Sperm Donor forced to pay Child Support

[Dinner]

A child results that has to be taken care of. Should the man be able to foist that responsibility on anybody else? As stated, the taxpayers will have to spend the money, if nobody else does.

He isn't foisting anything. He's been legally absolved.

[Whaleboy]

He had as much to do with it as any man has to do with conceiving a child - if he hadn't donated the sperm, she couldn't have had his baby.

I could jerk off in a blimp and hit a woman masturbating to a Mills & Boon novel in a field below, who proceeds to take advantage of my offering, that's about equivalent to this situation as far as the man is concerned. That completely ignores the contract, whereby she agreed to negate any right to child support, though there should have been no such "right" in the first place for the above reason.

As I said before, the fact that it was a certain mans sperm is incidental, it was the womans doing alone that got her pregnant. Would you say her parents are responsible for feeding her and keeping her alive as a child so she could get pregnant? Perhaps the oxygen in the air has some responsibility for this pregnancy too? Maybe we should blame primival comets for smashing into the Earth billions of years ago providing the water that became her amniotic fluid? Environmental causes do not constitute responsibility over the consequences. That's not just my thoughts. Centuries of manically-depressed existentialists have come to the same conclusion .

A child results that has to be taken care of. Should the man be able to foist that responsibility on anybody else?

Being a sperm doner means you offer your sperm to a woman on the grounds that she can use it to get pregnant. You can attach whatever contractual terms you wish to that sperm and if she complies she can receive it. She broke that.

One of the terms agreed was the negation on his part of his responsibility to pay for that child. Rightfully there should be no such obligatory responsibility as it is the mother that is entirely in charge of the conception, whereas with "natural" fertilisation it is a joint effort, the consequences are the direct result of both persons actions and thus responsibility is shared.

Call me a masculinist or whatever, but that's just unfair.

Well said! And no that's not being masculinist, that's being reasonable.

[DanS]

The fact that the man who donated sperm has 0 control over whether its used, with whom it is used, and so forth. his decision was to donate sperm TO A BUSINESS becuase there is a demand for it. This case is about a supposed one on one deal between two individuals.

He has the ultimate control over how his sperm is used. He can either provide it or not.

[DanS]

He isn't foisting anything. He's been legally absolved.

Says who? She is unable to absolve him of his responsibilities.

[Dinner]

In nearly every state she does.

[Az]

I don't agree that it's a woman's right to have an abortion, so I see no conflict.

Ahh, well, at least then it makes sense.

[Whaleboy]

He has the ultimate control over how his sperm is used. He can either provide it or not.

No. He gave it to her on certain grounds but when she used it she broke those grounds. Note that is not an argument of legality, since I don't know the legal strength of that argument, but I know it's ethical strength to both parties is as strong as any written one. Scribed or verbal is merely a question of external verification hence the legal issue therein. Unless we men have secret powers I'm unaware of, he can't order his swimmers by proxy to "lay down their arms" and go for a joint, so the fact that it was his sperm is irrelevant.

[DanS]

In nearly every state she does.

I don't know this to be true. Can you give me a reference?

but I know it's ethical strength to both parties is as strong as any written one

The state inserts itself into such situations to protect the interests of the child and of the state. The agreement is only among two of the four protaganists and is weighted accordingly.

[Ben Kenobi]

Interesting.

I agree with DanS on this issue.

The man should be held responsible for the child he conceived, regardless of the mode of conception.

If it is established that men cannot donate sperm without fear of being hit with a child support payment, men will not donate sperm and women will lose the ability to get pregnant this way should they choose.

I don't see any problem here. Seems reasonable to me.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Sava
What a dumb-assed judge!

How so?

It's a he said/she said.

He could be lying for all we know. there probably was no verbal agreement in the first place.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Interesting.

I agree with DanS on this issue.

The man should be held responsible for the child he conceived, regardless of the mode of conception.



I don't see any problem here. Seems reasonable to me.

while ideally that sounds good, our entire society is based on contracts. If a contract cannot be enforced, what good is it.

In this case I side with the judge, as there is no way to tell if they had a verbal contract or not.

It's this guy's dumbass fault for not getting it in writing. Next time he'll learn.

[Dis]

I'm happy I can't get laid and therefore have no chance whatsoever of impregnating a woman.

I'm happier this way than if I was having sex with women. I'm much more financially secure.

[Whaleboy]

The state inserts itself into such situations to protect the interests of the child and of the state. The agreement is only among two of the four protaganists and is weighted accordingly.

No, two of those "protagonists" were a consequence of the contract between the two protagnoist... the doner and the parent. Their needs are of no consequence to the question of responsibility. If the only argument that can be leveed against this view is that "it's leaching off society" by having benefits being paid to this woman then that is a pretty weak argument, since the necessary conclusion and prediction of that logical sequence of that is that we shouldn't have benefits for such people at all (unacceptable in my view) and that those who's actions present an environmental/indirect/accidental/unintional etc cause should contribute nonetheless (presumably if they are able to do so). That very Marxist idea is wholly unworkable and frankly ridiculous. I crave consistency in such ideas, and to be consistent here one would have to blame Plato for Hitler! I use that analogy far too often

[Whaleboy]

I don't see any problem here. Seems reasonable to me.

I think I speak for most of OT where I say that if its anti-sex, anti-women, biblephile, inconsistent or completely unworkable, we're be more suprised if you didn't find it "reasonable"

In this case I side with the judge, as there is no way to tell if they had a verbal contract or not.

Apparently they both agreed? Or did I skim read it wrong? In any case, if they did agree, thats ok as far as the court is concerned is my eyes, though they may stipulate written. That is irrelevant however, I'm making an ethical, not a legal argument.

I'm happier this way than if I was having sex with women. I'm much more financially secure.

That's fine, but many people don't feel that way.

[DanS]

Whaleboy: We have an environmental law here in the States called CERCLA, whereby it is impossible to foist responsibility for your pollution onto somebody else through a contract. The greater justice requires a company to pay for its pollution, even though it believes it has signed those responsibilities away. Companies are required to pay, even if there is no certain knowledge of how much they polluted or if the company knew where it did its polluting.

This has nothing to do with an overbearing state, or Marxism, or whatever. It's entirely workable.