Honestly, it's a blessing that the number didn't spiral out of control. I'm not saying this to downplay, but as others have stated here the sperm donor participants are low so the probability chance could've actually been higher
(As far as I know) There is no legislation on how many times one person's sperm can be used, any limitations are dependent on the company's current morals
(And there are some douchbag doctors who just use their own "stuff" without telling anyone)
What they mean is that if you want to get a sperm donation, you usually get a resume (obviously anonymized) of the potential donors to help you decide whos sperm you want to use. And since this donors sperm was used very often they probably have something a lot of people find important in a sperm donor.
Depends on the country, usually they get to see a picture of the donor with some details about his career and pick based on that, some even allow them to leave a message for potential mothers.
It also depends on what the donor is comfortable sharing. The more you (edit) see, the more you pay, too. My wife and I used a donor, we had options where we just got basic info like length, colour of skin/hair/eyes and such and then there's profiles that include a pic of when donor was a baby, voice recordings, hand written letters and such.
Yes and no, but we found that with the specific bank that we used, the number of available choices matching your criteria, declines drastically with each added filter. In the end we had like 4 options and we only put in height and colour of eyes and skin I think, so our kid would at least look a little bit like the both of us. There's also filters for education level and such.
From the 4 options, 2 had a very basic profile and 2 had the baby pic/handwritten letter etc. We went with one of the latter. Baby (well, toddler now) definitely has blonde hair and is caucasian like me and my wife, height is a bit early to say but I expect to be looking up when I tell him to go clean his room in 15 years haha. We can also tell his teeth/jawline match the donor's babypic more than my wifes (she carried).
Okay, anyway, they seem pretty honest to me. Many people are a bit confused and think that intelligence, or even more absurdly, education, is predictable with certainty. These companies usually play a bit of marketing to make you believe that genetic transmission is safe. Practically speaking, almost all of a person's intelligence derives from social parameters, and these banks deliberately hide this a bit. How the game works: those who use these services have a good chance of being in the medium-high wealth range, and to accept this practice requires a good open-mindedness, which usually comes from having studied. People go there, choose the sperm of a doctor, an engineer, or someone in a successful role, and then raise a child who will grow up intelligent and probably well-educated. They don't realize, however, that the child became intelligent thanks to the environment in which he or she grew up and the means he or she had (these aren't the only things, of course; they greatly increase the probability). Companies leverage this. I don't think it's a completely correct practice, but it's still quite tolerable. I'm very happy that you had this opportunity ❤️
I don't think companies like that are even allowed marketing like what you're describing. It certainly wasn't the case here; it was just put as the donors level of education. I understand some people value that over other things, but I agree with you that the biggest factor in that regard is upbringing.
I also agree with the wealth-range, you have as big a chance to get pregnant this way vs the usual/heterosexual way, so about 50% after 4 tries. Combined with administrative fees and shipping (express courier and with dry ice), it makes sense financially to order 4 straws or so, making it an order worth somewhere between easily 3-10 grand, also depending on motility.
There's free options available here as well, but those have a long waiting line (1,5-2 years or longer during Covid). I realise we're very fortunate to have had the chance, and even more so to have had great result. We have a lovely boy, who's turning 4 in a couple months.
No, unfortunately, it's quite common to try to use parameters like education, implying that it's programmable. This was a very common practice, especially between the 1980s and 2000s, but it's now significantly diminished in some states that have increased legislation on the matter.
I think it depends on privacy laws if perspective mothers even get to see a resume. In Belgium, it's just contained to if you want to use the sperm of someone who looks like you.
Just to be clear, its bad, but this post makes it sound worse then it is.
According to the stats, only 20 percent of his sperm cells contain the mutation in question so only roughly 40 of the 200 are at risk. Due to records for this kind of thing, the issue is known and the parents of every single child with his genetics has been alerted. Its a European sperm bank so they should all have free healthcare and will be getting regular checkups to try and catch any cancer before it becomes an issue.
It shouldn't have happened but the sperm banks and donor did everything right. It was something that couldn't be detected by the methods they use to determine health. we should have mercifully few further deaths now it is known and hopefully this will lead to tighter sperm screening utilising new methods to try and prevent anything like this from happening again.
