FDA wants to penalize person-to-person sperm donation without a clinic. Only the male donor is the target of fine/jail, female participants aren't mentioned.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Maschalismos 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevinV 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]brunt2 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wnoise 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]venereveritas 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]venereveritas 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]misseff -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]misseff 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The rest of that paragraph, which you are taking out of context:

No U.S. state has enacted a law which criminalizes specific behavior during pregnancy, but, nonetheless, it has been estimated that at least 200 American women have been criminally prosecuted or arrested under existing child abuse statutes for allegedly bringing about harm in-utero through their conduct during pregnancy.[7] Reasons for pressing charges included use of illicit drugs, consumption of alcohol, and failure to comply with a doctor's order of bedrest or caesarean section.[7] Drug addicts have been accused of "supplying drugs to a minor" through unintentional chemical subjection via the umbilical cord.[7] Others have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon with the "deadly weapon" in question being an illegal drug.[7] Minnesota, Wisconsin and South Dakota allow women who continue to use substances while pregnant to be civilly committed.[7] Some states require that medical providers report any infant who is born with a physical dependency, or who tests positive for residual traces of alcohol or drugs, to child welfare authorities.

I mean, this would even help prove that there is no double standard. These women have been charged IN SPITE of there being no specific laws, while this guy is being threatened rightfully under an existing law.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]misseff 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]venereveritas -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That sounds like a private contract between individuals, which is completely different from federal regulation on a man's ability to hand a sperm sample to a woman (which, again, wouldn't be regulated if he just banged them). Why aren't the guy's female clients being penalized for participating with him?

I hope it's already been understood that nobody is complaining about health regulation. This is just pointing out another small piece of double standards on reproductive rights.

Ie. A woman can freely choose to abort or abandon her kid at the fire station with no penalty. Meanwhile a guy can father a child he doesn't even know about or get tricked into believing is his through a lie, then be on the hook to support it for 20 years, and get thrown in debtor's prison if he doesn't have the means to do so. Rights for women; responsibilities for men.

[–]venereveritas 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No, if a woman were to say she was pregnant and offer her baby up, only to lie or abuse the fetus in any way, she could get into serious trouble. This was why private settlements are made. Because simply posting an add and calling prospective parents isn't safe anymore. what happened in Juno, although it does occur once in a while, is being washed out by fertility clinics and lawyers.

Why aren't the guy's female clients being penalized for participating with him?

As a donor you have certain responsibilities. He should have offered health information, been tested out. The same apples for a woman. If you lie about you and/or your families health, and the baby is born sick, you can get into serious trouble. But you don't punish the adopters/prospective parents. They have a different set of responsibilities (which varies per state or whatever was written into contract).

Lastly, this man did not want to "bang" these women. He wanted to help them. If you're out to help someone, you want to do it the right way. He did what he thought was right. Having sex with them wouldn't have been right, not to him or those women or their partners (plus if he had an STD he could have gotten himself in an even bigger problem).

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

No, if a woman were to say she was pregnant and offer her baby up, only to lie or abuse the fetus in any way, she could get into serious trouble

Bullshit. All 50 states have safe-haven laws. A woman can simply go to a fire station and leave the kid and walk away forever with no consequence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law

Are you actually bringing some pop culture movie here as "evidence"? Um, don't do that.

He did what he thought was right. Having sex with them wouldn't have been right, not to him or those women or their partners

Whoosh, the point goes flying over your head.

It's not about "what he thought was right," or what private contracts are made with surrogates, but what's regulated by law.

Consenting adults can have sex without the state threatening jail to one of them. That's an exchange of fluids, too.

One of the exceptions is prostitution. When providers- hookers- are arrested, but not male clients, feminists get upset. Here, a male provider is being threatened and the female clients aren't.

The other, STD, isn't germane to this discussion. That's only a crime under assault law where they have to specifically prove intent to assault after the person is informed he has a dangerous disease. Very rare. Nobody is punished for simply not getting tested before sex.

If he banged them that would be completely legal, but handing them a cup isn't.

Not only is it a little silly, it's a small piece of the discussion about regulation of man's reproduction and freedom for women's.

[–]venereveritas -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No, if you say you're pregnant and offer that kid up, and then lie to the prospective parents, you get in serious trouble. You can jail time for that. I used Juno to explain that what happens in that movie does not really happen these days, because it's so risky. The only thing a woman can do is decide to suddenly keep it, which is why we have them sign contracts. Otherwise, she caused two people misery and a lot of money-and she's gonna pay.

And like I said before, if women could hand over cups pf eggs, there would be stricter laws. Why? Because if if her family is prone to certain health issues, it's important to know. Giving birth to a sick or disabled kid means money out of the government/our pockets. Another reason, which is now becoming a serious issue with current donations, is because we can't keep count of how many children people are mothering and fathering.

[–]misseff -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]misseff -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The rest of that paragraph, which you are taking out of context:

No U.S. state has enacted a law which criminalizes specific behavior during pregnancy, but, nonetheless, it has been estimated that at least 200 American women have been criminally prosecuted or arrested under existing child abuse statutes for allegedly bringing about harm in-utero through their conduct during pregnancy.[7] Reasons for pressing charges included use of illicit drugs, consumption of alcohol, and failure to comply with a doctor's order of bedrest or caesarean section.[7] Drug addicts have been accused of "supplying drugs to a minor" through unintentional chemical subjection via the umbilical cord.[7] Others have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon with the "deadly weapon" in question being an illegal drug.[7] Minnesota, Wisconsin and South Dakota allow women who continue to use substances while pregnant to be civilly committed.[7] Some states require that medical providers report any infant who is born with a physical dependency, or who tests positive for residual traces of alcohol or drugs, to child welfare authorities.

I mean, this would even help prove that there is no double standard. These women have been charged IN SPITE of there being no specific laws, while this guy is being threatened rightfully under an existing law.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bearsnchairs -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

It seems like a pretty good idea to have your fluids tested. what exactly is your problem with this? Now it may be obstructive to get between a contract between two consenting adults, but the pay off outweighs the cost. Fertility treatments can cost upwards of ten of thousands of dollars. The couple paying a couple hundred bucks (if that) for some peace of mind tests shouldn't be a big deal. Also I'm sure that women who donate eggs are also tested, but that isn't really something you can do from your own home. Your title is pretty misleading... Doesn't everyone need to be tested before they donate bodily fluids/organs? I understand that this man wants to be a good person and give others the gift of parenthood, but these laws are a good idea to protect everyone involved from disease or lawsuits.

[–]NickRausch 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

Nobody is arguing that regulation is bad; this is simply bringing something to people's attention. There are double standards here, that support forms of female privilege.

The FDA doesn't regulate exchange of fluids via sex. This guy could simply bang his clients and the FDA couldn't say shit about it. An exception is if a person is explicitly informed they're infected with a disease, and they have unsafe sex without telling their partner, it may be considered a form of assault (a very rare thing to prosecute, and not the FDA's territory.)

The fine/jail is specifically targeting the male provider for not safety-testing his sperm (who as far as anyone can say is perfectly healthy) and not the female participants using it. It's debatably similar to arresting a hooker and not the john, which will upset feminists if it happens.

These female participants can impregnate themselves, create health problems by smoking and drinking until the baby's born disabled, then abandon the baby at a fire station with no sanctions whatsoever. Bearing a child isn't safety-regulated, but handing someone a sperm sample is. Female privilege.

[–]bearsnchairs 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure this law would apply equally if it were a female donating her eggs over the internet, but that is just not possible due to biological difference. I'm not sure that your example of sex is entirely valid in this circumstance. Sex and sperm donation can be similar acts in outcome but are very different when you get down to it. You do have valid points about how there are necessarily legal repercussions to pregnant women who abuse their bodies and thus harm their potential future child, but this is a different issue. Say the sperm donor does have disease which is them transmitted to the sperm seeking woman. She has sex with an infects her husband. Things go sour and they separate and each meets and has sex with another person. Before we had one person with the infection, now we potentially have five. I am not saying that this is the only outcome, only that it definitely has the potential to happen if transferred bodily fluids/organs are not screened.

These kinds of transfers have the potential to affect many more people than a dumb mother fucking up her life and the life of her child (which is a deplorable act)

[–]misseff -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]misseff 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

This isn't sex. This is pretty much a medical procedure happening. If his sperm were not safe, the people being harmed would be the women and/or the potential child. Why would the potential "victims" be charged with anything?

Btw, there are a few issues with fetal abuse laws, though they do exist. Here is something short on it:

http://www.parentprofiles.com/pregnancy-articles/understanding-fetal-abuse

Fetal abuse cases are becoming more popular and currently 17 states have enacted laws to protect these children.

