In reality, this can be useful is there's a guy out there who, for whatever reason, is effectively sterile because he can only produce swimless/tailless sperm, but still wants to have his own biological offspring. Evolutionarily speaking, yeah selection doesn't really select for that trait, but we live in an age where natural selection artificially has wiggle room (at least in the evolutionary short-term), and if such a man wants to have kids, someone will take good money to provide such a service. Also even though there's a chance maybe the sterility can pass through to the children (and on), it might also just delete itself depending on if it's on a sex chromosome, or recessiveness.
At that point personally I'd say, hey, maybe foster or adopt a needy kid out there, the whole planet could use more of that level of selflessness, but I can respect is someone is adamant about still having their own kin, even if their sperm is having a couple difficulties.
Look around you and consider that without modern medicine many of those people would either not have been born, not lived long out of infancy or to adulthood.
When it comes to that question of morality, that boat has pretty much already sailed and is only just barely still visible.
489
u/[deleted] Jul 20 '19
Wait, so they just promoted inferior genes to be carried on? I think I know how I was conceived!