1. Home
  2. Chat
  3. Sperm Donations from Dead Men Should Be Allowed, Study Says

Sperm Donations from Dead Men Should Be Allowed, Study Says

In the News

Sperm donations taken from men after they have died should be allowed, a study says.

The analysis, which is published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, claims that opt-in post-death donations could be a "morally permissible" way of increasing the stocks available.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51174638

Well, what do you think?

tumblespots
1 month ago
What do you think of this?
MeestairChrees
MeestairChrees1 month ago

Aren't they anonymous anyway? So why not? They were never going to meet their offspring anyway...

Like
Reply
1
tumblespots
tumblespots
Original Poster
1 month ago

Mr Tumblespots would do his nut if he thought they were going to harvest his sperm after he died and so would I on his behalf. It's stealing. 🐞

Like
Reply
MeestairChrees
MeestairChrees1 month ago

tumblespots I misread. I thought it meant from people who had already donated. Yeah, agreed now I'm actually paying attention.

Like
Reply
1
MichelleKe42857
MichelleKe428571 month ago

I read a story a while back where a couple were trying for a baby but he sadly died in an accident. She used his sperm and had his baby, she has more frozen so she's planning another. I can see why she would want to do that and it's a massive comfort to her and his family.

Like
Reply
1
tumblespots
tumblespots
Original Poster
1 month ago

If that's the one I think it is then that was really great for the wife. But that's completely different as they were married it isn't by anonymous an donor who had no choice in the donation. 🐞

Like
Reply
MichelleKe42857
MichelleKe428571 month ago

tumblespots sorry i went off track from what your were saying. Taking sperm from dead men is creepy. The man may agree to be a donor when alive, died and become a donor which would be devastating for the rest of the family knowing there's a child of his out there.

Like
Reply
1
tumblespots
tumblespots
Original Poster
1 month ago

MichelleKe42857 Don't worry, you aren't the only! I think it is because it is such an odd thing to do or to want to do. Someone else said, as you have, about the remaining family potentially having calls on their 'estate'. It would be a minefield and is unworthy of whoever suggested it in the first place. Whoever it was hasn't thought this through. 🐞

Like
Reply
BonzoBanana
BonzoBanana1 month ago

I think because of the complicated law situation of being a sperm donor its probably wiser to not donate sperm at any time. The law can be quite a blunt instrument and to them a father is a father whatever the circumstances so if you create a child through being a sperm donor it could lead to legal problems to the surviving members of your family who may face a financial claim on their estate from this child.

Add to that overpopulation is causing huge problems in the world, to the environment etc we should not be trying to maintain birth rates but decreasing them with incentives to keep to no more than one child. I think I remember reading a sensible population for the UK was something like 20-30 million but we are at least double that and lifespans are increasing. Ideally we need to increase the retirement age and move to a gradual reduction in working hours not abrupt retirement as a solution to an ageing population but instead we operate like some pyramid scheme where we need to have a huge influx of young people to help pay for costs of the older people in retirement which is unsustainable.

One of the most obvious issues and cause of global warming is overpopulation and the huge resources such a population needs if we are to tackle global warming we must be realistic about the birth rate especially here in the UK.

Like
Reply
3
garygemmell
garygemmell1 month ago

Not many people i meet agree with what i have been saying for years - glad to see someone else can see the trees for the wood or the wood for the trees!

None of the climate change hippies want to talk about the real reasons behind global warming and the disasters that will be coming, they just want to stick it to Trump and the big companies but refuse to see that overpopulation in Africa, China and India is the real problem - have you seen the number of cars in India,China now or the amount of pollution they produce and they will never mitigate it so they are not even mentioned by naieve little Greta Thunberg!

Did you see the Chris Packham documentary - spot on and rather scary!

Like
Reply
2
tumblespots
tumblespots
Original Poster
1 month ago

I fully agree with a substantial decrease in population because I really don't see the planet surviving if this doesn't happen. Incentives to have less children would be a start. The Governments of the world are not addressing this problem at all, as far as I can see it is never even discussed even though it is far more important than most other issues. 🐞

Like
Reply
2
garygemmell
garygemmell1 month ago

Did no one watch the documentary Chris Packham 7.7 billion and counting - we need to decrease population not increase it - its the reason for climate disaster - too many humans not enough resources - this is not going to help the situation!

I suggest you watch it - very good documentary and spot on what i have been saying for years - climate change if it exists is not being helped by population explosion something the climate activists like Greta Thunberg seem to be missing!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000dl6q

Like
Reply
2
tumblespots
tumblespots
Original Poster
1 month ago

Well said (I put more above) but you are so right that countries in other parts of the world are never mentioned with cutting pollution is discussed and as I said I can't remember overpopulation ever being discussed. Wood & trees - a great analogy. 🐞

Like
Reply
3
PhilipMarc
PhilipMarc1 month ago

In Africa, women have plenty of kids and they can't even feed them. Arab and Gypsy women also give birth to a lot of kids, not necessarily because they want them, but they get welfare support.

Europeans are globally a minority and so are the Japanese, and Native Indians.

So, just saying "stop having children" doesn't help since it targets everyone and especially those who genuinely want to have kids rather than for profit reasons.

The govts tend to not say a word when it comes to African, Arab or/and Gypsy women (and men, too). Why? They get accused of racism. It now happens so often that it's hard to believe them, they're like the "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

Like
Reply
1
garygemmell
garygemmell1 month ago

Rockman I agree 101%

Like
Reply
KirsteyJames
KirsteyJames1 month ago

Its a tricky one? Maybe it would be ok for men that have already consented πŸ€·πŸ½β€β™€οΈ I suppose if they wanted to donate then they could have when they were alive. I cant imagine they would get many agreeing to give up their sperm when they died if they didnt when they were alive. It could cause a lot of problems for families.

Sperm donations through a clinic dont come with the legal risks of financial problems for a man as they wouldnt be seen as the childs father, its private donations that come with that risk. If someone has intercourse with a donor to conceive then they are seen as the childs father, if you use artificial insemination donor sperm and are not married (to someone else) then the donor could claim to be the father or you could claim he is and apply for maintenence. If your in a civil partnership/marriage and use donor sperm then they are not and cannot be classed as the childs father.

I dont think sperm donations/banks are really causing overpopulation to the world. It costs a lot of money to conceive a child this way and can be the only way same sex/infertile couples can have a child. Its not something that should be stopped because of overpopulation. What they should do is stop women that continue to have children that end up in care.

My wife and I are in a same sex marriage and were only able to have our daughter because of sperm donation. Both of our names are on her birth certificate, she is just ours 😍

Like
Reply
1
tumblespots
tumblespots
Original Poster
1 month ago

I do agree that people should be stopped when they have children and those children are placed into 'care' then they have more children and the cycles goes on in perpetuity. I still can't agree with harvesting dead men's sperm. 🐞

Like
Reply
davidstockport
davidstockport1 month ago

"Since 2005, the law says that sperm donors in the UK must agree that any children born from their donations can contact them when they turn 18".

I wonder if they'll organise sΓ©ances and provide a suitable medium.

Image

Like
Reply
1
tumblespots
tumblespots
Original Poster
1 month ago

πŸ˜‚ πŸ˜‚ πŸ˜‚ 🐞

Like
Reply
PhilipMarc
PhilipMarc1 month ago

"Dad, I've never seen you before.. but, where's my money???"

πŸ˜†

Like
Reply
1
PhilipMarc
PhilipMarc1 month ago

Donate? The dead won't say a thing.

Like
Reply
1
tumblespots
tumblespots
Original Poster
1 month ago

You can't volunteer after you are dead, or perhaps they will change the law to enforce it?! 🐞

Like
Reply
davidstockport
davidstockport1 month ago

tumblespots Yep... but they can volunteer before they die (for after they've died)☺

Like
Reply
1
tumblespots
tumblespots
Original Poster
1 month ago

davidstockport Are people likely to do that? Surely they would just donate whilst they were alive? 🐞

Like
Reply
davidstockport
davidstockport1 month ago

tumblespots Well theoretically, in some way, they would volunteer before they died (by not opting out).

It could never be made compulsory as a man might object to the chance of his children (conceived when he was alive) perhaps, unknowingly, becoming involved with what could be a "half sibling".

That is not as unlikely as it might sound there have been many instances of siblings and half siblings, not knowing they were related, becoming very attracted to each other, from the moment they met.

It is labelled "Genetic Sexual Attraction".

Like
Reply
1
tumblespots
tumblespots
Original Poster
1 month ago

davidstockport That doesn't surprise me as I believe that many people are attracted to people who look like they do but this new proposal is a minefield and could be an inheritance nightmare in the future. 🐞

Like
Reply
chelseaturpin
chelseaturpin1 month ago

If its something theyve agreed to do before passing then yes but not then no they shouldnt be doing it.

Like
Reply
1
tumblespots
tumblespots
Original Poster
1 month ago

I don't think the article mentioned getting prior permission which is inherently wrong on so many levels. 🐞

Like
Reply
chelseaturpin
chelseaturpin1 month ago

tumblespots i know it didnt mentioned it. Its my personal opinion if a man knows hes gunna be passing shortly he should be given the opportunity to give consent to what they are gunna take out of his body afterwards. If they pass suddenly then no they shouldnt touch the body to take anyhing from it. Someone i know passed 7 years ago and they were taking out all his organs without his families consent as he passed suddenly, the family didnt even know they had taken from his body until after he was buried which is competly wrong.

Like
Reply
1
tumblespots
tumblespots
Original Poster
1 month ago

chelseaturpin I'm with you there. Take nothing without consent, if you do it's legalised theft! 🐞

Like
Reply
1
ShellyAnn
ShellyAnn1 month ago

why does this sound creepy to me? I'm picturing thriller and lots of zombie men having their juice extracted on the morgue table. Gross. There's enough sperm around in live men without needing dead men's sperm too.😣

Like
Reply
1
One of the UK's largest deal hunting communities

Join for free to get genuine deals, money saving advice and help from our friendly community

Kelsey, Tom
& Deepak
Founders
Founders of Latest Deals