Did it happen again? The case im aware of was in 2004 and ended up being dramatized as an episode in Scrubs. Those patients did not make it unfortunately.
Yes it was brought up earlier this week on the news. Donor got scratched by a skunk, and died of “neurological problems”. The person who received ended up getting rabies. People who were using his Cornea graphs have all been going under treatment.
Thats rough. Hopefully the earlier case was what allowed them to consider it as a possibility this time, at least something good can come out of that tragedy if thats the case.
Got bit by a dog this summer. The doctors kept telling me that i dont have to take the rabies vaccine, like they REALLY wanted me to know theres no chance of it, that id just be wasting money. I spent money on it anyways, broke as i was even on a slimmest chance imaginable i wont trade my life for 70$.
Idk why im commenting it, its just deeply unfortunate.
If the dog did die a few days after (up to 10 days is considered rabies they obviously test the dog as well) or u can't locate the dog anymore it's assumed rabies and u do the shot either way. Idk if this should be considered malpractice "trust me bro u're probably fine" like i don't feel that's the reasoning of a doctor.
I dont think it was malpractice and i myself was reasonably sure the dog wasnt infected since i knew it for a long time (and it wanted to bite me for all that time too) but id rather not wonder lmao. Im anxious as is
Ig if the dog is well then the risk pf rabies is excluded. This is info from: https://medicalguidelines.msf.org/en/viewport/CG/english/rabies-16689982.html?hl=en-GB#section-target-5.
Either through observation of the captured animal (if domestic) or through laboratory diagnosis of the animal (killed). The WHO recommends a 10-day observation period of the animal, if captured. If no signs of rabies develop during the observation period, the risk of rabies is excluded.
I did jump my gun a bit there. the worst that could happen is u wasted money if u don't have it. Aight take care.
This recent case made /r/medicine. The donor patient died of unknown cause encephalitis in hospital. This latest publicized case was avoidable if the transplant team assessed the risk of using organs from a patient presenting with rabies symptoms
Except that’s not what happened. The guy was reported to be showing clear symptoms of rabies, but the initial blood test was negative, so they went through with it anyways. His family said he started acting weird, couldn’t drink water, had a lot of neck pain, etc. Pretty blatant negligence.
I don't think they should feel guilty. If anything I think they should be feeling lucky to have found out likely before they ever got cancer themselves. It's really important information to have. It's a shame when it causes the death of others though.
They shouldn't feel guilty because realistically they didn't do anything wrong, but factors out of his control ruined everything and if it were me, I'd never be able to live it down
the article says the donor doesn't have too many cells with the cancer increasing gene, but babies born from his sperm have a big majority of cancer increasing genes, so terrible take.
They didn't, but they are saying that they would feel bad for the unintentional consequences of their actions.
Alike how if hypotetically someone you knew commited suicide you feel bad if you think there was a way you could have prevented it. You wouldn't have done anything wrong, but you would still regret
Seems to happen a lot with sperm donors. I'm not sure if there's a shortage of people donating sperm, or if there's some other reason they want to use the same one so many times. But it seems like it would be sensible to try to reduce that number for various reasons, including this one.
There’s a big shortage of sperm donors. It’s difficult to find men who are a) willing to donate (especially in jurisdictions that don’t guarantee donors anonymity) and b) produce sperm that can survive the whole freezing-storage-thawing process and still be fertile enough for IVF.
So when they finally find someone who is willing to donate and manages to keep producing healthy enough sperm, some clinics will just take the lazy path of using the same donor over and over again instead of having to constantly find new donors.
The real problem here is that his sperm was used for 200 babies. One donor's sperm shouldn't be used for so many babies, in part because of things like this, and I'm pretty sure a lot of jurisdictions forbid it. But I guess there's a lot of grey market stuff going on with donated sperm.
Netflix had a documentary on a fertility doctor who used his own sperm. He had a genetic defect that he passed along to his offspring. It prompted one of them to do research into her genetic history, and led to her discovering numerous half siblings. There were about 40 or 50 and counting when the show was made.
I'm curios, is this a really bad one that has quick acting affects, or is it something like what I've got which means you're guaranteed one cancer at least before the age of 50?
