PDA

View Full Version : Mr Generous or All you need is sperm



natlee
23-07-2015, 11:39
:bowdown:

Kenzie Kilpatrick is a 26-year-old openly gay man from England with a burning desire to help women have a long-wished-for baby.

So after browsing Facebook and seeing ads posted by men offering to donate their sperm, the former caretaker decided to advertise his own services on Facebook, creating the page “Drama Free UK Sperm Donors.”

Potential moms immediately began contacting him. “I had interest from gay, straight, and single wannabe mums and dads,” Kilpatrick tells Yahoo Parenting.

Since the ad was posted in June 2014, Kilpatrick has helped 50 women. And his baby-daddy services have been fruitful. Six of the women have given birth to two girls and five boys (including a set of twins) in the last 10 weeks. Three more babies are due within a month.

In the age of assisted reproduction, it’s not the fact that he’s a sperm donor that’s so striking but the way he delivers his genetic material: in person. After trading messages with a woman via Facebook, they’ll meet at her home or a hotel room. He never asks for a fee for his sperm. “I only ask that travel and hotel costs be covered,” says Kilpatrick.

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/man-has-fathered-10-babies-with-9-women-thanks-to-124692805082.html

vossy7
23-07-2015, 11:49
:bowdown:

Kenzie Kilpatrick is a 26-year-old openly gay man from England with a burning desire to help women have a long-wished-for baby.

So after browsing Facebook and seeing ads posted by men offering to donate their sperm, the former caretaker decided to advertise his own services on Facebook, creating the page “Drama Free UK Sperm Donors.”

Potential moms immediately began contacting him. “I had interest from gay, straight, and single wannabe mums and dads,” Kilpatrick tells Yahoo Parenting.

Since the ad was posted in June 2014, Kilpatrick has helped 50 women. And his baby-daddy services have been fruitful. Six of the women have given birth to two girls and five boys (including a set of twins) in the last 10 weeks. Three more babies are due within a month.

In the age of assisted reproduction, it’s not the fact that he’s a sperm donor that’s so striking but the way he delivers his genetic material: in person. After trading messages with a woman via Facebook, they’ll meet at her home or a hotel room. He never asks for a fee for his sperm. “I only ask that travel and hotel costs be covered,” says Kilpatrick.

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/man-has-fathered-10-babies-with-9-women-thanks-to-124692805082.html

He looks a tad..polish :wazzup:

rusmeister
23-07-2015, 13:01
"Assisted reproduction" is part of how we cease to be human. It means ceasing to form families based on sacred vows and blood ties, to become something humanoid that is no longer human. It is part and parcel with "transgenderism", "gay marriage" and all of the rest. It is what CS Lewis called "The Abolition of Man".

It seems good at a very superficial glance - but it is not. It says that marriage is not necessary, a stable lifelong relation in which children can grow assured of both a father and a mother (not surprising - we made divorce easy and barely slap the hands of deadbeat dads). It says that any sexual relation is about the desires of adults, not the needs of children.

No, it is not good at all.

Uncle Wally
23-07-2015, 13:09
"Assisted reproduction" is part of how we cease to be human. It means ceasing to form families based on sacred vows and blood ties, to become something humanoid that is no longer human. It is part and parcel with "transgenderism", "gay marriage" and all of the rest. It is what CS Lewis called "The Abolition of Man".

It seems good at a very superficial glance - but it is not. It says that marriage is not necessary, a stable lifelong relation in which children can grow assured of both a father and a mother (not surprising - we made divorce easy and barely slap the hands of deadbeat dads). It says that any sexual relation is about the desires of adults, not the needs of children.

No, it is not good at all.



You rule out adoption too?

This is at least the mother's child. So if people get married and the man is unable to have children you're saying it's just her tuff luck and needs to stay with her husband and not have children?

Matt24
23-07-2015, 13:16
"Assisted reproduction" is part of how we cease to be human. It means ceasing to form families based on sacred vows and blood ties, to become something humanoid that is no longer human.



So...... the simple fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm does not immediately create a human? So a human is only created by the long term intention of the sexual partners to raise a child, is what you've written - QED abortion is not necessarily murder as murder is the (illegal) destruction of a human life, so accidental pregnancy terminated by abortion per your definition of what is required to create a 'humanoid human' is not murder, well done, a glimpse of sense and humanity from the most unexpected source. I apologize for bullying you, i think its kind of sweet that you feel the need to educate the grown ups from such a intellectually poverty stricken base, but every now and again a little nudge back toward the light does nobody any harm.

TolkoRaz
23-07-2015, 14:23
If we are to believe what we are told about genetics and gays being born gay, surely this method increases the chance of having a gay baby?

rusmeister
23-07-2015, 16:59
You rule out adoption too?

This is at least the mother's child. So if people get married and the man is unable to have children you're saying it's just her tuff luck and needs to stay with her husband and not have children?

Who "ruled out adoption"?
What do you think marriage is, Wally?
Judging by your response, you think it is pretty much what the Emperor Ming in the 1980 Flash Gordon film thought it was.
Is it a temporary arrangement until you get tired of someone, or until it becomes inconvenient to you? Is its main purpose the pleasuring of what adults want?

Do you even know what a promise is? How long should you keep a promise? Is it a contract? Three weeks? Should people even make promises? Who does a promise benefit? Can you name everyone it benefits, and who suffers when it is broken?

rusmeister
23-07-2015, 17:01
So...... the simple fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm does not immediately create a human? So a human is only created by the long term intention of the sexual partners to raise a child, is what you've written - QED abortion is not necessarily murder as murder is the (illegal) destruction of a human life, so accidental pregnancy terminated by abortion per your definition of what is required to create a 'humanoid human' is not murder, well done, a glimpse of sense and humanity from the most unexpected source. I apologize for bullying you, i think its kind of sweet that you feel the need to educate the grown ups from such a intellectually poverty stricken base, but every now and again a little nudge back toward the light does nobody any harm.

Hiya, Matt!
No, no, you are misreading me. And my context here is that being human means being more than a mindless animal. It means a creature that has existed for thousands of years, that stands out from all other creatures, that reasons, thinks about its existence, has foreknowledge of its own death and above all, a conscience. It is the conscience that we can truly lose, and become inhuman (there IS such an adjective as applied to humanoids last I checked).

So this is a second meaning of "human", not merely in a biological sense, but in the very sense that the Nazis became inhuman.

Does that clarify my meaning?
(It's better to ask before going off, as they say, half-cocked.)

Uncle Wally
23-07-2015, 17:10
Hiya, Matt!
No, no, you are misreading me. And my context here is that being human means being more than a mindless animal. It means a creature that has existed for thousands of years, that stands out from all other creatures, that reasons, thinks about its existence, has foreknowledge of its own death and above all, a conscience. It is the conscience that we can truly lose, and become inhuman (there IS such an adjective as applied to humanoids last I checked).

So this is a second meaning of "human", not merely in a biological sense, but in the very sense that the Nazis became inhuman.

Does that clarify my meaning?
(It's better to ask before going off, as they say, half-cocked.)


Animals are not mindless! They know they will die, they reason and some mate for life, unlike many humans. Like the ones who believe in eternal life in heaven.

rusmeister
23-07-2015, 17:44
Wally spoke anout "tuff luck": here is the alternative:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5YtyW1aXIY

TolkoRaz
23-07-2015, 18:27
Hiya, Matt!
No, no, you are misreading me. And my context here is that being human means being more than a mindless animal. It means a creature that has existed for thousands of years, that stands out from all other creatures, that reasons, thinks about its existence, has foreknowledge of its own death and above all, a conscience. It is the conscience that we can truly lose, and become inhuman (there IS such an adjective as applied to humanoids last I checked).

So this is a second meaning of "human", not merely in a biological sense, but in the very sense that the Nazis became inhuman.

Does that clarify my meaning?
(It's better to ask before going off, as they say, half-cocked.)

Half-cocked! :D

rusmeister
23-07-2015, 19:17
Half-cocked! :D

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/go_off_half-cocked

penka
23-07-2015, 21:21
My my... In good old days being married to a barren woman was a legit reason to divorce and remarry.

If the "assisted reproduction" is a sinful activity now, then the medical profession should really be outlawed! Wonder, what Chaplin says on that;)

rusmeister
23-07-2015, 21:32
My my... In good old days being married to a barren woman was a legit reason to divorce and remarry.

If the "assisted reproduction" is a sinful activity now, then the medical profession should really be outlawed! Wonder, what Chaplin says on that;)

There certainly may have been a time and place where that was true, but in Christendom, generally speaking, it wasn't. That Henry VIII had to break off the Church of England from Rome over the issue is tremendous evidence that that was the general case.

In short, ancient and traditional Christianity will join you in condemning such a reason to divorce as illegitimate.

penka
23-07-2015, 21:38
There certainly may have been a time and place where that was true, but in Christendom, generally speaking, it wasn't. That Henry VIII had to break off the Church of England from Rome over the issue is tremendous evidence that that was the general case.

In short, ancient and traditional Christianity will join you in condemning such a reason to divorce as illegitimate.

Is it a Christian activity to condemn?...

Luke 6:37; Math 7:1.

Uncle Wally
23-07-2015, 23:03
Is it a Christian activity to condemn?...

Luke 6:37; Math 7:1.



Well they're human and they reason.

Uncle Wally
23-07-2015, 23:08
Wally spoke anout "tuff luck": here is the alternative:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5YtyW1aXIY



No Rus that is not the "alternative" only to you that would be "true".


You know Rus you seem to always be trying to defend your "truths" but truth doesn't need defending, it's lies that need that need explaining.

rusmeister
23-07-2015, 23:30
No Rus that is not the "alternative" only to you that would be "true".


You know Rus you seem to always be trying to defend your "truths" but truth doesn't need defending, it's lies that need that need explaining.

Not at all true. People always attack the truth, because the truth is very often inconvenient.
It's easy to explain lies. People want to justify themselves, even when they know that what they want or defend is wrong.
And that's why they attack the truth. They have made it unbearable for themselves.

rusmeister
23-07-2015, 23:35
Is it a Christian activity to condemn?...

Luke 6:37; Math 7:1.

Yes, it is. You are, as always, confusing the idea of condemning actions with the judging of a person's standing before God. We are forbidden to usurp God's prerogative. But we are absolutely to condemn sin.
Gal. 5:19-21

You are, like many, misapplying the verse about judging.
If I even tried to run with your misconception, I would find myself forbidden to say that murder and rape are evil.

Uncle Wally
23-07-2015, 23:42
Not at all true. People always attack the truth, because the truth is very often inconvenient.
It's easy to explain lies. People want to justify themselves, even when they know that what they want or defend is wrong.
And that's why they attack the truth. They have made it unbearable for themselves.



The truth becomes self-evident Rus it's lies that need defending.

penka
24-07-2015, 00:00
Yes, it is. You are, as always, confusing the idea of condemning actions with the judging of a person's standing before God. We are forbidden to usurp God's prerogative. But we are absolutely to condemn sin.
Gal. 5:19-21

You are, like many, misapplying the verse about judging.
If I even tried to run with your misconception, I would find myself forbidden to say that murder and rape are evil.

Undoubtably, your peers were sending sinners to the stake, weeping for them!:)

You, like many, parrot other's misconceptions and mistaken those for your own thoughts.

rusmeister
24-07-2015, 07:02
Undoubtably, your peers were sending sinners to the stake, weeping for them!:)

You, like many, parrot other's misconceptions and mistaken those for your own thoughts.

Penka, you can refer to the Christian evils of four hundred years ago, and I will agree, both that they were evils, and that they were four hundred years ago.

You know very well that we say that we ourselves are sinners, and don't imagine ourselves as holier or better than you. I have certainly told you this often enough. Why you refuse to see that condemning evil is not the same thing as judging people before God is beyond me.

It is obvious, to me, anyway, that people are people - they are not their actions nor their ideas. They have the power to change both. It's called "changing your mind" or "changing your way of life". You seem unwilling or unable to grasp that.

And if I read something, and find it true, consciously agree with it, then obviously I am not "parroting". I think it true, and can rephrase it in my own words. But if someone else has said it better than me, why SHOULDN'T I quote him? Why should I pretend that I came up with the idea myself? For that matter, I think the people I quote didn't invent the ideas,meither. They discovered them, from others who went on before them. There is nothing new under the sun, and it is foolish to expect truth about human nature to be new and original.

rusmeister
24-07-2015, 07:11
The truth becomes self-evident Rus it's lies that need defending.

Yes, the truth does become self-evident. Eugenics was all the rage in the first third of the twentieth century. Everyone, scientists, men of letters, even masses of ordinary people believed it was the wave of the future, that science would lead us to a better life. Margaret Sanger plotted the elimination of minorities in America in her American Birth Control League, now Planned Parenthood, forced sterilizations to prevent the "unfit" from breeding were conducted in the US and Europe, men like Shaw and Wells imagined the blessings it would bring mankind.

Then Nazi Germany really began to implement eugenics. First things like Lebensborn, and finally the open extermination of the "unfit" (done legally!) and the "Final Solution" and the slaughter of the Jews, the Poles, and so many others. Yes, the truth finally became self-evident. But at what cost? Wouldn't it have been better to realize the truth BEFORE the lie was used to commit those evils? And since that's what lies lead to, why should we want to defend them, anyway?