If you don't want to read it, basically some states do prosecute women for "fetal abuse" if they abuse drugs or alcohol during pregnancy. But the concern with these laws is, will the women stop using drugs/alcohol, or will they just stop going to the doctor so they don't get caught? This problem doesn't exist when you're screening someone's sperm. So where is the double standard?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

And yet, sex can be reductively defined an exchange of fluids. So is handing someone a sperm sample.

Sex for money is regulated, too. Feminists are upset when they arrest hookers and not johns. This is a reverse transaction where the man is the provider and the woman is the client. Are double standards OK as long as they benefit women, feminist?

Take the time to read the link that you provided: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights#Example_cases Quote:

"No U.S. state has enacted a law which criminalizes specific behavior during pregnancy".

What you have there are highly debatable exceptions where some agency is overreaching to apply a law meant to cover something else.

What we have here is a federal agency (the FDA) threatening a guy with jail for providing a sperm sample.

The point about double standards stands.

[–]misseff 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

In regards to sex, people have also been charged for spreading AIDS through intercourse, it's criminalized in many areas. Look it up.

Sex for money is regulated, too. Feminists are upset when they arrest hookers and not johns. This is a reversal where the man is the provider and the woman is the client. Where's your anger, feminist?

I am not one of the feminists you speak of. I'm not going to be angry when someone is told, "Hey, get tested more, or you won't be able to keep giving out your sperm to hundreds of people." I don't see the need for outrage at that, I think it's 100% reasonable.

And again, you're ignoring the many cases where women have been charged. And I'm not sure if that part of the wikipedia article is even accurate, as what I'm reading elsewhere says there are states that have these types of laws.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]misseff -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]misseff -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dalgeek 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, it's a good idea to have your fluids tested before "donating" them, or receiving a "donation" from another person. How many women do you think receive sperm "donations" on a regular basis without having the person "donating" the sperm tested? If he was "donating" to random women in shady bars and by-the-hour hotels then the FDA wouldn't know or care what happened. The only time there would/should be an issue is if he knowingly carried an STD such as HIV and passed it on to the women.

I am sure there is some sort of contract in play here between the guy and the women involved, otherwise he could be liable for child support and there could be custody issues. This sounds more like a corporate complaint from sperm banks and fertility clinics because they are afraid of a free alternative to their very expensive services.

Funny, when you think about it, the only difference between "donation" and "intercourse" is one involves a plastic container in between.

[–]misseff -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't everyone need to be tested before they donate bodily fluids/organs?

Seems like it. From the article:

Federal regulations say that sperm donors must submit to blood tests for a variety of communicable diseases - including HIV, hepatitis B and C, and syphilis - at least seven days before every donation. Those rules apply to anyone who gives sperm, even a close friend helping out a childless couple.

It sounds like this is to keep everyone safe, including the potential baby. Of course the other participants aren't targeted, they're not the ones distributing bodily fluids on the internet without being tested. I see nothing wrong with this. I'm actually surprised the people he's donating to didn't ask when he was last tested. Why on earth would you use the sperm of someone giving it away for free on the internet without having proof that he has tested clean recently?

[–]venereveritas 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]misseff 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Whisper 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]misseff 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Whisper 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]misseff 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]overcontrol 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]misseff 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Whoosh- the point goes flying over your head.

Nobody is arguing that regulation is bad; this is simply bringing something to people's attention. There are double standards here, that support forms of female privilege.

The FDA doesn't regulate exchange of fluids via sex. This guy could simply bang his clients and the FDA couldn't say shit about it. An exception is if a person is explicitly informed they're infected with a disease, and they have unsafe sex without telling their partner, it may be considered a form of assault (a very rare thing to prosecute, and not the FDA's territory.)

The fine/jail is specifically targeting the male provider for not safety-testing his sperm (who as far as anyone can say is perfectly healthy) and not the female participants using it. It's debatably similar to arresting a hooker and not the john, which will upset feminists if it happens.

These female participants can impregnate themselves, create health problems by smoking and drinking until the baby's born disabled, then abandon the baby at a fire station with no sanctions whatsoever. Bearing a child isn't safety-regulated, but handing someone a sperm sample is. Female privilege.

[–]misseff -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MockingDead 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Equa1 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]littlejohnnyjewel -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]brunt2 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]littlejohnnyjewel 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments