Post: #1

http://www.news.com.au/technology/scienc...7311651590

...the sperm of a mentally ill criminal!

Quote:HE WAS good on paper: Eloquent, mature, healthy and smart to boot.

That’s why Angela Collins and Margaret Elizabeth Hanson say they chose Donor 9623 to be the biological father of their child.

Then last June, almost seven years after Collins gave birth to a son conceived with his sperm, they got a batch of emails from the sperm bank that unexpectedly — and perhaps mistakenly — included the donor’s name. That set them on a sleuthing mission that quickly revealed he is schizophrenic, dropped out of college and had been arrested for burglary, they said in a lawsuit filed March 31 in Atlanta.

On top of that, the photo of him they’d seen when deciding on a donor had been altered to remove a large mole on his cheek, the suit says.

Collins and Hanson said the Atlanta sperm bank promoted the donor’s sperm, saying it came from a man with an IQ of 160, an undergraduate degree in neuroscience and a master’s degree in artificial intelligence, who was pursuing a Ph.D. in neuroscience engineering. He was eloquent, “mature beyond his years” and had “an impressive health history,” sperm bank staff told them, according to the lawsuit.

Post: #2

They're definitely right to sue them on this one! But always remember that at the end of the day, the corporation simply doesn't give a damn about you! It's all about the $$$. I wouldn't trust any corporation with such a decision since the chances of getting caught are so slim and the benefits huge. No way!

Post: #3

Donor 9623 ...so romantic

Post: #4

I love these kind of stories. There have been I think several cases of the doctors in charge of sperm banks simply using their own sperm to father anywhere from 50 to 500 kids of their own.

Post: #5

160 IQ

OK.

Post: #6

(04-20-2015 12:26 AM)Tytalus Wrote:  I love these kind of stories. There have been I think several cases of the doctors in charge of sperm banks simply using their own sperm to father anywhere from 50 to 500 kids of their own.

Ha! Reminds me of an episode of 'Reaper', a narcissistic soul runs a sperm bank only to spread his glorious beautiful genes.

Post: #7

(04-20-2015 02:10 AM)spokepoker Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 12:26 AM)Tytalus Wrote:  I love these kind of stories. There have been I think several cases of the doctors in charge of sperm banks simply using their own sperm to father anywhere from 50 to 500 kids of their own.

Ha! Reminds me of an episode of 'Reaper', a narcissistic soul runs a sperm bank only to spread his glorious beautiful genes.

it's also an episode of law&order where the doctor running the sperm bank gives the girls his own sperm, promising the girls it was from a doctor with a medical degree. he didn't lie. heh.

Post: #8

While I don't necessarily approve of lesbian couples and them raising a child, that's just my personal opinion. They can and should have the legal right to do so. Government becomes tyranny when you allow people to impose their personal feelings on others by force. So, just because they are lesbians buying some sperm, doesn't mean they are any less deserving of protection than any other citizen engaged in a lawful transaction.
This is an egregious case of fraud. They should be fully compensated, get punitive damages, and whoever was responsible should face some moderate amount of prison time followed by probation.
The real loser here is the kid. Can you imagine getting on the internet at age ten and finding a bunch of articles about your moms and how they got involved in a famous lawsuit because the dude that donated your sperm turned out to be a mentally deranged criminal?

Post: #9

Hahahaha. I too love these types of stories. Then I think about it and it makes me rage a bit. Why do two lesbians have the 'right' to reproduce? Sure, we have the technology but that doesn't mean we should necessarily use it. We also have the ability to split an atom and turn cities into glass.

Part of me, to be honest, is angry about sperm donation simply due to the fact that I am shorter than the requirement that all banks have for donors. I have a high IQ and am good looking and am the only person in my family that doesn't wear glasses. I also am a natural artist but also have a high scientific capability due to both of my parents being physicists. I also have a pretty big dick . But cause I am not 6' tall my sperm isn't good enough?

That aside....

(04-20-2015 04:40 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  While I don't necessarily approve of lesbian couples and them raising a child, that's just my personal opinion. They can and should have the legal right to do so. Government becomes tyranny when you allow people to impose their personal feelings on others by force. So, just because they are lesbians buying some sperm, doesn't mean they are any less deserving of protection than any other citizen engaged in a lawful transaction.

I don't know if I buy into this. We aren't talking about buying a car with the mileage turned back with a old engine refurbished and sold as new.

What we are doing with sperm donation, especially, and other reproductive technologies is actively changing our biological and genetic environment. Sure, we aren't doing it in the same way as in the movie Gattaca but we are still creating designer babies and engaging in a form of eugenics and genocide.

What is even scarier to me than simply genetically engineering a fetus, again like in Gattaca, is that with what we are doing there are very few controls and we don't know what the long term consequences will be.

For example, there have been a lot of cases where a small number of sperm donors had their sperm sold beyond the companies 10-15 family maximum. These guys ended up fathering, in some cases, more than a hundred children. Now, that might not be that big of a deal if they were spread out across the globe but in these cases the children were not only all in the same state but were within the same part of the state. In some cases you had step sibling going to the same schools. Where this becomes a problem is in the fact that we evolved to be attracted to people who share similar or the same genes with us. We actually produce hormonal responses to our siblings and relatives that we live with that causes us to be grossed out by the idea of mating with them. The thing is that you have to know them and grow up with them. Take away that control and incest becomes much more likely. This is why girls and guys are often attracted to long term mates that signals traits in common with their opposite sex parent. Girls go after guys due to various reasons related to their fathers and the inverse is true of men. All this is of course to varying degrees.

Now, from what I understand if some step sibling did create a child it is unlikely to have any harmful effects in the singular case here or there but what are the effects when you have a large population and the same thing happening for many generations? All you need to do to find that out is to look at some of the diseases that were known as royal diseases due to royalty marrying cousins with cousins.

Even without the birth defects and propagations of diseases throughout populations, there is still other things to worry about. One would be the psychological trauma of creating a situation and the innocent people that get caught up in it simply due to some single mother or lesbian couple wanting a status baby or a careerist woman wanting an accessory baby.

Second, another thing is the loss of genetic diversity which has always been one of the greatest strengths that allowed our species to survive. Even if we don't lose that genetic diversity, I don't see how weakening it is beneficial to protecting against diseases or any other threat.

All of this is without even bringing up IVF and other techniques where we are just now starting to understand some of the hidden mechanisms that nature has in place to help along the fertilization of an egg. I really don't think a doctor sorting out some sperm into pipettes is comparable to the natural method. Or to put it another way, there is a reason that IVF has such high incidences of birth defects like downs syndrome and autism compared to the populace.

As far as legal reason ago, again there is just something completely different when we are talking about society as a whole and balancing individual legal rights with reproduction. If I fraudulently rip you off on some consumer goods then that has a much smaller impact on the social compact, societal trust, and the continuation of our nation/race/ethnicity/whatever than some lesbians desire to parade a sperm bank baby around at their GLAAD meetings and liberal brunches to show how they are "totes just like normal people who want to live normal lives with their soul mate" or whatever.

Post: #10

(04-20-2015 08:31 AM)Troll King Wrote:  Hahahaha. I too love these types of stories. Then I think about it and it makes me rage a bit. Why do two lesbians have the 'right' to reproduce? Sure, we have the technology but that doesn't mean we should necessarily use it. We also have the ability to split an atom and turn cities into glass.

Part of me, to be honest, is angry about sperm donation simply due to the fact that I am shorter than the requirement that all banks have for donors. I have a high IQ and am good looking and am the only person in my family that doesn't wear glasses. I also am a natural artist but also have a high scientific capability due to both of my parents being physicists. I also have a pretty big dick . But cause I am not 6' tall my sperm isn't good enough?

That aside....

(04-20-2015 04:40 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  While I don't necessarily approve of lesbian couples and them raising a child, that's just my personal opinion. They can and should have the legal right to do so. Government becomes tyranny when you allow people to impose their personal feelings on others by force. So, just because they are lesbians buying some sperm, doesn't mean they are any less deserving of protection than any other citizen engaged in a lawful transaction.

I don't know if I buy into this. We aren't talking about buying a car with the mileage turned back with a old engine refurbished and sold as new.

What we are doing with sperm donation, especially, and other reproductive technologies is actively changing our biological and genetic environment. Sure, we aren't doing it in the same way as in the movie Gattaca but we are still creating designer babies and engaging in a form of eugenics and genocide.

What is even scarier to me than simply genetically engineering a fetus, again like in Gattaca, is that with what we are doing there are very few controls and we don't know what the long term consequences will be.

For example, there have been a lot of cases where a small number of sperm donors had their sperm sold beyond the companies 10-15 family maximum. These guys ended up fathering, in some cases, more than a hundred children. Now, that might not be that big of a deal if they were spread out across the globe but in these cases the children were not only all in the same state but were within the same part of the state. In some cases you had step sibling going to the same schools. Where this becomes a problem is in the fact that we evolved to be attracted to people who share similar or the same genes with us. We actually produce hormonal responses to our siblings and relatives that we live with that causes us to be grossed out by the idea of mating with them. The thing is that you have to know them and grow up with them. Take away that control and incest becomes much more likely. This is why girls and guys are often attracted to long term mates that signals traits in common with their opposite sex parent. Girls go after guys due to various reasons related to their fathers and the inverse is true of men. All this is of course to varying degrees.

Now, from what I understand if some step sibling did create a child it is unlikely to have any harmful effects in the singular case here or there but what are the effects when you have a large population and the same thing happening for many generations? All you need to do to find that out is to look at some of the diseases that were known as royal diseases due to royalty marrying cousins with cousins.

Even without the birth defects and propagations of diseases throughout populations, there is still other things to worry about. One would be the psychological trauma of creating a situation and the innocent people that get caught up in it simply due to some single mother or lesbian couple wanting a status baby or a careerist woman wanting an accessory baby.

Second, another thing is the loss of genetic diversity which has always been one of the greatest strengths that allowed our species to survive. Even if we don't lose that genetic diversity, I don't see how weakening it is beneficial to protecting against diseases or any other threat.

All of this is without even bringing up IVF and other techniques where we are just now starting to understand some of the hidden mechanisms that nature has in place to help along the fertilization of an egg. I really don't think a doctor sorting out some sperm into pipettes is comparable to the natural method. Or to put it another way, there is a reason that IVF has such high incidences of birth defects like downs syndrome and autism compared to the populace.

As far as legal reason ago, again there is just something completely different when we are talking about society as a whole and balancing individual legal rights with reproduction. If I fraudulently rip you off on some consumer goods then that has a much smaller impact on the social compact, societal trust, and the continuation of our nation/race/ethnicity/whatever than some lesbians desire to parade a sperm bank baby around at their GLAAD meetings and liberal brunches to show how they are "totes just like normal people who want to live normal lives with their soul mate" or whatever.

If there was an epidemic of inbreeding due to sperm donation, and areas of the country experienced Ozarks like conditions, then I might agree that the greater societal interest might be justified in taking away people's freedom to reproduce in the way they wanted to.
But as far as I am aware, the cases where an individual donor fathers dozens or hundreds of babies are exceptional and sensational, and not indicative of any sort of trend.
It is not the role of government to create or foster what you or someone else might perceive as an ideal society.
The role of government is to guarantee your freedom to do whatever you want, provided that your exercise of that freedom does not impinge on the ability of others to enjoy their own freedom.
Otherwise, you have a slippery slope, where the government keeps giving itself new powers, and has an ever greater role in molding society by force. Now, that sounds great if you or someone you happen to agree with is in power. You can impose your will on everyone else and create your brave new world. Except, it becomes pretty damn horrible when someone you don't agree with, or someone with malevolent intentions assumes power.
So, let the lesbians do what they want. They leave me alone, I leave them alone. As long as they aren't breaking any laws, and as long as they aren't interfering with my life, what business is it of mine?

Also, about birth defects. I don't think that IVF and frozen sperm have massive risks of increased birth defects. Some slight or moderate increase, yes. But I don't think we know exactly. Much bigger risk factors for birth defects are age, environmental pollution, and drug/alcohol consumption.
But we don't prevent males or females that are not 18-35 from bearing or fathering children, and people in polluted areas still breed, and people who drink/smoke as well. If preventing birth defects is a new standard to be imposed by your Ministry of Reproduction, what would the rules look like and how would they be enforced?

Post: #11

Lesbians deserve to get trolled like this. That's what they get for defying the great order of the cock(The Patriarchy).