In the article it said that in their lifetime 90% with this gene will develop cancer. Also they could have more than one cancer. Also mentioned that they needed to be screened yearly so clearly pretty severe.
Saw a yt essay about this recently. A significant number of sperm donors are incels who get off on the idea of leaving a legacy, and many have looked for loopholes so their genes dont get properly tested, or provide a false medical history.
This has, and probably will be a problem for other cases as well.
Yes. Unfortunate that this was one such case where the checks and balances were in place, yet werent enough due to bad luck. But its a known problem that a significant amount of cases are without those checks and balances completely.
And, even so. There shouldnt ever be a case where a single male fathers 200 children, because of this. There shpuld be variety in the gene pool for many reasons, and this unfortunate case is one such reason.
This isn't the UK, the sperm bank is Danish and suplies mainland Europe, a few British kids have been effective but thats because their mothers traveled to Denmark for fertility treatment.
Nobody talks about this but the risk of a little percent of these babies living and growing and reproducing and therefore carrying the genes is a horrible outcome
“New eugenics generally supports genetic modification or genetic selection of individuals for traits that are supposed to improve human welfare. The underlying idea is to improve the genetic basis of future generations and reduce the incidence of genetic diseases and other undesirable traits. Some of the practices included in new eugenics are: prenatal testing,[4] pre-implantation diagnosis and embryo selection,[5][6] selective breeding,[7] and human embryo engineering and gene therapy”
This is so confusing because like... Do you think that we don't practice eugenics? What made you think that we don't?
In developed countries you need to have a high level of education (which statistically basically guarantees that you'll have an above average IQ), be taller than the average of your country, have no illnesses, have a healthy BMI, be physically active, etc. on top of that in some countries even your hair and eye color are taken into account, with more blue eyed men being approved for donation than brown eyed men.
There is a lot more you need to worry about than just being healthy when donating. They don't just accept any male as long as they're healthy. You need to be above average in pretty much every way.
Eugenics is bad because it arrives at the conclusion that human rights violations are nessisary to prevent the people in question from reproducing, or because the "undesirable traits" are stuff like "dark skin" or "being jewish"
Just saying "maybe people should avoid knowingly produce children who have a 90% chance of cancer" isn't eugenics.
It's gonna breed and spread its problem to offspring who will most likely breed as well. The cycle will then repeat, and we'll have a bunch of cancerchanceraisers breeding and making more of themselves.
I mean if they're aware at this point it's not that bad, cancer is usually dangerous past the first stage, you can cure it relatively easily otherwise. Cancer runs in my family from long ago so I kinda know what I'm talking about
cancer-raisingthechanceof genes to be more accurate
Poor babies and mums. But also what’s in this guys resume that made almost 200 women want to use his sperm
Sperm donation, after given to the clinic they have no say on how it’s actually used.
Honestly, it's a blessing that the number didn't spiral out of control. I'm not saying this to downplay, but as others have stated here the sperm donor participants are low so the probability chance could've actually been higher
I'm just wondering if they had that low of a sample size that they picked same guy 200 times.
Like... That does put a risk of accidental inbreeding.
(As far as I know) There is no legislation on how many times one person's sperm can be used, any limitations are dependent on the company's current morals
(And there are some douchbag doctors who just use their own "stuff" without telling anyone)
If I remember correctly, there was once a case of a guy donating a lot, being told to stop, then coming in again under different names or such.
Apparently he ended up with 500-1000 children, which is like... What the fuck is going on in his mind.
Some people follow the money regardless where it leads them.
I thought that you don't earn anything from these donations though?
Homer Simpson?
Pretty sure theres a documentary on him too.
Probably but hey Genghis Khan made it work somehow
One wonders if he suffered from friction burns.
So can I drink it and he can't do anything about it?
https://preview.redd.it/yntv48ex5f6g1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5e106bf6501818ff716a808954497d878949f2a6
https://preview.redd.it/74y4raypff6g1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2e885109d86d0994ff010c82899c7774c3c49470
https://preview.redd.it/z1f44ks3fg6g1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=485479b6a7b439f79f2be9cf70faed2249a7437b
https://preview.redd.it/t3734fvuuj6g1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d21de813f5702048829ee1eaf70db45b58cf1e3e
Thankfully not, but share some with the crowd
What they mean is that if you want to get a sperm donation, you usually get a resume (obviously anonymized) of the potential donors to help you decide whos sperm you want to use. And since this donors sperm was used very often they probably have something a lot of people find important in a sperm donor.
Wait I tought sperms banks can check for things like that
Depends on the country, usually they get to see a picture of the donor with some details about his career and pick based on that, some even allow them to leave a message for potential mothers.
It also depends on what the donor is comfortable sharing. The more you (edit) see, the more you pay, too. My wife and I used a donor, we had options where we just got basic info like length, colour of skin/hair/eyes and such and then there's profiles that include a pic of when donor was a baby, voice recordings, hand written letters and such.
"Length" huh? Guess it figures I'm gonna get judged for my length whether I'm donating or going the conventional route.
jk, I'm assuming you mean height.
And did you use any specific characteristics to choose from? And if so, does the baby now have those characteristics?
Yes and no, but we found that with the specific bank that we used, the number of available choices matching your criteria, declines drastically with each added filter. In the end we had like 4 options and we only put in height and colour of eyes and skin I think, so our kid would at least look a little bit like the both of us. There's also filters for education level and such.
From the 4 options, 2 had a very basic profile and 2 had the baby pic/handwritten letter etc. We went with one of the latter. Baby (well, toddler now) definitely has blonde hair and is caucasian like me and my wife, height is a bit early to say but I expect to be looking up when I tell him to go clean his room in 15 years haha. We can also tell his teeth/jawline match the donor's babypic more than my wifes (she carried).
Okay, anyway, they seem pretty honest to me. Many people are a bit confused and think that intelligence, or even more absurdly, education, is predictable with certainty. These companies usually play a bit of marketing to make you believe that genetic transmission is safe. Practically speaking, almost all of a person's intelligence derives from social parameters, and these banks deliberately hide this a bit. How the game works: those who use these services have a good chance of being in the medium-high wealth range, and to accept this practice requires a good open-mindedness, which usually comes from having studied. People go there, choose the sperm of a doctor, an engineer, or someone in a successful role, and then raise a child who will grow up intelligent and probably well-educated. They don't realize, however, that the child became intelligent thanks to the environment in which he or she grew up and the means he or she had (these aren't the only things, of course; they greatly increase the probability). Companies leverage this. I don't think it's a completely correct practice, but it's still quite tolerable. I'm very happy that you had this opportunity ❤️
I don't think companies like that are even allowed marketing like what you're describing. It certainly wasn't the case here; it was just put as the donors level of education. I understand some people value that over other things, but I agree with you that the biggest factor in that regard is upbringing.
I also agree with the wealth-range, you have as big a chance to get pregnant this way vs the usual/heterosexual way, so about 50% after 4 tries. Combined with administrative fees and shipping (express courier and with dry ice), it makes sense financially to order 4 straws or so, making it an order worth somewhere between easily 3-10 grand, also depending on motility.
There's free options available here as well, but those have a long waiting line (1,5-2 years or longer during Covid). I realise we're very fortunate to have had the chance, and even more so to have had great result. We have a lovely boy, who's turning 4 in a couple months.
No, unfortunately, it's quite common to try to use parameters like education, implying that it's programmable. This was a very common practice, especially between the 1980s and 2000s, but it's now significantly diminished in some states that have increased legislation on the matter.
I think it depends on privacy laws if perspective mothers even get to see a resume. In Belgium, it's just contained to if you want to use the sperm of someone who looks like you.
He promised deadpool powers
They're not babies, they're in their teens and adulthood.
My bet is tall and white. If they talked with him before, whatever traits show in the dark romance consumed there
Oh, oh dear lord that’s a lot of dead babies. I can only imagine what the parents must be going through right now.
Coffin brochures
Fuck you, you're funny.
Take my upvote and never come back
What’s the upvote ratio on this comment, I HAVE to know
https://i.redd.it/0vk9b7pz6g6g1.gif
Just to be clear, its bad, but this post makes it sound worse then it is.
According to the stats, only 20 percent of his sperm cells contain the mutation in question so only roughly 40 of the 200 are at risk. Due to records for this kind of thing, the issue is known and the parents of every single child with his genetics has been alerted. Its a European sperm bank so they should all have free healthcare and will be getting regular checkups to try and catch any cancer before it becomes an issue.
It shouldn't have happened but the sperm banks and donor did everything right. It was something that couldn't be detected by the methods they use to determine health. we should have mercifully few further deaths now it is known and hopefully this will lead to tighter sperm screening utilising new methods to try and prevent anything like this from happening again.
Good to know thanks for telling me
Well its donated sperm so
I don't think that really matters
Ah,well that explains it
What the fuck why??
https://preview.redd.it/kcprgogkpc6g1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b66c93a3b56b35b257521b1d7167157136f3505c
I'm going to give more context since nobody did it before :
Sperm donor had a gene that increased cancer chances. The donor didn't know that. That's how it happened
Imagine the guilt of trying to do a good thing and having it lead to so much suffering...
Someone just died from a kidney transplant because the previous owner had rabies.
But they managed to treat the other patients after they learned about it.
Did it happen again? The case im aware of was in 2004 and ended up being dramatized as an episode in Scrubs. Those patients did not make it unfortunately.
Yes it was brought up earlier this week on the news. Donor got scratched by a skunk, and died of “neurological problems”. The person who received ended up getting rabies. People who were using his Cornea graphs have all been going under treatment.
Thats rough. Hopefully the earlier case was what allowed them to consider it as a possibility this time, at least something good can come out of that tragedy if thats the case.
Got bit by a dog this summer. The doctors kept telling me that i dont have to take the rabies vaccine, like they REALLY wanted me to know theres no chance of it, that id just be wasting money. I spent money on it anyways, broke as i was even on a slimmest chance imaginable i wont trade my life for 70$.
Idk why im commenting it, its just deeply unfortunate.
If the dog did die a few days after (up to 10 days is considered rabies they obviously test the dog as well) or u can't locate the dog anymore it's assumed rabies and u do the shot either way. Idk if this should be considered malpractice "trust me bro u're probably fine" like i don't feel that's the reasoning of a doctor.
I dont think it was malpractice and i myself was reasonably sure the dog wasnt infected since i knew it for a long time (and it wanted to bite me for all that time too) but id rather not wonder lmao. Im anxious as is
Ig if the dog is well then the risk pf rabies is excluded. This is info from: https://medicalguidelines.msf.org/en/viewport/CG/english/rabies-16689982.html?hl=en-GB#section-target-5.
Either through observation of the captured animal (if domestic) or through laboratory diagnosis of the animal (killed). The WHO recommends a 10-day observation period of the animal, if captured. If no signs of rabies develop during the observation period, the risk of rabies is excluded.
I did jump my gun a bit there. the worst that could happen is u wasted money if u don't have it. Aight take care.
Wtf
Due to the nature of virus, it's possible to be infected yet show no symptoms, basically a carrier.
this will be Left 4 Dead in 2025:
no, like, actually, lots of zombies in media are based on rabies
including left 4 dead's green flu incidentally
This recent case made /r/medicine. The donor patient died of unknown cause encephalitis in hospital. This latest publicized case was avoidable if the transplant team assessed the risk of using organs from a patient presenting with rabies symptoms
Poor babies
Except that’s not what happened. The guy was reported to be showing clear symptoms of rabies, but the initial blood test was negative, so they went through with it anyways. His family said he started acting weird, couldn’t drink water, had a lot of neck pain, etc. Pretty blatant negligence.
Previous owner lmao. Seems like a House MD case
There actually was a house md episode like that, with the lady with the transplanted eyes
I don't think they should feel guilty. If anything I think they should be feeling lucky to have found out likely before they ever got cancer themselves. It's really important information to have. It's a shame when it causes the death of others though.
logically it isn’t their fault at all but holy hell if this happened to me I wouldn’t be able to sleep
They shouldn't feel guilty because realistically they didn't do anything wrong, but factors out of his control ruined everything and if it were me, I'd never be able to live it down
Yeah it would definitely be hard to get past. I hope the poor guy has some people to talk to about it.
the article says the donor doesn't have too many cells with the cancer increasing gene, but babies born from his sperm have a big majority of cancer increasing genes, so terrible take.
