11 May 2012
Sperm banks often present their business as noble dedication to the cause of reproductive fertility; the idea is that a woman whose mate is unable to father offspring can avail herself of donated sperm to produce a child who is half theirs, which, as the theory goes, is better than having none. There are, however, several moral problems with this.
God did not intend that the means of sexual reproduction should become items of commerce, or that women should bear children that are begotten by men other than their husbands.
Masturbation is almost certainly necessary to make a donation, since it's hard (if amusing) to imagine someone interrupting sexual intercourse to fill a vial or some other such receptacle. Moreover, in degenerate modern civilization, which has removed the stigma from unwed motherhood, many a woman undoubtedly makes use of such facilities to try to conceive the child of her dreams (see the next paragraph) without having to marry anyone. We don't need sperm banks to advance the cause of sexual immorality; we have public schools and mass media.
A recent news item, concerning the fact that a sperm bank in Denmark will accept no further contributions from redheads, demonstrates that use of such institutions can be a form of genetic engineering. Donors to the California Cryobank [sic] have to meet such requirements as being above average height and be either holding or working toward a bachelor's (or higher) degree; potential stud bulls must also answer questions about their hair color, eye color, ethnic origin, &c.
Finally, why resort to such a process when there are so many children awaiting adoption? A couple may consider it a misfortune that they cannot reproduce without outside help, but they can change their misfortune into good fortune for an orphan, by giving him a loving home.