Do you get the quickie?

CarnalNation

twitter
facebook
news icon

UK Court Convicts Men of Selling Sperm Without a License

a62bdc645764195a141fa7eb980606a1?offset=

 

Two men, Ricky Gage and Nigel Woodforth, were convicted by an English court of running an unlicensed sperm donor service out of the basement of Woodforth's home. The pair were given a 9-month prison sentence which was suspended for two years, as well as fined £15,000 ($23,600) each, £500 ($790) each for prosecution costs, and ordered to complete 200 hours of community service.

Gage and Woodforth's case is the first of its kind to be tried under the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act of 1990, which regulates artificial insemination and donated materials like eggs, sperm, and embryos. The two men claimed that they didn't need a license under the act because they were in fact only operating a database that connected women with sperm donors.

lq.pngrq.png
The website run by Gage and Woodforth promised women a "life-changing opportunity towards motherhood".

They were given the chance to choose the ethnicity, height, hair colour, education and hobbies of the sperm donor they wished to use. They boasted of having more than 300 donors nationwide and a 37% success rate.

Gage and Woodforth collected approximately £250,000 ($394,400) between 2007 and 2008 until one of their clients complained to the government.

lq.pngrq.png
Melissa Bhalla-Pentley was hoping to have a baby with her partner when she ordered the sperm through the Fertility First website set up by Gage and Woodforth.

She paid the men an £80 joining fee and a further £300, the cost of using the service for each menstrual cycle. She then had to pay a courier company £150 for each delivery of sperm, £50 of which would be given to the sperm donor.

A box, wrapped in grey polythene and containing a pot of sperm and a 10ml syringe, was delivered to her home late one night, the court was told.

Ms Bhalla-Pentley used the sperm for self-insemination but failed to get pregnant. She paid the company another £300 and arranged for another donation from the man the following month.

She contacted the company when a copy of the donor's medical tests was sent to her with his name visible. She asked for a refund, but she was told she could not have one.

In passing sentence, the judge told them that she considered their actions to be irresponsible but was showing lenience by not sending them to jail because theirs was the first case of its kind.

lq.pngrq.png
"In my judgment, the sentence in a case such as this must involve an element of deterrence and only a custodial sentence is appropriate.

"However, I take into account that this is the first prosecution of its kind.

"You, or anyone else in future who violates this law, can expect to go to prison."

Clip this story