Also it's 200 people bro.
Point me to where the donor did something wrong. It's an unfortunate tragedy, not a malicious crime
They didn't, but they are saying that they would feel bad for the unintentional consequences of their actions.
Alike how if hypotetically someone you knew commited suicide you feel bad if you think there was a way you could have prevented it. You wouldn't have done anything wrong, but you would still regret
But it wasn't their fault if they didn't know about it. It was just unfortunate.
Can you elaborate on "Also it's 200 people bro"
And that happens so often during ordinary intercourse because many don't know that they have the gene.
But why was it used for 200 babies
Seems to happen a lot with sperm donors. I'm not sure if there's a shortage of people donating sperm, or if there's some other reason they want to use the same one so many times. But it seems like it would be sensible to try to reduce that number for various reasons, including this one.
This is basically the entire reason. Genetic diversity. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
There’s a big shortage of sperm donors. It’s difficult to find men who are a) willing to donate (especially in jurisdictions that don’t guarantee donors anonymity) and b) produce sperm that can survive the whole freezing-storage-thawing process and still be fertile enough for IVF.
So when they finally find someone who is willing to donate and manages to keep producing healthy enough sperm, some clinics will just take the lazy path of using the same donor over and over again instead of having to constantly find new donors.
With genetic testing, no jurisdiction can guarantee anonymity. Even if a donor never gives DNA, his relatives have.
Ok that explains things
Oh fuck at first I thought that somehow a single sperm caused 200 babies to be born like at once from a single mother
For him it's not a risk because it doesn't affect his body however the mutation affects 100% of the cells in his kids bodies.
Gonna go on a whim and say it’s not on purpose
science experiment
jarvis deploy the unfunny reaction images
Jarvis here: r/supersillybreakingbad
They are doomed man
[deleted]
From the article: "Most of the donor's body does not contain the dangerous form of TP53, but up to 20% of his sperm do."
So even if tested, there is still a chance Tests come back clean.
The real problem here is that his sperm was used for 200 babies. One donor's sperm shouldn't be used for so many babies, in part because of things like this, and I'm pretty sure a lot of jurisdictions forbid it. But I guess there's a lot of grey market stuff going on with donated sperm.
Oh, I wasn't trying to defend anyone here. Some people for sure did not do their jobs.
Bruh read the actual article a bit before commenting on it.
Netflix had a documentary on a fertility doctor who used his own sperm. He had a genetic defect that he passed along to his offspring. It prompted one of them to do research into her genetic history, and led to her discovering numerous half siblings. There were about 40 or 50 and counting when the show was made.
200? What the hell? The poor babies :(
"Only" roughly 20% of them have the increased chance if its any consolation. 80% are completely healthy.
Jesus Christ
That's a spawn camping
the one single sperm
And big pharma rejoices!
I'm curios, is this a really bad one that has quick acting affects, or is it something like what I've got which means you're guaranteed one cancer at least before the age of 50?
babies have already died so id assume the former
Well shite
The affected gene is in charge of preventing cells turning cancerous it's really bad
In the article it said that in their lifetime 90% with this gene will develop cancer. Also they could have more than one cancer. Also mentioned that they needed to be screened yearly so clearly pretty severe.
Pissing in the gene pool....
Saw a yt essay about this recently. A significant number of sperm donors are incels who get off on the idea of leaving a legacy, and many have looked for loopholes so their genes dont get properly tested, or provide a false medical history.
This has, and probably will be a problem for other cases as well.
Did you read the article?
Yes. Unfortunate that this was one such case where the checks and balances were in place, yet werent enough due to bad luck. But its a known problem that a significant amount of cases are without those checks and balances completely.
And, even so. There shouldnt ever be a case where a single male fathers 200 children, because of this. There shpuld be variety in the gene pool for many reasons, and this unfortunate case is one such reason.
Reddit is getting old... this info was dellivered by my local news faster...
Something similar happened to a family friend, used a donor and the kid has some genetic issue and will be bald by age 10 and can't eat most food
Oops
[deleted]
This isn't the UK, the sperm bank is Danish and suplies mainland Europe, a few British kids have been effective but thats because their mothers traveled to Denmark for fertility treatment.
If they wanted it to be fair, then they'd mix all the sperm together, and then you get what you get.
Nobody talks about this but the risk of a little percent of these babies living and growing and reproducing and therefore carrying the genes is a horrible outcome
I worked in a Genetic testing hospital lab for 18 months, and honestly?
The more I people making poor (or dare I say reckless) reproductive choices, the easier it became to support this.
> People with Cystic Fibrosis kids rolling the dice on having another one? Check.
> People pumping out three, four kids with a mental impairment, presumably in the hopes one of them would get lucky and dodge it? Check.
> Entire families with problems caused by excessive goddamn inbredding. Check.
Just an endless shopping list of fuck it we balling decisions made time and time again.
I agree that donating cancerous sperm is bad but this is literally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics?wprov=sfla1.
It would actually be “new eugenics”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_eugenics
“New eugenics generally supports genetic modification or genetic selection of individuals for traits that are supposed to improve human welfare. The underlying idea is to improve the genetic basis of future generations and reduce the incidence of genetic diseases and other undesirable traits. Some of the practices included in new eugenics are: prenatal testing,[4] pre-implantation diagnosis and embryo selection,[5][6] selective breeding,[7] and human embryo engineering and gene therapy”
How is it different from just eugenics?
This is so confusing because like... Do you think that we don't practice eugenics? What made you think that we don't?
In developed countries you need to have a high level of education (which statistically basically guarantees that you'll have an above average IQ), be taller than the average of your country, have no illnesses, have a healthy BMI, be physically active, etc. on top of that in some countries even your hair and eye color are taken into account, with more blue eyed men being approved for donation than brown eyed men.
There is a lot more you need to worry about than just being healthy when donating. They don't just accept any male as long as they're healthy. You need to be above average in pretty much every way.
Eugenics is bad because it arrives at the conclusion that human rights violations are nessisary to prevent the people in question from reproducing, or because the "undesirable traits" are stuff like "dark skin" or "being jewish"
Just saying "maybe people should avoid knowingly produce children who have a 90% chance of cancer" isn't eugenics.
the risk of one of those babies Not dying is a horrible outcome?
For each baby that survives, will bring more death through its children.
Its one of those things where the good side of one thing is the horrible side of another.
I stated what I meant really clearly and you chose to project it like that…
The left is insane. They have to paint us as insane for the gaslighting to work.
Damn, talk about an unforced self-report
It's gonna breed and spread its problem to offspring who will most likely breed as well. The cycle will then repeat, and we'll have a bunch of cancerchanceraisers breeding and making more of themselves.
I mean if they're aware at this point it's not that bad, cancer is usually dangerous past the first stage, you can cure it relatively easily otherwise. Cancer runs in my family from long ago so I kinda know what I'm talking about
I think the comment might be in flames for this
Why are we even allowing 50 families per donor?
This is some super villain shit
Thats kind of rude
WHOSE TESTICLES MADE THIS MONSTER?
I’m more so curious on what the guy had to say in this situation.
“Whoops guys my bad lol”
This whole story is depressing man...
Probably would've all grown up to be iPad kids anyway unfortunately
Thats nothing quite a lot of doctors change the sperms with theirs.
cancer cum is something i didn't expect to see today
Thankfully they kept the guy anonymous, its not his fault his sperm was used for so many babies and he had no way of knowing this.
Just ban IVF altogether.
One single sperm?
I'M RADIOACTIVE
RADIOACTIVE
https://preview.redd.it/oiumib1emd6g1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1ce51f277d28971a7fabe4e17667dd9e6ac3fab2
https://preview.redd.it/336mb9codg6g1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e0ed6d72cafcbce530521edf73e0f3165d0a3623
All genes cause cancer it's just a matter of time, what's the big deal
By cancer causing genes, do you mean human genes?
Does the story about baby cancer really need a reaction gif?
thats the entire purpose of the subreddit