Now that one donor can father 150 kids . . .

[kenny]

With growing demand for the best DNA (an an unregulated profit motive) one sperm donor has been documented to have 150 offspring, and they all look alike.

What if two were to marry, unaware they're half siblings?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/health/06donor.html?_r=1&hp

 

[Amys Bling]

Wow. That is a great question!

 

[VRBeauty]

Fascinating story.

How can it be that the U.S. is so far behind in addressing this, when other countries have already taken steps to limit the number of children fathered by each donor?

Oh yeah...

 

[centralsquare]

Not only is it surprising that one donor has 150, but that seemingly many donors have a few dozen. I naively thought there were restrictions on the number of "donations" that could be given.

 

[kenny]

Hey, maybe all you gals with huge diamonds are actually my sis.

 

[centralsquare]

Hey, maybe all you gals with huge diamonds are actually my sis.

 

[TristanC]

Some girls unconsciously seek out men that bear the traits of their father... heck, now their dating options just opened way the heck up!

On a serious note: I think the US needs to stop stalling and start making some serious stands on these things well ahead of how other governments are policing their countries.

 

[kenny]

Actually, I always thought of "opposites attract" as nature's way of ensuring healthier offspring.

 

[lbbaber]

Hmmmmm, this was an episode of House. Had same dad/didn't know/were married/got mysterious illness/House found the 'link' and told them of their sibling status.....

I LOVE House

 

[dragonfly411]

When I read this, I got a bit nauseous. It reminds me of horse breeding. Stallions are collected regularly and there are some who have 200-300 babies born a year. The gene pool becomes limited because the "popular" sires get used over other quality horses who are more local. Arabians in particular are now having issues with SCID, cerebellar atrophy, and other diseases. Quarter Horses have to worry about HYPP. The thoroughbred industry has made great steps to ensure the width of their gene pool by not allowing a horse that was conceived by frozen or transported "papas" but rather only allow live coverage.

There should definitely be a very restricted limit on how many children one donor should have. 150 is really just scary, and not natural at all.

 

[kenny]

To me selecting the best DNA smacks of racial hygiene and Eugenics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I'm not saying a woman or couple who need a donation to have a child should be forced to accept randomly selected samples, but 150 women being allowed to use this one guys DNA because he was such a groovy guy just brings back hints of that whole master race thing.
Creepy.

I don't know what the answer is but definitely the US should limit the babies from one guy to maybe two or so.
Two is about what one man is likely to contribute to the gene pool in the US if he had to pay to raise them.

Of course this will lower profits for the companies who sell this product, but too bad.

Apparently the offspring can form a group and socialize.
Can you imagine the creepy factory-like atmosphere if the father of all 150 walked in?

 

[tyty333]

I don't know what the answer is but definitely the US should limit the babies from one guy to maybe 2 or so, which is about what one human is likely to have in the US if he had to pay to raise them.

I find it amazing the number of people who feel like they dont have to pay for their own kids....but thats another thread
(probably with lots of flames too).

 

[kenny]

I don't know what the answer is but definitely the US should limit the babies from one guy to maybe 2 or so, which is about what one human is likely to have in the US if he had to pay to raise them.

I find it amazing the number of people who feel like they dont have to pay for their own kids....but thats another thread
(probably with lots of flames too).

I don't think there would be any flames.
Nobody supports being a deadbeat parent, except perhaps a deadbeat parent ... and they would keep their mouths shut here on PS.

 

[lyra]

What if you turn it around a bit. Say there are limitations set at 3 women in each state in the US. That's 150 but spread out. Some of those women will want to have a 2nd biological sibling, so it's now 300 spread out. Three women per state seems like a small number. This is something that's hard to set random limitations on. Even at 50 women total, some of those will want a 2nd and maybe 3rd biological child. I think this is only a "problem" because no one looked at the math before, or rather no one brought it to public attention. Of course there will be a lot of women/couples choosing that good looking healthy donor, that's a given. So far I don't see it as a huge deal, because it HAS been brought to the attention of the public. Now women/couples can be informed about just how many half-siblings their children might expect. The standards might change.

 

[dragonfly411]

What if you turn it around a bit. Say there are limitations set at 3 women in each state in the US. That's 150 but spread out. Some of those women will want to have a 2nd biological sibling, so it's now 300 spread out. Three women per state seems like a small number. This is something that's hard to set random limitations on. Even at 50 women total, some of those will want a 2nd and maybe 3rd biological child. I think this is only a "problem" because no one looked at the math before, or rather no one brought it to public attention. Of course there will be a lot of women/couples choosing that good looking healthy donor, that's a given. So far I don't see it as a huge deal, because it HAS been brought to the attention of the public. Now women/couples can be informed about just how many half-siblings their children might expect. The standards might change.