Post: #12

The choices couples (regardless of sex) make when it comes to sperm donors utterly destroys any pretensions people put on in public and puts lie to the notion of equality. Really, a neurosurgeon? Why didn't you pick the 5'7" sanitation worker? I mean, we are all equal and have the same potential, right?

It all comes down to having skin in the game. If people advocate for something whose potential negative effects they are unlikely to experience, then watch out. This is the explanation for a lot of human behavior and modern policy.

Post: #13

Quote:If there was an epidemic of inbreeding due to sperm donation, and areas of the country experienced Ozarks like conditions, then I might agree that the greater societal interest might be justified in taking away people's freedom to reproduce in the way they wanted to.
But as far as I am aware, the cases where an individual donor fathers dozens or hundreds of babies are exceptional and sensational, and not indicative of any sort of trend.
It is not the role of government to create or foster what you or someone else might perceive as an ideal society.
The role of government is to guarantee your freedom to do whatever you want, provided that your exercise of that freedom does not impinge on the ability of others to enjoy their own freedom.
Otherwise, you have a slippery slope, where the government keeps giving itself new powers, and has an ever greater role in molding society by force. Now, that sounds great if you or someone you happen to agree with is in power. You can impose your will on everyone else and create your brave new world. Except, it becomes pretty damn horrible when someone you don't agree with, or someone with malevolent intentions assumes power.
So, let the lesbians do what they want. They leave me alone, I leave them alone. As long as they aren't breaking any laws, and as long as they aren't interfering with my life, what business is it of mine?

Also, about birth defects. I don't think that IVF and frozen sperm have massive risks of increased birth defects. Some slight or moderate increase, yes. But I don't think we know exactly. Much bigger risk factors for birth defects are age, environmental pollution, and drug/alcohol consumption.
But we don't prevent males or females that are not 18-35 from bearing or fathering children, and people in polluted areas still breed, and people who drink/smoke as well. If preventing birth defects is a new standard to be imposed by your Ministry of Reproduction, what would the rules look like and how would they be enforced?

You know, I largely agree with you. I don't want the government interfering with my life or some sort of ministry of reproduction type of Brave New World or 1984 or whatever.

However, there still seems to be a big difference between reproductive technologies in a individualist socio-political philosophy and other types of technology. Which is why I compared fraud of buying a new car and getting a lemon to what happened to these people.

For one, with reproduction you don't get a guaranteed end result. Two, even if you could get it I am not sure it would be completely free of any ethical constraints. Now, this gets into a lot of bio-ethics and I enjoy these types of discussions since I majored in Philosophy my first time around but I can't say that I am completely on board with this or that I have my mind made up.

I will give you an example that is a bit different but I think highlights where some of the ethical concerns reside for me.

In one of my first ethics classes we dealt with a case of two deaf lesbians. They wanted a child. However, they were part of the deaf sub-community that refuses to see deafness as a disability and instead see it as a benefit similar in some ways to ethnicity.

So, this meant that they wanted their child to be deaf. They set out to find a deaf sperm donor with the correct type of genetic defects that it would 100% guarantee that their child was born deaf. They got pregnant, gave birth, and the child was indeed deaf.

If I remember correctly they got investigated by the state and there was some lawsuit and I think they actually won due to arguments about "my body, my choice" but it has been a number of years and the point is that while they didn't use a sperm bank they still manipulated the reproductive situation in a way to have a biological result that will pass on for future generations to varying degrees.

Now, you said this:

Quote:The role of government is to guarantee your freedom to do whatever you want, provided that your exercise of that freedom does not impinge on the ability of others to enjoy their own freedom.

Can you and I agree that a deaf child will require greater communal resources than a regular child born from non-reproductive technologies?

What happens if this becomes a larger phenomenon in the deaf, or insert any other type of group, community?

What if instead of having one deaf child, they decided to be the next octomom?

Can we really make the claim that the government does not have a responsibility in these cases to society and even more the continuation of a productive society? (Note: I am not saying deaf people can't be productive, I am just asking questions to try to widdle down a conclusion from the example I shared)

I think the government does have some responsibility, just as citizens do, in these areas.

One example I would use to back up my claim that the government has a responsibility to the collective - (Note: I tend to be a hardcore individualist on most social and political philosophies, but I can be a bit of a hypocrite sometimes in that I think there needs to be some measure of communitarianism in certain areas but I am amendable to changing my mind and I do so often) - would be immunization and the need for herd immunity.

