|
Post by Synonym on Nov 5, 2011 12:21:25 GMT
This was prompted by a comment by Liz Jones in a recent article.
A woman 'steals' a man's sperm by say keeping the condom after sex and extracting and transferring the contents to the appropriate place, and has a child as a result.
As the condom use indicates the man had no desire to father a child and would not have consented or agreed to the woman impregnating herself with his sperm, had he known.
Assuming that she openly admits what she has done, should the man have the right to be absolved from any parental or financial responsibility for the child, or should the child's needs come first?
|
|
|
Post by toby on Nov 5, 2011 14:42:08 GMT
Syn posted.:-As the condom use indicates the man had no desire to father a child
Toby comments.:- Not so ! It could be also argued that the Guy wanted to make sure he didn't catch a dose of the Clap, or worse !
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Nov 5, 2011 14:50:51 GMT
True, but we could also suppose that the man didn't want to procreate and made that clear, hence the 'theft' without informing him.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2011 15:22:36 GMT
I think he should have the right to choose if he wants to contribute for the child financially and also he should have the right to choose if he wants to be in the child's life, whether he pays money for not. But only because of the circumstances of how the child was conceived. It was not his fault.
|
|
|
Post by toby on Nov 5, 2011 17:01:40 GMT
Syn posted.:-True, but we could also suppose that the man didn't want to procreate and made that clear, hence the 'theft' without informing him.
Toby comments.;- The woman would have to have a brass neck in such circumstances !
However, considering that Boris Becker had to pay 10 million DM to some slag he knocked up during the course of a quickie, it is quite possible. Prince Albert also has to pay similar amounts for his Love child.
In both cases the Women involved are so poorly represented in the good-looking stakes that I wonder why the males involved ever bothered !
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Nov 5, 2011 20:58:42 GMT
Now there's any argument for a bloke to tidy up after he has enjoyed himself - but perhaps they are guys who are used to leaving their dirty socks on the floor for someone else to tidy up and can't get out of the habit ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh, by the way Toby - if the woman Boris knocked up was "a slag" (to use your charming quote) then Boris is a slag as well.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Nov 5, 2011 21:04:33 GMT
Isn't it weird what some people do?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2011 15:39:46 GMT
I'm amazed that she got pregnant with a left over condom! I mean sperm don't survive very long outside of the body, it was sheer luck (or maybe not), whichever way you want to look at it.
It was a sneaky thing to do, and very unfair and that's what's so off putting. There are plenty of men out there that want to be fathers, so why not pick on one of them?
I feel sorry for the child. The father and the child should be able to see each other if they wish, but the father shouldn't have to pay for the child. Unless he wants to or the child is in living in poverty. Not a perfect solution, but I think there just isn't one in this case anyway..
I have to agree with the 'slag' statement, if a man thinks the one he had sex with was a 'slag' then what does that man him? A gentleman?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Nov 6, 2011 17:27:34 GMT
Well, us girls get used to labels like that, Deyana.
A bloke who puts it about is a bit of a lad while if we do it we're just sluts.
Double standards again!
|
|
|
Post by toby on Nov 6, 2011 20:16:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by toby on Nov 6, 2011 20:20:19 GMT
However, considering that Boris Becker had to pay 10 million DM to some slag he knocked up during the course of a quickie,
Toby comments on FD's remarks.:- She Is a Slag, a Solid Gold Slag too for she deliberately let herself get knocked up although she told Boris she would not conceive.
She then screwed 10 Million DM out of Boris, that in my book is a slag !
|
|
|
Post by toby on Nov 6, 2011 20:23:46 GMT
Deyana posted.:- I'm amazed that she got pregnant with a left over condom! I mean sperm don't survive very long outside of the body,
Toby comments.:- Get enough moisture and the correct temperature and sperm can live quite a long time. The University of California and Los Angeles did some research on the subject and found sperm can survive outside the body for quite a while if the conditions are OK They also found that VD germs can stay alive on a Lavatory seat for one and a half hours, so be careful out there !
|
|
|
Post by toby on Nov 6, 2011 20:27:47 GMT
Lin posted.:-A bloke who puts it about is a bit of a lad while if we do it we're just sluts.
Toby comments.:- Used to be so but not any longer, not with incurable VD on the go.
Girls who are discreet about putting it about don't get any hassle, the sluts are the ones who let all and sundry know what their score is. Guys don't have much respect for other guys who put it about, they wonder why the guy cannot find a steady partner and consider he may have a problem !
