Sperm Bank

I consider donating sperm as irresponsible. To donate, you go to a “sperm bank.” Different sperm banks will have different qualifications that you must meet. For example, some require that you be at least 5’7″ to donate you sperm. Usually you have to be between the ages of 18 and 40. While you’re donating, all you probably think about is the quick and easy money and less about the possible outcome. I came across an article and video of a man named Ben Seisler having to tell his fiancé of his 70 known children. Notice how I said known, which means they’re are probably several more than that!

Seisler donated sperm for three years while attending law school at George Mason, Virginia to help pay for his education. He earned around $150 per donation. He originally planned to remain anonymous but later joined an online registry called the Donor Sibling Registry that connects offspring and siblings to each other and their donors. Around 15 of his children have made contact with him. This is just one case of a college guy wanting cash and not caring about the risks. Couples who are unable to have children probably very much appriciate it at the time, however, you will have to explain to the child that the man rasing him is not his biological father. This could be heart-breaking for the child and can cause a variety of problems. Donating sperm takes a person who doesn’t care if he has a bunch of children that could be all across the world and never know them. Recieving sperm takes a couple who doesn’t mind that their baby isn’t completely just theirs.

I feel that adoption is the better choice.  Not only does adoption reduce the world’s population, but it provides many benefits for the adoptive children and their family. These benefits allow the child to have a renewed and more sucessful life.


Filed under Free-Form Articles, Uncategorized

4 responses to “Sperm Bank

  1. Zach Miller

    I do see how this could be a problem. As you said, there are many children who need to be adopted into a loving home. Correct me if I’m wrong, but one of the problems could be health issues. If you remain anonymous, the child may not know what his genetics hold. Or, do they require you to give health information other than height? I also see how this could be heartbreaking to a child. This is kind of like finding out you’re the child of a prostitute; your father just got around a lot for money, basically. On a side note, this is a very interesting subject that can have two major opinions. Why do you think this subject (which in my opinion runs along the same morality issues of pro-life vs pro-choice) isn’t talked about as much as abortion?

    • In response to Haley’s article: How exactly is this irresponsible? The donors have something that someone else wants/ needs and are willing to legally exchange this for a set price. The donor makes a conscious choice to sell his “good genes” to people who have a legitimate want for them. The donors are contributing to the likelihood that single women/ childless couples can produce a natural born child without technically crossing any moral boundaries (This is debatable, I know.)
      As for the explanation to the child, in some cases parents could keep the information from their child (think need-to-know basis). If the donor looked significantly like the mother’s husband/companion/etc. the child could likely never question the genetic bond that doesn’t exist. Some parents could explain this to the child when s/he is of age; this could be handled much of the same way that adopted children are informed of their non-biological link to their family. Just because a child might not have the typical quantity of his/her parents genes doesn’t necessarily make the child any less of a family member.
      In response to your concern that the child might have a questionable medical background: to donate anything at a “legitimate” facility, an individual must go through medical examinations and meet specific criteria. For example, I know of a woman who was considering having her eggs harvested, but was ineligible due to the fact that she was overweight and had a family history of medical concerns. Likely the same sort of screening is done for sperm donors, too.
      Adoption doesn’t reduce the world’s population; it simply finds qualified people to take care of a portion of the population that already exist. While I do strongly support the adoption option, I also know that some of the adopted children will NEVER know who their biological family is and what their ancestral medical history is. Adoption is quite rewarding, for it often allows children to be freed from a terrible life and placed into loving home. Most first world couples, who are financially stable, who desperately want a child can find a method of attaining one- adoption, surrogacy, IVF treatments, etc. The adoption process is rather pricey (with legal fees, etc.); So, perhaps the artificial insemination route could be more cost efficient in some situations.(On a side note: perhaps the world isn’t overpopulated, but is instead mismanaged of its resources.)

      In response to Zach: How exactly would this be immoral? There is no physical contact involved with the donor and receiver.
      I will note that some religious groups (for example the ones who boycott birth control) would probably frown upon this process because it is not “all natural.” But, it should be noted that this donation process is more morally sound than, say, hiring a “stud” for breeding purposes (aka glamorized prostitution.)
      I think that the reason that this is not debated quite as hotly as abortion is is this: sperm/egg donation is for the creation of life, not the destruction of it.

      • Zach Miller

        Kristen, I will be honest and say that your argument is better constructed than mine. You are correct, there actually isn’t any physical contact so to call it prostitution is not a correct analogy. I didn’t think of it that way.

      • Zach Miller

        Also, you made a good point about overpopulation. The world isn’t overpopulated. Part of the problem is that the majority of us now live in very dense cities. For example, there are eight million people in New York City, which mainly is located on the islands of Manhattan and Long Island. Also as you said, many countries don’t use the full potential of their resources. However, this is getting off the topic of Haley’s post so I’ll stop talking about it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s