• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sperm Ownership After Deposit, Male Parental Rights, and Child Support:

It's not about property, it's about liability.

Children aren't the property of parents, but parents are liable for their children. Children aren't "owned". If you impregnate a woman then you are responsible for the child.

In terms of sperm and egg ownership, that only applies if you're dealing with a third party like a sperm bank, where contract law is involved. That's because a third party has technical control over where the sperm goes and you need to define what that means. There is a middle man between the point where the sperm leaves you and where it ends up.

If you're a man who has sex with a woman, you are already making a direct choice about where that sperm goes, through your actions, which you are liable for. There's no middle man so ownership does not have to be defined.

The ownership angle is not very intelligent. You can't apply capitalism to biology in this way, because it's not commerce. Women have disproportionate power by virtue of where the child develops, and not due to sperm ownership. It's just a fact of nature.

Ownership and property can exist outside of capitalism, and other systems do involve the concept of property be that either collective, communal or individual property. Furthermore, concepts of rights, like for example natural rights, involve the idea that the body itself is property, so no, the property angle is not unintelligent.

Second, children are for all intents and purposes property of their parents. They can control what they do, they can control what happens to them, they can make decisions towards them and their person, and even damage them if they feel like it(spankings, some surgeries, etc). That is not to say the law views them as property or that people want to see them that way, but they are essentially the property of their parents.

Lastly, ownership doesn't involve a middle man. If I sell you a piece of clothing or whatever we don't need or call on a middle man to transfer ownership of the item in question.
 
I have logically laid out how there can be equity between the sexes regarding this issue. You are doing what RM does... ignoring the logic behind the argument and tossing out the "whining" card. I have my children. I love them and always wanted them. I pay child support. I pay too much due to my lying bitch of an ex-wife but that is another story. The fact is that as it stands, men are as you say... dump their load and have zero say in anything afterwards. Women get 100% of the power of not only their medical rights, which they should have, but of the man's life for the next 18 years as well. The women want it all. I can understand you backing this argument but RM? He is a guy. Why is he buying the sexism? The way I laid it out the women still retains ALL of her medical rights... 100% all of her power over her life and reproductive cycle... but that isn't good enough for some of you. You want the man to have to pay money for her decision when she can simply opt out and have an abortion if he wants out. No. You want it all and then when a man talks about the inequity you call it whining. Shame the hell on some of you.


Seriously?

Are you really saying 'my ex wife should have aborted my children so I wouldn't have to pay child support'.

Abortion is a choice. It's not a requirement. Yet you seem to be arguing that it's an option all women MUST consider. Why? I'd never consider it. I support it for OTHER women but I'd never look at it as a 'solution' for myself.

So is this personal to you? Or what?

I'm not going to sit here and discuss the necessity or importance of childcare (and my view of - which isn't what you're concluding) to someone who's bitching and angry about helping to support his own children.
 
Last edited:
If one does not wish to live by the stipulations set forward by the ***** Bank Trust and Ownership, one doesn't need to open an account or put a deposit into the ***** Bank.

It's quite simple.

Perhaps one would be more content with an account at a Sperm Bank, instead? Or perhaps a Bank of the Solo Mission? I hear they have great Rate-of-Returns with few complaints and are accessible from anywhere.

A bank deposit is a transaction involving a transfer of funds to the bank for safekeeping. The man doesn't store his sperm in a woman for safekeeping nor can he retrieve it later whenever he pleases.
 
If one does not wish to live by the stipulations set forward by the ***** Bank Trust and Ownership, one doesn't need to open an account or put a deposit into the ***** Bank.

It's quite simple.

Perhaps one would be more content with an account at a Sperm Bank, instead? Or perhaps a Bank of the Solo Mission? I hear they have great Rate-of-Returns with few complaints and are accessible from anywhere.

Which, of course, does not invalidate the above argument.
 
Seriously?

Are you really saying 'my ex wife should have aborted my children so I wouldn't have to pay child support'.

Abortion is a choice. It's not a requirement. Yet you seem to be arguing that it's an option all women MUST consider. Why? I'd never consider it. I support it for OTHER women but I'd never look at it as a 'solution' for myself.

So is this personal to you? Or what?

I'm not going to sit here and discuss the necessity or importance of childcare (and my view of - which isn't what you're concluding) to someone who's bitching and angry about helping to support his own children.

Yes. It is a choice and the one that chooses should be the one to face the consequences. No choice, no payment. No tax without representation!
 
Ownership and property can exist outside of capitalism, and other systems do involve the concept of property be that either collective, communal or individual property. Furthermore, concepts of rights, like for example natural rights, involve the idea that the body itself is property, so no, the property angle is not unintelligent.

Second, children are for all intents and purposes property of their parents. They can control what they do, they can control what happens to them, they can make decisions towards them and their person, and even damage them if they feel like it(spankings, some surgeries, etc). That is not to say the law views them as property or that people want to see them that way, but they are essentially the property of their parents.

Lastly, ownership doesn't involve a middle man. If I sell you a piece of clothing or whatever we don't need or call on a middle man to transfer ownership of the item in question.

Not sure what you're arguing about in terms of what is relevant to this thread. It's not correct to say that a woman owns a man's sperm after it is deposited. Parenthood is not about ownership it's about liability.
 
A bank deposit is a transaction involving a transfer of funds to the bank for safekeeping. The man doesn't store his sperm in a woman for safekeeping nor can he retrieve it later whenever he pleases.

There are penalties for early withdrawal.
 
Because of a few unhappy customers?

Why? When there are plenty of customers willing to not only accept the guidelines and regulations without griping, but who also endeavor to support the rights of the bank to function according to its existing rules and guidelines.

Your view is:

Customers complain about rules, puts pressure on business.
Business closes its doors...
And then the customers complain that the business closed it doors. They wanted the business to remain open and simply accept any and all transactions and incur the results thereof.

Circular Logic.

Customers have choices, too. If they don't want to operate in that environment then don't open an account or make a deposit.

By permitting the bank to function as it wishes to conduct business, the bank is happy.
by the bank allowing the customers to opt in or opt out of business WITH the bank, the customers retain their rights.

Win win. I see no issue, here.

Yet it seems that some simply don't like the manner in which the bank operates and therefor wants to overtake the bank and set their own rules. That is not how it works.

Exactly, it's not like men aren't aware of the consequences or there lack of legal say once the deed is done.
 
Not sure what you're arguing about in terms of what is relevant to this thread. It's not correct to say that a woman owns a man's sperm after it is deposited. Parenthood is not about ownership it's about liability.

Who else owns it?
 
Exactly, it's not like men aren't aware of the consequences or there lack of legal say once the deed is done.

So knowing the risks means you consented to those risks? I'm not sure pro-choice people would like that argument. :lol:
 
So knowing the risks means you consented to those risks? I'm not sure pro-choice people would like that argument. :lol:

Well they might not if abortions were illegal.
 
Well they might not if abortions were illegal.

They don't like them now either. Talk to them sometime about the risks of pregnancy and suggest that they knew about those risks before hand. It's a fun conversation to be had.
 
So knowing the risks means you consented to those risks? I'm not sure pro-choice people would like that argument. :lol:

Using the following: "The consent to having sex isn't an automatic consent to pregnancy.", means what to you?
 
Using the following: "The consent to having sex isn't an automatic consent to pregnancy.", means what to you?

It means that consent to sex is just consent to sex. Why is it different for men?
 
It means that consent to sex is just consent to sex. Why is it different for men?

Well, as expected, you, like some other people who like to leave parts of posts out that clarifies the context.
 
Well, as expected, you, like some other people who like to leave parts of posts out that clarifies the context.

What? What did you post that I left out?
 
The PREGNANCY PART...

Why is that meaningful? If consent to sex is just consent to sex then it wouldn't only include pregnancy that is not consented to.
 
Why is that meaningful? If consent to sex is just consent to sex then it wouldn't only include pregnancy that is not consented to.

No, it's not. By saying that consent to sex isn't an automatic consent to pregnancy implies that there are risks. Those risks do apply to both parties. You just want to exclude men from those risks so that they can claim that don't have any responsibilities related to those risks.
 
I'm with you, Bob....

As far as I can tell, the only "ownership" here relates to a quantity of reproductive material.

Any argument based on a court ruling about a child who is already here is not going to change anything about sperm. Children have rights, fetal tissue does not.

So the question has not been answered, but you keep treating this as though it's an issue of childcare. It is not, and at best it's a matter of prenatal care for a woman who is pregnant. That woman may or may not exclude the biological father from her decision, however, this does not mean that patronage should be assigned at birth to biological parents based on genetic evidence.

Men do not give birth. Making a decision to not have sex will prevent %100 of pregnancies, but trying to have sex is not trying to give birth. There are 9 months during which men have no options, after which the options are limited to the discretion of the mother and the state. Hence, the child is not owned. But men do not have the autonomy of birth, so men should be allowed to live according to their future decisions regardless of what is done with genetic material which belonged to them in the past.
 
As far as I can tell, the only "ownership" here relates to a quantity of reproductive material.

Any argument based on a court ruling about a child who is already here is not going to change anything about sperm. Children have rights, fetal tissue does not.

So the question has not been answered, but you keep treating this as though it's an issue of childcare. It is not, and at best it's a matter of prenatal care for a woman who is pregnant. That woman may or may not exclude the biological father from her decision, however, this does not mean that patronage should be assigned at birth to biological parents based on genetic evidence.

Men do not give birth. Making a decision to not have sex will prevent %100 of pregnancies, but trying to have sex is not trying to give birth. There are 9 months during which men have no options, after which the options are limited to the discretion of the mother and the state. Hence, the child is not owned. But men do not have the autonomy of birth, so men should be allowed to live according to their future decisions regardless of what is done with genetic material which belonged to them in the past.

Do me a favor and do away with the word "patronage" and rewrite your position. Please, pretty please with sugar on it.
 
No, it's not. By saying that consent to sex isn't an automatic consent to pregnancy implies that there are risks. Those risks do apply to both parties. You just want to exclude men from those risks so that they can claim that don't have any responsibilities related to those risks.

No, the argument is that consent to sex is just consent to sex. That includes pregnancy, the risk associated with pregnancy, giving birth, and having children. Why is consent to sex somehow consent to parental responsibility for men?
 
Do me a favor and do away with the word "patronage" and rewrite your position. Please, pretty please with sugar on it.

This is the logical equivalent of asking a court to stop a child support order. Because that's what patronage means.
 
Back
Top Bottom