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Nov 9, 2011 13:19:54 GMT
As the condom use indicates the man had no desire to father a child and would not have consented or agreed to the woman impregnating herself with his sperm, had he known. Condoms are not entirely fail proof. There is still a chance to get pregnant even with the use of a condom. The fact that he is wearing a condom just means that the chances of getting pregnant, compared with out one, significantly decrease. If she openly admits she did that, she is, and excuse my language, fu*king stupid. She could have said, 'Well, jeeze, the condom broke.' Would he be absolved of parental rights? In the USA (which I think is complete and under bullsh!t) sperm donors have been made to pay child support. However, I think that is changing with ther artificial insemination statute, but I think that depends on what jurisdiction you live under. However, in this guys case, he would be completely liable to pay child support. Here is a sample article by Laura Morgan further explaining (I've bolded the important points): Courts have made sperm donors liable for child support. In the cases discussed so far, the obligation to pay child support has been predicated upon the voluntary act of sexual intercourse. Is a man still liable for child support even if he does not engage in sexual intercourse with a woman, but merely provides sperm for artificial insemination and agrees with the mother that there shall be no child support liability? Once again, the answer has been yes. In these cases, the courts have uniformly held that outside the strict requirements of the jurisdiction's statute governing artificial insemination, a mother simply cannot waive child support on behalf of the child and the father cannot waive his parental rights; such a contract is void as against public policy. By way of introduction, parents cannot enter into an agreement for insemination by way of sexual intercourse, whereby one parent is completely relieved of child support. In Estes v. Albers, 504 N.W.2d 607 (S.D. 1993), the mother wished to have a child. The mother asked the father to impregnate her, and they both agreed that the father would have no financial responsibility for the child. The child was conceived naturally and born in 1986. Thereafter, the father claimed that by virtue of the agreement, his status was nothing more than a semen donor, and he was not obligated to pay child support. The court rejected this argument out of hand, noting that the child was conceived naturally. Therefore, the man's status as a semen donor is inconsistent with the artificial insemination statute.Similarly, in Straub v. B.M.T. by Todd, 645 N.E.2d 597 (Ind. 1994), the mother and father entered into a "preconception agreement" where the father agreed to impregnate the mother and the mother agreed to hold the father harmless for any child support. The father likewise claimed that he was nothing more than a semen donor, and the mother had conceived by "artificial insemination by intercourse." The court rejected the argument, holding that if one wishes to avoid child support by claiming artificial insemination, then the insemination must be artificial and all the requirements of the Uniform Status of Children of Assisted Conception Act, 9B U.L.A. (Supp. 1998) must be followed.The courts have taken this principle and further held that even where the insemination is truly "artificial," that is, the delivery system for the sperm is a syringe and not a penis, if the parties have not adhered to the requirements of the jurisdiction's artificial insemination statute, then the father is still liable for child support and may seek filiation, and the mother may still seek child support. This was the case in Jhordan v. Mary K., 179 Cal. App. 3d 386, 224 Cal. Rptr. 530 (1986). In that case, the father provided semen directly to the mother, which she then used to inseminate herself. The mother and father agreed that the father would not be responsible for child support. The father then sought an order of filiation. The court held that because the baby was not conceived in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Parentage Act, Jhordan was entitled to an order of filiation. Accord Thomas S. v. Robin Y., 209 A.D. 2d 298, 618 N.Y.S.2d 356 (1994); M. v. C., 152 N.J. Super. 160, 377 A.2d 821 (1977) (man who gives woman semen for artificial insemination is father, fulfilling same function as husband); C.O. v. W.S., 64 Ohio Misc. 2d 9, 639 N.E.2d 523 (1994) (statute extinguishing parental rights of anonymous sperm donor was inapplicable to case where mother solicited sperm from donor). Cf. McIntyre v. Crouch, 98 Or. App. 462, 780 P.2d 239, review den. 308 Or. 593, 764 P.2d 1100 (1989) (Oregon's statute providing that donor of semen for use in artificial insemination was barred from asserting parental rights was not limited to anonymous donors and was applicable in situation where donor knew donee). Once again, the message from these cases is equally clear: If a man intends to make a baby with his sperm, and he and the mother do not comply with the jurisdiction's artificial insemination statute, the man is liable for child support.
|
|
|
Post by toby on Nov 9, 2011 16:50:22 GMT
Lauren posted.:-Once again, the message from these cases is equally clear: If a man intends to make a baby with his sperm, and he and the mother do not comply with the jurisdiction's artificial insemination statute, the man is liable for child support.
Toby comments.:- I find it rather sad that something as wonderful as a new born Baby comes down to a sordid discussion regarding money.
It's a sad world we live in.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Nov 9, 2011 17:04:14 GMT
I find it rather sad that something as wonderful as a new born Baby comes down to a sordid discussion regarding money. It's a sad world we live in. Everything is about money.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2011 21:13:21 GMT
It seems that way, sad though it is. I hope the baby has a good life regardless.
|
|