• 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!

Gay sperm donor told to pay child maintenance for 'his' two children

Bodhisattva said:
There is no need to say anything else... the state has screwed up laws and is making the man pay for somebody else's child.
Click to expand...
Repetition, like declaration, is not an argument.
 
Visbek said:
Repetition, like declaration, is not an argument.
Click to expand...

:lol: Sure it can be... if the argument needs to be repeated, you use repetition.

...and every argument begins with a declaration...
 
Rising Sun said:
Ahh, so he’s not the father of the child. Thanks for the insight.
Click to expand...

You are welcome for the clarification of facts. He is not the father.
 
Bodhisattva said:
The real story is this ****ing **** that lied to him and is trying to **** him over. Also, what about the other mother that split while they had kids together? It says nothing about her being financially liable to children that she was the parent of.
Click to expand...

It isn't her kid by law. Unless she filed for adoption.
 
Bodhisattva said:
You are welcome for the clarification of facts. He is not the father.
Click to expand...

Actually he is the father as it was his sperm that created the child.

This is biology 101.
If he wanted to be a sperm donor and help them out then he should have gone to the clinic and had a doctor do it.

Even here in the states they do not recognize home impregnation no matter what contract is signed.
That contract is invalid if they go to court.

If you want to personally donate you should make a clinic appointment and show up so they can take it directly to the person and you are then in the free and clear.
 
swing_voter said:
If I were the judge I'm not sure how I'd rule. If you tell this guy he isn't responsible for supporting his kids, how do you tell the heteros in the same situation that they are responsible for their kids?
Click to expand...
It’s Britain, so nobody in the US needs to worry.
Ho hum.
 
Bodhisattva said:
No... there is no debate. It is injustice.
Click to expand...

Then what is your solution? You know, ignoring the fact they circumvented the law and the Judge was looking at both the law and the welfare of the child. Please tell me what Buddha would say in your opinion.
 
ludin said:
Actually he is the father as it was his sperm that created the child.

This is biology 101.
If he wanted to be a sperm donor and help them out then he should have gone to the clinic and had a doctor do it.

Even here in the states they do not recognize home impregnation no matter what contract is signed.
That contract is invalid if they go to court.

If you want to personally donate you should make a clinic appointment and show up so they can take it directly to the person and you are then in the free and clear.
Click to expand...

Being a father is more than just donating sperm. He gave some sperm so others could be parents... not himself. His intent was never to be a father. Fact
 
Rising Sun said:
Then what is your solution? You know, ignoring the fact they circumvented the law and the Judge was looking at both the law and the welfare of the child. Please tell me what Buddha would say in your opinion.
Click to expand...

Buddha would say that the two women made their choice to be parents full stop since they are lesbians they had no way to be parents without his help. He donated some sperm. He is not the father. His intent was never to be a father. Buddha would tell the judge that both of the Mother's are responsible for the child. Buddha would tell the Mother's to f****** man up and stop being irresponsible b****** and take care of the child and leave the man alone. He did them a favour and they are cowardly trying to f*** him over as a result fullstop Buddha's teachings are clear if somebody is trying to f*** you over they are scum sucking f**** who deserves a double tap in the chest.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Buddha would say that the two women made their choice to be parents full stop since they are lesbians they had no way to be parents without his help. He donated some sperm. He is not the father. His intent was never to be a father. Buddha would tell the judge that both of the Mother's are responsible for the child. Buddha would tell the Mother's to f****** man up and stop being irresponsible b****** and take care of the child and leave the man alone. He did them a favour and they are cowardly trying to f*** him over as a result fullstop Buddha's teachings are clear if somebody is trying to f*** you over they are scum sucking f**** who deserves a double tap in the chest.
Click to expand...
Buddha doesn’t hate and you’re expressing a lot of hate. Buddha is unlikely to let a child suffer because the parents, all three of them, circumvented the law.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Being a father is more than just donating sperm. He gave some sperm so others could be parents... not himself. His intent was never to be a father. Fact
Click to expand...

Well when you give someone sperm unless it is done in a clinic then you are the father according to the law.

If his intent was never to be a father he should have kept his sperm to himself.
 
swing_voter said:
If I were the judge I'm not sure how I'd rule. If you tell this guy he isn't responsible for supporting his kids, how do you tell the heteros in the same situation that they are responsible for their kids?
Click to expand...

Sounds like the guy got screwed with none of the benefit!
 
swing_voter said:
If I were the judge I'm not sure how I'd rule. If you tell this guy he isn't responsible for supporting his kids, how do you tell the heteros in the same situation that they are responsible for their kids?
Click to expand...

Don't do favors. He should have checked out the legal standings, if any, that he had before trusting his friends. But since he has to pay support he may as well file for his paternal rights.
 
Rising Sun said:
Buddha doesn’t hate and you’re expressing a lot of hate. Buddha is unlikely to let a child suffer because the parents, all three of them, circumvented the law.
Click to expand...

Yet Buddha taught that eliminating hate is the duty of people... if you are going to get screwed, screw the other over first.
 
swing_voter said:
If I were the judge I'm not sure how I'd rule. If you tell this guy he isn't responsible for supporting his kids, how do you tell the heteros in the same situation that they are responsible for their kids?
Click to expand...

If you are talking about people who did NOT have sexual relations then you tell them "Of course you don't have to pay.". If you are talking about people who had children using the sperm of someone that they never had sexual relations with then you tell them "Of course they don't have to pay you.".

However, the article raises the interesting question of whether or not the woman is allowed to keep the sperm without paying its creator for it?

Exactly how much is "a child" worth and should the person who enables someone who wants "a child" but who cannot have one to have "a child" without recompense?
 
Court Jester said:
He screwed up by not demanding a release of all liability for his "donation" AND.... and this the very important part----- having a doctor handle the "transaction". This happens from time to time because people think they are helping someone out and then they want to save money on the expense of having it done properly. So from the court's perspective there is no way they can prove the child was not the result of a mutual relationship for sex between two people. Something that will NOT ever get a man off from his duty to pay child support.

But doing it the right way is important to the couple who wanted the child too. Otherwise at some point the donor, or even the donors spouse in the event of the death of the donor, could make legal court claim for partial custody of a child.

Hate to say it, but may there is a lesson here.

dreamhqdefault.jpg
Click to expand...

Isn't that the woman who changed gender and was then arrested for molesting young boys after becoming an ordained minister?
 
swing_voter said:
If I were the judge I'm not sure how I'd rule. If you tell this guy he isn't responsible for supporting his kids, how do you tell the heteros in the same situation that they are responsible for their kids?
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like legally he should be on the hook. That's not really equitable treatment, though, so I wonder what sort of sentencing guidelines exist. The article doesn't explain how the state found out who the father is after the story told to the hospital was that the mother became pregnant by an American who left the country. I wonder about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom