questions like, does the action in question harm anyone? Is it deliberately deceitful? Are the results in terms of human happiness worth being deceitful about? Do you consider your own desires more important than the harm your actions may cause others? Are your actions based on objective scientific truths? Are there alternatives to your actions?

I agree that it's not always immoral to lie. However, in this case he knows that his actions would not be well received if the interested parties knew the truth. Who is harmed? Obviously, autism is a sub-set of genetic conditions, with very real possible negative consequences for the individual. Human beings are a social species, and the lack of socialization and the ability to be social have some of the same effects as people in solitary confinement. At the very least, the autistic spectrum individual will have a different experience in life than their peers. They would have extreme difficulty, say, being president of the country, or a CEO. At the very least, a woman would want to know this before having children with someone with this genetic condition, whether it were "normal" or not. Autism isn't just a label, there are very real differences between the average brain and the autistic brain.

Is Charloz harmed by not impregnating women through a sperm bank? It may cause him a little bit of distress that he wouldn't otherwise reproduce, but does that override the harm of a woman who must care for the extra needs of an autistic child? Or having a child that might have little desire to keep in communication with her in her old age? Obviously not. A woman's choices in reproduction take precedence over a man's perceived need to spread his genes.

It's ironic that Charloz did nothing wrong in terms of the rules of this forum, but I did. I don't care, I thought it was necessary to express my outrage at this shockingly wrong and objectively immoral act.

(I don't know what you mean about requiring people to self-label as mentally ill, all I want him to do is be honest. Autism isn't mental illness. But the same thing would apply if he were schizophrenic, bi-polar, or clinically depressed, etc.)

No, not f*****g BS, they would have thought something was "wrong" with the genes just like you and others think something is wrong with our genes. The discrimination isn't fantasy just because they're not aware you're AS, the default stance when it comes to AS is discrimination. Oh, so I'm abnormal am I? I suppose you don't see how hateful that is. No I'm not abnormal, I'm a human being, and a valuable one at that, not some sort of mistake in the gene pool. Warn them about this 'tainted' sperm? And what would you say to warn them I wonder.

No, Autism isn't a joke, it's not funny how at every turn, others are so easily able to say that we're the insensitive ones, we're the inconsiderate ones, we're the horrid ones, we're the violent ones, we're the defective ones, we're the diseased ones, and people can say that about me with a straight face and have no guilt come of it. No, that isn't a joke. Am I now to contend with; "maliciously sneaking our tainted seed into the unsuspecting women of society"? What rot! It's nothing short of a bare faced lie. There was no deception on Charloz' part, omission is not a deception, or a misrepresentation -- Omission, is not immoral. Society is filled with prejudice towards us, therefore, omitting that you're Aspergian is immoral, that's nonsense.

I would suggest that you read the complete definition of deception before making statements like the above.

According to Webster's the full and complete definition of deception is
": the act of making someone believe something that is not true : the act of deceiving someone
: an act or statement intended to make people believe something that is not true
: the act of deceiving
: the fact or condition of being deceived
: something that deceives
: to make (someone) believe something that is not true
archaic : ensnare
obsolete : to be false to
obsolete : cheat
: to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid
archaic : to while away archaic : to fail to fulfill"

In what way is omission explicitly deceptive under the definition? It isn't. Is it implicit? Maybe, but you have said nothing to show that it is. You hold the burden of proof.
Not only that, you must show that definition that omission falls under is relevant. Even if you prove it is relevant, you still haven't proven Moromillas wrong about anything other than perhaps a slight technical language violation that could easily be fixed with a nuanced synonym.

Regardless, I would call that a topicality violation simply because it doesn't apply and isn't relevant to the topic at hand. If the dictionary suddenly read "Freedom v. the act of willingly obeying all commands of your superior while you aren't paid for your work for the good of the system and your authority at the threat of a gun" would that mean that is what freedom actually means?
The dictionary definition is the denotative definition and rarely includes the equally valid connotative definitions. Saying that someone is wrong because a dictionary says so is the weakest form of argument that isn't putting your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen. You can dispute his definition of deception, but at least include a decent argument with it.

You admit that he is doing something that most women wouldn't choose. That's wrong no matter how you feel about autism. And he admits his deception, he admits being sneaky, he admits he feels a need to hide who he is, out of some delusional war with neurotypical humanity. Look, you can't have it both ways, you can't be proud of being special and then insist that it's nothing special. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having autism. Abnormal isn't wrong, it's just different.

