Now, assume they want to get every female pregnant. For the sake of
argument, assume there's the same amount of females as there were males
before the virus (that's underestimating, but the numbers still work out
approximately right). For every female to receive sperm from one male,
that means every male has to give sperm to 25 females. If every male gives
sperm to a different female every day, every female will receive sperm 14
times a year. That's enough times to get pregnant, assuming the females
receive sperm on the correct days during their menstrual cycle. If they
time it appropriately, theoretically they _should_ be able to get enough
females pregnant. (I'm saying the male only gives sperm once a day to show
that there shouldn't be a need to give them sperm production increasing
drugs.)

Actually, your numbers aren't exactly right.

According to the Census, the world population is approximately 5.950
billion.

Let's assume, as you said, 50% are males: 2.975 billion.

Kill off 96% of them, leaving you with 119,010,894 males and 2.975 billion
females,
ratio 50 women to 1 man.

However, you forget about a natural death/birth rate.  Since a male is
necessary for the birth
rate but not for the death rate, we can do the following math:

At current population levels, there is a birth every 4.2 seconds and a death
every 1.7 seconds.  Using
simple ratios, we can say that a death now occurs approximately every 3.4
seconds.  Now we calculate the birth rate, using the number of males, and it
is reduced to a birth every 110.25 seconds.  Now we can assume that for
every birth, there are approximately 32 deaths, 1 of which is a male (using
the same ratio we now assume there are 96% women and 4% men).  Now do you
see the problem?  Even if every man inseminated every woman, that still
assumes that every woman is capable of reproducing, which is clearly wrong.
Let's eliminate all women over the age of 50 and all women below the age of
15, and for simplicity we'll once again assume 50% fall into the needed
category (clearly wrong, but simple).  That leaves us with 1.4875 billion
women, so sure, the ratio is better now, but - since the death rate wildly
outpaces the birth rate, in the nine months it takes to gestate a new
generation (let's say, another 1.4875 billion people, half of which are
men), another 7,776,000 people have died, 311,000 of which are men, reducing
the male population by .2%.  Even if 50% of the new generation is male, it
will take approximately 14 years before they are capable of inseminating
women.  Plus, you also assume that women can just keep having babies
nonstop - this isn't exactly correct either.  Let's assume a four month
breather (shyea, but everyone's dying so we're desparate).  And at most I
think the record for childbearing was 10 kids...so as you can see we would
be pretty screwed.  There simply wouldn't be enough resources to deal with
1.4875 billion people emerging at once (this of course assumes everyone gets
pregnant at the same time)....the logistics alone would cause chaos.  and
once that occurs, you get war, reducing the male population even
further...see my point?

-jdb

*************************************************
Justin D. Baugh, CompSci@Rensselaer
www.rpi.edu/~baughj         email:baughj@rpi.edu
Author of NGE: New Age - http://www.rpi.edu/~baughj/evana
"Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, is still there." -
Philip K. Dick