Skip to comments.'I'm the daddy... to SEVENTY children!' The moment sperm donor confessed to his stunned fiancée
Posted on 09/30/2011 1:35:15 PM PDT by ReformationFan
A lawyer who donated sperm to pay his way through college has learned that he has fathered an astonishing 70 children.
More than 15 of those have already attempted to contact 33-year-old Ben Seisler.
The donor confessed to his fiancée as part of a new reality show, Sperm Donor, that aired on the Style Network on Tuesday.
Seisler donated sperm for three years while attending law school at George Mason, Virginia. He earned around $150 per donation.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The first thing to determine, is whether we agree on one big point: that if a "medical" intervention preserves/restores our person-ness, our human-ness, this is good; but if a "medical" intervention destroys / impairs/ redefines our humanness, this is not-good.
And this is a judgment to be made carefuly, based on the widest and deepest human experience, not solely on your or my instant sense of "cool" or "not cool."
So: your thoughts, in principle, about restoring humanity vs replacing/ redefining humanity? Do you agree, at least, that there could be a difference, and an important one?
Example: the difference between treating a brain aneurysm by removing and replacing a faulty section of cerebral artery, vs. treating a difficult personality by removing your brain. An extreme analogy... but it illustrates the sifference between healing /restoring, VERSUS fundamentally re-visioning, what is MOST personal to us.
"And getting an artificial leg doesnt restore the legs function but replaces it in a why that does not restore the bodys wholeness [?]"
In this case, the purpose of even an artificial leg is to restore personal mobility in an integral, personal manner. If the function of an injured leg can't be restored, the replacementof an artificial knee joint, or even the use of an artificial leg, would be very reasonable as it does not interfere with the meaning of a leg per se.
However, if a person wanted to replace their legs with a half a dozen gas-powered piston-driven mechanical legs on wheels, it would surely enhance their mobility, but not their human-ness per se. It would be absurd for that person to then enter a competitive marathon race, because that's one instance in which having one's real legs means something. Going faster than all the other runners on his six-legged gas-powered wheels, would fundamentally alter and degrade the meaning of "being a runner" or "winning the race" or even having much fellowship with other athletes, who are still recognizably human in their capacities.
(Got that?) =:oO Just trying to show how just achieving some wanted function, does not necessarily enhance your humanness --and may even detract from it.
"Still not getting you...I just dont see how the only humanizing way to conceive is by bumping uglies."
It depends on what species we're talking about. There's no way to "humanize" apes, for instance, by insisting that they pledge love, loyalty and unity of life, before they mate and breed. They have no transcendant "meaning" in ape mating, and thus would not be "demeaned" even by artificial reproduction.
(If scientists want to propagate rare apes by artificial insemination or even laboratory cloning, the apes would not be "depersonalized". They are not personal to begin with.)
However, our species is made up of "persons". Persons discern deep and intrinsic meanings from their sexual union. The outlines of this meaning have been understood by every human culture, on every continent, in every stage of human history. We admire and consider our best models, those whose sexual relations are full of meaning, and when that meaning comprises some degree of sacredness. We do not admire those who copulate like dumb beasts, without mindfulness and without honor.
"I dont see why out of all of those, reproduction is somehow different."
It is different because human procreatiuon is more than animal reproduction. It procreates rational beings who have very deep and wide capacities for meaning. Of all human functions, the experience of embodied interpersonal union touches transcendance even on a natural level. It binds hearts and minds as well as bodies, gives rise to families, extended kinship, tribes, nations and civilizations, linking the two sexual genders and the 10,000 generations, and even providing a brush with Divine love and grace.
This is the only fitting way to bring into existence something so valuable and dignified as human life. Only sacred fertile union is a sufficiently dignified act to beget embodied-spiritual persons.
(As opposed to breeding apes or manufacturing machines, which is how your produce specimens, livestock, experimental subjects, commodities, products, or property.)
That is why every religion, from the most rudimentary to the most elaborated, recognizes and concerns itself with the meaning of marriage. Even atheists find themselves wanting the signs and ceremonies that say "our love is precious, our love makes life." Even gays, with their dead-end sex, still long for some fragment of meaning, want some parody of marriage.
There are people who lack even this level of meaning, who think sex is nothing more than bumping uglies. But even that proves the point: they are already substantially dehumanized. They have fallen far.
The first thing to determine, is whether we agree on one big point: that if a “medical” intervention preserves/restores our person-ness, our human-ness, this is good; but if a “medical” intervention destroys / impairs/ redefines our humanness, this is not-good.
Nope. I base my morality on the rights of the individual. It is not immoral for me to take any action thats doesnt violate the individual rights of any other human being. I can defend such a position very easily and with pretty damn good logic. On the other hand, you would have to define this humanness thing and why its so important to keep the same.
But really thats beside the point. Your mechanical legs point doesnt really apply since there is no enhancement per se going on. While Im perfectly willing to defend genetic and/or biomechanical enhancement, its simply not taking place here. This isnt even in vitro fertilization whats happening in the body is all natural.
I think the problem is that youre trying to apply a moral judgment on the process rather than the result. At a minimum this process involves three consenting adults (mother, doctor, donor) voluntarily engaging in a minor medical procedure. I dont see a presumption of any violated rights of the resulting child so I just dont see any immorality here.
And keep in mind that that the way you outlined it, its somehow more moral for a woman to go out and get a one night stand with a total stranger then to use AI, Im at a loss there.
If anyone cannot differentiate between the miracle of human life at conception and repairing a severed limb - I can’t help them;)
That IS what I'm doing. But it's not a problem. Processes are means. Ends are results. Both means and ends have to be moral for an act to be moral.
Otherwise you could not criticize any crime (means) as immoral as long as the intended ultimate result was good. And every offender thinks he had a good enough reason, had a good enough end in mind, to do what he or she did.
The "right of the individual" are a good thing, but they are not the only good thing. It's like saying blue is the only color. Other virtues are needed for human flourishing; and among the most important virtues are those which uphold the sanctity of sex, marriage, and family, which are the natural sources of all human flourishing.
BTW, if ---as I would argue--- means and ends must both be blameless for an action to be blameless, then a woman having a one-night stand with a stranger in order to get pregnant, would not be acting blamelessly. This is either fornication or adultery, and both of these undermine the integrity in the person, and disrespect the sanctity of marriage.
But wouldn't she be blameless according to your philosophy?Whose individual right did she violate?
Yet I would not call her blameless, because of her lack of a due integrity and a due respect.