White mother sues sperm bank for reparations for her black child

[Tender Branson]

The best thing would probably be to sue the crap out of the sperm bank, then move out from the hickish, racist small-town to another city and keep the story out of the small girl's later life and raise her like any other kid. When she's old enough tell her some story that someone put the small baby onto the doorstep of the couple and they raised her (or something along those lines).

[Deus Naturae]

The best thing would probably be to sue the crap out of the sperm bank, then move out from the hickish, racist small-town to another city and keep the story out of the small girl's later life and raise her like any other kid. When she's old enough tell her some story that someone put the small baby onto the doorstep of the couple and they raised her (or something along those lines).

Or they could just tell her she was from a sperm bank, but leave out the part where they got the wrong order. The child is the biological offspring of one of the partners, so it's silly to lie to her about how she was abandoned by her real parents.

[DrScholl]

She's correct.

I would also be severely pissed if I got a black child, when my partner and I in fact wanted a white one.

That's like going to the tech store to buy a MacBook and the salesperson brings a Sony VAIO.

Of course there are some people out who actually badly wanted to buy the MacBook and taking the Sony VAIO with them "because they don't mind".

...

Nonetheless, because the small black child is a human being and not a PC, I wouldn't treat it any other than if the sperm bank worked correctly and a white kid was born.

Still, the sperm bank made an error and needs to pay for it.

You seriously are comparing this to buying computers? That's silly. And if somebody wants a child, it really shouldn't matter what color the child is, a child is a child.

No it's not.

And that's not the point here. The point is that the sperm bank made the silly mistake. Of course, the girl should be raised no different than the planned white girl - but the mistake makes it very complicated.

And besides, you seem to be one of these people who would take the Sony VAIO home, instead of the product you actually wanted all the time ...

I'm pretty sure a child is a human regardless of race, that was my point. The sperm bank made a mistake, that much is clear, but even with a settlement, these parents have to accept the child and move forward. Children don't come from stores, you can't exchange them or get a refund.

[Franzl]

She's correct.

I would also be severely pissed if I got a black child, when my partner and I in fact wanted a white one.

That's like going to the tech store to buy a MacBook and the salesperson brings a Sony VAIO.

Of course there are some people out who actually badly wanted to buy the MacBook and taking the Sony VAIO with them "because they don't mind".

...

Nonetheless, because the small black child is a human being and not a PC, I wouldn't treat it any other than if the sperm bank worked correctly and a white kid was born.

Still, the sperm bank made an error and needs to pay for it.

You seriously are comparing this to buying computers? That's silly. And if somebody wants a child, it really shouldn't matter what color the child is, a child is a child.

No it's not.

And that's not the point here. The point is that the sperm bank made the silly mistake. Of course, the girl should be raised no different than the planned white girl - but the mistake makes it very complicated.

And besides, you seem to be one of these people who would take the Sony VAIO home, instead of the product you actually wanted all the time ...

I'm pretty sure a child is a human regardless of race, that was my point. The sperm bank made a mistake, that much is clear, but even with a settlement, these parents have to accept the child and move forward. Children don't come from stores, you can't exchange them or get a refund.

Not sure why you're making that point when Tender said exactly the same thing.

[Tender Branson]

She's correct.

I would also be severely pissed if I got a black child, when my partner and I in fact wanted a white one.

That's like going to the tech store to buy a MacBook and the salesperson brings a Sony VAIO.

Of course there are some people out who actually badly wanted to buy the MacBook and taking the Sony VAIO with them "because they don't mind".

...

Nonetheless, because the small black child is a human being and not a PC, I wouldn't treat it any other than if the sperm bank worked correctly and a white kid was born.

Still, the sperm bank made an error and needs to pay for it.

You seriously are comparing this to buying computers? That's silly. And if somebody wants a child, it really shouldn't matter what color the child is, a child is a child.

No it's not.

And that's not the point here. The point is that the sperm bank made the silly mistake. Of course, the girl should be raised no different than the planned white girl - but the mistake makes it very complicated.

And besides, you seem to be one of these people who would take the Sony VAIO home, instead of the product you actually wanted all the time ...

I'm pretty sure a child is a human regardless of race, that was my point. The sperm bank made a mistake, that much is clear, but even with a settlement, these parents have to accept the child and move forward. Children don't come from stores, you can't exchange them or get a refund.

Yepp, of course they should accept her like any other child (and probably will).

It's only that they live in a hickish/racist small-town which makes things complicated.

That wouldn't have happened with the white kid and now they have to figure things out.

The sperm bank completely altered 3 people's lives.

