Sperm Ownership After Deposit, Male Parental Rights, and Child Support: (1 Viewer)

[Henrin]

It is argued by some people in the abortion debate that when a man deposits his sperm into a woman that he transfers ownership of that sperm to her. Therefore, as she is now the property owner of the sperm he has no say in any resulting pregnancy that might come about from his deposit. However, these same people argue that after the child is born that the man if called upon by the state must pay child support.

This argument is strange to me because if the man is not the owner of the sperm after deposit and thus has no say in any resulting pregnancy then how can he be held responsible after the child is born? As we should all be aware property owners are responsible and liable for their property, but those individuals that are not owners of that property are not responsible or liable for it. If the man in question already transferred ownership of the sperm then how can he be responsible for anything in which that property helps to produce?

If I am correct then the only way to logically hold him responsible after birth is to reward him at the very least partial ownership of the result of the pregnancy. However, if this was done against the woman's will then it would be a violation of her rights. It would also seem to me that forcing ownership on the man would be a violation of his rights. So in either direction if the state was to force part ownership it would be a violation of one or other parties rights. In conclusion, if this argument is correct that ownership of the sperm is transferred on deposit then I do not see any grounds for child support or automatic male parental rights.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

It is argued by some people in the abortion debate that when a man deposits his sperm into a woman that he transfers ownership of that sperm to her. Therefore, as she is now the property owner of the sperm he has no say in any resulting pregnancy that might come about from his deposit. However, these same people argue that after the child is born that the man if called upon by the state must pay child support.

This argument is strange to me because if the man is not the owner of the sperm after deposit and thus has no say in any resulting pregnancy then how can he be held responsible after the child is born? As we should all be aware property owners are responsible and liable for their property, but those individuals that are not owners of that property are not responsible or liable for it. If the man in question already transferred ownership of the sperm then how can he be responsible for anything in which that property helps to produce?

If I am correct then the only way to logically hold him responsible after birth is to reward him at the very least partial ownership of the result of the pregnancy. However, if this was done against the woman's will then it would be a violation of her rights. It would also seem to me that forcing ownership on the man would be a violation of his rights. So in either direction if the state was to force part ownership it would be a violation of one or other parties rights. In conclusion, if this argument is correct that ownership of the sperm is transferred on deposit then I do not see any grounds for child support or automatic male parental rights.

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.

 

[prometeus]

It is argued by some people in the abortion debate that when a man deposits his sperm into a woman that he transfers ownership of that sperm to her. Therefore, as she is now the property owner of the sperm he has no say in any resulting pregnancy that might come about from his deposit. However, these same people argue that after the child is born that the man if called upon by the state must pay child support.

This argument is strange to me because if the man is not the owner of the sperm after deposit and thus has no say in any resulting pregnancy then how can he be held responsible after the child is born? As we should all be aware property owners are responsible and liable for their property, but those individuals that are not owners of that property are not responsible or liable for it. If the man in question already transferred ownership of the sperm then how can he be responsible for anything in which that property helps to produce?

If I am correct then the only way to logically hold him responsible after birth is to reward him at the very least partial ownership of the result of the pregnancy. However, if this was done against the woman's will then it would be a violation of her rights. It would also seem to me that forcing ownership on the man would be a violation of his rights. So in either direction if the state was to force part ownership it would be a violation of one or other parties rights. In conclusion, if this argument is correct that ownership of the sperm is transferred on deposit then I do not see any grounds for child support or automatic male parental rights.

Viewing everything from a perspective of ownership, while not surprising coming from you, has its limitations. Also not surprising is the fact that you care nothing about the needs of a newborn, even if the prenatal needs are not included.
Try looking at it from the perspective of liability for actions.

 

[Henrin]

Viewing everything from a perspective of ownership, while not surprising coming from you, has its limitations. Also not surprising is the fact that you care nothing about the needs of a newborn, even if the prenatal needs are not included.
Try looking at it from the perspective of liability for actions.

If someone builds something with your product that you sold them then you only liable for issues associated with your product. If they build a building with the steel beams you sold them and the building fell, then you would only be liable if the reason for the buildings failure is traced back to your product. However, if the building stands tall or it falls for a reason outside of your product then you're not liable for anything.

So for the sake of the argument being made in the OP I'm not sure your argument works.

 

[FieldTheorist]

It is argued by some people in the abortion debate that when a man deposits his sperm into a woman that he transfers ownership of that sperm to her. Therefore, as she is now the property owner of the sperm he has no say in any resulting pregnancy that might come about from his deposit. However, these same people argue that after the child is born that the man if called upon by the state must pay child support.

I'm going to stop you right there, big guy. If you give your sperm to a literal sperm bank, you have given up legal responsibilities (including child support) for your genetic offspring. If you have sex with a woman, and you don't wish to pay child support or be a part of that child's life, you can rescind your parental rights and obligations.

So... I'm pretty sure this is all built off of a falsehood.

 

[year2late]

I have not ever looked at it as sperm ownership. That just seems kind of weird to me. But if the sperm connects with the egg and she becomes pregnant, it is clearly a part of her body - a part that uses her own life force - so she clearly can make health care decisions on her own.

And the who thing is obscure....I mean if she is pregnant, does the sperm even exist anymore? How can you own something that doesn't exist?

 

[Henrin]

I'm going to stop you right there, big guy. If you give your sperm to a literal sperm bank, you have given up legal responsibilities (including child support) for your genetic offspring. If you have sex with a woman, and you don't wish to pay child support or be a part of that child's life, you can rescind your parental rights and obligations.

So... I'm pretty sure this is all built off of a falsehood.

You have to have "good cause" to terminate your parental rights. Wanting to get out of financial obligations is not considered as a "good cause" by the courts.

 

[ludin]

I'm going to stop you right there, big guy. If you give your sperm to a literal sperm bank, you have given up legal responsibilities (including child support) for your genetic offspring. If you have sex with a woman, and you don't wish to pay child support or be a part of that child's life, you can rescind your parental rights and obligations.

So... I'm pretty sure this is all built off of a falsehood.

need to look up state laws. 2/3rds of all states say that if you give your sperm to a sperm bank or a doctor to get a women pregnant that you
yourself are not responsible for child support depending on your relationship with the mother.

other states you need a signed legal document saying that a doctor is not needed and that the mother revokes all rights to claims
of child support etc ... this does not work in all states so one must be very careful in what they are doing.

 

[year2late]

You have to have "good cause" to terminate your parental rights. Wanting to get out of financial obligations is not considered as a "good cause" by the courts.

Funny thing that they think both parents should support their children.

 

[ludin]

the only point I really disagree with these rulings are when it comes to protected condom sex and you throw it in the trash and the women goes and
gets it and then stuffs some of it inside of her to get pregnant.

not happened to me but has happened to quite a few other men. they are then stuck with 18 years of support
for a dishonest and what I would consider fraudulent act.

either way the fact is that guys need to be very careful who they sleep with and where they deposit.

 

[Henrin]

Funny thing that they think both parents should support their children.

For the sake of the argument it's not really relevant anyway. Part of the purpose of the thought experiment is to look at the legitimacy of automatic parental rights of the man and the system of child support, not to look at ways he can get out of child support and parental rights under the existing system.

 

[year2late]

For the sake of the argument it's not really relevant anyway. Part of the purpose of the thought experiment is to look at the legitimacy of automatic parental rights of the man and the system of child support, not to look at ways he can get out of child support and parental rights under the existing system.

So, where is the sperm that is to be owned? Certainly a pregnant woman could be filled with sperm, but the little bugger that caused the pregnancy is long gone.

In terms of the whole ownership thing....sound more like slavery than anything else.

 

[prometeus]

If someone builds something with your product that you sold them then you only liable for issues associated with your product. If they build a building with the steel beams you sold them and the building fell, then you would only be liable if the reason for the buildings failure is traced back to your product. However, if the building stands tall or it falls for a reason outside of your product then you're not liable for anything.

So for the sake of the argument being made in the OP I'm not sure your argument works.

If you deliver your steel beams to a construction site, it is still your responsibility to make sure that it remains protected until it is used or the "the building finished"

 

[Aunt Spiker]

the only point I really disagree with these rulings are when it comes to protected condom sex and you throw it in the trash and the women goes and
gets it and then stuffs some of it inside of her to get pregnant.


not happened to me but has happened to quite a few other men. they are then stuck with 18 years of support
for a dishonest and what I would consider fraudulent act.


either way the fact is that guys need to be very careful who they sleep with and where they deposit.

It has?

The new trend, hunh?

lol

Again - the ***** Bank Rules. Don't open an account and do not deposit if you do not accept the terms. Perhaps these men should look at a woman and go "Is this piece really worth the risk?"

 

[JayDubya]

But if the sperm connects with the egg and she becomes pregnant, it is clearly a part of her body - a part that uses her own life force

Calling human offspring "part of [a mother's] body" is not only ignorant of scientific fact, it is disturbing

 

[Thrilla]

It is argued by some people in the abortion debate that when a man deposits his sperm into a woman that he transfers ownership of that sperm to her. Therefore, as she is now the property owner of the sperm he has no say in any resulting pregnancy that might come about from his deposit. However, these same people argue that after the child is born that the man if called upon by the state must pay child support.

This argument is strange to me because if the man is not the owner of the sperm after deposit and thus has no say in any resulting pregnancy then how can he be held responsible after the child is born? As we should all be aware property owners are responsible and liable for their property, but those individuals that are not owners of that property are not responsible or liable for it. If the man in question already transferred ownership of the sperm then how can he be responsible for anything in which that property helps to produce?