I still don't think this is a safe approach. What happens when one of those children moves to another state and attends school with a half sibling and they get married and have children? What happens when that father's genetics get passed among generations, until he is in a wide percentage of the population? 6 degrees of separation might become way less? Sorry. 150 children from one father is not a natural thing among human beings as a species... and isn't meant to be. Most dogs don't have 150 children. Most cats don't. Heck most birds of any species don't. The idea is scary to me.

 

[MonkeyPie]

What if you turn it around a bit. Say there are limitations set at 3 women in each state in the US. That's 150 but spread out. Some of those women will want to have a 2nd biological sibling, so it's now 300 spread out. Three women per state seems like a small number. This is something that's hard to set random limitations on. Even at 50 women total, some of those will want a 2nd and maybe 3rd biological child. I think this is only a "problem" because no one looked at the math before, or rather no one brought it to public attention. Of course there will be a lot of women/couples choosing that good looking healthy donor, that's a given. So far I don't see it as a huge deal, because it HAS been brought to the attention of the public. Now women/couples can be informed about just how many half-siblings their children might expect. The standards might change.

If it worked this way, it would make more sense. However, the possibility of women being spread out over the US is unlikely. More probable is that all the sperm originated from one man, so the sperm originates from a single IVF/IUI facility in one city. So the odds of these kids meeting and not knowing they are technically related, is incredibly significant. Limitations need to be set in place.

 

[lyra]

My point was, now that this is known, it's at least up to the "consumer" to do their due diligence. It would also be helpful to put limitations in place I suppose. It's not great to have all those half-siblings in one place if no one is aware of the issue. I guess everyone is now aware of the problems inherent in using a sperm donor--you need to know how many women can receive donations from one guy. Although technically, one guy could easily impregnate hundreds of women naturally too, and that isn't regulated in any way.

 

[galeteia]

Actually, I always thought of "opposites attract" as nature's way of ensuring healthier offspring.

Actually, the opposite is true. While at university I had to do a paper on the Ptolemaic Greek dynasty, and therefore had to read a lot of articles on incest.

Essentially, if it wasn't for familiarity of being raised together to cancel it out (see: Westermarck Effect) people would be (and are) attracted to those who bear the same genetic traits as they do. This is well documented, if anyone cares to dig up the research- both examples of parents/children and siblings/siblings becoming sexually attracted if unaware of their family ties or if they did not have exposure to one another in their early, formative years.

Being raised together/exposure at a young age causes the aversion to form, and unfortunately it also affects those who are not blood related. I remember reading about a south asian group who had the practice of adopting very young girls (infants up to around age 5) to raise alongside their sons in order to groom the girls into what they wanted in a daughter-in-law. This this close proximity growing up instilled the same sexual aversion that most true siblings have, resulting in extremely low birthrates as the couples had the same level of aversion to sexual activity as a true sibling would.

When I say genetically similar, I am not talking "oh hey he has brown eyes and brown hair and I have brown eyes and brown hair- let's do it!!!" we're talking identical genes or parent/sibling. Anais Nin was famously attracted to her (absent) father when they finally met as adults. There are cases of siblings meeting unaware of their relation and falling in love.

It's extremely disturbing to imagine wanting to bone your brother/sister if you hadn't been raised together, but that's what the research supports. It also explains how it was possible to have such a bizarrely inbred dynasty like the Ptolemies (Cleopatra was the last) who continuously inbred for GENERATIONS, as the sexes were kept apart during the 'formative years' and thus did not have the aversion to sexual activity with their 'relatives'. **

So there you have it, folks!

** for those curious, they didn't inbreed out of attraction, it was for power consolidation and avoidance of distaff claimants to the throne, but they did not have the aversion to committing incest that modern minds would attribute.

 

[centralsquare]

Thanks, Galateia, very interesting!

 

[galeteia]

Thanks, Galateia, very interesting!

I'm pretty sure most of PS is going to run screaming out of Kenny's thread after that ... Glad you're made of sterner stuff!

I should have prefaced that post with this emotie:

 

[centralsquare]

Thanks, Galateia, very interesting!

I'm pretty sure most of PS is going to run screaming out of Kenny's thread after that ... Glad you're made of sterner stuff!

I should have prefaced that post with this emotie:

Or this one: