A friend says:
It’s pretty clear that the desirable sperm bank donor, is white, athletic and smart.
When Jody Foster sought donor sperm she didn’t seek anyone racially distinct or even ethnically distinguishable from herself.
Remember how badly that woman in the Midwest was ridiculed because although she was white her baby had a black sperm donor. She was criticized in the media because she pointed out that in her community that it was difficult to deal with her black hair. Yet I wonder if any person who criticized her either sought out a sperm donor, or knew anyone who sought out a sperm donor and deliberately chose to be inseminated by the sperm of a black man.
Forget adoption and all the babies and children of other races adopted by whites. Sometimes that is altruistic, other times it’s a matter of supply and demand. But focus on when push comes to shove and the couple is seeking a donor egg, or a couple (or on occasion a single mother) is seeking a sperm donor, and they are putting their dollars on the line, what sort of genetic lineage they seek out. That is the real eugenics and shows the absolute hypocrisy of so many persons.
Largest UK sperm bank turns away dyslexic donors
Britain’s largest sperm bank has been turning away donors with dyslexia in what it describes as attempts to “minimise the risk of transmitting common genetic diseases or malformations to any children born”.
In a practice branded “eugenics” by campaigners and a would-be donor, the London Sperm Bank has banned men with dyslexia or other common conditions it described as “neurological diseases” from donating.
A leaflet to donors lists a series of conditions the clinic screens for, including: attention deficit disorder (ADD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD], autism, Asperger syndrome, dyslexia and the motor disorder dyspraxia.
The fertility regulator has launched a review of the London Sperm Bank after being alerted to its practices by the Guardian…
Steve O’Brien, chair of the Dyslexia Foundation and a board member of the International Dyslexia Association, said: “This is eugenics. It’s trying to say that dyslexics shouldn’t be in society. But we’re moving into a visually dominated world of Instagram and YouTube where given the right tools it is no longer an issue, because people with dyslexia are right-brained often with hyper-visual skills.
Caplan makes the distinction between hard and soft eugenics, the former being more closely associated with Nazi Germany and the killing of so-called undesirables. Soft eugenics, or what’s often referred to as positive eugenics, is the attempt to make better babies. So, in the sense that sperm banks are promoting and encouraging the idea of having babies built to order, then yes, it can be referred to as a form of positive eugenics.
“In this case, customers are selecting for traits they want, and avoiding traits they don’t want,” Caplan explained to Gizmodo.
Bioethicist Nigel Cameron, the president of the Center for Policy on Emerging Technologies, says the practice is absolutely eugenics— and that sperm banks are starting to take it too far. “There is something inherently eugenic about assisted reproduction unless donations are accepted, by clinics and recipients, sight unseen,” he told Gizmodo. “When we take this to the extent they have, banning the color blind, we are wading in deep.”
