Wednesday, May 1, 2013

" Natural Insemination"

You have to be awe of modern science. Today the London Daily Mail reports on the latest scientific discovery.

It’s called “natural insemination.”

Apparently, scientists have discovered, through painstaking research that natural insemination is more effective than artificial insemination. Who knew?

So, now there are websites for women who want to be inseminated but who have lost faith in the turkey baster. The best part is: it's free.

The Daily Mail reports:

Women desperate to become mothers are increasingly signing up for sperm donation websites where men are offering 'natural insemination' only.

Sites including,,, and advertise themselves as 'dating websites', forums aiming to link people wishing to conceive or 'co-parent' a child.

But while such donations are traditionally carried out artificially, a rising number of women are opting to do so naturally, by having sex with their donors, because it is believed to be more three times more effective than artificial insemination.

I am sure you are grateful to the paper for showing you where you can sign up.

While we are applauding the greatness of modern science, we are breathlessly awaiting its next giant leap: the discovery that “natural insemination” works best when it does not just produce a child, but also produces parents.


Lastango said...

I strongly recommend that men avoid donating sperm, by any method.

IMO, we are going to see what might be referred to as Cyprus-style fatherhood. On Cyprus, the state stole money from bank depositors to perpetuate the state's ability to borrow and spend. This allows the state and the governing class to keep power by remaining the arbiter of who gets money, and how.

States are under increasing financial pressure, and socialist governments have become hard-wired to vote-farming by supporting single motherhood. I think the day is coming where sperm banks and other agencies involved in the artificial insemination chain turn over their data to government departments for the purpose of establishing legal paternity and initiating wealth transfer (in the form of child support) directly from the donors to the mothers.

IMO there's an new source of pressure coming, in the form of effective birth control for men. If large numbers of men start taking these pills, paternity claims will drop. In order to perpetuate to wealth transfer to the young-female voting bloc, it will be necessary to go after other men to take money away from them. The sperm donors are the natural target for this. Before, the young women deliberately or accidently got pregnant, tapped the man for 18 years of child support payments (on top of state entitlements), and sent him packing. She checked the "motherhood" box, and he picked up the tab. In the future, if her boyfriend is on birth control, she will go to the sperm bank, get pregnant, and the state will ensure the donor picks up the tab.

So, my advice is: don't donate. If you to, one day soon an increasingly broke government will find you and loot you.

Sam L. said...

No good here; any man who does will be on the hook of child support for 18-21 years.

Heartily concur with Lastango.

Anonymous said...

The child support issue does get interesting in the case of sperm donors. If you spend tons of money to go through a doctor, the faher is off the hook, but if he does it the good old fashion way, he can be legally responsible for the child.

Not very consistent, but if we ALLOWED men to get off the hook by a signed agreement with the mother, then every unplanned pregnancy from uncommitted father could be freed from legal responsibility.

My personal idea is that the father should NOT be off the hook (sperm donor or direct approach) unless someone else agrees to adopt the child. That might slow down the sperm banks business model, and women's freedom to be a single parent.

A U.S. man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple after answering an online ad is fighting efforts by Kansas state authorities to suddenly force him to pay child support for the now 3-year-old girl, arguing that he and the women signed an agreement waiving all of his parental rights.

The case hinges on the fact that no doctors were used for the artificial insemination. The state argues that because William Marotta didn't work through a clinic or doctor, as required by state law, he can be held responsible for about $6,000 that the child's biological mother received through public assistance — as well as future child support.

Under a 1994 Kansas law, a sperm donor isn't considered the father only when a donor provides sperm to a licensed physician for artificial insemination of a woman who isn't the donor's wife.

Anonymous said...

This is an outstanding post, Stuart. I can sleep now knowing that good old-fashioned penetration and copulation is not only scientifically recommended, but also back in vogue for aspiring single mothers with no desire to pickup any "attachments" (read: fathers) in the process. Ahh... progress! I'm sure the "natural offspring" will love being fatherless.

Laughed out loud while reading this. Thank you. Who knew that wedding tackle could work so well? And now you don't even need to worry about the wedding!