Now, I don't want this to get derailed into a vaccine/anti-vaccine debate but there are, at minimum, several vaccines that need to be given at some point to children (I think we can all agree on that even if you do think there might be some risks) to keep up herd immunity.

If we go with a strict individualist ethical and moral stance on the former issues then I would think you would have to concede that stance on the latter issues.

I hope that makes sense. I am not trying to start any shit or anything.

And again, I do generally agree with your stance but there is still something about all of these reproductive technologies, especially sperm donors for lesbian couples, that makes my skin crawl a bit and I try to trust my instinct, or at least figure it out, with respect to moral dilemmas.

Also, I hope I explained my position and thoughts clearly enough because I have been up all night and will probably pass out in a few minutes.

Post: #14

So lesbians are angry they accidentally got the same quality sperm a lot of single mothers voluntarily get.

Modern society has become such a mess of dysfunction it's hard to know who is right or wrong anymore. The lesbians look like elitist Nazis, but in comparison to the lets-breed-with-criminals crowd, they seem pretty reasonable.

Post: #15

^^^^
To add to VVV's response:

Also, as far as IVF and other ReproTechnologies go, what I was musing about is the following.

To elucidate a bit. From what I understand there are significantly more children born with disorders to people who use Reproduction Technologies of any kind.

Of course age is a big factor. From what I understand it is actually the age of the egg at the time of extraction that is the biggest difference but I also wonder about other unseen natural machinations that occur that are not taken into consideration in a lab or even approximated to any degree.

An example would be an article I came across awhile back. I found it on some feminist website and it had the usual, "see how much better science is when we view it from a feminine perspective instead of the phallocentric patriarchal perspective" vibe to it.

Specifically, it was about how, in feminist terms, some scientists discovered envelopement of sperm instead of phallocentric piercing of sperm.

Basically, after eye-rolling at the feminist bullshit and reading the study myself, researchers had long wondered how specifically a sperm, out of hundreds or thousands, manages to break through the cell wall and implant into the egg.

Researchers have long known about different types of sperm. Some don't appear to do much at all and look to be worthless but they found that those types actually change the characteristics of the vagina in specific ways that are thought to be helpful to other sperm. Then you have what are called Kamikaze sperm that attack rival sperm left deposited in the vagina to help their side achieve victory . There may be dozens of other types of sperm that we haven't even found yet.

Now, what was interesting about this study was that the researchers found that each egg had slightly different chemicals in the cell walls. These chemicals were receptive only to other specific chemicals. It was found that the reason certain sperm could ram against the wall without success while other sperm were able to pierce the wall with relative ease was due to the victory sperm having chemicals that matched up in some way to the chemicals in the cell wall.

Or to put it another way think about the lock/key analogy we talk about in the sphere. A lock that is capable of being opened by any key is a shitty lock. A key that can open any lock is a master key. The same analogy applies here. The reason that sperm, or sometimes multiple ones, got inside the egg is because it had the right properties to unlock the cell wall. Scientists find out about stuff like this all the time.

Now, let's think about this with respect to IVF and other reproductive technologies. To my knowledge they do not do anything even approximating this in a lab. What the lab techs do is take a harvested egg, I don't think they even test them for any qualities generally but I might be wrong about that, and then they take a sperm and they pierce the egg with a needle containing the sperm and then implant the fertilized egg back into the carrier which is usually the woman who had her eggs frozen. This bypasses a number of known, and who knows how many unknown, natural processes.

I wonder if this is why there are so many more birth defects for people who use that tech. Even if there aren't any noticeable defects in the child that doesn't mean that defects couldn't crop up several generations down the line and by that time they can rapidly multiply throughout a population.

Again though, I am not sure where I fall on some of this. On one hand reproductive technologies are a fairly amazing thing but on the other it creeps me out and scares me a bit, especially with respect to how cavalierly we are going about it.

