White mother sues sperm bank for reparations for her black child

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[AggregateDemand]

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?

Because the contract appears to be unenforceable, as I've opined in several posts. The donor is not required to provide DNA samples after the fact, nor does the court have legal grounds to subpoena DNA samples on behalf of the plaintiff, imo. Visual inspection is not particularly strong evidence in this kind of case.

I'm not interested in trying to legislate moral edicts. I'm more interested in seeing the industry undermined by legal precedent, especially as it expands into eugenics. It won't happen unless people file a frivolous eugenics lawsuits that go to trial. This couple is claiming injury because their child is part African American. I hope the courts get a chance to shut this trial down, and set precedent that undermines the eugenics industry.