Need a baby? Free sperm donor here!
 

I will impregnate any woman who wants to be pregnant.
Even if I never get to see the child.

Do you think that sounds crazy?

I've often wondered if there are other men like me, who will do the same.
Or how many people are against such a thing?

Or if there are any women who would take a guy up on such an offer.

Discuss.

I had a lesbian friend once who asked me to provide her and her girlfriend sperm so they could make a baby...

It was something I had to think long and hard about. The issue, for me, wasn't "even if I never see the kid again". It was "if she comes at me for child support". I didn't want anything to do with the kid.

We thought about looking into contracts and stuff, but, in the end, I jerked off into a pill bottle, gave her the sperm, and informed her that any potential child would never be acknowledged as mine by me.

She never got pregnant.

Overall, I could have really gotten fucked in that whole ordeal had the turkey baster done its job properly, and, looking back, it was a horrendous idea.

To each their own, though...

I know a few women quite well who contemplated getting pregnant via a sperm donor. I've also been in a discussion group where it was discussed, mostly with a women who I don't really know. They all seemed very interested in the genes of the sperm donor and other personality traits that they imagined would have some impact on how the baby turns out. Free? I would charge...you get what you pay for.

I find the topic of the thread repulsive.

I agree with this part, BadNick. I personally would choose adoption. But if for some reason I wanted to impregnate myself without my husband's involvement (the idea is disgusting), I'd make sure that he sperm was from a bank with tight quality controls and superb records on each of the donors. You don't mess around when you're dealing with your future children, why in the world would you take a risk on any unknown?

Wouldn't getting an adopted kid be worse? At least the you-pushed-it-out kid is 50% you and thus at least 50% predictable.

You could adopt one of those homicidal Russian kids! (rimshot)

...

I also think think that while rich whitey might spend their money on genetic testing and family histories, the lower 50% of the gene pool is willing to settle for whatever spackle will line their insides with a human-shaped tumor. This explains North Carolina for the most part. The "But I Love Them!" factor also comes into play if your partner has some type of hereditary deal that will most likely be handed down to Junior. I mean, who cares if he's got three eyes if they're His Daddy's three eyes?

I, for one, am glad that upper class white people engage in pseudo-Eugenics. It means there are less of them.

The OP asks about my opinion on the matter. So I share it.

An intelligent woman puts significant thought into their mates. We only have so many opportunities for reproduction.

My choice in my husband isn't based on looks (though I do find him handsome). I know my husband's extended family and their medical history. I know his parents and siblings, and their medical history. I know that there are no instances of stroke, alzheimer's, or cancers other than skin cancer, and I'm willing to accept their tendency toward alcoholism along with their interest in pursuing higher education and wealth.

I wouldn't know this information about a sperm donor unless the sperm bank kept thorough records.

As for the portion of the population that you describe as interested in no more than a "spark": we evolved this sense for a reason. It's effective. We've also evolved reason. I personally tend to favor reason. Perhaps those who favor reason will reproduce less frequently, but their offspring are given greater opportunity for social success and power, even if they are not likely to experience greater reproductive and in that sense evolutionary success.

Ditto for me.

This is why most people who are serious about reproduction outside of just fucking go through professional channels, just making the case for the sperm bank look so much more appealing...... if necessary. I would think if a male were really interested in the procreation qualities of his genetic make-up he would want it done right, unless you were just looking to get laid.

---------- Post added at 10:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 AM ----------

Ditto, again, Thank you genuinegirly.

---------- Post added at 10:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 AM ----------

I think INTELLIGENT is a key word here.......

I think this thread might explain why I don't have any children yet, and why there's a good chance I never will.

As for the OP: Um, no. Would never do it. I'd sooner write sentence fragments.

You mean socially, not physically, right? Restraints on reproduction have to do with social norms and economic resources, not your body.

And I don't think intelligence has anything to do with it. I know plenty of people with college degrees who go "It just happened."

Not exactly.

A woman's body can only survive so many pregnancies. I'm just guessing here, but I'd say 30 would be the extreme maximum.

How does that compare with a man?

Awesome.

I'm going to start using this as part of my signature if one more person posts it as a preface to something that is already obviously their opinion.

"So many pregnancies," huh? Okay, so how many is enough? Two? Four? Did you say THIRTY? A Platoon for God's Army? And why do I keep seeing middle class people with minivans sporting 5 dorky cartoon stick figures on their rear window? This debate seems silly given how many women treat their vagina like a clown car (but still in the single digits). Quantity is not an issue. How many of us at TFP have brothers and sisters? Reproduction in "the usual numbers" of the nuclear family still seems quite common, although it is declining among whitey for the reasons discussed in previous posts.

Thanks to the miracle of modern science, a man can reproduce well into his zombie years... assuming anyone will have sex with him.

...

Back to the OP:

The only issue I'd have with being a donor is the legal/financial/emotional issues surrounding it. I wouldn't want the liability. None of it. Take your Yobaby and git. I wouldn't want the mother suddenly deciding that I need to play daddy either financially or emotionally. Assuming I did The White Thing and had the battery of tests and family history with 10 digit grid accuracy, I'd see no reason to not "lend a hand." Better my swagger than the next guy, right? I doubt I'll have kids in my lifetime, though; dogs are more rewarding.

...

Somebody explain to me how a screened, anonymous sperm donor isn't equally "disgusting" as letting a screened male associate knock you up.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it cheaper to "get it from the tap?"

I didn't know the decision to reproduce could be so rational and antiseptic.

I call - The OP asks about my opinion on the matter. So I share it. Let me know if you need me to point you to how to edit your sig, 9er.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of this thread either. Mr. OP, your opening posts borders between sounding like a loser desperate to get laid and someone so invested in Darwinistic theory that they'ver rejected social norms simply to spawn. That's what it seems like anyway.

I don't think that there are many men or women who would sign on to this idea unless they are truly desperate to have a child. They would have to be desperate to the point that they'll ignore all the potential pitfalls (which are many) for this scheme to have a child. If pushed, I would say there are less than 20 (combining the genders) worldwide. You're in an exclusive club, Mr. OP. Congratulations?

I really don't get why a man would be so desperate to father a child that he'd agree never to see it. If there's a pre-existing relationship between the two parents (which is definitely not presupposed in the OP), then it apparently ends at conception.

A woman is born with a finite number of eggs, we don't create eggs like men create sperm. If something happens to our eggs, they are ruined by radiation or poisoning, et. al. we are done with viable offspring. Genuinegirly is so very right about the ability for the female body to carry a certain number of births to not only fruition but for the female body to spring back in to place each time (especially as she ages) and do it again. Yes, there are many fortunate women out there who are physically able to have multiple births, but I promise you, their bodies take a punch for it each time and as they age the muscle stretching and eventual laxity catches up and can make older life really difficult.

Most women I know (outside of accidents) are very very particular about reproduction, we are still animals, basically interested in the survival of the fittest in the end, and the superiority of our species, if for no other reason than the simple good health of our offspring and providing the greatest benefit for their own lives. It is our nature to be attracted to healthy, intelligent, superior males, and to want to pass that DNA to our children, it is truly the first and most important gift.

Something doesn't add up here, Honesty.
This part of your blog states:

"let me also explain to you watchers of my blog why i sometimes say bitter things against older women.
it is because i have lost two children.

two different women, two separate PLANNED pregnancies that went horribly wrong.

so this explains my bitterness toward women, and my fondness for children."

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/blogs/h...#ixzz0orKafbbQ

I don't see how your OP aligns with the above statement.

I feel like we are being trolled. I hope I'm mistaken.

Once again, how many is enough? I'd say 2. Some might say more. Nobody would suggest thirty.

Okay, animals with reason. Why, as an individual, is "[our] DNA" the "first and most important" gift?

I know! I'm all giddy. And how is this a feeling? It's the real deal. Solid. The OP is on par with the villain in the Three Billy Goat's Gruff.

http://www.schoolaidscatalog.com/ima...0439912631.gif

Let's each pick a mask. Jazz can be the really old goat. He's earned it.

*touches nose while giving Baraka a thumbs up*

Hey! I'm eleven years older than Jazz & menopausal.

Crone power!

Only if you've squeezed out a squad-sized element.

My poems don't count?

:sad:

I think they do, Scout. :thumbsup:

I think if "men had babies" there would be a whole lot of different thinking in this thread..... or at least a lot more intelligent thinking. :p :D

Pfft. If "Men Had Babies." C'mon, lady, we couldn't get over having breasts.

p.s. Plan9 your green is showing and I don't hear no "neahing" from you, I'll take the other goat.

---------- Post added at 12:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 PM ----------

:lol: ROTFLLLLMAO That was good, Plan9, I needed that. :icare:

The idea of being pregnant used to give me terrors.

I asked my mother, "weren't you scared and freaked by the idea of something
growing inside you?"

She calmly responded. "That's what the hormones are for honey, they help
you to relax & just eat all the time."

My sister said being pregnant was like having, "cow brain."

I couldn't have children, which was a okay with me.

My sister used to say pregnancy was like entering a long narrow tunnel that you cannot back out of, all the time knowing, that to exit you must go through extreme and excruciating pain, she was never really fond of being pregnant.

Still too damn easy.

if i was th OP'er i'd be inclined to let it run down the shower drain

:lol:

I have seen people with more than 13 children at a time. All of them alive and well. Spawning living things is easy.

You wouldn't have such sense if you were the OP, and in a cyclic logic only fate could lead you from, you'd create this thread in a fit of hormone induced desperation.

To the OP,

Unless you are willing to donate to a sperm bank (which means you jerk off into a cup and get paid $50.00), you are financially responsible for that child until it reaches the age of majority. If you think you're just going to fuck some chick, get her pregnant and it's mission accomplished, I've got news for you. It doesn't work that way. Even if she says she wants nothing to do with you afterwards, even if she signs a contract that you are not on the hook - you are still on the hook.

All she has to do is change her mind. You cannot enter into a contract that is outside the confines of the law. If the law says that you are financially responsible for the child until it reaches the age of majority - then she can sign all the BS you put in front of her, it won't matter because it will be tossed out of court in about 2 seconds. A contract contrary to the law is not valid, regardless of whether or not both both parties agree to it- that's how it works.

I somehow doubt this is what you had in mind.

So I would suggest that you just rub one out and let it go down the drain as a previous poster so aptly put it.

I'm not a genius... who's a lawyer? We have prenups, but we don't have baby-mama-drama legalese yet?

I find this hard to swallow. We live in the most litigious country in the universe.

---------- Post added at 02:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 PM ----------

I dont think it is crazy, I am looking for a sperm doner in the Denver metro area for AI. I want to raise the child alone. I am in need of a healthy caucasian doner.

I would be flattered to be asked, but no.

Hi Honesty,I'm a American White Female 26,looking for a A.I. sperm donor R U availble
 

Hi Honesty. I'm a American White Female 26, looking for a A.I. sperm donor are you still available to donate? I will pay for 100% shipment of donation to me, I have a sperm kit to ship to you and I have a FedEx account so you can charge my account.
I anticipate your reply,
Thank you.

Sincerely,

Casey P

Casey, Honesty won't be back. He was banned for being a ...... well, it became clear that you don't ever want children around him. Consider this a bullet dodged.

Same here. Aside from already having an SO, I'd just be too scared of running into the little tyke randomly someplace and having a brain hemorrhage from seeing a smaller version of me running around.

Its rather old fashioned to be honest isnt it. Before or around the time I was born, if a man could not get his wife with child, sometimes a close friend would 'donate' one way or another. Of course, now it seems you can buy one if you want one.
What if your children - assuming you fathered more than one, met up and did the dirty? I am taking it you would not be wanting contact - but would you feel any need to step up if the childs mother died - say during child birth. Would you keep it or sell it op?
I know if I were looking for a dog, I would want one with a family history of good health and long life - why bring into this world something that will go blind early, or like the poor wee cavalier have a brain that is too big for its skull and headaches its life long, and if I wanted a ridgeback - I would avoid the lines with clear spina bifida - I would not want to be responsible for something coming into this world with a life of pain.
Having said that, do you think Prince William would not have prefered to miss out on the male pattern baldness? Of course, in that case it was the dam that was the donor/carrier.
What of the rights of your potential resultant living being. Do they have a right to know where they come from, their family history, their tree? I am sure thats something that adoptive parents consider and face.
Sometimes - you cant even give stuff away. There is usualy a reason