If his condition weren't abnormal, he would f**k a woman and raise his kids like a real man. Autism or not, he's not a real man, he's a spiteful coward.

Unless I am mistaken, the OP was asked about his "medical history, disability etc.". Then, he "purposely withheld" the information knowing that "full disclosure means I would not be accepted". I imagine (pure conjecture) the OP also signed something attesting to the accuracy and completeness of the information provided.

The more interesting question is why you (and others) support this behavior? I sense that several people posting on this thread are trolls. Hope you had your fun.

I actually have a fiancée, who I do on a regular basis. I have not yet made her pregnant because I am 22 years old, unemployed and living at home, so I don't believe there's much that I can offer a child at this point. I am seeking employment and saving up and once I establish a form of stability in my life we both very much like to have children, but this will take a few years.

Are you suggesting I go sleep around with random women without protection in the hope of fathering children with them? Lol, that seems a lot more immoral then sperm donation as at least the woman going to the sperm bank does so with the very clear desire to be a mother, whereas a woman in a one night stand just wants to have some fun and often does not think of the consequence. Now that would REALLY be tricking someone.

Yes I want to have a father, and in due time I will be. And I will raise those children because I'm every bit as much of a 'man' as any other guy. I just decided to donate sperm on the side. As is my right. I am not a spiteful coward and attacks at my masculinity or lack thereof are really a low blow and only further my point.

Then I'm happy for you, you are finally doing the right thing, after doing the wrong thing.

I'm well aware of the definition of those words. >_> I say again; omission is not a deception.



I almost never tell people, there's no reason to in the first place. Withholding such information is not a deception, nor is it hiding. The same could be said about your nature of intolerance, that you don't go around professing your hatred to every man woman and child you meet cannot be classified as deception. There is no war with NTs, I know plenty of tolerant NTs. We are however, constantly at odds with stupidity. I'm not abnormal, your attempt to debunk decades of research is found wanting. "Because of my prejudice" is not good enough.

I hope everyone can appreciate the irony. Putting someone up on a pedestal and taking pot shots at them, any idiot can do that. "He can't get laid, he doesn't have the balls, he probably has a tiny dick, he's not a real man, he's a spiteful coward", and all behind the relative safety of a computer screen.

Yes it is immoral. There was a case that made the news a few years ago.. it isn't just about having ASD but all those things that can go with it. Parents need to know if their child may be predisposed to sensory overload or severe anxiety disorders. If a parent is not made aware of this they are not going to be prepared. There also seems to be a higher incidence of immunity problems amongst people with ASD so non disclosure could lead to medical problems.

Omission is deception. If someone is assured the donor is healthy and their child is not because they've inherited genetic problems then I would call that fraud.

Indeed I would be equally concerned that someone of questionable moral character is wanting to sire children, NOT in order to help barren couples but in order to "sew their oats", serve their own ego and spread their genes because they have been unable to do it another way. I wouldn't want my child inheriting traits of deception and manipulation and possible sociopathy. I saw an earlier post actually encouraging people to "trick" the normal system claiming discrimination and he actually sounded PROUD of getting away with it. Like some conquest. Seriously? So impregnating "NT" women based on trickery.. that is malicious given the sheer hate that has been voiced against NTs.

If an "NT" won't have sex with you then that is a clue you are not supposed to mate with them.

Then by your condition, you yourself are a deceiver, a manipulator, a sneaky trickster, a person of questionable moral character. By your condition, each and every person you have passed by on the street, at the supermarket, you have deceived them, you've lied to each and every one of them, because you did not blurt out every little detail about yourself.

Or you could realise that such a requirement for honesty is absurd, and that omission is not a deception.



I don't think you realise that this can be taken as rape. Not something that should be downplayed, signing up for IVF isn't the same as rape... No, there are many NTs that are gripped by such ugly stigmas and misconceptions, NTs that are mired by their intolerance. Saying that such discrimination exists is not hatred, or "reverse discrimination", that is truth telling. Almost missed your little straw man.

If a girl refuses you, that is not indicative that are you're not supposed to have sex. Rejection happens to many people, including NTs. You're wrong, there are NT girls that are tolerant, that are interested after all the vile stigmas have been dispelled.