Man Who Donated Sperm To Lesbian Couple

[Ian]

Oh please

The shocked smiley is at your attitude and no we wont ever agree

My anger was the fact you made the hole process sound unnatural because the couple were gay and it isnt.

 

For someone who says she didn't understand the argument neither shock or your subsequent attempt at a patronising reply seem appropriate

 

Whether you agree with me or like the fact or not the inescapable fact is nevertheless that if these three had not created this situation then there would be no press or tv articles, no thread and apparent difficulty arising from the story for you. The number of people seeing this thread will of course be considerably less than those seeing GMTV or the papers, the majority of people expressing an opinion have not shared my view hence my belief that any difficulty or frustrations you say that you may experience are not likely to be caused by this thread seem quite reasonable / probable to me.

 

If you read the thread again you will find that I do not say it's "unnatural because the couple were gay" (implying prejudice) I said it is an unnatural process because it is a fact that it's not a natural process - hence the term artifical insemination, regardless of the participants sexuality.

[GSDFan]

Well the first human artifical insemination was achieved by a Scottish surgeon, DR John Hunter approximately a century earlier (articles quote 1770's to 1785 dependant upon which you wish to believe). The second, which did happen in 1884 took place at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, USA so I'm not sure on what basis you place your doubts.

 

 

Quotes from articles :

 

HUMAN ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION

 

John Hunter, the son of an East Kilbride farmer found, like so many Scots, fame and fortune south of the Border. He joined his elder brother, William, in London in 1748 and between them the pair revolutionised surgery.

 

Among John Hunter’s many achievements was the first experiment in tissue grafting, when he successfully grafted, of all things, a human tooth on to a c***’s comb. He also made the first attempt at artificial insemination in the 1770s when he suggested to a patient who suffered from hypospadias - a defect of the p**** - that he should collect his sperm and inject it into his wife using a warm syringe. The attempt was successful and a child was born later that year. Further advances in fertility treatment of course simply maximised the opportunity for mishaps: it remained a simple, functional matter in the 18th century. That is, as they say, progress.

 

 

Dr. Pancoast, a professor at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, had already examined and tested her numerous times. Finally, he discovered that she was fertile and that the problem was her husband¹s;; There were no sperm. Pancoast (or maybe it was one of his students) had an idea. He called her in. He just wanted to examine her once more, he told her.

 

The woman lay on the table as she had been told to do. Pancoast¹s six medical students-all young men- stood around her body. Pancoast anesthetized the woman with chloroform. He took the receptacle into which one of his students had masturbated. With a hard rubber syringe, he inserted the student¹s semen into her uterus. He then plugged her cervix with gauze.

 

When she awoke, he did not tell her what he had done. He never told her. Nine months later, she bore a son. It was 1884. This was the first reported human artificial insemination with donor semen. It was a rape.

 

 

Neither of those suggest to me huge amounts of scientific research. John Hunter 'suggested' and Dr Pancoast ( or one of his students ) had an idea They both seem to work on the principle of stuffing semen up as far as possible and hoping it works. One would hope that these days Dr Pancoast would actually be struck off.

 

The reason I quoted 1884 as being the first succesful Artificial Insemination was that Dr Pancoast did actually test the husband for sperm or lack thereof. Dr Hunter is not recorded as doing so, therefore we actually have no way of knowing whether the AI was successful or whether the woman was in fact impregnated by her husband. Hypospadias does not necessarily mean that the man will be unable to have normal sexual intercourse or unable to impregnate a woman.

[Happylittlegreensquirrel]

am going to lock this over night

 

 

Sam

[tigga]

For someone who says she didn't understand the argument neither shock or your subsequent attempt at a patronising reply seem appropriate

 

The bit i quoted i understood perfectly thank you and yes it did deserve a patronising reply as you are just presuming from not knowing me from adam what i am thinking.

This will now be the last reply from me in this thread as im feeling you are getting quite personal to me and im not comfortable with that.

I shared my story as a person on the other side of the coin obviously you havent liked that.

[Trallwm farm]

On a plus side as they used a Turkey baster I expect Christmas will be special to them all.

 

 

At the end of the day you should never extend your hand further than you can withdraw it. This man ignored not only this advice but also other variations of it.

None of them considered the legal or moral implications further than buying the first baby grows and cooing at the offspring.

If they had then they would have organised legal liability for the sake of the child.

This has nothing to do with sexual orientation and everything to do with stupid people syndrome.

 

Hopefully they will never approach me for a horse or dog.

[snow]

Thank you for participating in this thread - it is however now time to wish it byesie bye and send it off to thread heaven