[SteveRogers]

Given that I highly doubt that this anywhere near deliberate, this mother has no case.

If this was deliberate, or any kind of practical joke on the other hand....

That just very simply is not how lawsuits work.

How is it even legal to ask for sperm from a particular racial group? That's clearly discrimination.

Um, discrimination in the literal sense of the word, but there's no constitutional issue here. A sperm bank is a private company, but more importantly, a mother as a private individual has the basically absolute right to discriminate with regard to whose DNA ends up in their uterus.

This woman has a very strong case. Anyone who doubts that simply doesn't understand the law. If the sperm bank was negligent in giving her sperm from the wrong donor, and there's really no other way this could have happened, then she's entitled to some form of damages. Now whether she's entitled to all of the compensation she seeks is a matter for a jury. She may, for example, not ultimately get much in the way of her claimed damages for having to go to the black barber shop, etc.

I think a lot of people here are being overly harsh on the mother for emphasizing the race factor. For the ordinary, non-racist person, carrying a child for nine months and then giving birth to a child of a different race than expected would be an extremely traumatic experience. It doesn't mean she doesn't love the child or that she won't be a good mother. But it does probably mean she's legally entitled to some emotional damages. It needs to be pointed out that she'd probably have a strong case even if the sperm bank had just gave her sperm from a different white donor than the one she requested. That would still implicate all the same breach of contract/ breach of warranty claims, just maybe not the emotional damages.

And one more thing: she's obviously seeking "damages", not "reparations."

[AggregateDemand]

Eugenics is no laughing matter. If the court has any common sense, this case will be dismissed, citing lack of responsibility by sperm banks to catalog and sell gametes. Then the legislature will use the commerce clause to prohibit the catalog and sale of genetic material for reproductive purposes.

The risk-reward of this sort of vain manipulation of reproductive science is not in the best interest of our species or our nation.

[SteveRogers]

If the court has any common sense, this case will be dismissed, citing lack of responsibility by sperm banks to catalog and sell gametes.

That doesn't make any sense.

[AggregateDemand]

If the court has any common sense, this case will be dismissed, citing lack of responsibility by sperm banks to catalog and sell gametes.

That doesn't make any sense.

Burden of proof is on the plaintiff. What legal duty does a sperm bank owe to the clients, beyond delivering human sperm? The sperm donor is not under any obligation to provide DNA to the court for testing. The integrity of the product is unenforceable; therefore, I'd argue that the sperm bank has no legal duty to deliver anything other than viable human sperm.

[MaxQue]

How is it even legal to ask for sperm from a particular racial group? That's clearly discrimination.

You know, it works with huge catalogs with long list of characteristics about the donor.

Per se, the legal issue isn't than the kid is black. It's than she picked someone in the catalogue and got the sperm from someone else (the kid being black is clear proof they did an error).

[MaxQue]

If the court has any common sense, this case will be dismissed, citing lack of responsibility by sperm banks to catalog and sell gametes.

That doesn't make any sense.

Burden of proof is on the plaintiff. What legal duty does a sperm bank owe to the clients, beyond delivering human sperm? The sperm donor is not under any obligation to provide DNA to the court for testing. The integrity of the product is unenforceable; therefore, I'd argue that the sperm bank has no legal duty to deliver anything other than viable human sperm.

It would depend on the contract (if they deliver sperm or "sperm from the chosen entry of the catalogue"). Non-criminal lawsuits aren't based on "beyond reasonable doubt", but on "preponderance of the proof" and the kid being black gives an huge preponderance to the plaintiff.

[SteveRogers]

If the court has any common sense, this case will be dismissed, citing lack of responsibility by sperm banks to catalog and sell gametes.

That doesn't make any sense.

Burden of proof is on the plaintiff. What legal duty does a sperm bank owe to the clients, beyond delivering human sperm? The sperm donor is not under any obligation to provide DNA to the court for testing. The integrity of the product is unenforceable; therefore, I'd argue that the sperm bank has no legal duty to deliver anything other than viable human sperm.

What legal duty does FedEx owe to a customer, beyond delivering, like, a box of some sort?

I don't know the details of whatever contract a customer usually signs with a sperm bank, but I'm fairly certain it contains specifications about which sperm is being bought. The sperm bank has a legal duty to provide the requested sperm because that's what they contracted to do. Their whole business is cataloging and selling gametes. If the mother paid for sperm from a white donor but got sperm from a black donor, then the sperm bank delivered non-conforming goods and someone somewhere in the process was very, very negligent. This gives rise to a number of fairly standard legal claims. Yes, the plaintiff has to prove the elements of their claim, and that will include introducing evidence that the agreement was for specimen X, but plaintiff got specimen Y. That's not likely to be difficult in this situation. 

