Girl, 14, forced to become pregnant with donor sperm bought by mother

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

A mother forced her 14-year-old adopted daughter to inseminate herself with donor sperm to provide a baby for her after she was prevented from adopting any more children, it can be revealed.

The daughter, a virgin, is believed to have miscarried at 14, but went on to have a baby at 16 after regularly inseminating herself with sperm bought over the internet by her "domineering" mother because she was too scared to refuse.

Details of the shocking case have emerged in a previously secret court judgment, which can be reported today for the first time and which raises serious questions over loopholes in international adoptions and the regulation of the global traffic in gametes.

The adoptive mother, who cannot be identified for fear of identifying her daughter and grandchild, is now serving a five-year prison sentence after admitting child cruelty.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/28/girl-forced-pregnant-donor-semen

---

So many sick people in this world. Scientists need to get to work finding a new habitable planet already!

[DonCoquixote]

1. 5 years?

Is that all you get for child rape?

[thesquanderer]

7. Rape?

This is a terrible (and strange) circumstance, but I don't see how you classify it as rape.

[Xipe Totec]

24. What elements are missing such that you do not consider this rape? nt

[thesquanderer]

25. How about no physical contact? (n/t)

[MADem]

26. Amazing that someone could get pregnant without any physical contact!

The mother purchased a biological substance and forced it upon her daughter--that is "physical contact" to anyone save the obtuse.

[thesquanderer]

31. The mother was not even in the room. Did you read the article? (n/t)

[bravenak]

44. She forced her child to put an object into her vagina against her will.

That is rape in a way ,right. There could not be consent at age 14.

[MADem]

48. I did read the article--the child was placed in a position where her mother FORCED her to have

"physical contact" with a biological substance, entirely against her will. Immediate proximity by the mother to the child isn't the issue. The child was not able to refuse.

I don't understand why you think that force can only be applied with immediate proximity. Someone can put a gun an inch from your head and force you to do things against your will. Or they can threaten you in other ways, by applying psychological pressure or by threatening someone you love.

Are they "innocent" in these cases because they didn't physically touch you with their body?

[thesquanderer]

50. I didn't say she's innocent

I said it's not rape. It's probably child endangerment, sexual abuse, and who knows what else. The issue isn't whether the girl was forced to do what she did, we can all agree that's terrible, the question is whether rape is the proper description. I don't think the mother raped the child, if there was no physical contact between them, if she wasn't even present. It's just the wrong description for the crime. You might as well call it indecent exposure, or petty larceny, or murder. It's not a matter of guilt or innocence, it just doesn't describe the event.

[MADem]

52. She was penetrated against her will and she did not have a choice in the matter.

Others have provided the definition, I won't repeat it yet again.

Regardless, this happened in UK, this despicable excuse for a human being is not subject to US law, so the argument is moot.

I'd call it rape. You can call it what you'd like.

[Deep13]

60. It usually involves invasion by a body part.

This kind of thing is a serious sexual crime, gross sexual imposition, sexual assault, felony assault, felony child endangering, kidnapping. It probably does not fit the legal definition of rape unless the statute mentions inanimate objects.

[SemperEadem]

63. or an inanimate object penetrating the victim's body

pensis are not the only objects that define rape.

That and that the victim had no choice in the matter. That's rape.

[Deep13]

68. In this state a finger can be rape. I'd have to reread the...

...the statute again to see if non-living objects are included. Obviously, this is a horrible crime.

[Aquavit]

29. Sexual act against her will?

Seems pretty straightforward to me...

[thesquanderer]

32. "sexual act against her will" is not "rape"

Let's say you're in a bar, sitting next to a girl, and you grab her hand and put it down your pants. Would it be fair to say you raped her?

Or let's say you're chatting with a young girl online, and you somehow convince her to "perform" for you. Is that rape?

I'm not defending this woman, I just think that words should mean what they mean. Not all undesired sexual activity is rape.

[Kelvin Mace]

30. She was forced to physically penetrate herself vaginally

and impregnate herself against her will.

That is rape in my book.

[thesquanderer]

35. That may be rape in your book

but that's not what rape is in other books, like the dictionary. Impregnating has nothing to do with it. (Rapes that don't result in pregnancy are just as much rapes as if they did.)

I can see this as psychological child abuse and sexual abuse, but I think it's a real stretch to say that the mother raped her. As mentioned, she wasn't even in the room.

[Kelvin Mace]

47. Here is how the federal statute reads:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex of another person, without the consent of the victim”

So, I am not relying on "my book" for my opinion.

[MADem]

49. Bingo! That's the standard according to the UCMJ, too.

I am surprised at how light the sentence was.

[thesquanderer]

51. But the mother did not perform the penetration!

The girl did it herself. The mother wasn't even in the room. Again, is anyone reading the article?

I guess you could stretch things and say the mother coerced the girl to rape herself, if that's legally possible, but the mother did not actually rape. Again, to be clear, I am making no excuse for the mother, I am just saying that, whatever horrible thing she did, I wouldn't say what she did was rape.

[MADem]

53. Yes, the mother DID perform the penetration. She forced the act with coercion.

Jesus--if someone holds a gun to your head and makes you do something, are they "innocent" because they didn't PHYSICALLY put hands on you?

Your parsing here--and doubling down, too--is really ... odd.

[thesquanderer]

54. I didn't say the mother was innocent!

The question is what the mother is guilty OF.

I guess we can just agree to disagree about that.

[MADem]

57. She provided the impetus (coercion) that resulted in penetration.

Without her coercion, it would not have happened.

Penetration--no matter how slight--is rape in my book.

YMMV.

[Kelvin Mace]

65. If I compel you

to shoot and kill another person, by your definition I am not guilty of murder simply because I did not pull the trigger myself?

Has anyone told Charles Manson? He is serving time from first degree murder and he didn't kill a single person.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

13. Really!!!! She should get 20 years for that sick shit.

[Initech]

2. What the hell is wrong with people? This is beyond sick!

[Warpy]

4. Some women are baby besotted to the point of insanity

This woman was one of them. At least she didn't kill another woman by performing an amateur c-section in order to grab a baby.

The adopted daughter will eventually heal with time and care. I hope with Mama in prison, she'll be able to come to terms with the abuse and the insanity she grew up with.

Mama, of course, should never see freedom again, although she probably will.

[FarPoint]

9. I am curious as to who and how

the child was inseminated? A physician or Nurse Practitioner? Repeatedly?

[tammywammy]

10. It says in the article they did it themselves.

The mother subjected her to a "degrading, humiliating and, on occasions, painful" ordeal. Over two years the daughter had to inseminate herself seven times, "alone in her bedroom, using syringes of semen and douches prepared by the mother".

Her mother had purchased ovulation-testing equipment to work out when her daughter was most likely to conceive. Because the mother wanted a girl, she forced her daughter to use painful acidic douches containing vinegar or lemon and lime juice, and eat a special diet, in the belief it could affect gender.

On the first occasion, semen was provided by a donor who came to the house. The others involved sperm purchased from Cryos International, an international sperm-bank network based in Denmark.

[FarPoint]

17. Oh how sad.....

My heart aches.

[Warpy]

11. Turkey baster, most likely

The one thing that doesn't make sense is the source. I think if this story is true, Mama likely had male friends make deposits during the day and gave them to daughter when she got home from school. Or insemination was accomplished the old fashioned way and the kid is too ashamed to admit it.

And I've seen things that are even worse than this story.

[jeff47]

12. Story says the sperm was bought on the Internet. (nt)

[Warpy]

37. Yeah? How was it kept alive for transport?

That's the part of the story that doesn't make any sense and that's the thread the cops need to keep tugging on.

[TheMadMonk]

41. In a thermos with priority shipping and instructions for thawing. /nt

[jeff47]

46. Frozen, packed in dry ice. Sperm is shipped all the time. (nt)

[AngryAmish]

66. Animal semen is a big business

For example a champion bull to make milk cows.

[Gregorian]

21. Most likely she was abused as a child.

Much of the world is just repeating and pushing on to their offspring the bad stuff that happened to them. Although even those who sustained the abuse will most often deny it.

We need courses for both parenting and being in politics. There should be a minimum standard.

[SummerSnow]

3. This is truly another...

is wrong with people moment.

[Bette Noir]

5. A long time ago, more than 15 years,

I saw a woman on a daytime talk show talk about forcing her 12-year-old daughter sleep with men, because Mama wanted another baby. I wondered then why she wasn't in prison for child prostitution.

[Triana]

16. Yes why wasn't she in prison? And that's exactly what that was

Child prostitution.

[SoapBox]

6. Sicko!

...so much perversion in the world.

[RKP5637]

8. Many of the inhabitants of this spinning dirt ball are fucken insane, literally. n/t

[Poll_Blind]

14. This is obviously extreme but in my time on earth, the stories I've read and heard, I'm...

...truly not surprised. This is only a little bit off from "par for the course" for the kinds of situations that probably happen in America. Again, this is a very weird expression of a the kinds of situations which have peppered my life experiences, either directly, or heard about from others in my extended network of friends and acquaintances. You usually hear about shit like this 10, 20 years after the fact.

I feel really bad for this young lady.

PB

[Triana]

15. These woman are rapists.

They are mentally unbalanced and a danger to society. Sexual or reproductive enslavement of ANYONE should be considered a serious crime warranting much more than 5 years in prison. Whether men do this or women do it. Sexual & reproductive slavery are (or should be) CRIMES.

5 years is a slap on the wrist. Bullshit.

[Neoma]

28. So rapist = mental health problems that obviously goes along with "danger to society"?

Right, thanks for feeding into the stigma.

[freshwest]

42. +1,000

[JDPriestly]

18. That story caused me to feel nausea.

How could anyone do that to another person, much less a child?

I feel like crying.

That poor child's life, her fate, decided by an adoptive mother. This young girl will never know the joy of the mystery of sharing with someone she loves the act of giving life to a child. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible.

The mystery is gone. The innocence is gone.

I feel so sad for this child.

[lib87]

19. 5 years for Child Cruelty?

Years of abuse, torturing her daughter, making her miscarry and then have a baby...that's all they could pin on the mother?

[MADem]

27. It's Great Britain--they often think too well of people, I'm afraid.

She'd get twenty to life in the US, I think, and it would be a hard twenty, too.

Thank goodness for the Midwives--they aren't just wonderful on PBS:

The truth was only discovered at the birth. Midwives were alarmed at the "pushy and insensitive" mother, who tried to prevent her daughter breastfeeding the newborn, saying "we don't want any of that attachment thing". Noticing the daughter's reluctance to hand the baby to her mother, they called in child protection workers when the mother attempted to remove the baby from the ward.

[Sand Wind]

20. Holly shit I feel so sorry for that girl, my God.

What kind of life she will have?

[tblue]

22. Ghastly. How dare she?!

Poor girl. That is so twisted I can't wrap my brain around it.

[L0oniX]

23. This makes the Jerry Springer show look like church.

[TNNurse]

33. Sad, tragic

This adoptive "mother" should never be allowed around children again. We can only hope that this child who was forced to do this will get help to understand that she was a victim. I never thought that rape could have such a broad definition. This is my mind is rape.

[secondvariety]

34. Five years.

Shithead should have gotten 55 years. I'm guessing there won't any behavioral change in five measly years.

[mbperrin]

36. Ridiculous sentence. This young girl should never have contact with this horrible person

who forced her to risk her life regularly.

I DO support a carefully administered death penalty, and it seems to me that there is really no other real solution here.

And yes, I know, not possible.

If this girl does not commit suicide shortly after her "mother" is released, color me surprised, but for some reason, victims are forgotten in today's world, and all the attention and care goes to the monster.

[lobodons]

38. I'll call this rape

I'll call this rape when the government is charged with rape for forcing a girl/women to be vaginally probed during an exam against their will.

[rocktivity]

39. The mother probably got such a short sentence

because she was humane enough not to allow the daughter to be systematically raped...


rocktivity

[ruffburr]

40. All I Can Say-

Is WTF is in these cruel crazy ass people???????

[Locut0s]

43. Legally this may not be classified as rape. But there is a sick incestuous quality to this.

[davidpdx]

45. I think the coercion part of it is what makes it just despicable

If a person (or couple) decide they can't have a baby and adopt a teenagers (for what at first glance seems like a noble cause) and then goes and buys sperm over the internet (or I shutter to think possibly something even worse) to get the adopted daughter pregnant, they are using coercion.

The other angle is I could see this making it harder for couples to adopt especially from other countries, which is a shame because there are people out there who legitimately want to adopt and are not monsters like this woman.

[Proletariatprincess]

55. I don't think the issue here is rape....it is forced pregnancy.

We forget that pregnancy can be life and health threatening to women...especially one as young as in this case. That is what makes this case so horrifying. It is related to a woman's right to choose prenancy or not. It is about having control over our bodies when we reach child bearing age. It is indeed about choice...all choices that effect childbearing and pregnancy.

[arely staircase]

56. sick motherfucker should rot in hell

nt

[brett_jv]

58. I think it's interesting in these situations to ponder questions like ...

What if the 'mother' herself was, say, raped repeatedly as a young foster child herself, by some foster dad that wanted her to have his baby?

We don't know anything about this foster mother, so ... I have a hard time in cases like this adopting such a 'throw the book at 'em' mentality as some folks here seem to want to do.

Don't get me wrong, certainly, nothing would make something like this 'okay', but the whole notion of it is just so ... insane-sounding ... that it really makes we wonder 'what must've happened to this woman' when she was growing up to make her THINK that doing something like this was 'okay'?

To me this smacks of the actions of someone who was mentally disturbed, and probably suffered some kind of weird abuse of her own growing up.

I'm not going to sit here advocate for '55 years', or any seriously draconian punishment ... without knowing ANYTHING about this person. We all know that 'abuse' can screw up a kids head, and make them into a screwed up adults ... hell, it's part of why we FEEL for this young lady the way we do, right?

I just think it's hypocritical to make this kind of acknowledgement ... and yet, when a 'victim' grows up and does the things we feared as a result of their abuse ... that we wanna turn around and tell 'em to go burn in hell.

Now, maybe nothing like that ever happened to this woman, in which case, she has no excuse, but ... what if it DID? And perhaps there is just that sort of 'mitigating factor' that played into her only receiving 5 years for doing this?

Something to think about is all I'm saying ...

[DonCoquixote]

61. well, here is my two cents

Yes, European prison sentences are smaller, and I would not recommend they imitate our example, lest private prison companies set up shop. But keep in mind one thing, a lot of people, if it is only 5 years, will laugh and think it is worth it, especially if it involves family matters. If she gets 5 years, but gets a child she wants, why shouldn't she do it, 5 years to have the egotrip/child you want? Hell, other people in similar positions might actually follow her example, especially if they are young enough to look past 5 years.

[Deep13]

59. In this state it's "gross sexual imposition" and probably "sexual assault" ...

...and a bunch of other felonies. Sentences can be run consecutively, but the truth is five years is a pretty stiff sentence, especially by European standards.

Rape usually means an invasion by a body part.

[dipsydoodle]

64. In this case its self invasion

It says she inseminated herself albeit under duress.

" Over two years the daughter had to inseminate herself seven times, "alone in her bedroom, using syringes of semen and douches prepared by the mother"."

The charge was child cruelty the max sentence for which here is actually 10 years.

[CreekDog]

67. blaming the victim. "duress"? WTF. how low can you go?

[dipsydoodle]

70. You are blaming the victim : not me

I replied to a comment made by Deep13 using what is stated in the link provided by the OP. As such that link may have attributed blame but not me.

What you are in fact attempting to do , yet again , is do is what you used to do in Meta Discussion - attempt to attract further responses skewed by what you yourself have said as opposed to what had actually been said.

[CreekDog]

71. "self invasion" were your words

stop running away from your words.

if you are unhappy that you chose them, and you should be, delete them, the button is easy to find.

but yes, describing this as "self invasion" is blaming the victim.

[Deep13]

69. Well, it's by force, so if the statute includes non-living objects...

...this would count as rape.

Force does not have to be violent and someone acting as a parent is considered to be forceful if he or she is relying on parental authority to coerce compliance.

If 10 years was available, I probably would have imposed it had I been the judge. Still, they should have indicted for a sex offense for the registration requirements.

[truthisfreedom]

62. nauseating.