Sperm Donor forced to pay Child Support

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
I don't know how it's in society's interest to encourage impregnation of lesbian couples and especially single women (!), but I guess a case could be made for infertile couples.

I see nothing wrong with lesbian couples. Sure, it's not for me but if they like that life style and they are financially able to support the child then so be it. I'd also like to see fewer single women having children but some of them don't like men and don't want men in their lives yet still want children. IVF provides a way for that to occur without some man later sueing her for parental rights.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Marriage requires mutual consent to enter, and ought to require mutual consent to leave.

That is truly stupid!

I beat my wife and abuse her but she can't get a divorce because I don't agree to one.

[DanS]

Yeh, but I see no balancing interest of society in order to make the removal of responsibility worthwhile. On the contrary, I can see where society's interests would be harmed by encouraging single women to have IVF, since it is the supporter of last resort.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because with IVF one of the parents is directly biologically related to the child.

But for the other parent, this is no different from adoption. So why do we need sperm banks? Why does it matter to have biological children over adopted ones? Are the biological ones superior to the adopted children?

Many, many people want that. This enables them to have it.

Many people want children to adopt, should all of them be able to?

[Ben Kenobi]

I beat my wife and abuse her but she can't get a divorce because I don't agree to one.

Thank you.

I was waiting for this argument.

I agree with you that there should be certain circumstances in which a divorce would not require mutual consent. However, that does not change the statement that divorce ought to be mutual.

Leaving aside the question of abuse, do you agree that divorce ought to require mutual consent?

[Last Conformist]

Ben Kenobi:

Adoption already provides all of these benefits, so why do you need a sperm bank?

Don't you have a shortage of children for adoption over there? (At least of the right race and age.)

DanS:

I don't know how it's in society's interest to encourage impregnation of lesbian couples and especially single women, but I guess a case could be made for infertile couples.

Why would it be less in society's interest to encourage lesbian couples than hetero ones?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
But for the other parent, this is no different from adoption. So why do we need sperm banks? Why does it matter to have biological children over adopted ones? Are the biological ones superior to the adopted children?

Because people want it that's why. An adopted child isn't a biological child no matter what you say. This allows the child to be related to atleast one of the partners so many people find that connection to be superior to adoption.

BTW the government doesn't require a licence to have a child. We can discuse if they should or not but if a woman wants to have a child through IVF then she has the legal right to do so.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'd also like to see fewer single women having children but some of them don't like men and don't want men in their lives yet still want children.

So why should only her desires be considered? What about the child? Should he not have a dad as well as a mom to take care of him?

[Whaleboy]

Why is it irrelevant?

Because my argument is that you are responsible for your actions if you are the one who engages in them of your own free will, as is the case of the woman. The man had nothing to do with that, he might as well have been the guy on the pavement who directed her towards the clinic. It was her actions of her own free will, no-one elses that caused the child, she is entirely responsible for that child. The sperm doner was merely offering a service to help that, like a bus driver who got her for the op two minutes early for her appointment .

Actually, if I were to be consistent I would argue that you should be responsible for the child regardless as to the method of conception. So you would be responsible in both the balloon example, and in sperm donation.

Then I don't think we're going to agree here. Something so meaningless as DNA doesn't really register with me, so lets agree to disagree, I'm tired of arguing in circles.

Right, but a child is not a commodity, nor is sperm.

Agreed that a child isn't, but a parent is still responsible for a child before it is adult, and what defines that? Something must otherwise the only thing responsible for that child would be the human race. Part of my argument is that DNA alone is insufficient for the definition of parent, or one responsible for that child. Sperm, on the other hand, is a commodity. It is of limited supply, a certain demand, it has all the properties of a material commodity and is thus subject to the normal economic laws of commodity.

You may be able to instruct her how to use your sperm, but these restrictions cannot apply to the child, as your sperm ceases to exist after conception. She could argue that you did not instruct, nor can you instruct what options may be done with respect to the child.

That's another weakness in your argument since the child is a further indirect consequence, and the man stipulated that should there be a child he will not pay for it, so you have introduced another degree of separation there . To be precise, he didn't stipulate how she should use the sperm, rather that he is absolved of the responsibility for the consequences. The law that says there are such responsibilities is flawed in my view, but the contract, ethically speaking, is sufficient for him not to be bound by it anyway and to break that would require mutual consent.

[DanS]

Why would it be less in society's interest to encourage lesbian couples than hetero ones?

That's pretty off topic, and I don't really care, so I'll concede the point. However, the single women point is rather important to our discussion, so I'll argue that, if needed.

[Ben Kenobi]

Don't you have a shortage of children for adoption over there? (At least of the right race and age.)

Good thought!

Now why might that be?

Perhaps because we are aborting all of them?

[DanS]

BTW the government doesn't require a licence to have a child. We can discuse if they should or not but if a woman wants to have a child through IVF then she has the legal right to do so.

Did anybody say she didn't have the legal right? On the other hand, it's not necessarily in the state's interest to encourage it in all situations, such as it is doing by removing responsibility from the father.

[Whaleboy]

[Ben Kenobi]

Because my argument is that you are responsible for your actions if you are the one who engages in them of your own free will, as is the case of the woman.

But the woman is not responsible for the child, unless you agree that she is required to have the child, and that her consent to sex is equivalent to her consenting to have the child.

The only difference in your analogy is one of distance.

Secondly, I am arguing that one of the consequences of your act is the pregnancy of the woman, since without your act, she could not get pregnant. Ergo, you ought also be held responsible for the consequences of this act, which is the birth of the child.

[Ben Kenobi]

Agreed that a child isn't, but a parent is still responsible for a child before it is adult, and what defines that? Something must otherwise the only thing responsible for that child would be the human race.

This is where your abandonment of DNA betrays you. DNA provides the evidence for biological paternity. Without DNA it is difficult to provide a case for filial responsibility, and for ANY support payments from the father.

To be precise, he didn't stipulate how she should use the sperm, rather that he is absolved of the responsibility for the consequences.

And this cannot be done in a contract! This is the point I was trying to get at. He cannot absolve himself of all the responsibilities of his actions in a contract.