[AggregateDemand]

It would depend on the contract (if they deliver sperm or "sperm from the chosen entry of the catalogue"). Non-criminal lawsuits aren't based on "beyond reasonable doubt", but on "preponderance of the proof" and the kid being black gives an huge preponderance to the plaintiff.

It does depend on the contract, but I can't think of a way to prove breach.

What evidence is the plaintiff going to rely on? Highly subjective, non-scientific observations made by the jury about the race of the donor, the mother, and the child? or are we going to bust out the calipers and color-swatches and play uber-mensch like its 1933?

While it may seem obvious that the plaintiff received the wrong sperm, I don't see any way to prove it or to provide objective evidence. I can't see any remedy, either, or any damages.

[Bacon King]

It would depend on the contract (if they deliver sperm or "sperm from the chosen entry of the catalogue"). Non-criminal lawsuits aren't based on "beyond reasonable doubt", but on "preponderance of the proof" and the kid being black gives an huge preponderance to the plaintiff.

It does depend on the contract, but I can't think of a way to prove breach.

What evidence is the plaintiff going to rely on? Highly subjective, non-scientific observations made by the jury about the race of the donor, the mother, and the child? or are we going to bust out the calipers and color-swatches and play uber-mensch like its 1933?

While it may seem obvious that the plaintiff received the wrong sperm, I don't see any way to prove it or to provide objective evidence. I can't see any remedy, either, or any damages.

Well there's the fact that the sperm bank has basically admitted guilt and stated what happened

c'mon it's like you guys are discussing an article without even reading it or something

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[AggregateDemand]

What legal duty does FedEx owe to a customer, beyond delivering, like, a box of some sort?

Does the recipient get to sue FedEx, if they deliver the wrong package? You need a better hypothetical.

[AggregateDemand]

Well there's the fact that the sperm bank has basically admitted guilt and stated what happened

c'mon it's like you guys are discussing an article without even reading it or something

Why would you expect anything different? If the sperm bank defended their mistake in court, and got a legal ruling absolving them from responsibility, the sperm bank business would go out of business.

Naturally, the sperm bank wants to settle ASAP, without any more bad press, and I want the plaintiff to lose in court.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

She's correct.

I would also be severely pissed if I got a black child, when my partner and I in fact wanted a white one.

That's like going to the tech store to buy a MacBook and the salesperson brings a Sony VAIO.

Of course there are some people out who actually badly wanted to buy the MacBook and taking the Sony VAIO with them "because they don't mind".

...

Nonetheless, because the small black child is a human being and not a PC, I wouldn't treat it any other than if the sperm bank worked correctly and a white kid was born.

Still, the sperm bank made an error and needs to pay for it.

You seriously are comparing this to buying computers? That's silly. And if somebody wants a child, it really shouldn't matter what color the child is, a child is a child.

And yet the assumption behind these sperm banks is that it is something like buying a computer and you buy a certain model.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Isn't this all just one big example of why any concept of human beings being different races is very, very bad?

[Vega]

I feel bad for little girl who will surely read about this when she get's older.

[SteveRogers]

What legal duty does FedEx owe to a customer, beyond delivering, like, a box of some sort?

Does the recipient get to sue FedEx, if they deliver the wrong package? You need a better hypothetical.

Someone does. I might be the sender or it might be the recipient depending on the circumstances, but FedEx undertakes a duty to someone to deliver something from point A to point B, and if they don't do so, then there's been a breach of contract, and someone gets to sue.

But I guess the more appropriate metaphor is one that cuts out the middleman. If you order a tv online from Best Buy's website, and you pay for that TV, and they deliver you a printer or a cell phone or a barrel of apples instead, there has been a breach. How is this different?

And you seem to be conflating two unrelated questions again:
1. Did the sperm bank have a duty to deliver the requested sperm?
2. If so, can the plaintiff prove in court that that duty was breached?

Why would you expect anything different? If the sperm bank defended their mistake in court, and got a legal ruling absolving them from responsibility, the sperm bank business would go out of business.

 

Lol what?

[angus]

Isn't this all just one big example of why any concept of human beings being different races is very, very bad?

Sure, categorization by race generally causes more problems than it solves, but this thread isn't really about that particular phenomenon.  

To me, this is a "shit hits the fan" sort of story, potentially.  And not the kind of shitstains you get when you eat grilled meat and then take a big dump in your fist and throw it at a fan.  This is as if you had menudo and three day old pico de gallo for breakfast, thai food for lunch, and vietnamese food, not quite thoroughly cooked, for dinner, and then you had a bad stomach ache, then shat in a big bowl, and then threw that brown liquid a the fan.

I'm speaking metaphorically, of course, and moreover I don't know if anything will come of this, but it seems like the sort of affair that might just set same-sex adoption back a decade.  Sure, the problem isn't all this bigoted woman's fault.  It is partly--indeed maybe mostly--the fault of the idiots who confused 330 with 380.  I do think that it is reasonable to expect a white child if you look at photos of a million donors and pick the one with blue eyes, yellow hair, and pale pink skin.  If and when someone confuses Kunta Kinte for Jans Jansen you probably have a right to become lurched.  Now, as a parent I'd expect that the mother--and as I understand it she is the biological mother--to love her child no matter the shade of her daughter's eyes or hair or skin color, but as a consumer I think she has a reasonable expectation of fulfillment of contract.  (Of course, there are no guarantees, because we don't understand genetic science as much as we allow ourselves to think we do, which is a good thing, because if we really did it'd be a really creepy world.)  She seems to have been screwed.  On the other hand, this is her daughter!  She is no better than the parents of Jon Benet Ramsey (remember her?!)  WTF did you expect, exploiting your child like that?

Still, the nasty bulldyke might not be such a bigot in the first place is the world wasn't the way it is, which is why I felt compelled to make the state the aside.  On that point I think you're right.

[AggregateDemand]

But I guess the more appropriate metaphor is one that cuts out the middleman. If you order a tv online from Best Buy's website, and you pay for that TV, and they deliver you a printer or a cell phone or a barrel of apples instead, there has been a breach. How is this different?

If we continue using the retailer model, this woman used a consumable good, and then tried to sue for damages, after the fact. Do you believe this woman has been injured by having a child with more melanin than she's has?

Regarding the nullification of implied warranty for sperm banks, it seems like you should understand how that would undermine the entire industry. And I'm not conflating legal concepts. The duty of sperm banks to their clients, and the ability of the plaintiff to provide evidence are two unrelated legal concepts, but both apply in this situation. I've also questioned the existence of any damages incurred by the plaintiff.

[Bigby]

Guys I'm sure this mother loves her daughter, but the sperm bank [Inks]ed up pretty bad here. Sperm isn't exactly a fungible commodity; the entire point of a sperm bank is that the future mother picks the specific stuff she wants from a catalog with all the donor's traits and characteristics. That they accidentally gave her sperm from a different donor defeats the whole point, and indicates there's something seriously wrong with their operating procedures. The race mistake is a big deal IMO because the child is obviously gonna be curious about that, and that will probably force her parents to tell her where she came from before she's old enough to handle it

I have to agree with my fellow Georgian.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This entire thread needs to be killed, if not with kindness, then with extreme force.

[SteveRogers]

But I guess the more appropriate metaphor is one that cuts out the middleman. If you order a tv online from Best Buy's website, and you pay for that TV, and they deliver you a printer or a cell phone or a barrel of apples instead, there has been a breach. How is this different?

If we continue using the retailer model, this woman used a consumable good, and then tried to sue for damages, after the fact. Do you believe this woman has been injured by having a child with more melanin than she's has?

Regarding the nullification of implied warranty for sperm banks, it seems like you should understand how that would undermine the entire industry. And I'm not conflating legal concepts. The duty of sperm banks to their clients, and the ability of the plaintiff to provide evidence are two unrelated legal concepts, but both apply in this situation. I've also questioned the existence of any damages incurred by the plaintiff.

The product that she bought isn't the child. The child is a human being that can't be bought or sold. The product she bought is a sperm sample from a specified donor, and that's a product that the law allows businesses to sell, and it's a product that the sperm bank entered into a contract to deliver. You clearly have some sort of ethical objection to the concept of sperm banks. That's fine, but make that objection. You suggested in your original post that congress should outlaw the practice. There are arguments in support of that view, but that's not the argument you're making now. You are arguing that as a matter of law, sperm banks fundamentally cannot assume a legal duty to deliver the specific sperm that is requested and paid for by the client, even when the sperm bank enters into a contract stating "In return for money, we promise to give the customer sperm from donor X." Why would that be? If any other business signed such a contract for any other legal product, a duty would be created, no? Given that sperm banks do exist and are legal, why shouldn't the concept of implied warranties or any other aspects of contract law apply to them as they would to any business?

And I too question whether the mother is entitled to all of the damages she is seeking, but at the very least she probably suffered some initial emotional trauma that's worth some compensation.