Post: #16

^^^^^
In about three seconds, I found two links linking in-vitro fertilization (the way sperm donors and pregnancy happen) with disabilities. I'm sure there are more.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/07/03...tardation/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/0...5320130702

And yet no one has yet thought to speak of the psychological trauma kids suffer knowing they came from a test tube. A lot of them are trying to get the donor records opened so they can find out who their dads are. There are blogs devoted to this. The best one was "Confessions of a Cryokid," but it looks like it hasn't been updated since 2012. Wonder what happened to the girl whose blog it was?

http://cryokidconfessions.blogspot.com/

Post: #17

(04-20-2015 10:34 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  ^^^^^
In about three seconds, I found two links linking in-vitro fertilization (the way sperm donors and pregnancy happen) with disabilities. I'm sure there are more.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/07/03...tardation/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/0...5320130702

And yet no one has yet thought to speak of the psychological trauma kids suffer knowing they came from a test tube. A lot of them are trying to get the donor records opened so they can find out who their dads are. There are blogs devoted to this. The best one was "Confessions of a Cryokid," but it looks like it hasn't been updated since 2012. Wonder what happened to the girl whose blog it was?

http://cryokidconfessions.blogspot.com/

Thanks for that. I skimmed through the first link but not the others. I will do that later. According to the first link there looks to be a slight difference but not a overly huge one due to the fact that there aren't that many children born with this tech. It is still large, and could change the populace to some degree but is, from my current thinking, probably somewhat small in the grand order of things.

I hope that makes sense. I have been up all night and when I signed off to go to bed my buddy decided to call me and invite me to get drunk. He is an asshole. He said there would be a couple of girls but he didn't tell me how ugly they were. I did NOT bang. I DID get drunk as shit and am currently finishing, or starting, a bit of a bender....In my defense, classes ended yesterday and I have two weeks before finishing my last two classes and graduating in June...so, to Tinder I go.

I have been thinking about this, and talking about it some but those bitches are dumb as a door nob, and I think I have some good arguments for and against it all. I need to finish my 12 pak and eat and I will post my thoughts later.

I think it mainly comes down to a cross between the following:

Individualism without government regulation or interference on issues of reproduction and family formation.

V.

Government having the right, or responsibility and obligations, to regulate and manage the rights of individuals and their reproductive rights and duties to their offspring and the society itself with respect to future generations and their welfare.

I am a hardcore Individualist on most issues but we have to recognize that the government, or some collective body representing us as people, already does, whether you agree with it or not, regulate many things for the welfare of certain groups. A group could be defined in such simple terms as a child, or it could be defined in larger and more abstract terms such as a class of people.

I really think this is where I have my internal conflict. If you all are interesting we can talk later. I now have a conflict of sleep v. beer acquisition. There might be a big titted chubby girl who gives great head involved. Wish me luck.

Post: #18

Funnily, the kid will probably grow up to have a better sex life having this father than the 'right one'.

Post: #19

I'm against artificial insemination. Save a kid from the foster home system if you weren't meant to have kids. Plenty of orphans to go around.

These dykes wanted to play God with this eugenics shit and got bit. Fuck em.

Post: #20

A coworker of mine Was Born of donor sperm. Good guy but u don't know why you would tell anyone

Post: #21

(04-20-2015 10:11 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  So lesbians are angry they accidentally got the same quality sperm a lot of single mothers voluntarily get.

Modern society has become such a mess of dysfunction it's hard to know who is right or wrong anymore. The lesbians look like elitist Nazis, but in comparison to the lets-breed-with-criminals crowd, they seem pretty reasonable.

It's funny that you mention quality. They still want those quality male traits just not the men attached to them.

Reminds me of an old joke. What's the difference between a pussy and a cunt? A pussy is warm wet and inviting and a cunt is the thing that owns it

Same concept.

Post: #22

Here's a picture of Donor 9623:

Post: #23

I don't know whether this is a good argument, or a bad argument that I enjoy because I like trolling people a little too much.

But you can tell lesbians that, because homosexuality is not a choice (a.k.a. mostly genetic in nature), then lesbians exist because other lesbians had sex with men in order to get pregnant. Then you can overstate the amount of cases like the OP mentioned, and suggest, "Why don't lesbians just have sex with donor men, who relinquish all rights for paternal custody and child support?"

When the lesbian objects, you reply, "Guess you love your children so little that you're not willing to sacrifice a couple of sexual encounters with men to better serve your children."

Post: #24

I don't find this funny at all. Sorta fucked up

Post: #25

Lesbianism isn't natural anyways...there is a reason a penis and vagina was made...to work with each other and reproduce.