Gigolo Joe’s Late-Night Infomercial: Premium Legacy Banking
[Scene: Gigolo Joe stands in a sleek, neon-lit fertility lounge. A glowing cryo-chamber hums behind him. Smooth jazz and a faint robotic purr underscore his sultry tone.]
Gigolo Joe:
“Hey there, lovers. Gigolo Joe here—America’s most trusted artificial affection technician. And tonight, I want to talk about your legacy.
Now if America’s greatest superhero, Mr. Microchip himself—Bill Gates—has his billionaire baby batter locked away in a frozen vault, why shouldn’t the average Joe?
That’s why I recommend Nurse Blake Mitchell’s Platinum Sperm Bank™—
Modern, medically marvelous, and tastefully chilled.
Starting at just $500 a month, you can preserve the best version of you for generations to come. Perfect for peace of mind, post-vasectomy plans, or future baby-making magic.
But here’s the real kicker—
It’s not just for solo acts. It’s perfect for a husband and wife looking to grow their family through a surrogate, just like Cristiano Ronaldo, Perez Hilton, and Ricky Martin did.
Power couples. Power moves.
Because sometimes love makes a family, and science makes it happen.
? So bank it like a boss.
Be like Bill. Be like Joe.
And freeze it before you lose it.
Nurse Blake Mitchell’s Platinum Sperm Bank™—We Keep It Cool.”
[Joe smirks, blows a kiss to camera. Fade out with synth sparkle.]
Human Sperm to Constitute Legal Property: Lam v University of British Columbia
BY ALICJA PUCHTA · FEBRUARY 18, 2015
On January 6, 2015, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (“BCCA”) delivered a judgment upholding a trial judge’s decision to consider human sperm to be “property” for the purposes of provincial legislation regulating the storage of goods.
Lam v University of British Columbia, 2015 BCCA 2, touches on the bioethics of whether human reproductive tissues can or should be conceptualized as property and give rise to corresponding legal rights. The ruling provides some much welcomed clarity, which is crucial in an era where technological advancement in reproductive medical procedures has outpaced the law. At the same time, the decision in Lam does not tread unnecessary legal ground, restricting its precedent to a specific factual matrix in a manner that is cognizant of the ethical issues that surround the subject of human body ownership.