If I am correct then the only way to logically hold him responsible after birth is to reward him at the very least partial ownership of the result of the pregnancy. However, if this was done against the woman's will then it would be a violation of her rights. It would also seem to me that forcing ownership on the man would be a violation of his rights. So in either direction if the state was to force part ownership it would be a violation of one or other parties rights. In conclusion, if this argument is correct that ownership of the sperm is transferred on deposit then I do not see any grounds for child support or automatic male parental rights.

well, it can all be summed up very easily... any input the man thinks he has ends the minute the .. deposit.. is made.
anything after that, ..well, it's a womans world after that....men have little or no say in anything beyond the point of "deposit".

for a man, simply having sex is consenting to be a father ( with all responsibilities therein).... that's just the fact of the matter.

be extraordinarily wise with your .. .deposits..... you don't have the luxuries of having choices after the fact.

 

[Bodi]

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.

That Trust is powerless without the Government backing it up with force.

 

[Bodi]

Viewing everything from a perspective of ownership, while not surprising coming from you, has its limitations. Also not surprising is the fact that you care nothing about the needs of a newborn, even if the prenatal needs are not included.
Try looking at it from the perspective of liability for actions.

Looking at this issue is looking at it from a pre-birth perspective. What happens when she makes choice is irrelevant to this issue.

 

[Bodi]

If you have sex with a woman, and you don't wish to pay child support or be a part of that child's life, you can rescind your parental rights and obligations.

You can? How do you go about getting this result?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

That Trust is powerless without the Government backing it up with force.

Well so is the value of the Sperm Deposit.

 

[Bodi]

It has?

The new trend, hunh?

lol

Again - the ***** Bank Rules. Don't open an account and do not deposit if you do not accept the terms. Perhaps these men should look at a woman and go "Is this piece really worth the risk?"

What the government rules should be is ***** Bank Close Your "Doors" unless you want to be stuck with a kid that you raise and finance on your own.

 

[Removable Mind]

It is argued by some people in the abortion debate that when a man deposits his sperm into a woman that he transfers ownership of that sperm to her. Therefore, as she is now the property owner of the sperm he has no say in any resulting pregnancy that might come about from his deposit. However, these same people argue that after the child is born that the man if called upon by the state must pay child support.

This argument is strange to me because if the man is not the owner of the sperm after deposit and thus has no say in any resulting pregnancy then how can he be held responsible after the child is born? As we should all be aware property owners are responsible and liable for their property, but those individuals that are not owners of that property are not responsible or liable for it. If the man in question already transferred ownership of the sperm then how can he be responsible for anything in which that property helps to produce?

If I am correct then the only way to logically hold him responsible after birth is to reward him at the very least partial ownership of the result of the pregnancy. However, if this was done against the woman's will then it would be a violation of her rights. It would also seem to me that forcing ownership on the man would be a violation of his rights. So in either direction if the state was to force part ownership it would be a violation of one or other parties rights. In conclusion, if this argument is correct that ownership of the sperm is transferred on deposit then I do not see any grounds for child support or automatic male parental rights.

You are by far not the first man to bring this type argument before the Judicial system. Surely after mega millions of children being born in the US your argument has had to come up more than a few times in courts across the US. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has already shot down you're argument.

Do believe men have parental responsibilities to children they've sired that were born under so-called "wanted circumstances"?

 

[Bodi]

Well so is the value of the Sperm Deposit.

All the power that needs to happen is for her to make a Choice. Something that she already legally, and rightfully, has.

Does want to raise the kid without the man's money or support... have a baby.

Don't want to raise the kid without the man's money or support... have an abortion.

She has 100% of the Power.

 

[Bodi]

well, it can all be summed up very easily... any input the man thinks he has ends the minute the .. deposit.. is made.
anything after that, ..well, it's a womans world after that....men have little or no say in anything beyond the point of "deposit".

for a man, simply having sex is consenting to be a father ( with all responsibilities therein).... that's just the fact of the matter.

be extraordinarily wise with your .. .deposits..... you don't have the luxuries of having choices after the fact.

'Says the current laws. The issue is that the current laws are unjust and immoral. Amending unjust and immoral laws is a very American principle.

 

[Lursa]

It is argued by some people in the abortion debate that when a man deposits his sperm into a woman that he transfers ownership of that sperm to her. Therefore, as she is now the property owner of the sperm he has no say in any resulting pregnancy that might come about from his deposit. However, these same people argue that after the child is born that the man if called upon by the state must pay child support.

I'm not familiar with that argument. But if he gives it to her...isnt it hers? Is he expecting it back? Can you explain his expectations otherwise? Is he unaware of the possibilities of his 'giving' it to her? Did he not take that into consideration when he chose to 'give' it to her?

OTOH, if he wants to retain some responsibility for that sperm, is he also held responsible if she dies in childbirth? If she has a stroke during pregnancy and becomes permanently disabled?