FDA Intervenes After Man Gives Away 328 Free Sperm Donations


A snapshot into the unregulated world of sperm donation:

It's costly to give away your sperm for free -- just ask Trent Arsenault. The 36-year-old Northern California man has "fathered" 14 children since 2006, and has 4 more on the way. But they may be his last.

The FDA got wind of his one-man sperm donor operation last year and has ordered him to shut it down. Though he charges nothing for his services, the agency has labeled him a "manufacturer of human cells."

He's fighting the order, but could ultimately face a $100,000 fine if things don't work out.

Trent Arsenault connects with local couples on his website, It includes his resume, medical history, STD tests and pictures of babies born of his seed. His efforts have resulted in at least 328 donations to 46 unique recipients, according to the FDA's cease and desist letter. -- Legally Weird


  1. ResistSSA
    Posted December 21, 2011 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    Infertile couples are well aware of the tragedy and heartache that comes from being unable to have their own babies. Why can they not understand the tragedy they are manufacturing by creating a child with the intention of stripping him/her away from his/her father or mother?

    Meanwhile, thousands of children who have lost their moms and dads through unfortunate circumstances are passed over for adoption because of the voluntary creation of these other, "better" orphans.

  2. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted December 21, 2011 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    Great comment, ResistSSA.

    I highly recommend the film Anonymous Father's Day. Great interviews with three donor-conceived adults. Get it, watch it and share with other folks!

    As for Mr. Arsenault, there's something seriously wrong with this person.

  3. fredb
    Posted December 21, 2011 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    Human traffickers such as this should be held responsible for their actions. If one of these people were held to the same standard as fathers who do not keep custody of children but must provide child support, this horrible practice would be greatly diminished.

  4. Daughter of Eve
    Posted December 22, 2011 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    Ironic, isn't it, that a woman can choose to kill the living cells in her womb, aka. a baby, with legal impunity, while a man cannot give away the cells from his own body, which contribute to making life. Situational ethics sure gets messy, no?

  5. grandma lliberty
    Posted December 22, 2011 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

    The law is strange... In ohio you can choose to abort your baby if you want to, but if it is killed in utero, say in a traffic accident, you can be charged with homicide or manslaughter...

  6. Little man
    Posted December 26, 2011 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    There's a problem in the Constitution regarding citizenship. "Born" in the USA makes you a citizen, in addition to other ways. That means, if an illegal alien swims across the Rio Bravo (Rio Grande) bordering with Mexico, and delivers a healthy baby, that baby is a US citizen(!)

    This makes us think fetuses (unborn 'children', so they are not children, but could get to be) are not US citizens, because they/it is not born yet. Once citizens, they are protected by the US Constitution, as citizens.

    This technical language distinguishes between a fetus 1 minute before its birth, and a baby, 1 minute after birth. Isn't that amazing?

    A fetus is considered a 'thing', unless a Congress steps in and decides whether 'it' has protections. There's no question we were all fetuses at one time. Nowadays, since babies born in USA are citizens, if a mom doesn't want to end up with a citizen on her lap, she aborts 'it', through pills, or through another killing procedure. The fetus has its own blood type, so it is already an organize entity.

    In Roman times (primitive) they handled the question in a more consistent manner: A father had the right to kill his sons or daughters at any time, for any purpose. By the way, it included the wife too. Having life was a privilege, not a right. Of course, a son could kill his father, before the father could kill him, if he lived long enough, but would be prosecuted. Fetuses can't kill anyone, except the mom, by accident.

    So, the law protects an illegal alien's baby from the moment of birth, but does not protect a fetus. The mom can take some pill to kill the fetus without anyone knowing why 'it' died. We just have no language that recognizes a fetus as a potential future citizen. The law permits mental retards to be born, but allows the killing of a perfectly healthy fetus, with no investigation. With present technology, i just think we can do much better. Maybe the fetus shouldn't have been conceived? But that takes responsibility. It will be conceived as long as it is considered an 'it'.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.