Sperm Donor forced to pay Child Support

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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?

Let us for one minute take your post at face value. Do you believe single women should not have the right to raise families? Everyone agrees it would be better to have two caring parents but that isn't always possible. In any event as previously mentioned the government isn't in the licencing of babies business. It's a free country and if she wants to pop out a baby squid then that's her business. Not yours.

[Ben Kenobi]

Let us for one minute take your post at face value. Do you believe single women should not have the right to raise families?

No, I don't because for the same point that you make later, that it is not always possible for two parents to be provided.

Everyone agrees it would be better to have two caring parents

So why would the government provide the means so that only one person is needed to raise a child, as in IVF for the single women who hate men, and do not want them in their life? This would be contrary to the best wishes of the child. I would say that the responsibility of the state to the welfare of children ought to take greater priority over the desire of childless women who hate men to have children without them.

In any event as previously mentioned the government isn't in the licencing of babies business.

Birth Certificates? I see your point, but the government does have a role to protect the welfare of children.

[Whaleboy]

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.

But you forget the whenever one has sex there is a risk of becoming pregnant, even with contraceptives employed. By having sex you accept (like it or not) that possibility and thus if that possibility occurs, you are still responsible. Imagine a lottery where one number combination wins you £10'000'000, another wins you a bullet in the jugular. By playing that lottery, you are responsible should either outcome occur, since we can never be certain of the future responsibility is a question of intent not solely consequence.

The only difference in your analogy is one of distance.

No, there is a fundamental difference between direct and indirect. To use an example I was discussing a few nights ago, if I lie to someone and say his partner is cheating on him, and as a result he breaks up with her, what am I responsible for? The breakup? No, that was a result of the decisions of the person I speak to. His ensuing mood? Perhaps, you can make a case for that being direct. The breakup is an indirect consequence and thus only the responsibility of one whose actions lead directly to that outcome (deciding and going through with the breakup).

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.

Empty reasoning. I could be a blood doner which saved her life, allowing her to become pregnant, am I responsible for taht child? You argue by consequence, I argue by intent, therefore it's unlikely we're going to get anywhere with this conversation.

[Ben Kenobi]

But you forget the whenever one has sex there is a risk of becoming pregnant, even with contraceptives employed. By having sex you accept (like it or not) that possibility and thus if that possibility occurs, you are still responsible. Imagine a lottery where one number combination wins you £10'000'000, another wins you a bullet in the jugular. By playing that lottery, you are responsible should either outcome occur, since we can never be certain of the future responsibility is a question of intent not solely consequence.

No, I have not forgotten this point. It's very true.

To use an example I was discussing a few nights ago, if I lie to someone and say his partner is cheating on him, and as a result he breaks up with her, what am I responsible for?

I would say you are directly responsible for the breakup. He would not have broken up with his girlfriend had you not lied to him, and by lying to him, you made him distrust his girlfriend. Seems to me pretty cut and dried, and I would expect that your friend would hang you by your *** should he find out the truth.

Empty reasoning. I could be a blood doner which saved her life, allowing her to become pregnant, am I responsible for that child?

No, but you raise a good point. You are not responsible as a father, because the child has another father. You can say that you are indirectly responsible, since this child would not have been possible, if you did not donate blood to her.

[Kuciwalker]

I find this "state's interest" to be a bunch of bull****. The state doesn't want to pay for the kid, so it makes some random guy do so?

[Grandpa Troll]

SPERM BANK COLLECTOR/CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

I was thinking to myself, SELF! who is gonna enforce such an action?

Who will be there to collect untold Gallons of Sperm for future use?

So I figured to myself, I know only one that comes to mind..

He is your favorite

Paul "I dun eat bread but love a good meatwich" Reubans

Everyone give it up for...Heresssss Pee Wee

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS


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

You know, the same could be said of gun companies and tobacco companies- after all, they have ultimate control over the use of their products, they could make them..or NOT. ASre you saying DanS that gun manufacturers and tobacco companies should bear final liability for their products?

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by GePap


You know, the same could be said of gun companies and tobacco companies- after all, they have ultimate control over the use of their products, they could make them..or NOT. ASre you saying DanS that gun manufacturers and tobacco companies should bear final liability for their products?

I think, and no I aint Dan but I would offer this:

I believe it should be the "Intent" as to wheter something was meant for a specific purpose.

Guns are meant to Defend, Kill (animals for food or human beings) Target practice/sport (to become proficient if the need arise to be able to use for above mentioned purposes

Tobacco now what good comes from Tobbacco? Some studies say they use addicitve ingredients some say they dont but both Handguns and Tobbacco make money and aree there for a profit..

I dont feel if a person donates sperm (unless in an adult theater) they should be held accountable for where it ends up..

I mean if a person donates sperm and this helps someone who cant conceive great!

40 years later this person that was conceived invents the next "Internet" or whatever should Joe "BLOW" the donator be eligible for some return on his investment? I dun think so

Same as if the "Conceived person" gets in a car wreck and kills someone should the family of the deceased be able to come after "Joe "BLOW"..I dun think so either

I think this person whom donates should be able to move forward!

Thats my $0.02 worth

Gramps